Tag: Economics

American Indian Cultural Superiority

Around this time of year, we often see a lot of posts about American Indians, Columbus, and various related subjects.

The general points that (1) the natives were greatly mistreated, (2) that Columbus and those who followed did a lot of horrible things, and (3) that native culture had a number of good points are quite valid.

However, people really tend to go overboard and pendulum-swing in the opposite direction.

No, we do not have evidence that Columbus approved of and participated in sexual trafficking of young native girls. The single quote supporting this conclusion, in its full context, is at worst neutral and is arguably actually criticizing the practice. Columbus’ 1500 letter to Doña Juana de la Torre (pages 434-435).

And, no, American Indian culture was not some perfect utopia, free of greed, selfishness, violence etc. Here is the latest iteration of these sorts of claims that I’ve seen:

Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can’t have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a man was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were to [sic] uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give them away. We had no money, and therefore a man’s worth couldn’t be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorneys or politicians, therefore we couldn’t cheat. We really were in a bad way before the white men came, and I don’t know how we managed to get along without these basic things which, we are told, are absolutely necessary to make a civilized society.

RedHawk – Seeker of Visions (as quoted by the Intothewild Facebook page)

Just about every statement here is categorically false. I won’t argue the facetiously-articulated conclusion that natives were doing alright and were not in desperate need of Europeans to improve their societies (at least not among the North American tribes); that is a reasonable point. But all the supporting claims and evidence are almost entirely false.

Let’s start with matters of fact. As far as I know, it is true that the natives didn’t have prisons, locks, or keys. However, it is absolutely false that anyone who lacked things would always be given them. No one with even the slightest understanding of humanity could possibly believe such a thing without being blinded by ideology. In particular, the claim that horses would be provided to those without is particularly noteworthy, considering that horses were extinct in the Americas for thousands of years prior to Columbus. They could no more provide their poor with horses than we can provide our poor with Star Trek transporters. The claim that natives had no money can be considered true if you use a reasonably strict definition of money. The claim that they had no written law is, strictly speaking, false. Aztecs, for one, did have written law. However, the alleged speaker in this post is likely referring to the tribes of what is now the United States, and I couldn’t say whether they had written law or not, so let’s assume that’s true. The claim that they had no attorneys is arguable, but the claim that they didn’t have politicians is utterly false.

Now let’s move on to the arguments and reasoning.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to conclude the lack of prisons implies they did not have crime or criminals. This argument is particularly amusing to me since the people who post this sort of thing are often the ones most strongly criticizing the prison system (both with and without reason) and suggesting alternative forms of correction. Well, natives had plenty of alternative forms of correction. Some form of ostracization, shunning, or exile were common. And those who take issue with the prison system might want to know that other alternatives included torture and capital punishment. So, you know, there’s that.

Similarly, the lack of locks or keys does not imply a lack of thieves. Locks and keys exist because of thieves, not the other way around. “But,” one might say, “it’s still true that there weren’t thieves because they had no money and didn’t value property.” That argument is so ridiculous I can’t believe actual grown adults believe it. The idea that natives didn’t really concern themselves with property is just totally absurd. It might be true that they were less concerned with property than Europeans, but if so I would argue that has more to do with a narrower variety of property to own than anything else. And it’s seemingly true that they weren’t concerned with individual ownership of land, insofar as they had such a concept.

But the idea that they weren’t really concerned with property has no basis that I can see unless it’s a paternalistic, borderline racist conclusion based on the assumption that there just wasn’t much property worth being concerned about. Just because we don’t see native clothing, archery equipment, etc. as being particularly valuable, doesn’t mean they didn’t. And as for natives not being concerned about property at all, and being totally selfless with what they had, natives literally fought wars over territory and resources. These wars were certainly smaller-scale and less destructive than European wars, but that can easily be chalked up to differences in technology, geography, and population size (both overall and of individual “states”), not to some magical goodness inherent to natives. That’s not to say that natives were just as concerned with materialism as Europeans, but only to say that this asinine view of natives being as pure as the wind-driven snow is absolute drivel.

