What I Wish For The New Year:
1. That Causers, regardless of their cause, no longer equate the volume with which they make their argument with the value of the argument they make.
2. That Global Warmers realize that they make themselves look foolish to hold onto their original Chicken Little premise without considering new information.
3. That those that deny the factual base of Global Warming realize that conservation of energy is just a rational idea when denuded of the hype.
4. To find a way of getting through to people who start their arguments with ”I feel” to rather begin them with “I think”, so that I do not automatically dismiss what follows as poorly reasoned.
5. That both parties put forth nominees that are relevant to the challenges that face our country not to the challenges that face us individually.
6. To continue to see race hustlers and bigots be further marginalized as their idiocy is uncovered.
7. That the people that use the term racist to get a dictionary and realize that most times prejudiced is the correct term.
8. To have both extremes of political thought be marginalized so that they do not control the agenda of the real conversations we need as a country.
9. To have teachers stop using the classroom to justify their personal beliefs and instead present all of the thought on a subject so that their students can learn to shape their own.
11. For people to find time in their daily lives to give back time instead of just dollars to those that need help and guidance.
12. To have parents realize that a computer is not a substitute for parenting and that pharmaceuticals do not fix problems but rather change the timeline for when they manifest.
13. To be less tolerant of the intolerant, more patient with the poorly informed and realize that many in life are trying to dig their well with a pointy stick….they just do not have the right tools.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Math is Good:
I just read that Candidate Edwards has gotten all the other Democratic Candidates to agree to a $9.50 minimum wage by 2012. I am dumbstruck by the disconnect that they have with the causal nature this will have with another of their war chants of jobs being sent overseas.
Point 1: If the minimum wage is raised so will the baseline index of what is required to qualify for public assistance. The average person working 40 hours per week will have an income of $19,780 per annum. In 2006, according to US Census definition, a family of 4 was considered to be living in poverty if they had household income of $20,614 and this is with a minimum wage of $6.75. So using simple extrapolation a 40-hour workweek in 2006 generated $14,040 or 68% of what was needed to reach the baseline of poverty. So if the relationship holds in 2012, poverty baseline will be $29,088. If public assistance is meant to meet the shortfall between earnings and the poverty baseline then that will mean a real dollar increase from 2006’s $6,574 to 2012’s $9308 for a family of four.
Point 2: If US companies cannot compete globally at current wage rates how will they expect to do so with wage hike pressure. The relationship of minimum wage and incentivised wages is real. A person who has been with a company for a period of time has a rational expectation for the employer to value their work at a rate greater that of a minimum wage. So the introduction of a higher minimum wage is inflationary on all wages from middle management down and will result in a cascade of solutions that are not favorable to general employment.
Point 3: Businesses will have to hire less people or raise prices, as fewer people are employed more will require public assistance, as more people are on public assistance taxes will have to be raised making businesses less profitable and so on and so on.
Point 4: As costs rise due to inflation, businesses will be forced accelerate the search for the low cost providers and more jobs will go overseas. Less employment in the US means fewer contributions to Social Security and Income Tax. Less Income Tax and no way to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund for unfunded benefits.
Not a single member in the MM has brought this up to my knowledge. Be careful of gift horses, especially this one……it has hoof and mouth disease.
Point 1: If the minimum wage is raised so will the baseline index of what is required to qualify for public assistance. The average person working 40 hours per week will have an income of $19,780 per annum. In 2006, according to US Census definition, a family of 4 was considered to be living in poverty if they had household income of $20,614 and this is with a minimum wage of $6.75. So using simple extrapolation a 40-hour workweek in 2006 generated $14,040 or 68% of what was needed to reach the baseline of poverty. So if the relationship holds in 2012, poverty baseline will be $29,088. If public assistance is meant to meet the shortfall between earnings and the poverty baseline then that will mean a real dollar increase from 2006’s $6,574 to 2012’s $9308 for a family of four.
Point 2: If US companies cannot compete globally at current wage rates how will they expect to do so with wage hike pressure. The relationship of minimum wage and incentivised wages is real. A person who has been with a company for a period of time has a rational expectation for the employer to value their work at a rate greater that of a minimum wage. So the introduction of a higher minimum wage is inflationary on all wages from middle management down and will result in a cascade of solutions that are not favorable to general employment.
