Maybe instead of soliciting commercial space to just any ole body, PBS could sell air time to “high brow” businesses, like makers of educational products or fancy software packages.
Then why don’t you accept that you, and I and everyone else who feels the same way should pony up and pay to keep it that way? Or alternatively, do a better job of getting politicians elected who think as you do. But as a matter of public policy, surely you can’t claim that there is a moral imperative to fund PBS, can you? I’m not claiming you did, but that’s the only thing, in my mind, that could justify indignation at the idea of cutting funds for PBS.
But I think that I am saying that, or something similar. In other words, just as good schools, clean streets, vaccinated kids, roads to carry goods and services and so forth are worth paying for, I see the arts and broadcast television that is free from corporate interest and control as important. I do donate to them, these sorts of values are important to me when choosing my representatives and I don’t mind my taxes funding it either.
So why doesn’t this anecdote carry over to life in society, where those who have received more are expected to do more? One could say you “earned” that lawnmower by being a good son, just as one could say you’ve earned your income by being a good worker. The guy who has one hundred lawnmowers is expected to cut more lawns than the guy who only has a pair of garden shears. This gets us back to why the rich pay more in taxes than the less rich. The rich aren’t expected to keep their riches. They are expected to share them.
Here are all the ways you were lucky.
-
You were in an environment that needed workers, and not in such an economically depressed area that no one was hiring. -
You were hirable. You didn't have any handicaps that made you an "undesirable" employee. You weren't black living in the Jim Crow South, for instance. -
You were born during a time where a sub-minimum wage paying job could actually help you to go to a decent school. Nowadays, this is not the case. Even with a partial scholarship, a job paying less than minimum wage will barely buy textbooks, let alone cover the cost of housing, tuition, lab equipment, etc. -
You were born during a time when getting into college was less cut throat. Who knows? You bloodly well might not have even gotten in the school of your choice if you were a high schooler applying today. The SAT has changed so that you have to write essays now, which means a lot of the math brainiacs who have trouble putting thoughts together on paper are at a bigger disadvantage than in years past. The math portion is also a lot more difficult than it was 20 years ago, so too bad if you suck in that area. The difference between students who are accepted by admission boards and those who are rejected has probably never been smaller. You lucked out by coming through at a time when standards were lower. -
And last but not least, you were raised in a capitalistic system that favors those with academic credentials. If you were a recent immigrant from a Communist country, had no education, and were barely able to speak the language, I have no doubt you'd be in a different position today.
These basic facts are reasons why luck has a big part of why you are blessed with the affluence you have today. Call these “gifts” if you want, Bricker. Any number of things could have radically changed how your life turned out. The above is not even close to an exhaustive list.
Not really. The world entitles no one to a job. If you were a black man trying to go to college in racially-segregated South would job opportunities have “flowed as a natural consequence”. No, it would not have. Let’s be real. You had priviledges that others did not have.
Yes, because lucky you wasn’t growing up during the Depression, when people worked 24 hours a day for mere pennies. The fact that the unemployment rate was such that your bosses couldn’t afford to scrimp you definitely worked in your favor, but it’s not like you had much control over that. Imagine if you were black and no one wanted to hire you but one employer. That employer could get away with paying you crap because they know that no one else would hire you. That kind of messes up your idea of a kind and impartial free market system, doesn’t it?
I don’t understand what you mean by “moral imperative”, but yes, I think a government-supported TV station is a GOOD THING.
Just like I think a government-supported highway is a good thing. Or a government-supported university.
No, we aren’t entitled to these things. You don’t have to have them to create a successful society. But we don’t need an ornately decorated mansion on 1600 Pennsylvania St either. There is no moral imperative for us to maintain the White House. Yet we maintain one because we’ve all decided the prez should have a good place to live. Tearing it up would cause many of us to become “indignant”. I don’t think you would be quite as bemused by that reaction.
You can be upset about a policy–especially one that doesn’t make sense–without being driven by a moral imperative.
In case anyone had any doubts about the real agenda here…
Fair and balanced.
Of course I know what it means! Why would I ask you if you believed in it if I didn’t know what it meant? I have said nothing in this thread about imposing an obligation on you. Until now.
I don’t view your salary as a gift from society. And, if I could, I would prefer to live in a society of people who choose to genuinely care for the needs of others.
We use socialized libraries, fire departments, and police departments. Why not hospitals?
As it is, we pay higher prices for everything we buy rather than paying higher taxes to pay for socialized medicine, for example. Still, people fall through the net. Frankly, I had rather see you grumble than watch an elderly person choose between medicine and food.
<snip>
You don’t think that pride in a job well done matters any more? Quality of product? Service to a community? A passion for art and creativity? Love of children?
Let me tell you right now, they couldn’t have paid me enough to teach!