Next, the idea that natives couldn’t cheat is utter nonsense. With their smaller-scale communities, I don’t doubt it would be harder to cheat (or at least, to get away with it). Smaller social circles beget greater accountability, after all. But (a) it is absurd on the face of it to claim that any civilization throughout history lacked cheaters. And (b) it is even more absurd to claim that laws being oral would make cheating less common. One of the greatest features of written law is that anyone with enough literacy can, for the most part, understand what the law says. To illegitimately change the law without anyone noticing (in a democracy, anyway) requires a grand conspiracy, probably involving thousands of individuals. To illegitimately change an oral law could, depending on the law, conceivably be done with the cooperation of a bare handful (though as with the positive differences, this is also largely due to differences in scale).

Finally, let’s address the idea that a man’s worth couldn’t be measured by money. If a tribe or civilization did indeed lack money (i.e. currency), then this is true, strictly speaking. However, the implication that material possessions and wealth did not play any role in how natives viewed one another is ridiculous. Like every other culture on the planet throughout all of history, even including many, many animal “societies”, American Indian cultures had hierarchies. And as with literally every other culture, those higher in the hierarchy generally had more material wealth. It baffles me that educated adults could think it was otherwise. Perhaps it was less severe among American Indians than amongst Europeans, Africans, or Asians, but Red Hawk’s claims (assuming this is something he, whoever he is, actually said) of concern with material things being totally absent are pure fiction.

In conclusion, let’s treat American Indians, and other indigenous cultures, the same way we should treat everyone else: by considering them to be actual people who live/lived in the real world; neither ignorant savages who need guidance nor noble savages without failings.

Edits

  1. 2020-11-30 14:06 EST – In the interest of completeness, added “Africans” to the list of groups possibly more materialistic than American Indians

Feel the Bern: Part 3: Social Justice

Social Injustice & Inequality

The second video of the sociopolitical discourse between Killer Mike and Bernie Sanders kicks off with Bernie bemoaning the “outrage” that is the existence of homelessness in America. He is also rightfully upset over the employment status of the African American demographic. The growth of American incarceration is mentioned, as is outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, and tax evasion among the wealthy. He rails against the indifference of business owners towards the national debt, against the greed of the “people on top,” and against America choosing a wealth/poverty system over a equally-and-moderately prosperous system.

Killer Mike, for his part, professes a trust of most old people and criticizes the departure of the American steel industry. He lays this at the feet of the increasing selfishness and greed throughout the country and wonders why people vote against their own self-interest. The video ends in agreement on the dangers posed by creating monarchs of political families.

Homelessness: To Be Or Not To Be?

A major problem in American discourse on homelessness is the variance of definitions. Generally, when a typical American refers to someone as “homeless,” the implication is that they are chronically homeless, in the sense that they have been homeless for a period of years. It also typically implies that they are likely to remain homeless. The problem is that both these characteristics are a tiny, though not insignificant, minority.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR), approximately 1.59 million Americans were homeless at some point between October of 2009 and September of 2010. Let’s stop right there and note the accomplishment. The 2010 census revealed a US population of 308 million:

Homeless:   1590000
American: 308000000

Even assuming that all of the 2010 homeless were permanently homeless, that means the homeless population accounts for 0.5% of the US population. While we should certainly strive to eliminate this unfortunate phenomenon, a 99.5% success rate is pretty amazing, as I’m sure any grade-schooler expecting a report card would agree.

But that 0.5% can be considered exaggerated, because only 39.1% of that 1.59 million were homeless prior to October of 2009, bringing what might be termed the “homeless problem” down to 0.2%! I do not mean to dismiss the hardships the other 955K people endured, but while homelessness that ends in less than a year[1] is worth addressing, it is not all-important, especially in the face of the yearly million or so abortions and the specter of more US involvement in the Middle East. Nor does it necessitate a massive rethinking of the system.

In any case, the number of chronically (using a fairly liberal definition[2]) homeless individuals – that is, the definition most commonly assumed by typical Americans – was around 124K in 2010. It is worth mentioning how many of the homeless actually choose homelessness due to a gypsy-like love of roaming, a desire for near-total freedom, or even, yes, simple laziness. My parents once took a homeless woman off the streets for several months. They finally made the difficult decision to have her leave after she spent those months watching TV over the Internet in the room she virtually monopolized, all while doing nothing around the house save cleaning dishes on occasion. She did have some mitigating health issues, but the point is that she never exhibited a desire to earn her keep or even express gratitude in any tangible sense.

