Pride and Prejudice

I forgot to mention something earlier. I had written about how it seems to me that the conservative side is ruder, and less interested in reasoned, fact-based debate, but that I do understand that there are examples of the same issues on the liberal side. I did briefly toy with the idea of making more of a point to seek those out, but I decided against it. Reading inflammatory and ignorant comments leads me into hating people. More of that would be bad.

I don’t want to quit reading the op-ed page, or keeping up with conservative friends, but I will try and exert more willpower in refraining from reading comments posted on internet articles. Also, if with friends my comments can help raise the level of discourse somewhat, where they do keep their opinions but lose some of the hostility, I would like that. These next few posts will be specifically about what is wrong with the hostility.

One thing that bothers me is that often people are too content with a status quo that benefits them but not others, like they deserve it but others would not. For example, one person who was incensed about voters passing 66 and 67 has benefitted from the Oregon Health Plan. That comes out of tax money. Another one who spoke out against health care is married to a school district employee. Well, they probably have excellent healthcare, and they have that through the efforts of a labor union. It’s not because they are good people and do a good job—they are, and they do, but that’s no guarantee.

Recently I was reading an article about charity and economic development, and what they had to admit is that we don’t really know what works. Microloans have some good effects, but there is a limit to how far they can take an area. Large aid distribution has flaws too. (Throw in a natural disaster and it gets even harder.)

I believe there are two main complications. One is just luck—that somehow there is an opportunity for growth where the timing is right and everything aligns. That would be hard to reproduce.

I think the other factor is infrastructure. Are there roads connecting the producer to the market? Is there a workforce capable of filling the needs? Are water and electricity available? That is something that microloans can’t provide, and it would be hard for a charity organization to really fix the big picture. It becomes capital development once you get beyond residential clean water and health care. It really would be the role of government, and it takes money.

One prominent supporter of this is Bill Gates Sr. and his support of the estate tax. Junior has become wildly successful, but his ability to do so was not just a matter of his ingenuity (and we can start getting snarky there about what made his success, but it would be getting off-track), and timing, but also having an available framework.

There are resources that the government provides like public schools so you can have literate employees, and there are resources that the government regulates, like the provision of utilities so your employees and customers can even fire up those PCs. Often these things get taken for granted, because they tend to run well, but imagine them being taken away and you can see the importance. Remember, Enron didn’t just cause people to lose investment money—they also faked an energy crisis that led to rolling blackouts and higher rates when the whole thing had been manipulated. And yes, that was related to deregulation.

So that infrastructure affects us on a macro level, and if there are problems a lot of people will be feeling it, but lets look at the micro-level, and it is just easy to stick with health care.

Some people have good healthcare, because they have good jobs, and they feel good about that. “You should just find a job where you get good benefits.” Yes, after being unemployed I should totally have turned down that job offer because it did not include health insurance. I’ve only had good health coverage once, and that company has changed their plans quite a bit now as well. It is more expensive for an individual now than it used to be, but still decent. However, if you want to cover a spouse and children too it gets pretty hard.

Labor unions fight for good benefits, but in the case of local teachers, they took good health and retirement in place of good pay, and now there are always people resenting that and wanting it “fixed”. (That is why when given a choice you should always choose good pay over good benefits, but nowadays most people aren’t really given a shot at either.)

Another comment on the ballot measures, regarding a higher income tax on those making more than $125,000 per year, was that if they are working harder let them enjoy it. I doubt they are working that much harder. I know the difference between what a department manager and an admin makes, and I know who usually works harder. Teachers work really hard, and we had some who voluntarily worked ten days last year so the school year wouldn’t be curtailed anymore than it was. Teachers usually need to work summer jobs to get by, so they took ten days they could have put into their other job and volunteered it for the kids. I know there is hard work there, but somehow the higher pay just isn’t attached.

I guess my point there is that we aren’t really a meritocracy. The last group I worked with started everyone at pretty much the same rate, but there was a vast difference in ability, and there has also (due to poor management) been a big difference in performance. So some people are working and some are surfing the internet or chatting, and everyone is making the same.

Someone else had asked, “Is $125,000 really that rich?” Well, the 2006 data showed the median male income to be $42389 per year (I specify male because for females the median income was $32,538). So, you make more than three times as much as half the people in the state. When Mom was still working both days and nights, and I was employed in my old job, and Julie and Maria were both employed, the four of us combined made less than that. Yes, I guess it does seem a little rich to me.

It was the same thing with the business measure. Someone wrote in to his representative saying that because the tax passed he was letting two employees go. More messages were exchanged and it turned out that his yearly gross was $5.4 million, and the tax he was going to have to pay because of the bill was $4000. So really, the issue is that the business had been struggling anyway, and he was not making a profit, and that is why he let two people go. Because if it is only the $4000, you can give them both 39 hour work weeks, or just lay off one, or make them take an unpaid vacation, it’s easy. But he focused on the taxes, because that’s what he resented. I would like to submit to you that the impact of that extra revenue on the economy can do more good collectively than leaving it there could have done for the individual businesses.

Earlier I was alluding to people taking the credit for things that were at least partly luck, and that would be one form of pride. Resenting those around you, and making assumptions about their unworthiness is pride too.

Last example on this one. Back when they were looking at expanding SCHIP, so all Oregon children would have health coverage, I remember a letter where the writer had calculated that all a parent would have to do is to give up one pack of cigarettes a day, or a six-pack, and they could afford to cover a child. I guess that way if you give up beer and smokes, you can cover two children, but what if you have three?

Joking aside, the contempt of that letter just oozed off the page, and there are so many things wrong with it. First of all, with most plans you have to put yourself in before you can add coverage for family, so looking at the cost of covering the child does not give the whole picture. Secondly, just that assumption that all poor people are blowing what they do have on vices is offensive, and there are a lot of people to whom it wouldn't apply.

Finally, okay, let's say that you do have parents who choose their addictions over the health of their children, do we really want to say to those children, "Sorry, I know you are getting a bad start in life, but doing things to make it better will cost a lot of money. Sure, by the time we spread it out over all of the taxpayers, it is not that much, but you're not my kid and I don't care." Is that really the right message?

Having had to re-examine my spending habits. I know that what you buy, and what you don't buy, says a lot about who you are. So, what do we want to say about who we are as a state and a country?