Neo

I'll have to think about this. I wrote thinking reinvention is something required, not something's that's a choice. The Internet, iPhones, automobiles, air conditioning ... all things that require reinvention. What happens to obsolete skills in a world changing overnight? I answered the question about reinvention when I bought an airplane ticket online, and not in my travel agent's office. Didn't buggy whip makers have to learn to stand on an assembly line without the option of a living wage for making buggy whips? I'm old enough to remember men who pumped my gasoline and others who sat on stools in elevators who pressed buttons for me. Still others took my toll payments on the highway. Early on in life, a woman came into my office and I dictated to her. She was paid highly for her ability to draw squiggly lines, disappear, and return with memos I signed. She toiled earnestly, and I valued her skill. In that case, the problem's the skill set, not the wage. Back to my prior post. The wage issue masks the skill set issue. The rich/powerful/market will pay you $1 million if it earns the payor $1 million and $1. We agree on the humanity. Our approach to the solution is at odds. You underestimate yourself.

Smiling emoticon I don't have the skills to produce!

Another aspect of the challenge: the accelerated pace of change. Developing skills with short shelf lives increases economic uncertainty for the individual. I've reinvented myself twice. It's hard and I worry. All I can do (other suggestions welcome) is get dressed every morning determined to do what it takes to be valuable enough to be paid by someone. It's not easy or comfortable.

I make buggy whips. How much will you pay me?

Agreed. I believe economic safety increases when a society stops viewing fry making as a living skill set. The dislocations for those generationally trapped (little fault of their own) are profoundly painful. Humanity. A living wage for making fries masks a more profound issue that you rightly call a societal decision. How do we move forward? I have thoughts, but the implications are painful. We've made a bed ....

How much profit can I earn before I have to overpay for skills? Do you have a number in mind? I'm offering a wage for fry cooking. Is my "profit" when I'm the owner the equivalent of my wage? Do I share it until we're equal in compensation, regardless of the risk I've taken or the skills I've developed? If I choose to work 70 hours, can I earn more?

Well then, if we can means test the purchasers and charge the wealthy more at the counter, we can stimulate the economy $100 in spending today at the cost of $100 in savings/investment dollars which are spent later. Choose your definition of later. At the end of the period, $100 to Bob is $100 from someone. My experience? $100 isn't coming from the owner, prices are going up. Further, the price increase is shouldered more by the other Bobs than by the Chet and Muffy's. Let's say I'm an evil Chet and I hear Bob needs $100 more. I'm a happy camper when you suggest a lottery program or a minimum wage to fund Bob because that means my taxes aren't going up another $100. Instead, the government's implementing regressive taxes to fund ol' Bob. The other Bobs are paying for his raise.

This is very close to how I view the issue. The real problem facing us is not a living wage but instead a living skill set. I deliberate not on what we pay to prepare fries (it should be low), but instead on why we have a workforce without the skill or opportunity to earn more ( it should be high ). Expecting to provide for yourself without developing the skills someone will gladly pay more for is a fool's errand. "The rich" will gladly pay you $100 an hour if your skill earns them $101.

Right. But whose pocket contributed the $100, or did it appear magically? Did the store owner forfeit $100 of profit? Did the store customers pay $100 more for Bob's service? It comes from some place that is part of the aggregate demand you describe, does it not? P.S. BagBoy is a wonderfully ironic screen name for this conversation! Equally respectfully .... Neo.

Where'd the $100 given to Bob come from?

Yeah, but doesn't every stimulus dollar in the community come from that very same community? In short, fry cook gets a dollar "more" of minimum wage because customer paid a dollar "more" because of the minimum wage? At the end of the day, the total in all pockets is the same. What other community does your stimulus dollar come from? (I'll leave out that you just inflated the taxable income of one (the fry cook) without inflating the deductible expense of the customer (Fish Sandwiches are not tax deductible) and that, after personal income taxes are paid, dollars are actually leaving the community). I'll leave with this. Minimum Wages create, stimulate, and provide nothing. They move money around artificially. They get politicians elected. If they worked, I'd be all for 'em. Nothing I'd rather see than everybody economically comfortable and secure. They don't add up, ever.

I worked for years at minimum wage jobs. I missed the announcement that those jobs "should" provide me enough to support myself (I assume you mean as an adult, with a family and the costs associated with housing, transportation, food, medical; if you mean pocket money for beer and gasoline, nevermind). Where was the announcement posted and do you think I can get back pay? I also thought the profits went to the owner of the McDonald's after he borrowed $2.5 million for land, building, equipment and start up costs all for the privilege of selling enough $3.29 sandwiches to cover costs and earn a profit. Had I known the profits of the store I worked at were going to the very rich, I'd have never worked there. The bastards! The problem with Minimum Wage Job conversations is that they focus on The Minimum Wage. Minimum Wage Jobs are Minimum Skill Required jobs. That's an issue worthy of discussion. Paying more for Minimum Skill Required jobs simply moves money from the customer to the fry cook. One has a dollar more, one has a dollar less, the community has nothing more or less. A progressive conundrum: Who do you think is "taxed" when you raise the minimum wage? In other words, who pays more than the good or service would cost at a market based wage? Do you believe a Minimum Wage takes a disproportionate amount from the rich to give to the poor? Food for thought.