Hopefully, we can agree that the issue of homelessness is small enough to be considered even by the most ardent statist as falling under the purview of private charity and existing systems.

Black Employment

It is true that the employment situation among African Americans is disproportionately negative. However, it does not necessarily logically follow that this necessitates political action. Given that the United States has elected a black President and that many of the country’s leading executives and business owners are minorities, it is irrational to assume the unemployment issue is a result of systemic racism. And therefore, I find it very likely that it is cultural shifts – not political revolutions – that are required. The idolization of gangsters and the idea that economic success marks one as discredited or even someone who betrays or abandons one’s race must stop. I won’t be so arrogant as to outline goals and plans for the reduction of African American unemployment. There are many people more qualified and in touch with the community than either myself or Bernie Sanders. And many of them are saying the exact things I just wrote.

Wisdom of the Ancients

Killer Mike briefly breaks from politics to express his trust for most of the elderly. It might interest those of similar sentiments to know that the elderly are much more likely than youth to embrace the label of “conservative,” which when coupled with the idea that the elderly possess vast stores of wisdom gives rise to the saying that “a young conservative has no heart, but an old liberal has no brain.”

Steeling Economic Prosperity

Killer Mike cites the flight of the US steel industry as evidence of growing selfishness, completely ignoring the preceding unionization of the steel industry and accompanying rise in costs, the liberalization of China, and other relevant factors. This seems indicative of a common statist practice – ascribing malicious motives to the direct actors of a specific economic event rather than holistically considering all the build-up and convergence of circumstances that propels a system to such an act.

Similarly, Sanders lambastes U.S. business owners for moving jobs overseas, which creates several interesting questions. First, where is the intellectual integrity in demanding higher wages while simultaneously wishing to penalize outsourcing? Second, is Sanders implying that Americans deserve those jobs more than the Chinese or the Indians? If so, how can he claim that his ideology is motivated by a compassion for the poor or a desire for equality? If not, then why is outsourcing a morally negative practice?

The Good Old Days

Mike and Bernie seem in agreement that the United States is becoming more selfish, more greedy, and more self-absorbed. Putting aside the issue that this supposed trend coincides temporally with a rise in policies and legislation in line with Sanders’ plans (increases of government spending, increased welfare, increased taxes, increased regulation), I wish to examine this common failing amongst people of all walks of life and political persuasions. That is, a yearning for the Good Old Days and a belief that people from one time period are fundamentally different than those from some preceding time period. The Good Old Days of business owners supposedly caring more for their employees and being more selfless were also the Bad Old Days of lower standards-of-living, racist legislation, and massive warfare. I am not implying causal links between these things. I am merely attempting to remove the rose-colored glasses with which these two statists are viewing modern history.

What About the Deficit?

Continuing in a similar vein, Sanders attacks business owners for not caring about the national deficit. This is highly irrational and hypocritical. Irrational because, except in the context of voting, it is not truly a business owner’s responsibility to care for the national deficit. That is the responsibility of those who create it, i.e. the government, i.e. Senator Sanders. His attack heavily implies that he believes one should have concern for the deficit. That is an interesting opinion for a man who consistently advocates for increased government spending in almost every category. One may argue that he also endorses corresponding tax increases, but if the government has thus far been unable to balance what it has, it seems unwise to exacerbate the problem by continuously tithing more and more money into the abyss.

Greed

A consistent theme throughout the video is the greed of the rich and powerful. But Mike and Bernie seem to espouse a double standard on the definition of greed. According to the Sum Total of Human Knowledge, greed is composed of an

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Selfish simply means to desire for oneself (without regard for or to the detriment of others). While the wealthy Sanders and successful Killer Mike may not be putting forth ideologies that are selfish from their perspective, it is obvious that they are appealing to the selfishness (and greed) of the voting public (among other – possibly more positive – things). And in this context of satisfying one’s own needs and wants by taxing the properties of others (and justifying it with accusations of excess and greed), we must add envy to the list as well. Sanders is building his campaign on voters’ desire for free healthcare, free food, free education, and free shelter. (That is, sanfreedoms.[3])

In light of this attack on selfishness and greed, it is incongruous that Killer Mike complains that many of the Sanders opposition seem to be voting against their own self-interest. One cannot maintain integrity by both attacking greed and appealing to it.

