Karl Marx believed that all things could be priced based upon the hours of work input in their creation. So, for instance, a wooden cabinet is worth the hours a person put in making that wooden cabinet. He might have made some arguments that the hours it took to build the machines used for making the box would also go into the cost of the good, but he still primarily focused on the idea that the cost of something was related to the work put into it.
The idea sounds great on the surface. It ignores the different values of other inputs - the raw materials being worked on - as a predictor of value. That's one of the more glaring flaws. He also assumes that all goods are, in essence, commodities. One wooden cabinet is the same as another, in this example. So a cabinet made of press board sold at Wal-Mart only differs in value from a handmade, custom-built oak cabinet by the number of hours a person (or persons) took to build it. Certainly, one might argue that more hours go into the oak cabinet - but only if the person putting together the press board is generally good at doing so. If the same number of hours are used in the end, then the value of the two is the same, according to Marx.
The difference in the value of those hours begins to appear in my comparison. Is the value of an hour of work by a trained carpenter the same as the value of the hour of an untrained (in relation to carpentry) purchaser of a Wal-Mart do-it-yourself pre-fabricated cabinet? Certainly not, at least not in the eyes of consumers. Marx may have tried to account for the difference by suggesting a multiplier be used for skilled labor versus unskilled. Whether he actually did make such a suggestion is unclear. The problem, therefore with Marx's theory about pricing stems from his own misunderstanding of the marketplace. Goods are not commodities - one good is not the same as another, in many ways. Certainly a desk is not the same as a lawn mower or the same as a computer. Nor are people commodities, or their skillsets - the worker who can build a computer might be able to be build a desk, but not at the same speed as someone skilled in carpentry. In other words, he ignored specialization, the value of training, and - quite frankly - the value of human ingenuity. So many of the rest of his theories built on this sameness his pricing theory relied on, that the whole idea of Marxism falls apart. Since Marx was one of the father's of socialism, it begs the question, is socialism equally flawed as a theory? If the theory is flawed, then should we plan our government around it?
I say no. I leave the rest of the world to decide for themselves.
-- Robert
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Marxism
When a book grabs me before I have read the tenth page, I know I am in for a treat. I began reading Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter just yesterday. I have only been able to put it down because I knew I had other obligations. Still, I am captivated by the insight of this great economist. He realized before WWII was over that the Soviet Union - not Germany or Japan - stood as the greatest threat to democracy (and, one might argue, to freedom). He realized before the war ended that Germany and Japan needed to become allies to the US in order to hold off Soviet expansion. These truths seem obvious to the detached observer looking back over the six plus decades since he published his book, but at the time they were so controversial that he had to mask them cleverly throughout the book. He masked some of it so well, in fact, that many readers took him to be a defender of (and believer in) socialism.
His ideas are still groundbreaking today. As one article put it in 2000, "The greatest economist of our time died fifty years ago." He understood that facism, socialism, and capitalism could not stand together, but none of the three could destroy the other. In short, the man had a keen grasp of the dangerous future the world had in store. The introduction to this latest edition explains how visionary he was.
His first section of the book, however, would have grabbed my attention without the introduction. He explains the doctrine of Marx - yes, Karl Marx - and calls him a prophet of a religion. When I compare his words to the attitude of most socialists I have met, I see exactly what he meant. Socialists see an ideal world waiting for us all - if we would all agree to follow socialism together. Those who do not agree are heretics, sinners of the worst kind. Having argued with many socialists, I can see where Schumpeter got such a notion. Socialists have their doctrine and - in most cases - it does not matter whether it agrees with logic, disregards human nature, or calls upon irrational behavior. It is simply right. How true it is that socialism becomes a religion. As I continue to read the book, I may feel inclined to write more on this subject, but the first chapter already has me nodding my head so vigorously that I couldn't help but put up a post about it. I am excited to read the section detailing how socialism can work (or how it doesn't). I am sure I will want to post about that one.
-- Robert
His ideas are still groundbreaking today. As one article put it in 2000, "The greatest economist of our time died fifty years ago." He understood that facism, socialism, and capitalism could not stand together, but none of the three could destroy the other. In short, the man had a keen grasp of the dangerous future the world had in store. The introduction to this latest edition explains how visionary he was.