Point 3: Businesses will have to hire less people or raise prices, as fewer people are employed more will require public assistance, as more people are on public assistance taxes will have to be raised making businesses less profitable and so on and so on.
Point 4: As costs rise due to inflation, businesses will be forced accelerate the search for the low cost providers and more jobs will go overseas. Less employment in the US means fewer contributions to Social Security and Income Tax. Less Income Tax and no way to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund for unfunded benefits.
Not a single member in the MM has brought this up to my knowledge. Be careful of gift horses, especially this one……it has hoof and mouth disease.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Philosophers Row
Sir Karl Popper was born in 1902 and died in 1994. For those of you who have never had the opportunity to try and wrap your melon around Sir Karl, you have missed a truly disconcerting journey.
Sir Karl was the father of modern debate and forwarded the idea of falsification as the only true measure of scientific discovery. In other words it is only possible to know what is false not what is true. In his premise multiple positive outcomes in an experiment cannot conclude something to be true yet one negative result can be decisive. He believes that observation is not scientific but rather anecdotal to furthering knowledge and that general knowledge progresses incrementally over time down a path with no definitive conclusion ever. Over time one can increasingly confirm different theories likelihood of being correct but here can never be a declaratory positive. If we look at what we observe about the material word around us and see how what we believe now in the fields of physics from where we were 50 years ago it is easy to see his philosophy in action. As an example let us use the premise that based on our observations that all fish live in water, until 50 years ago that held true but then it was found that some fish also bury themselves in mud and even climb trees in South America. So while the statement that all fish live in the water is practically true it is also partially false. It is these qualified truths that Popper found so objectionable in the declarative sense of Empiricism, in other words what is observed to be true is only true as far as it is observed. Another example of this is the theorem that all ducks have beaks but how can one know that with certainty unless every duck is observed and how can one know when that is the case.
In general I agree with Sir Karl, as I have seen in my lifetime certainties being disproved. So beware the person who speaks with idea that what he believes is true, it maybe more accurate to say that what he believes to be true is so based on is incomplete knowledge.
A turkey is fed everyday for 100 days, based on the turkeys observations life is good and he knows that he will be fed everyday. The turkey’s knowledge was accurate yet imperfect.
Sir Karl was the father of modern debate and forwarded the idea of falsification as the only true measure of scientific discovery. In other words it is only possible to know what is false not what is true. In his premise multiple positive outcomes in an experiment cannot conclude something to be true yet one negative result can be decisive. He believes that observation is not scientific but rather anecdotal to furthering knowledge and that general knowledge progresses incrementally over time down a path with no definitive conclusion ever. Over time one can increasingly confirm different theories likelihood of being correct but here can never be a declaratory positive. If we look at what we observe about the material word around us and see how what we believe now in the fields of physics from where we were 50 years ago it is easy to see his philosophy in action. As an example let us use the premise that based on our observations that all fish live in water, until 50 years ago that held true but then it was found that some fish also bury themselves in mud and even climb trees in South America. So while the statement that all fish live in the water is practically true it is also partially false. It is these qualified truths that Popper found so objectionable in the declarative sense of Empiricism, in other words what is observed to be true is only true as far as it is observed. Another example of this is the theorem that all ducks have beaks but how can one know that with certainty unless every duck is observed and how can one know when that is the case.
In general I agree with Sir Karl, as I have seen in my lifetime certainties being disproved. So beware the person who speaks with idea that what he believes is true, it maybe more accurate to say that what he believes to be true is so based on is incomplete knowledge.
A turkey is fed everyday for 100 days, based on the turkeys observations life is good and he knows that he will be fed everyday. The turkey’s knowledge was accurate yet imperfect.
Walking to school in the snow, uphill both ways:
I used to hear this and other gems from my Father and Grandfather; when I was your age I used to have to get up before I went to bed to go to work, for Christmas all I got was a stick and a rock and I was glad to have them etc, etc.
Like all kids I would roll my eyes when they would opine on the value of character, hard work, respecting your elders etc. When I got out of line, smarted off or misbehaved my parents believed in a mechanism of direct feedback, my Mom had a paddle and Dad had his belt. We would have occasional conversations about my shortcomings and at the end of them I could always tell how strongly they felt, my only consolation is that they never took joy out of interaction and in truth felt that in it having to come to that they had failed me some how. It must be understood that my parents were both highly educated people but that they understood that boundaries were important for kids as was the understanding that decisions had consequences both good and bad.