On a cliché note: Killer Mike and Bernie Sanders claim the country is selfish. Indeed it is, such is the nature of mankind. Free market economies are fueled by and dependent on this selfishness. The leftist ideals these two espouse are dependent on changing this aspect of human nature, of establishing a system fueled by that which we lack in sufficient quantities: selflessness.

Fallacy Time!

It is at this point that Bernie Sanders appeals to a major and all-too-common false dilemma. In his view, the world can be a world of haves and have-nots (the wealthy and the homeless) or a world where everyone is “doing pretty well.” It is inarguable that self-interest creates wealth (through mining, farming, and construction, among others). It is also evident that in the general sense, selflessness merely shares wealth (few have ever obtained or created jobs and goods solely for the purpose of providing for others). Therefore, a system that rewards selfishness will tend to increase in overall wealth, while a system that does not will tend to stay level at best, and will almost certainly decline.

The two options presented are not immediately obvious as a false dilemma until you add in the hidden qualifiers. That is, in Sanders’ view (as stated), the world can be a place of wealth disparity with a given quantity of wealth or a place of relative equality with that same quantity of wealth. In actuality there are several potential systems, and among them are wealth disparity with a world-leading quantity[4] of wealth and wealth equality with a much lesser quantity of wealth as evidenced by Denmark’s[5] $10,000-lower per-capita wealth.

To put it cliché terms, any rational individual would prefer a smaller slice of a larger pie than a perfectly equal slice of an insufficient, shrinking pie.

Together in One Accord

Killer Mike ends the video with apprehension over the potential creation of “monarch” families in American politics, a concern which I share wholeheartedly. He is referring to the potential of Hillary Clinton’s election as the second President in her household. And no doubt Sanders would use a similar argument (correctly and accurately) against a potential Bush dynasty.

I will however, caution that this is not a novel trend. The Kennedys have wielded substantial power over the last fifty years. Two Roosevelts have occupied the White House and the George W. Bush was not the first President Jr. While this concern would have likely prevented me from voting for Jeb Bush had he won the Republican primary, it is not cause for panic or hyperbole.

Engagement

As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, (b) the First Amendment does not prevent me from doing this, and (c) if you inform me via smoke signal that you are a socialist, I may wonder what a socialite is doing on a political blog.

Notes

  1. A conservative assumption, given that AHAR’s homelessness estimate for 2015 is a mere 0.5 million, meaning that homelessness is declining, meaning that those who were newly homeless were not likely to remain so
  2. 1+ years or 4 instances of homelessness in the last 3 years.
  3. See Part 2
  4. As Sanders himself emphasized so thoroughly only one video ago.
  5. It is unfair to single out a particular country (insufficient sample size), but Bernie chose this one, so my intellectual conscience is clear.

Edits

  1. 2016-06-02 10:33 EST – Slightly updated definition of selfishness.

Feel the Bern: Part 2: Economic Freedom & Rights

Economic Freedom & Rights

econfreedomThe core of the first video in the interview between rapper Killer Mike and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is Bernie Sanders’ discourse on freedom and rights. He equates the freedom of speech with a hypothetical right to healthcare, food,[1] shelter,[1] and education. In the form of a rhetorical question, he posits that one is not truly free if one lacks these things. He terms these services and goods as “economic rights” and claims that as the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, America can and should do a far better job of providing these rights. Also included in these rights are employment, a “decent wage” (by which he means a wage that allows you to “make it”). Essentially, he desires to guarantee a minimal standard of living for every American.