What was that about you respecting nothing but money and power? I lied about it, huh?
You can expect this post to be quoted in the future as well, any time you try to tell us about morality and responsibility and all that mushy liberal stuff.
Sure you lied about it.
And that’s not what I said above, either.
Now, if you had said, “Bricker respects no other model in the economic sphere but the free exchange of labor or goods for money,” then that would be the truth.
But there are plenty of things I respect. Under certain circumstances, I respect money and power. There are many other things I respect as well, and I do not respect money and power in all circumstances.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify my position. And I know that in the future, you will be guided by THIS post when you report what I say I respect.
In the pure economic model, what I said matters. Of course, in the “set of all things that matter” there are plenty of other members.
Who says so?
I don’t expect that. Where do you get off imposing your expectations on the rest of the world?
It’s like listening to an evangelizer. It’s true because the Bible says so.
This should be good.
Had I been in such an environment, I would have found work or moved where work was.
Blacks in Jim Crow South had jobs.
I was an undergrad from 1982-1986.
As I compare the tuition then and now, and the minimum wage then and now, I see that the ninimum wage has increased by a greater factor than the tuition. How does that fit your theory?
I got a 1450 SAT. 710 verbal, 740 math. I don’t believe I would have any trouble doing well with today’s test.
Well, we’ll never know. But my father arrived here from El Salvador, and he spoke no English and had no education. He managed to become successful. If he did it, why do you want me to concede I could not?
Better come up with some more reasons. Those have all been deflated.
And let me forestall the inevitable: was I “lucky” that someone didn’t run up and shoot me in the face just before I got a job? Was I “lucky” that no one planted heroin in my high school locker and then called the police? Was I lucky that no one followed me around bent on my destruction every waking moment?
Er… perhaps. If that’s your view of “luck,” then I guess you’re right. But that’s certainly not how I’d use the word.
Down into the anecdotal, I see.
The Times has an excellent series of articles on the issue of class mobility, which is a part of this whole “lucky” discussion. See here:
I just have a small comment about the issue that just busted out about the rich and what was and is now “expected” of them and their money.
This is probably the single thing that has changed the most since the late nineteenth century. I remember thinking this years ago, passing the main building of the New York Public Library. Across its top was the names of the people who founded that library, in the belief, I’m sure, that a free and good education was a good thing for society. The Wikipedia page on the history of the NYC public library shows that it was the result of a combination of four or five different private gifts, finally handed over to the city government to operate.
At about the time the library was being founded, one of its founders, Andrew Carnegie, was pushing hard for an inheritance tax. He practiced what he preached, giving away 90% of his fortune.
The inheritance tax was passed in 1916 because his argument won the day, not because the rich wanted it, but because the rest of society thought it just. As the cited article shows, Teddy Roosevelt was subjected to heavy criticism from his friends for his advocacy in favor of the inheritance tax.
The successful never feel that they are merely lucky, and only a very few feel that they owe society anything. At one time, there were enough members of the rich classes who at the same time were politically influential to get an inheritance tax passed. Today that number is too small to hold back the tide of the rest, and so we are treated to a repeal of this tax.
Vanity and crude selfishness have overwhelmed public-spiritedness.
Says the Internal Revenue Service.
Where would you have gone to school if there hadn’t been able to find any decent work within a hundred miles? Would you have moved if your parents had needed you to stay and help take care of the family? If your dad had died and your mom had been unable to work, would you still have gone to school? How would that have changed your life?
But did they have as much of a chance of scoring a job that a white man had? Or how about going to college?
(Please note: If you say yes, I won’t continue to debate with you any longer. Nothing personal. It’s just that I don’t like wasting energy in fruitless discussions, and a “yes” to that question is an indicator that our current discussion is heading along that trajectory.)
Hmmmm. Now that’s funny. According to this cite , average tuition and fees for 4-year colleges have rose a big fat whopping 202% since 1982. While, according to this cite, the minimum wage has gone up only 65% since 1981, from $3.35 to $5.15.
A dollar and eighty cent difference.
Now math is not exactly my strongest suit, but 202 looks a lot bigger than 65. Care to back up your claims with numbers and cites?
Maybe, maybe not. The test when you took it is not the same as it is today.
I never said you could not. Simply that the odds that you’d be as successful as you are today would be less. Speaking no English, I doubt whether you would have been able to score a 710 on the verbal part of the SAT. That probably would have reduced your chance of going to college. That would have further reduced the probability of you getting into a law school and succeeding there. Your options would have been more limited.
That’s making me laugh, man. “Blacks in Jim Crow South had jobs” has me sooooo awestruck. Unsubstantiated claims about tuition and minimum wage has me all a-tremble as well.