In an article in USA Today on what has gone wrong today in our “everybody gets a trophy society” where promoting children’s self esteem has become more important than preparing them for the real and true world. They seemed shocked that definitive measures are used to judge contribution once they leave the protection of the perpetual societal nannies that protect them until they leave school.
What the Dr. Feelgoods do not realize or comprehend is that real life is Dodgeball and if you do not prepare children for failure and conflict early they have no mechanism to deal with it once they leave the protective cocoon. What we have seen happen in Omaha, Colorado etc. is in my opinion a direct result of that failure. We have all heard the corporal punishment is that it teaches violence, or that violence is a mechanism to resolve conflict. For the most part I say that is bull puckey, what I believe is that disciplining your child and holding them to expectations and standards has become to burdensome to most parents. I think it is a rationalization for those who don’t wish to be parents but rather be pals or friends. When I see parents demanding that their children play video games where saving lives is the pathway to success rather than taking them I will pay some credence to what they have to say.
We have become general supporters of the path of least resistance; teachers, coaches, parents etc. find it easier to instill a false sense of accomplishment rather than provide direction and feedback to children that utilizes their person tool-boxes. We should not tell a child that their accomplishments are meaningful unless they are, in doing so we create two distinct problems. Firstly, we allow a child to believe that they may be better suited than they actually are for area of accomplishment for them only to find that their dreams were misplaced. Secondly, we deny them the opportunity to seek out at a young age those things that they can excel at that create real and sustainable self-esteem.
In general people rise to the level of expectation made of them. It little Timmy has always been told that his paintings are great by adults, how do we not expect him to feel lied to and disappointed when he finds out they were moderate at best. Maybe if Timmy had been told the truth he would have applied himself to the task of becoming great or known that intrinsically painting was not his gift.
False self-esteem is more insidious than the truth but requires less effort to impart. By shielding children from disappointment we deny them one of the most important parts of their development, coping skills. I am not saying that we must be a perpetual buzz-kill but by not being truthful with children we do them no service and teach them to doubt everything once the first misrepresentation is discovered.
There is no way to legislate physical and mental parity in children and wanting it to be so does not make it such. Every child has potential for something but that pathway to discovery requires direction by those entrusted in raising children. There is right and wrong, good and bad and hard work creates opportunity.
Those that look at recent occurrences and say that guns are the problem miss the larger point. It was the inclination by the shooters that is at the root of these travesties. That inclination was borne out of the sense of rejection they felt, they had been promised that everyone gets what they want, that everything was possible but no one told them not probable.
People will try and point to the failures of others as casual in these events instead of looking at the environment in general that created them. Until we are honest with children about their world ahead they will continue to remind us of our failures in the most horrific ways possible.
Like all kids I would roll my eyes when they would opine on the value of character, hard work, respecting your elders etc. When I got out of line, smarted off or misbehaved my parents believed in a mechanism of direct feedback, my Mom had a paddle and Dad had his belt. We would have occasional conversations about my shortcomings and at the end of them I could always tell how strongly they felt, my only consolation is that they never took joy out of interaction and in truth felt that in it having to come to that they had failed me some how. It must be understood that my parents were both highly educated people but that they understood that boundaries were important for kids as was the understanding that decisions had consequences both good and bad.
In an article in USA Today on what has gone wrong today in our “everybody gets a trophy society” where promoting children’s self esteem has become more important than preparing them for the real and true world. They seemed shocked that definitive measures are used to judge contribution once they leave the protection of the perpetual societal nannies that protect them until they leave school.
What the Dr. Feelgoods do not realize or comprehend is that real life is Dodgeball and if you do not prepare children for failure and conflict early they have no mechanism to deal with it once they leave the protective cocoon. What we have seen happen in Omaha, Colorado etc. is in my opinion a direct result of that failure. We have all heard the corporal punishment is that it teaches violence, or that violence is a mechanism to resolve conflict. For the most part I say that is bull puckey, what I believe is that disciplining your child and holding them to expectations and standards has become to burdensome to most parents. I think it is a rationalization for those who don’t wish to be parents but rather be pals or friends. When I see parents demanding that their children play video games where saving lives is the pathway to success rather than taking them I will pay some credence to what they have to say.