Freedom

One of the roots of Sanders’ disconnect from reality is his concept of freedom. True freedom is defined by the Wise and Benevolent Disseminator of All Knowledge as this:

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

While this definition does not quite explicitly capture the distinction, the phrase “without hindrance or restraint” begins to shed light on the difference between true freedom (the right to be free from interference) from Sanders’ pie-in-the-sky freedom (the right to be free of want).

lemonade_girlsThe problem with sanfreedom[2] brings us back to the question of reality. True freedom can easily exist in reality. Say you drop a man on the surface of the moon. Harsh mistress though she is, the man has by default true freedom. No one will interfere with his plans to sell lemonade, to hunt moon fairies, or to vainly suck in nothingness as he inevitably surrenders to the chilling fatal embrace of the endless void.

He does not, however, possess sanfreedom. He has neither food nor healthcare; neither shelter nor additional education. Because Wal-Mart has not as of this writing claimed Luna for all of Buffetdom, there is no one there yet to provide these things. Therein lies the crucial distinction between true freedom and sanfreedom. True freedom is negative – it requires nothing to be done or created. Sanfreedom is positive – it requires things to be produced and performed. Therefore, since these goods and services must be provided, sanfreedom is entirely dependent upon their availability and – crucially – cannot be guaranteed regardless of political rhetoric or legislation. Just as vacuous pop stars come and go with the tide of fandom, so will “economic rights” come and go with the rise and fall of the economic supply-demand equilibrium (read: price).

Furthermore, a right that infringes upon someone else’s right is irrational. A right, by nature, must apply equally to all, otherwise it is a privilege. Since sanfreedoms depend on goods and services which must be produced, any would-be guarantor of sanfreedoms (such as Sanders) must have a mechanism by which to extract these goods and services from the producers. Since the guarantor does not have infinite resources, he, she, or the Brain may be forced to exchange fewer resources than the provider is willing to accept or be forced to exchange under circumstances which the provider is unwilling to accept.

Since the provider may be unwilling and the guarantor must take the provisions regardless, it follows that the guarantor will violate the producer’s true freedom (that is, his right to be free of interference). This is true even if the guarantor is entirely virtuous at heart. Since supply is finite and subject to fluctuations, the guarantor will at some point reach a crossroads where they must either fail in their guarantees of sanfreedoms or violate true freedoms. This is evidenced in the low wages of public educators and the laggardly pace at which government documents are obtained. (Which is not to say that low wages are a foregone conclusion for public educators – trade-offs do exist.)

Therefore, since sanfreedoms require the violation of rights, they cannot logically be considered true freedom.

The Logic Train Breaks Down

train_wreckIt is simple, trivial, and obvious to determine that the invalidity of sanfreedoms invalidates the basis upon which Sanders has built all the ideology he espouses in this video. And, therefore, the justification for his socialist policies of government guarantees must be discarded by any rational observer. This does not automatically prove his policies immoral or illegal, but it does leave them wanting for justification.

Philosophy

This is all not to say that Bernie Sanders’ statements are entirely with out merit. A critical statement of his follows:

bernie_sanders_twitter_profile.jpgYou don’t have food in your stomach. You don’t have a house, roof over your head. If you don’t have any education are you really free?

This is an interesting philosophical statement worthy of some consideration. It is true that the realities of human existence create constraints on our freedom to do as we will. The very nature of things requires us to perform some action (typically work) to produce or procure food, shelter, and all the rest. Therefore, we are not truly free to do as we will. However, since these constraints are imposed by the nature of a finite reality – which trends towards maximum entropy –  they cannot be removed by human policy or ideology.

Therefore, Bernie’s rhetorical question, while relevant, is a non sequitur in the context of supporting government-guaranteed services.

Wealth

I wish to take a quick moment to note that Bernie’s emphasis on America’s wealth has no bearing on my preceding arguments. Wealth is a factor, of course. Wealthy America might take longer to reach the guarantee-or-bust crossroads than, say, the Central African Republic. But reach it it would, and our wealth would only make the crisis all the more dramatic, just as our depressions and booms are more far-reaching in their effects than those of much smaller economies.

Conclusion

While Bernie Sanders and Killer Mike both seem completely earnest and desirous of helping others in need, the ideals and policies put forth in this video are self-contradictory and defy physical reality. Unless I am very much mistaken, rational people of principle and logic must therefore discard their arguments and seek policies, ideals, or at the least arguments more consistent with physics, scarcity, and internal consistency.