I never mentioned those “lucky” scenarios. But believe it or not, I consider myself lucky because things like that haven’t happened to me. Kids in the neighborhood where I grew up have been killed and maimed as innocent bystanders to drive-by shootings. Could have just as easily been me, but it wasn’t. There but for the grace of God… My parents stayed together and raised me and my siblings in a stable, loving home where I never went hungry and I never had to worry about being abused. My boyfriend didn’t have that luxury, and his life is different for it. There but for the grace of God…
I have had many things happen to me that didn’t ever have to happen. A quirky professor took a liking to me and offered me a job in his lab. That lead to a chain of events that has opened up doors for not only myself but for my sister as well. A former boss gave me up a heads-up for a temporary position in another office. That lead to me gaining an advantage when applying for the full time position which opened up later. There have been many experiences like that in my life, and they never had to happen. They just did. I can easily imagine what my life would be like if I hadn’t been a cute, passionate kid that the teachers liked to call on. Such a small thing could have affected my whole outlook on education, leading me to take a easier path in life rather than pursuing the more arduous task of being veterinarian. So I look back on where I’ve been, where I came from, and I sigh with relief. Things could have turned out drastically different.
I don’t understand why you can’t accept that you are lucky. It doesn’t mean that you are undeserving of what you have. It just means that fate dealt you a good hand. When you understand that, then you also understand that others have been dealt a less-than-good hand, and you are more compassionate towards them. Less judgemental. Less bent on rationalizing why they should struggle to get the basics while you rest in comfort.
I tried that - unknown territory, but I made the effort.
But I had no luck at all until you clarifed it for me:
So apparently, unless I am willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to allow you to avoid watching commercials, I have no soul.
Liberals certainly aren’t the only group that can achieve unconscious self-parody from the back of a high horse, but by golly if they aren’t Best of Show at it.
Regards,
Shodan
Would it be possible to focus the discussion a bit here? You guys are talking as if NPR, PBS, and the CPB are one monolithic organization. All of which ignores the fact that the national organizations and the member stations are also separate entities.
As it happens, NPR receives less than 2% of its funding (according to the latest available annual report) from competitive grants funded by federal dollars. CPB is only one of the organizations they list in that category. Congress could nuke the CPB tomorrow and it would barely cause a blip in NPR (member stations themselves might feel more pain than that).
Ah. I thought we were discussing what public policy should be. But you’re right.
And if Congress changes the tax code, the IRS won’t say that anymore. Since you’re relying on what the IRS says as a defense of your position, I assume you’ll be quiet when it’s my turn to say, “The IRS says so.” Right?
Maybe I would have moved my FAMILY, in that case, to where the work was. My dad DID die, by the way, while I was in school. We handled it.
No, of course opportunities for whites were greater than for blacks.
I wasn’t speaking about average costs for four year colleges, though. I was talking about the particular tuition at my particular college, a state school at which I was paying in-state rates.
The tuition for my school is now $5,095 per year. It was $3224 in 1986.
If I got a 1450 on the test when I took it, what possible basis is there to assume I would have done poorly now?
Yes, and perhaps I would have chosen a different career path. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have become successful. As I pointed out, my father managed to become successul with no English when he arrived.
I don’t disagree that family wealth gives all sorts of additional opitions; that being poor means more limited options. I am just saying EVEN WITH THOSE LIMITED OPTIONS, a determined person can succeed.
That’s luck? No. Those are opportunities you MADE.
Holy crap! You, personally, have been dropping that kind of money on PBS? And I never said thank you? How could I have been so blind? Anyway, I know that it is belated and all, but thank you very much!
More on topic, however, I would love for you to explain how taking two quotes of mine out of context that are talking about totally different things proves any point.
Does anyone doubt at this point that CPB and all of its entities could be self supporting? As has been pointed out, they recieve very little of their funding anymore from the public treasury. If the Pubs did manage to remove their funding I would expect to turn on the TV and find PBS to be the exact station it was the day before.
My point is that its need for public funding has passed. It can compete in the marketplace and is valued by millions of viewers. Why pay tax dollars for successful and established broadcasting company that doesn’t need them to survive. I would expect the most painful effect would be to have the advertisement for Chubb insurance that is at the beginning of Antiques Roadshow to have to be repeated a second time at the end of the program.
In a world of hardships I hardly think this qualifies. I also find it amusing that there are so many people here who claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Where the hell are they? Fiscal conservatives cut spending when it isn’t vital to our nation’s interest. To me this is no different from farm subsidies or another bail out of Amtrak. There are better ways to spend tax dollars.
I do think that the Republicans motives suck and this is just a move to make political noise. Unfortunately I also think they are right.
Which of your two quotes were not in reference to PBS taxpayer subsidies?
If you are going off-topic, maybe you could signal it some way. That way, we could tell which are the posts with something that adds to a discussion, and which are the random expressions of bile.
Regards,
Shodan