We have become general supporters of the path of least resistance; teachers, coaches, parents etc. find it easier to instill a false sense of accomplishment rather than provide direction and feedback to children that utilizes their person tool-boxes. We should not tell a child that their accomplishments are meaningful unless they are, in doing so we create two distinct problems. Firstly, we allow a child to believe that they may be better suited than they actually are for area of accomplishment for them only to find that their dreams were misplaced. Secondly, we deny them the opportunity to seek out at a young age those things that they can excel at that create real and sustainable self-esteem.
In general people rise to the level of expectation made of them. It little Timmy has always been told that his paintings are great by adults, how do we not expect him to feel lied to and disappointed when he finds out they were moderate at best. Maybe if Timmy had been told the truth he would have applied himself to the task of becoming great or known that intrinsically painting was not his gift.
False self-esteem is more insidious than the truth but requires less effort to impart. By shielding children from disappointment we deny them one of the most important parts of their development, coping skills. I am not saying that we must be a perpetual buzz-kill but by not being truthful with children we do them no service and teach them to doubt everything once the first misrepresentation is discovered.
There is no way to legislate physical and mental parity in children and wanting it to be so does not make it such. Every child has potential for something but that pathway to discovery requires direction by those entrusted in raising children. There is right and wrong, good and bad and hard work creates opportunity.
Those that look at recent occurrences and say that guns are the problem miss the larger point. It was the inclination by the shooters that is at the root of these travesties. That inclination was borne out of the sense of rejection they felt, they had been promised that everyone gets what they want, that everything was possible but no one told them not probable.
People will try and point to the failures of others as casual in these events instead of looking at the environment in general that created them. Until we are honest with children about their world ahead they will continue to remind us of our failures in the most horrific ways possible.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Zero Sum World
First allow me to stipulate for the crowd that I believe that 100% is 100%, not 110%, 120% just the plain ole 100%. If we can all accept that we can move forward.
When I hear people take positions that are counter-intuitive to me it chafes a bit, when I hear people take moral stands that are conflictive it rubs me raw. The following is going to examine what I think are some of the major disconnects argued under the veil of morality that in fact are preposterous positions.
Capitalism is wrong and the United States uses to much of the worlds natural resources: To that I say, huh? The average life expectancy of a human being in 1900 was estimated at 36.2 years. By 2005 it was 65.4 and is expected to be 72.5 years by 2025 or double. I would say if one where to review the fount of that increased life expectancy, the United States, an argument can be made that maybe we used too little resources. The causes of the increased worldwide life expectancy are directly linked to improvement in sanitation, food production, medical technology, improved medicine and fewer wars. An honest look at research and development on all of those fronts lands right back to the United States, sure other countries have improved or contributed but, the overwhelming majority saw their genesis driven by the capitalistic tendencies of US citizens and the research facilities funded by the taxes collected from them. Canada and Mexico sell cheap drugs not because they are munificent but because they benefit from the R and D costs incurred by US pharmaceutical companies but do not contribute to them. The yield of crops in fields around the world are triple what they were at the beginning of the 20th century through crop research and improvements developed by US companies and universities and no royalties are paid for the general intellectual forwarding that benefits all. The first practical portable computers developed were for the Iowa Class Battleships to take into account the Coriolis effect so that the shells from their 16 inch guns could land on the Axis Powers. As an aside that is where the term “Bug in the Computer” came from, early computers were a series of relays. One day the computer would not work and upon inspection a moth was found between two contact points. The overall point of this? The world is a better place for all because of the resources spent in the United States and the entrepreneurial nature and productivity of the system that gave it birth. Until those that comment in an unenlightened manner are brought to task for their “the US is a pig” diatribes ignorance will prevail. Of course the US can do better in preserving resources but overall I would say they have been invested wisely not spent.