Engagement

As always, I welcome any criticisms or disagreements in the form of comments, messages, emails, or smoke signals. But be advised that (a) I may ignore or remove profanity or ad hominem attacks, (b) the First Amendment does not prevent me from doing this, and (c) if you inform me via smoke signal that you are a socialist, I may wonder what a socialite is doing on a political blog.

Notes

  1. implied; not explicit
  2. sanfreedom – An ancient term I just made up, meaning “freedom from want.” It works equally well as a reference to Bernie Sanders or San Francisco.

Wages & Benefits

To anyone reading this who think that they or others deserve $15/hour (or $10/hour, or frankly even $5 for some people), in the hopes that it will help you live a better life in some small fashion,

INTRODUCTION

When I got my first job mowing grass for $5 an hour (which the keen-eyed Virginian observer will note as $0.15 *less* than minimum wage of the time), it was possibly the second most exciting thing for me in my short ten or eleven years after getting my first pocket knife, the possible exception being my bike (my brother’s adoption notwithstanding).

I was also frequently happy to help out at my father’s construction sites for the same amount (the last time I did, I believe the North Carolina minimum wage was $6.15, $1.15 more than I was making). You’ll note that neither of these jobs involving spinning razor-sharp metal blades with a noticeable lack of OSHA presence provided any kind of health insurance. Unless you count Dad’s pocket knife removing my splinters as “healthcare”. (Frankly, if I’d gotten my way at the time, some of those splinters might still be there.)

When I was sixteen and found out  I’d gotten the job at Food Lion for minimum wage, I was so excited I could barely sleep. Somehow the lack of any benefits whatsoever beyond the paycheck itself (that I knew about or used) failed to depress me. Anyway, I was only injured on the job once. That was due to my own stupidity and I never considered asking Food Lion to pay for my trip to urgent care. The one (small) holiday bonus in my two years there was just icing on the cake, not my due.

Despite the free meals, my next job selling fried chicken at Bojangles excited me less. But it did let me move out of my parent’s house. Admittedly, I was making about $0.25 above minimum wage, but that changed when the North Carolina government, in its wisdom, raised it again. (Before moving on, I am legally obligated to say TANSTAAFL[1] or risk the wrath of libertarians of all stripes due to my reference to “free meals” just now.)

ATTITUDE

Not once during my tenure at any of those jobs was I ever convinced I’d deserved the amount I was paid. Not once. That is not hyperbole. Now, I was entitled to it; the employers and I had agreed that was the amount I was to be paid. And I earned it (except perhaps for the minimum-wage jobs). But I have never been convinced that I deserved it.

Frankly, this trend has continued and I still think I’m making more than I deserve. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to work for less – market forces have virtually guaranteed a person of my particular skillset will have a certain minimum income – but it is true.

And it certainly doesn’t mean I’ve never wanted more or been dissatisfied with my income. Frankly, the fast food income and the circumstances of my father’s job sites are what pushed me towards software development.

Now there are some details I’m glossing over. I was covered under Medicaid and obviously, my parents provided for my needs until I moved out (back to that in a moment). But neither of those things have any bearing on whether or not I deserved that income. You deserve things based on what you do in exchange (that’s called “earning”), not because you have some need (that’s called “whining”, “theft”, or sometimes “taxation”). “Need” and “deserve” are two completely different things, which are frequently not even related. Hence why a mandated “livable wage” confounds so many liberty-minded individuals and economists.

DISCLAIMER

Quick side note regarding parental support: they did stop supporting me financially pretty much as soon as I moved out. Sure, I came home for a few meals. And during my last year at college (not a typo… I’ll never live in an apartment again) I probably washed about a dozen loads of laundry at their house (maybe, what, $40 worth?). And my mother (*without* any request or prompting from me) did buy me a few articles of clothing at times. But the support as a whole stopped. Similarly, my parents probably could’ve afforded to buy me a (albeit very cheap) car when I was sixteen. But they never offered and I never asked. I waited until I had the right ballpark amount and then *borrowed* a few hundred dollars from them – short-term – to buy my own.