That's true. Accordingly, I start my thought process by prioritizing. Priority One: The best education available for all children in the most cost efficient manner for all of society. That, too, is a dearly held belief of mine. I keep that belief in the fore when examining the implications for my other dearly held beliefs. Acknowledged: Trade offs; nothing in a vacuum.

BOOM! Education - the intersection of all beliefs held dearly. Public, private, union, class, race, wealth, power, taxes, urban, rural ....

Patiently! Love the Saturn / CCB reference. I entertained there. Not with my membership ( before I get confused with the 1% ), but as a businessman. The tradesmen were the finest. Human beings who toiled, sacrificed, and built in earnest. Nice cars and gnarled fingers. My career has put me in the presence of the wealthy and powerful. Those who built from nothing are the most fascinating. At 60, and at millions of dollars away from "poor", they're often the same person they were at age 12, watching their dad work doubles to pay for televisions and car vacations. The soul is formed young and it lingers.

My eyes are doing, in real life, what yours are doing in your avatar! Thorough and making me think, as always. I'm grateful.

I agree 100%! Common ground. My nuance: The responsibility is part of their self interest. Standing up would enhance the freely associating team to police its sport and administer its own justice toward its freely adopted goal of winning. What the situation did not require is a coerced governing body to require a fight. Let players choose and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. I know there are rules and penalties, mutually agreed to. I have libertarian leanings. I am not an anarchist. Self interested ethical human beings are not people who are uncaring for the plight of others nor absolved of responsible behavior. You can have a good for one, good for all, result without sacrificing individual choice. Hockey's code, to the extent it exists, calls for certain behaviors among those who choose to participate. I don't want a league or society that is ungoverned. I do not want either absent responsibility. SabreSpace: The marriage of Rand and Lord Stanley.

I think I read Ayn Rand differently. I don't recall her arguing that collections of individuals can't do great things. To go further, she doesn't argue that they shouldn't, for reasons of self interest and ethics. I believe that collections or groups require individuals. Is this a truism? In a simplification that's gross, she builds from individual choice to collective self interested good and argues that collective coercion comes at the cost of individual choice. What's the difference between the sum of individuals making choices to some end and a collective state representing individuals and imposing said ends? To me, it's the former is closer to pure humanity and the latter allows for the excess of collective power. Better said, the state becomes a player in totalitarian worlds, likely with an agenda of its own. It's cost is freedom. What is its benefit compared to choice when individuals have the same choices, acting ethically and in self interested concert? If your answer is some magical good that arises from coercion, I don't see it. Name a good the coerced group can achieve that the self interested individuals cannot and I'll listen. If the different approaches have equal to offer, I'll take the world free of the risk of tyrannical excess. Good night! I am old. You are a good man.

What, in Anthem, is wildly erroneous and dangerous drivel that placates what some of those with power want to hear? it's the story of two human beings shedding shackles to be modest, humble and free. Truly, with deep respect. Those with power, state or wealth, have little use for our hero and heroine.

You need more familiarity with Spears.

Si. P.S., did you see my edit? Still? With well deserved respect, I'm not poking you.

Critique informs me. I crave it. Equating Rand with Spears is foolish. That's a stronger statement than I usually use on the inter web, but I'm comfortable here. May I ask the source?

Eleven, I've owed you this. I've been busy with exams for old guys. Additionally, before responding, I wanted to read Rules for Radicals to get a better understanding of a book I've known only anecdotally or by reference. It's not the film's focal point, but it's important. I watched the film not to emerge anything more than to expose myself, once again, to competing ideas. I have no shame to shed. There are things I'd like to see and haven't, and things I have seen that I wish I hadn't in America. America's body of work makes me joyful. Bono, of all people, said it best. I paraphrase, the quotation marks notwithstanding. "America is the only country that is an idea". I'm surprised so few have heard of D'Souza. You don't have to agree with him. However, I can't imagine any sustained investigation of the role of government, regardless of your view, that wouldn't lead to D'Souza at about the twenty minute mark. He's thoughtful, respectful and well informed. He's near the center of the debate, standing to the right and looking left. I'm not an acolyte, but consider him required reading if your goal is to consider. His commonality with Michael Moore is that they've both made films. I have seen Moore's films (well, two of them). A gross simplification. D'Souza attacks ideas by letting people talk. Moore attacks people and calls it ideas. I'll allow each of you to decide if my shallow and brief analysis of the two is biased or insightful. Your three segment approach is a good one. Missing, in your first memo, is the introductory premise. That is, forces of radical change in America, in the recent and middling past, created a methodology outside of the debate of ideas in order to effect change. Essentially, the methodology was to recreate the narrative of the United States. D'Souza's premise is that failure in the battle of ideas caused the left to retell history as a series of U.S. crimes which would delegitimize its success. This, in turn, opens the door to a restructuring of government with an eye toward righting the wrongs. D'Souza views the shaming of America, by Americans, as an outgrowth of political thought starting several generations ago and getting organized in the 1970s. It found academia, a political party, disaffected privileged youth. It found critical mass and momentum. Onward and upward to the indictments. You nailed them. 1). Regarding human history, stealing, conquest, disease and Europeans, I take it you agree with his points, calling them "a softball". You go further to ask whether or not everyone knows that. I would say not everyone does know that. If I'm wrong, I'm happy. D'Souza's main point here, I believe, is that America was the first, perhaps the only, country where astronomical growth in standard of living was not based on conquest. Instead, it was based on a social and economic model that valued and rewarded hard work and innovation. Largely, America built its wealth. Disproportionately, America did not conquer it. Anticipating many "what about this and what about thats following my post, I'll acknowledge the following upfront. America has fought wars and conquered lands. However, the majority of its war efforts have not been for conquest. Nobody abandons or rebuilds conquered land better than America. Softball? Hooray. Join me, then in dismissing political ideologies based on apology and reparation. 2). Mexico. I will join you in concluding softball number two. At this point, though, I'm seeing two softballs in arguments the left uses to shame America. Who's with me? 3). The slavery section meandered in my view. I think some editing would've helped. D'Souza's points are that slavery isn't unique to America or to African-Americans. He could have made this point in a few minutes. However, the long tour of slavery through history and peoples overwhelmed his larger point on the topic. That is, while not getting it right on day one, the nation embarked on a bloody civil war, and decades of non-military civil war, to right the overwhelming wrong. Further, economic re-distributions and social programs have seen, literally, trillions of dollars to right the wrong. Slow. Yes. Incomplete. Yes. Has another country that horrifically and brutally harmed people for generations done as much as America to "fix it"? No. 4). This one's tricky. D'Souza speaks to the altruistic nature, over all, of our foreign policy. Few would argue the biggies. WWI, WWII, the Marshall Plan, the United Nations. If D'Souza made a point here, it's that a military and an economy that could wage war and policy for conquest, does not. The Iraq war was many things, it was not to steal oil. The conquest argument could be advanced. The war was, however, to maintain an order in a part of the world that's critical to our economy. (Ironically, for my progressive friends, the Carter doctrine). If one of the indictments has more basis in truth than others, I believe, it's this one. The U.S. Has certainly propped up friendly regimes in economically important parts of the world. Stealing? I don't know, but I'd entertain criticism. 5). The 1% stole our dream is addressed. I think D'Souza makes the point that the only thing a government can do, without taking from some and limiting the choice of others, is put a structure in place for people to pursue dreams, desires, and aspirations. No one argues (well, no one I've read) that wasn't the original intent of our founders and it worked spectacularly for hundreds of years. Perfectly? No. Better than other systems? Yes (at least if measuring the standard of living across all sectors of the population). Disparity among the top and bottom? Yes. A capitalist system will result in two things. One, the disparity between top and bottom is wide with the majority in the middle. Two, the totality of wealth, added together without regard to distribution, is greatest. Those creating wealth for themselves, moving along to the top 50%, or 20%, or 1%, are those investing time and capital to do so. Is there another way (save the inheritance argument, it's true but not of significance in the grand scheme) to become a top something percent-er? If you're investing time and capital, someone else has opportunity. That's all America promises. Regarding Saul Alinsky, I concur that he assaults Saul. I've read the book. Yawn. In general, Alinsky documents strategy and tactics that deliberately ignore ideas in favor of subterfuge and ad hominem attacks. Those are his words, not mine. He defines the community organizer and describes organization building, skill sets, and funding. It'd be banal if it weren't so prevalent and effective. I think there's more to the Obama and Clinton links to Alinsky in terms of tactics than the person, but that's my view. I agree with you. Neither of the two named leaders associated with Alinsky very long. Obama perhaps not at all. I will call the link stylistic. I believe some progressive leaders, staffers, have referred to ol' Saul. The link's not important to me. Where you got the bad idea isn't as interesting to me as the bad idea, itself. Now, I am not looking to change minds or convince. I'm not that good. I do hope, however, that anyone who desires to understand conservative thought give the film a try. It's two hours and 30 thousand feet. It's also flawed. I felt no shame going in. I felt none coming out. For God's sake, he's not Michael Moore! The fictional characters are the creation of some considerable intellects. I do agree they're not real. Ask Solzhenitsyn if we're that far away. Forgetting distance, ask yourself what direction we're facing. I am intrigued by your use of the word "still". Your original post gave me pause. P.S. I admire both of you as posters.

We disagree. Liberty 7 - 2521 Winston Smith John Galt Alexander Solzhenitsyn Lin Zhao

It gets no better than SabreSpace ... I'm grateful to you all.