Abortion is a lifestyle choice, the Death Penalty is wrong: Ok, on a moral level maybe there is no absolute, just personal belief left to each of us to make. On the practical level of resource allocation however there are clear arguments to be made, remember earlier we stipulated that 100% is 100%. In most cases those that support abortion rights also are against the death penalty and the converse is also true. There is no clear cost per annum to keep an inmate on death row but for the purpose of this conversation we will use $100,000 per year. Know I posit that the decision we are making is much more practical, do you continue to invest limited resources in keeping someone on death row when you know what their contribution to society already is or do you take that same $100,000 and invest in a HeadStart program to help educate children whose potential is yet untapped? Before you start the bellowing that that is an unfair proposition I remind you of the opening statement of the article, there is no great big magical checkbook in the sky. Additionally, check your pocket, if there is any money in it at all it could have been sent somewhere in the world to purchase food or medicine and saved someone’s life today. So in truth those against the Death Penalty are only against the Death Penalty by commission, not omission.
I want what I want, facts be damned: There is a growing segment of the American populace who want to feel, not think. They also want you to feel the way that they do and will berate any attempt to reason or weigh decisions on issues to make the best choice in a sea of conflicting choices. PETA cares little for the fate of rats and they see no conflict if they kill misplaced pets because they rationalize their moral authority as enlightened. Those against the use of carbon based fuel are also against nuclear energy; those for renewable energy are against it where they can see it off of their vacation homes on Martha’s Vineyard. Women’s rights organizations fight for equality in the US but care little for the plight of women being stoned and lashed in the Middle East. Situational ethics have become so prevalent in US cause hustlers that it is hard to take any of them seriously. On one side you have those that rail against global warming and the production of CO2 and on the other you have those that say that logging is murder and they sit at the same table sipping wine as they watch forest fires on TV caused by the lack of resource management.
All in all, think. Until people start having real discussions with the understanding that choices are required the society in which we live will continue to fracture. Please oh please do not be nice to idiots, it just emboldens them. There is seldom an absolute right and wrong but there are definitely righter and wronger.
When I hear people take positions that are counter-intuitive to me it chafes a bit, when I hear people take moral stands that are conflictive it rubs me raw. The following is going to examine what I think are some of the major disconnects argued under the veil of morality that in fact are preposterous positions.
Capitalism is wrong and the United States uses to much of the worlds natural resources: To that I say, huh? The average life expectancy of a human being in 1900 was estimated at 36.2 years. By 2005 it was 65.4 and is expected to be 72.5 years by 2025 or double. I would say if one where to review the fount of that increased life expectancy, the United States, an argument can be made that maybe we used too little resources. The causes of the increased worldwide life expectancy are directly linked to improvement in sanitation, food production, medical technology, improved medicine and fewer wars. An honest look at research and development on all of those fronts lands right back to the United States, sure other countries have improved or contributed but, the overwhelming majority saw their genesis driven by the capitalistic tendencies of US citizens and the research facilities funded by the taxes collected from them. Canada and Mexico sell cheap drugs not because they are munificent but because they benefit from the R and D costs incurred by US pharmaceutical companies but do not contribute to them. The yield of crops in fields around the world are triple what they were at the beginning of the 20th century through crop research and improvements developed by US companies and universities and no royalties are paid for the general intellectual forwarding that benefits all. The first practical portable computers developed were for the Iowa Class Battleships to take into account the Coriolis effect so that the shells from their 16 inch guns could land on the Axis Powers. As an aside that is where the term “Bug in the Computer” came from, early computers were a series of relays. One day the computer would not work and upon inspection a moth was found between two contact points. The overall point of this? The world is a better place for all because of the resources spent in the United States and the entrepreneurial nature and productivity of the system that gave it birth. Until those that comment in an unenlightened manner are brought to task for their “the US is a pig” diatribes ignorance will prevail. Of course the US can do better in preserving resources but overall I would say they have been invested wisely not spent.
Abortion is a lifestyle choice, the Death Penalty is wrong: Ok, on a moral level maybe there is no absolute, just personal belief left to each of us to make. On the practical level of resource allocation however there are clear arguments to be made, remember earlier we stipulated that 100% is 100%. In most cases those that support abortion rights also are against the death penalty and the converse is also true. There is no clear cost per annum to keep an inmate on death row but for the purpose of this conversation we will use $100,000 per year. Know I posit that the decision we are making is much more practical, do you continue to invest limited resources in keeping someone on death row when you know what their contribution to society already is or do you take that same $100,000 and invest in a HeadStart program to help educate children whose potential is yet untapped? Before you start the bellowing that that is an unfair proposition I remind you of the opening statement of the article, there is no great big magical checkbook in the sky. Additionally, check your pocket, if there is any money in it at all it could have been sent somewhere in the world to purchase food or medicine and saved someone’s life today. So in truth those against the Death Penalty are only against the Death Penalty by commission, not omission.
I want what I want, facts be damned: There is a growing segment of the American populace who want to feel, not think. They also want you to feel the way that they do and will berate any attempt to reason or weigh decisions on issues to make the best choice in a sea of conflicting choices. PETA cares little for the fate of rats and they see no conflict if they kill misplaced pets because they rationalize their moral authority as enlightened. Those against the use of carbon based fuel are also against nuclear energy; those for renewable energy are against it where they can see it off of their vacation homes on Martha’s Vineyard. Women’s rights organizations fight for equality in the US but care little for the plight of women being stoned and lashed in the Middle East. Situational ethics have become so prevalent in US cause hustlers that it is hard to take any of them seriously. On one side you have those that rail against global warming and the production of CO2 and on the other you have those that say that logging is murder and they sit at the same table sipping wine as they watch forest fires on TV caused by the lack of resource management.
All in all, think. Until people start having real discussions with the understanding that choices are required the society in which we live will continue to fracture. Please oh please do not be nice to idiots, it just emboldens them. There is seldom an absolute right and wrong but there are definitely righter and wronger.
Monday, December 3, 2007
What Ever Happened
To public service? I continually hear people talk about what is needed in this country and I wonder. How many people that proclaim the solutions to society’s ills actually engage and give of their time and personal effort to alleviate the needs of others?
Every time I see a celebrity or politician spout off about what needs to take place for the world to become a better place I look for a camera and then try and take into account what they say and how they live.
As little as 30 years ago neighbors took care of neighbors, but that was when we knew ot neighbors. We have become so ensconced in our own lives that few of us even know our neighbors let alone live in neighborhoods. What we do is live in a cluster of homes or apartments of close proximity; we mind our own business and expect those that live around us to do the same.
I listen to proponents of global warming living in mansions, to those that say more taxes need to be paid for important programs and see that they have accountants that create tax shelters, read what others say about the quality of our soldiers knowing they have never had one in their family or circle of friends. It has become hollow, all these what you need to do talkers, with the real understanding that what they want is change without personal sacrifice.
Can you imagine the change we would see if every person would allot 4 hours per month to provide help to a person based on what they believe they need, not what you think they need? It would be the cumulative manifestation of the barn raisings of old, when an entire community came together to make substantive change in one persons life with the assurance that their neighbors would return the favor when needed. You gave without expectations knowing you where paying into a karmic insurance fund that would pay off when you found yourself in need and hoping never having to collect.
When the Sean Penns of the world begin to proselytize my need to change while standing in front of their one bedroom apartment, leaning on their second hand car with $500 in their bank account, I will cede them the right to make judgment on the decisions of others.
The kicker is that the time spent doing for others actually does for you. A few less hours in front of the computer or television and a few more hours interacting with other human beings. In the end those hours spent are selfishly repaid ten-fold in the image you see in the mirror.
Every time I see a celebrity or politician spout off about what needs to take place for the world to become a better place I look for a camera and then try and take into account what they say and how they live.
As little as 30 years ago neighbors took care of neighbors, but that was when we knew ot neighbors. We have become so ensconced in our own lives that few of us even know our neighbors let alone live in neighborhoods. What we do is live in a cluster of homes or apartments of close proximity; we mind our own business and expect those that live around us to do the same.
I listen to proponents of global warming living in mansions, to those that say more taxes need to be paid for important programs and see that they have accountants that create tax shelters, read what others say about the quality of our soldiers knowing they have never had one in their family or circle of friends. It has become hollow, all these what you need to do talkers, with the real understanding that what they want is change without personal sacrifice.
Can you imagine the change we would see if every person would allot 4 hours per month to provide help to a person based on what they believe they need, not what you think they need? It would be the cumulative manifestation of the barn raisings of old, when an entire community came together to make substantive change in one persons life with the assurance that their neighbors would return the favor when needed. You gave without expectations knowing you where paying into a karmic insurance fund that would pay off when you found yourself in need and hoping never having to collect.
When the Sean Penns of the world begin to proselytize my need to change while standing in front of their one bedroom apartment, leaning on their second hand car with $500 in their bank account, I will cede them the right to make judgment on the decisions of others.