This is not meant as a criticism of people who continue receiving support for a few years. I mean, my parents have less money than most to give in the first place and I did receive a few thousand dollars a year in financial aid (above and beyond school costs) through FAFSA and my grandparents. And different people have varying degrees of ability. Nor is it meant as a criticism against those who get free stuff. My own sister inherited “her” car from her namesake and it has never bothered me. (Side note: that’s another pet peeve of mine and one of the few stated opinions of Louis C.K. that I support – how much someone else has should have no bearing on your own contentment or sense of entitlement.)

But the point is that self-sufficiency is a worthy goal that should be sought even before it becomes necessary.

ADMISSION

roller_blades

Now I’m not trying to brag or build myself up as something special. I was a whiny kid who shirked his chores and spent hours (and hours and hours and hours) reading sci-fi and playing video games. I screamed bloody murder when I got a staple in my thumb and refused to talk to Dad for hours after he had the audacity to grab my hand and pull it out. I was 13. I was reprimanded multiple times at my jobs for being too casual or not greeting customers with enough forced cheerfulness. I thought rollerblading outside on a hilly sidewalk was a good idea and I’ve got a face to match. (I was 19.) I even thought deleting some Windows system files was a good way to save hard drive space as a teenager. And one time I tried to remove Internet Explorer from Windows, almost bricking my computer in the process.

I even once thought it’d be a good idea to jump off the riding lawn mower and try to race it. An idea that predictably ended with a tree-shattered bumper 20 yards from the driveway I’d been driving down. If you want more of these stories, just ask my sisters. I’d recommend some popcorn and a comfortable chair because they’ll keep you busy for a few hours. Anna’s probably disappointed I didn’t mention my alleged momentary forgetfulness that gravity is a thing.

CONCLUSION

mark_twain_the_world_owes_you_nothing

But the point is that you shouldn’t think of what you – or anyone else – “deserves.” Focus instead on what you can *earn* and *do* and on accepting responsibility for your own self and actions. (That last anecdote cost me four or five hours worth of pay at my lawn-mowing job and a two-hour trip for a replacement part while my sisters got to go swimming. Two hours of car time before I’d ever owned a Game Boy or conceived of smartphones.) Make use of the undeserved free stuff you get (presents, financial aid, etc.), but don’t ever take it as your due.

I’m just sick and tired of hearing about how minimum wage workers “deserve” this or that. No, they don’t. They deserve not to be abused by their employers. And they’re entitled to make their own choices. But they don’t deserve one cent that someone else doesn’t choose to give them, except as reparations for some abuse or infringement.

Quit whining, and get to work. If you support this $15 (or some variation) on others’ behalf, tell them to get to work. If they legitimately can’t, then maybe help them out or help them find someone who can. But, for the love of all that is good in the world, stop whining. You are better off than 90% of the world’s living population and 99.9% of the world’s historical population. They would be amazed at the sort of things we throw away (not even “we” meaning Americans – just “we” meaning young, often “poor” Americans who re-use paper cups or use coats as blankets). And they would be dumbstruck by your complaints, in your circumstances. And the same goes for almost every American, employed or otherwise.

P.S. Please, if you must support Bernie Sanders, find some better reason for it than the free services and goods he’s promising to you or others.

BIBLICAL BASIS

For the Christians among you, here are some relevant Bible verses, from the New International Version:

https://goo.gl/Pv6914

First, a few select verses:

Proverbs 6:10-11 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest- and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man.

Proverbs 11:7 Hopes placed in mortals die with them; all the promise of their power comes to nothing.

Proverbs 16:26 The appetite of laborers works for them; their hunger drives them on. (The Bible seems to frown upon the idea of a guaranteed minimum lifestyle.)

Proverbs 18:9 One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. (No middle ground here.)

Proverbs 22:13 The sluggard says, “There’s a lion outside! I’ll be killed in the public square!” (“No one’s hiring” “It’s the wrong time of year.” “Employers just don’t want me because I’m young, female, inexperienced, [insert race here], skinny, and/or fat”)

Proverbs 28:19 Those who work their land will have abundant food, but those who chase fantasies will have their fill of poverty.

Ecclesiastes 5:10 Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.

Lamentations 3:27 It is good for a man to bear the yoke while he is young.

And now, the rest:

Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.

Continue reading “Wages & Benefits”
%d bloggers like this: