John Mace's (and others') opinion about societal fairness, 99%, etc

[MaxTheVool]

@NotreDame05

In regards to your question, I am not sure at the moment I would consider the a sufficiently large difference in opporutnity to be unfair or unbalanced. I suppose I’d need to at least understand what exactly we mean by the phrase “difference in opportunity.” If I knew what at least this involved, I’d probably be in a better position to answer your question.

If, however, we are merely discussing a numerical value, such as person X has more opportunities than person Y, then I likely do not agree. I think more would have to be taken into consideration, such as how those opportunity differences came into existence, but I do not think a mere difference in numbers renders it unfair or unbalanced.

It’s hard to define precisely, but here’s an imprecise definition: look at a bunch of people from all over the economic spectrum. Then look at their kids once they have grown up. Compare where the kids are on the economic spectrum to where their parents are. On one extreme, there is absolutely no correlation at all between parents and kids. This would be nice and perfectly fair in a theoretical sense, but is obviously basically impossible. On the other extreme, there would be perfect correlation and utter stasis, ie, feudal Europe but even worse.

So the question is, where the US falls on that scale. But of course it’s a scale with no data and no numbers, and it’s very very hard to actually define our terms, etc. So I guess I’m not sure what else to say, other than that I worry that we’ve moved further towards the stasis side of the scale compared to a few decades ago (or even to a kind of negative scale where there’s a point about 80% up the scale, and everyone on average is moving away from it… sufficiently rich people getting even richer, middle class people falling to lower middle class, etc.). But, as I’ve said several times, I can’t support that position as of yet.

[Swords_to_Plowshares]

@John_Mace

Except that college education doesn’t meet the first criteria for such lemon markets:

And, even if it were a lemon market, lemon laws as applied to colleges would make the college refund money for a bad education. It would not hold the lender responsible. Is that what you want?

Students could not assess the “value” of their education properly (for these purposes whether or not they get a job) because the job market fell out from under them after they had committed to getting an education. Not because their education was worse than expected. It’s still a case of the students not having good information, and it wasn’t their fault.

Regardless of whether or not college can be compared to a lemon market, would a libertarian society have lemon laws?

[John_Mace]

@Swords_to_Plowshares

Students could not assess the “value” of their education properly (for these purposes whether or not they get a job) because the job market fell out from under them after they had committed to getting an education. Not because their education was worse than expected. It’s still a case of the students not having good information, and it wasn’t their fault.

Wrong. There is no asymmetry of information going into the deal. Colleges do not have access to knowledge about the job market and future prospects that is unavailable to the student.

Do homebuyers have recourse to lemon laws when the housing market falls dramatically? No, and for the same reason. No one can reliably predict what housing prices will be in the future, and buyers and sellers have access to the same information.

Regardless of whether or not college can be compared to a lemon market, would a libertarian society have lemon laws?

I don’t know, but I can’t see that lemon laws violate any fundamental tenet of libertarianism. I think such a society wouldn’t necessarily have lemon laws, but it could.

An anarchic society wouldn’t have lemon laws, but libertarianism isn’t anarchy.

[villa]

@Shodan

Both incorrect, clearly. White-dominated unions benefited from segregation by being protected from blacks who were willing to work for lower wages, thus they got higher wages than they would otherwise have done. And segregation prevented employers from hiring blacks for certain positions. Thus the employers received no benefit - just the opposite.

I always find it cute when people seem to think market-clearing, equilibrium based free market microeconomics 101 apply to real world macro situations.

[Shodan]

I don’t find it cute when people simply wave away arguments. I also don’t find it surprising.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Aren’t there any number of countries that offer something equal or very close to such “free education”? Perhaps you could outline for us the disastrous effects this has had, and how quickly they repented. For my two bits, I find it hard to imagine how such an investment in our citizenry is wasted.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know…ARE there countries that offer free higher level education to all? Do you have some cites so we can look at them, how they work, what conditions there are…and whether they are worth going to?

Disastrous effects I see would range from lower quality of the education to fiscal un-sustainability. Unless, of course, you do something else to limit who can go to school and get their education ‘free’ (of course, as we all know, it’s NEVER ‘free’…someone is going to have to foot the bill, since facilities don’t get built and maintained for free, and teachers, professors and administrative staffs don’t work for free, etc etc).

For my part, I find it incredible that you can’t see the massive waste and gaming that would be done if you actually tried to implement such a system in the real world…or how this will in any way balance the much higher taxes you’d need to charge everyone (or, in your case, soak The Rich™ for).

Of course, the devil is in the details here. If you were going to give ‘free’ education to any qualified person in only technical fields (you’d need to have a pretty wide range, so as not to come out of all of this with too many civil engineers or environmental science majors, or whatever), and if you put criteria on that the students had to maintain a certain GPA and academic standards. Perhaps with the provision that if they don’t maintain them then they have to pay back the money…or something similar.

As far as “distortions” in the market, and “wide ranging impacts in unexpected ways”… I hope you are not advancing the notion that the recent hysteria and debacle was a result of too much regulation and government interference. That’s likely to be a pretty tough case to make.

If you are talking about the financial meltdown and debacle, then I’d have to say that it would depend on your definition of ‘too much regulation’. The trouble is that we have a hodgepodge of regulations and counter deregulation efforts that gives us a mixed back. As for government interference, well…same thing. The government interferes and distorts, then attempts to create rules to fix their interference problems, leading to a complete cluster fuck. I don’t think any of this is a tough case to make, except to faithful, since it’s a reflection of reality. I’m not saying that business didn’t have it’s own share of the mess, since they did, but the environment that made it possible was created by the government and the distortions they put into the system as Dems pulled things one way and Pubs pulled them another (except when they pulled together on things like trying to allow everyone to have a house that possibly could). And our K-12 education reflects the exact same factors…we spend a hell of a lot of money on what is, frankly, at best a mediocre system. Health care is in the same boat.

-XT

[XT]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, I guess I would agree with you that XT has offered some predictions that don’t mesh with what we see happening in the world today, but I would say that the burden of proof that things would be better in the US with “free” college education is on those who are suggesting we change the current system. A system that is, by almost any measure, one of the the best, if not the best, in the world today.
[/QUOTE]

I’d have to see those cites on other countries who give out unlimited ‘free’ undergraduate/graduate/doctoral educations, and see how they work, what their limitations are, etc etc. Saying that we give ‘free’ (provided by various taxes) education to K-12 and saying that this is some sort of model for what we could be doing for college level students is, to me, and apples to oranges comparison. I agree with your overall point that the burden of proof for someone asserting this is on them to show how it would be better…and a good start would be some cites showing how other countries are doing this, and how their programs work and are working out for them…and how much they are paying for this ‘free’ education for all. And what scales we are talking about here. If we are talking about ‘free’ education for a limited number of potential students in a relatively small (population) nation, then it’s not exactly going to scale correctly when compared to the US.

-XT

[Sinaptics]

@xtisme

I don’t know…ARE there countries that offer free higher level education to all? Do you have some cites so we can look at them, how they work, what conditions there are…and whether they are worth going to?

Pre-invasion Iraq had free post-secondary schooling. Not sure about present-day Iraq.

After the invasion, I had the pleasure to work with an Iraqi who as an interpreter for the US forces. Unfortunately, his family was killed due to his help with allied forces and the states brought him over.

Anyway, the way he described it, the longer you stay in school, the less military service you have to do. Apparently a 2 year degree would knock a year off a mandatory 4 year service, a BS degree equivalent would knock service down to 2 years, a MS 1 year, and a PhD no service at all.

Note: This is just an anecdote and I’ve never actually attempted to verify this information.

[XT]

Thought I’d post this into the thread, since it has to do with the whole ‘fairness’ thingy…and also talks, briefly, about some of the complications.

Fairness in the tax code is a real issue, but there is no absolute answer to the question “what’s fair?” And that’s one reason why reforming the tax code will be a tough fight.

A big reason is that a large percentage of wealthy Americans’ income comes from investments, which are often taxed at lower rates than ordinary wages and salaries.

What’s more, some perfectly legal tax code provisions allow taxpayers to reduce their investment tax bills even further.

Of course, the wealthy aren’t the only ones who enjoy what Obama refers to as “loopholes and shelters.” Anyone who deducts their mortgage interest, saves money for retirement, realizes a capital gain or loss, or gets health insurance from their employer is enjoying a tax break.

Bush tax cuts: The real end game

The difference is that the rich use a broader array of tax-preferred investments, such as partnerships. Or they may invest in dividend-paying foreign stocks and can claim a foreign tax credit for the tax withheld from them by the foreign government.

Typically, too, the wealthiest are more likely to be retired or self-employed and are in a position to make big charitable contributions – all of which come with distinct tax advantages.

And the wealthy can afford to be more risk-averse and park a lot of money in bonds, often tax-free.

To Obama, the fact that the wealthy can so whittle down their tax burden is “the height of unfairness.”

As with Buffet saying that he’s not paying enough in income taxes (since he doesn’t really have a salary it’s sort of a no-brainer, unless you understand the details), the devil is in the details. And I can see a lot of unexpected consequences coming out of some populist, knee-jerk ‘fixes’ to the ‘problem’ happening that could make things worse than they are. For instance, one thing that Warren et al use to lessen their tax burden (and is mentioned briefly in the article) is charitable contribution. If you monkey with that, it might mean that the federal government has more income, but it would mean that less money would be going to charities. Perhaps that would be a good thing (:dubious:), perhaps not…but it would be a real change. In the 10’s or even 100’s of billions of dollars that those charities would be out of…and which, presumably, someone would have to pony up for in the future, if they are doing meaningful works that help our society.

Anyway, was reading the short article and thought of this thread so figured I’d put in a link.

-XT

[BlinkingDuck]

@Bricker

A few years back, someone posted a thread that posited the hypothetical shipwreck of some Joe Schlub and some hot celebrity - think Kristen Stewart or whoever was Kristen Stewart-ish six or seven years ago. The hot female had no survival skills, and Joe Schlub refused to catch fish to feed her unless she slept with him. Was this rape, asked the thread.

So let me ask that quesiton in this thread, in a bit broader context. Is it coercion to refuse to feed someone else, if you’re both stranded on an island through no fault of either of you, and only one of you knows how to cacth food?

Is it coercion for Kristen to demand Joe work twice as hard to catch enough fish to feed them both? Is iy coercion for Joe to demand Kristen put out in return for fish?

Where, if anywhere, is the duress in the situation above?

I’d like to see this thread but an initial search doesn’t come up with it. Do you know where it is?

[jonesj2205]

@BlinkingDuck

I’d like to see this thread but an initial search doesn’t come up with it. Do you know where it is?

Tada

[villa]

@Shodan

I don’t find it cute when people simply wave away arguments. I also don’t find it surprising.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, let’s look at your silly argument once again…

[QUOTE=Shodan]
White-dominated unions benefited from segregation by being protected from blacks who were willing to work for lower wages, thus they got higher wages than they would otherwise have done.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong. If there are to be 100 unionized workers in a particular place of employment, their bargaining power will enable them to achieve a certain level of compensation, made up of wages and other benefits. If one of the other benefits sought is to exclude a particular group of workers, here black workers, then that will reduce the ability to achieve higher wages. Segregation may protect the wages of some whites, who would otherwise potentially lose jobs, but it reduces the overall wage rate.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
And segregation prevented employers from hiring blacks for certain positions. Thus the employers received no benefit - just the opposite.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong once again. On a macro scale, formenting racism and segregation benefits capitalists. It retards the powers of labor unions by reducing the likelihood of working class solidarity. It also allows an employer to use the threat of black employees as a negotiating tool. If white workers ask for too much, the threat of moving to black workers is wielded.

There isn’t a simple market clearing wage out there, especially in a world with labor organizations. Employees are not paid their marginal productivity. There’s a zone of negotiation within which wages fall. That zone is impacted by multiple factors. It’s capped by the wage at which production is no longer long-term profitable. But it is also impacted by government policy, in the form of labor laws and unemployment insurance, to name but two. And social factors impact it. Anything which reduces the bargaining position of labor reduces the upside of this zone.

Now segregation can have short term effects for higher wages for individual workers groups. But overall, the pressure is to reduce the share of the pie that is available for labor to claim.

[msmith537]

@elucidator

So, riffing on the theme of pursuing “useful” education, just how many MBA’s can we afford? Is it reasonable to expect such a huge number of people will go straight into 100K a year jobs?

How many jobs are created by businesses started by MBA grads?
But more to your point, it’s a fair question to ask how many lawyers, acountants, consultants, and investment bankers a society needs or can support. Our modern “service economy” is starting to look a lot like wealthy business owners, upper middle class white collar service professionals and then everyone else in shitty low-level service McJobs.

[gravitycrash]

Why stop at outsized CEO pay? Is Samuel L Jackson worth 20 million per movie? Some executive in Hollywood thinks so.

How about Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga? Hell they just sing for a living.

Albert Pujols (baseball player) just received a 250 million ten year contract to play a game. I guess he shouldn’t get all of that money either because there are people flipping burgers at Hardees for minimum wage.

Who gets to determine how much someone should get paid? Surely a Doctor is worth more to society than a popular entertainer.

It’s the get even mindset from the left and the perceived unfairness of it all that drives people like John Mace or myself nuts.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth John.

[Evil_Captor]

@John_Mace

Yes, we get better results by wasting it. Money spent on something no one wants is money not available to spend on things that people do want.

But the waste has already been accomplished. The kid lost time and money, perhaps a lot of both. Society paid an instructor to teach the kid how to do something it absolutely did not need, after the fact.

Now giving the kind a job as a sociologist just because he has trained for it is not what I was proposing, which I guess is the thought that led to the comment made by someone else that I was proposing jobs for buggy whip manufacturers. I just don’t think the kid should be made to bear the cost of what is in essence a societal failure. There should be some mechanism other than burger-flipping and constantly being dunned by bill collectors for him. Maybe this strikes you as unreasonable, I dunno, it seems like simple common sense to me.

Now, does that hurt the particular individual Sociology major? Yes. But it’s better for society. If we need to help him out in terms of surviving and getting new skills, that’s one thing.

Yes, exactly what I’m thinking, perhaps a mechanism for forgiving college loan debts in times when job-seeking is not productive, such as right after a major economic crash, alternative training in more in-demand fields, etc. Problem is, it can be very hard to tell what fields will be in demand in four years … if any.

I’m blushing…

I’m afraid I must agree with elucidator here. Pics or it didn’t happen.

[John_Mace]

@Evil_Captor

But the waste has already been accomplished. The kid lost time and money, perhaps a lot of both. Society paid an instructor to teach the kid how to do something it absolutely did not need, after the fact.

Now giving the kind a job as a sociologist just because he has trained for it is not what I was proposing, which I guess is the thought that led to the comment made by someone else that I was proposing jobs for buggy whip manufacturers. I just don’t think the kid should be made to bear the cost of what is in essence a societal failure. There should be some mechanism other than burger-flipping and constantly being dunned by bill collectors for him. Maybe this strikes you as unreasonable, I dunno, it seems like simple common sense to me.

OK, but even your Sociology major has a leg up on the kid who has no post-secondary school education at all. He’s got a better shot at a sales job or any number of jobs that simply aren’t open to a non-college grad. And if he does have to flip burgers for awhile until he can get that job, well, that’s not so bad a life lesson.

Yes, exactly what I’m thinking, perhaps a mechanism for forgiving college loan debts in times when job-seeking is not productive, such as right after a major economic crash, alternative training in more in-demand fields, etc. Problem is, it can be very hard to tell what fields will be in demand in four years … if any.

I could see restructuring the loan, or delaying it, or even allowing the kid to declare bankruptcy. But someone paid for the kids’ college, and he should be able to collect that like any other debt out there.

I’m afraid I must agree with elucidator here. Pics or it didn’t happen.

OK. You win.

[XT]

I don’t know if this applies to every student loan, but my youngest sister hasn’t had to start paying her rather large student loans back, and doesn’t have to until she has a full time job for some period of time. Basically she and my BIL game the system…she will never get a full time job, since she works under the table doing acupuncture and herbal medicine. Assuming that holds true for student loans for more than my sister, that means that you could have any number of part time jobs and not have to start paying back the loans, and won’t have to until and unless you get a decent full time job. So burger flipper or night admin at the local 7-11 might actually be exactly what someone coming out of college these days is looking for initially, while they look for a good job in their field.

-XT

[elucidator]

Did you post this just to needle her about it?

[Shodan]

@villa

Wrong. If there are to be 100 unionized workers in a particular place of employment, their bargaining power will enable them to achieve a certain level of compensation, made up of wages and other benefits. If one of the other benefits sought is to exclude a particular group of workers, here black workers, then that will reduce the ability to achieve higher wages.

No it won’t - that’s absurd. Excluding workers who are willing to work for less than union scale allows unions to get higher wages than otherwise - that’s why unions hate scabs.

It also allows an employer to use the threat of black employees as a negotiating tool. If white workers ask for too much, the threat of moving to black workers is wielded.

Again, this is absurd - if black workers are excluded by law, employers cannot threaten to hire them.

You need to think at least superficially about what you post before you post it.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Did you post this just to needle her about it?
[/QUOTE]

-XT