The kicker is that the time spent doing for others actually does for you. A few less hours in front of the computer or television and a few more hours interacting with other human beings. In the end those hours spent are selfishly repaid ten-fold in the image you see in the mirror.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Necessity of Immigration:
It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. I can’t say that is absolutely accurate until some explains the spork, but I will admit it is a major impetus. What is missed most often is even truer in my estimation, that greed is the evil step-mother of all innovation.
Cheap labor is a vagabond that moves to the area of most acceptance. It has created economies where only subsistence existed before and because the populace in place saw it as better than what they had. You can track the shifting sands of manufacturing and labor intensive value added business geographically throughout the world’s history based on that premise. A case in point is the Oriental rug, all the rage at the beginning of the 20th century as there was a perceived value to the quality in the Western World and the makers of those rugs in Persia, Turkey et al found the compensation received acceptable. As they became the rage, market forces created an increasing value as limited supply struggled against increasing demand. Those who purchased the rugs in the Middle East had to compete against other exporters for the limited supply, increasing the amount paid to the villages and small cooperatives that made them. Changing the expectations of those villages and cooperatives for the value of their work and permanently shifting upward until the price/value relationship neutralized. Well Joe the rug guy looked at this opportunity and shifted his looms to making rugs that resembled Oriental rugs in style and could be made at a much lower price. The marketplace then had options, if one deemed the handmade nature to have primacy then the price was paid, if however, it was the style of the rug that was most important to the purchaser they would buy one of Joe’s lesser made facsimiles.
These shifts happen everyday, the cause and effect of supply and demand. If Californians did not have access to cheap labor to care for their landscaping would not the nature of their landscaping change to meet their Oriental rug tastes? The argument that is made that we need illegal immigrants because there are jobs that Americans in general will not do. I say that the argument is circular and that if we did not have people willing to work at sub-standard wage, because they produce outside the system, the needs would change to fit the available labor. If Frank the lettuce farmer had to produce without the use of inexpensive labor, then the marketplace would innovate in order make mechanization viable. If new construction was made more expensive because of labor cost, then old homes would become more valuable and we would not see the shifts from older neighborhoods and the blight that follows.
I am for immigration but legal immigration, if the process needs to be streamlined then let’s do it. The idea that we are changing the very make-up of the society as a work around for those that are here illegally is…….I am searching for a word…..stupid. It may be the most cynical thing that I have ever seen manifesting, the idea of creating a permanent sub-class by allowing those that are in this country illegally to not have to learn the language of that country. Secondly, by allowing immigrants to have no sense of ownership, no right of passage to become a US Citizen they are in course diluting the very society that they deemed attractive to begin with. It is a descending spiral to which pandering politicians and racists hang their hats of tolerance. The United States made no such allowances for Italians, Chinese, Russians and all other groups of immigrants. So why are we now saying that those that come here from Central America are less valuable, less viable, because they do lawn work? Many of those that did manual labor that came from Western Europe and Asia assimilated, saved and then brought their families. Those that are coming from Central America and Mexico are allowed to do it differently, they sneak across the border, then create a family and use technicalities to claim the rights of citizenship.
It is time for Americans to not adopt the failings of other countries as our original sin. If Mexico cannot care for its citizenry and provide opportunity and care how did it become our problem? The Inter-American Development Bank sponsored a poll that came out in August that estimated that 11.4 billion dollars was remitted back to Mexico in the first half of 2007 from Illegal Immigrants. They also stated that was a slowed amount due to new banking restrictions. Extrapolated out to represent the total year 2007, that would be some 22 billion dollars, if we then assume conservatively that figure represents 20% of their total income generated and a 15% tax rate, we see some 16.5 billion dollars in taxes not collected that could have gone to healthcare and schools in support. It must be understood that this is an estimate of Illegal Immigrants that are sending money home, many are not.
The United States needs immigrants but it needs them as citizens, what it does not need is to subsidize the guy that grows a lawn he won’t mow. The general public is paying for the fruit pickers, landscapers and carpenters every day, just in a convoluted way. It may save us a nickel on an Orange but cost a dime in social services for that savings.
No amnesty. We need to put up the fence and stop the flow first and then develop a way to integrate and assimilate those that are here. They need a cost of entry, a hurdle to ownership of the society to which they came for opportunity. Does a person appreciate more a car given to them or a car they have purchased through there own efforts? If they don’t understand what made this country the land of opportunity how can we expect them help pass on those principles to their children or our children.
Cheap labor is a vagabond that moves to the area of most acceptance. It has created economies where only subsistence existed before and because the populace in place saw it as better than what they had. You can track the shifting sands of manufacturing and labor intensive value added business geographically throughout the world’s history based on that premise. A case in point is the Oriental rug, all the rage at the beginning of the 20th century as there was a perceived value to the quality in the Western World and the makers of those rugs in Persia, Turkey et al found the compensation received acceptable. As they became the rage, market forces created an increasing value as limited supply struggled against increasing demand. Those who purchased the rugs in the Middle East had to compete against other exporters for the limited supply, increasing the amount paid to the villages and small cooperatives that made them. Changing the expectations of those villages and cooperatives for the value of their work and permanently shifting upward until the price/value relationship neutralized. Well Joe the rug guy looked at this opportunity and shifted his looms to making rugs that resembled Oriental rugs in style and could be made at a much lower price. The marketplace then had options, if one deemed the handmade nature to have primacy then the price was paid, if however, it was the style of the rug that was most important to the purchaser they would buy one of Joe’s lesser made facsimiles.
These shifts happen everyday, the cause and effect of supply and demand. If Californians did not have access to cheap labor to care for their landscaping would not the nature of their landscaping change to meet their Oriental rug tastes? The argument that is made that we need illegal immigrants because there are jobs that Americans in general will not do. I say that the argument is circular and that if we did not have people willing to work at sub-standard wage, because they produce outside the system, the needs would change to fit the available labor. If Frank the lettuce farmer had to produce without the use of inexpensive labor, then the marketplace would innovate in order make mechanization viable. If new construction was made more expensive because of labor cost, then old homes would become more valuable and we would not see the shifts from older neighborhoods and the blight that follows.
I am for immigration but legal immigration, if the process needs to be streamlined then let’s do it. The idea that we are changing the very make-up of the society as a work around for those that are here illegally is…….I am searching for a word…..stupid. It may be the most cynical thing that I have ever seen manifesting, the idea of creating a permanent sub-class by allowing those that are in this country illegally to not have to learn the language of that country. Secondly, by allowing immigrants to have no sense of ownership, no right of passage to become a US Citizen they are in course diluting the very society that they deemed attractive to begin with. It is a descending spiral to which pandering politicians and racists hang their hats of tolerance. The United States made no such allowances for Italians, Chinese, Russians and all other groups of immigrants. So why are we now saying that those that come here from Central America are less valuable, less viable, because they do lawn work? Many of those that did manual labor that came from Western Europe and Asia assimilated, saved and then brought their families. Those that are coming from Central America and Mexico are allowed to do it differently, they sneak across the border, then create a family and use technicalities to claim the rights of citizenship.
It is time for Americans to not adopt the failings of other countries as our original sin. If Mexico cannot care for its citizenry and provide opportunity and care how did it become our problem? The Inter-American Development Bank sponsored a poll that came out in August that estimated that 11.4 billion dollars was remitted back to Mexico in the first half of 2007 from Illegal Immigrants. They also stated that was a slowed amount due to new banking restrictions. Extrapolated out to represent the total year 2007, that would be some 22 billion dollars, if we then assume conservatively that figure represents 20% of their total income generated and a 15% tax rate, we see some 16.5 billion dollars in taxes not collected that could have gone to healthcare and schools in support. It must be understood that this is an estimate of Illegal Immigrants that are sending money home, many are not.
The United States needs immigrants but it needs them as citizens, what it does not need is to subsidize the guy that grows a lawn he won’t mow. The general public is paying for the fruit pickers, landscapers and carpenters every day, just in a convoluted way. It may save us a nickel on an Orange but cost a dime in social services for that savings.
No amnesty. We need to put up the fence and stop the flow first and then develop a way to integrate and assimilate those that are here. They need a cost of entry, a hurdle to ownership of the society to which they came for opportunity. Does a person appreciate more a car given to them or a car they have purchased through there own efforts? If they don’t understand what made this country the land of opportunity how can we expect them help pass on those principles to their children or our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