His first section of the book, however, would have grabbed my attention without the introduction. He explains the doctrine of Marx - yes, Karl Marx - and calls him a prophet of a religion. When I compare his words to the attitude of most socialists I have met, I see exactly what he meant. Socialists see an ideal world waiting for us all - if we would all agree to follow socialism together. Those who do not agree are heretics, sinners of the worst kind. Having argued with many socialists, I can see where Schumpeter got such a notion. Socialists have their doctrine and - in most cases - it does not matter whether it agrees with logic, disregards human nature, or calls upon irrational behavior. It is simply right. How true it is that socialism becomes a religion. As I continue to read the book, I may feel inclined to write more on this subject, but the first chapter already has me nodding my head so vigorously that I couldn't help but put up a post about it. I am excited to read the section detailing how socialism can work (or how it doesn't). I am sure I will want to post about that one.
-- Robert
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Superiority
A I started to title this post "Why aren't we all one color?" or perhaps "White Man's Burden." It would get attention, I'm sure. What I am referring to here, though, runs deeper than race or color. The idea behind "white man's burden" was that whites felt (or feel) superior to non-whites and tried to civilize them. This concept was carried out by militaries and missionaries to Africa, southeast Asia, and parts in between. My problem with it, though, as I still see it today is simple: treating anyone as if they are too stupid to accomplish a task for themselves denies the opportunity to grow and learn.
Sadly, many of the philosophies I see in socialism are based on the idea that some people are incapable of helping themselves. The fastest way to make them incapable, though, is to do it for them. As I have reflected on the book my wife and I have been reading, I see so many truisms that relate to my own philosophy of life. I believe that people, barring extreme handicap, tend to be capable of providing for themselves. I have seen the blind, deaf, and dumb work quite proficiently. I have seen those in wheel chairs, with down syndrome, and those without limbs outwork those with no such infirmity. I have also seen people with capable minds and bodies claim they couldn't work and instead take assistance from others. What I generally see in that latter case is someone dejected, who looks and acts like someone with no self esteem or sense of self worth. Is that person truly being lifted up by the aid being given him? I say no.
I see many of the philosophies of "helping the less fortunate" as "I am better than these fools." I am glad to help those who are down on their luck. I do not see the accompanying need to treat them as incapable of eventually helping themselves. I would much rather "teach a man to fish" than bring him his daily bread for eternity. How much better would our world be if we quit looking at those who don't have something with pity (i.e., from a perspective of superiority) and focused instead of what they do have, what they can do, and how we can all move forward with their skills and ours working together.
Rodney King's phrase, "Can't we all just get along?" comes to mind. Perhaps a better version might be: can't we all just be brothers and sisters in the human family and work together? Can't we quit trying to look out for others' needs as if they are children and instead help them meet those needs themselves?
Oh, wait... I quit talking politics here. Forget I said anything.
-- Robert
Sadly, many of the philosophies I see in socialism are based on the idea that some people are incapable of helping themselves. The fastest way to make them incapable, though, is to do it for them. As I have reflected on the book my wife and I have been reading, I see so many truisms that relate to my own philosophy of life. I believe that people, barring extreme handicap, tend to be capable of providing for themselves. I have seen the blind, deaf, and dumb work quite proficiently. I have seen those in wheel chairs, with down syndrome, and those without limbs outwork those with no such infirmity. I have also seen people with capable minds and bodies claim they couldn't work and instead take assistance from others. What I generally see in that latter case is someone dejected, who looks and acts like someone with no self esteem or sense of self worth. Is that person truly being lifted up by the aid being given him? I say no.
I see many of the philosophies of "helping the less fortunate" as "I am better than these fools." I am glad to help those who are down on their luck. I do not see the accompanying need to treat them as incapable of eventually helping themselves. I would much rather "teach a man to fish" than bring him his daily bread for eternity. How much better would our world be if we quit looking at those who don't have something with pity (i.e., from a perspective of superiority) and focused instead of what they do have, what they can do, and how we can all move forward with their skills and ours working together.
Rodney King's phrase, "Can't we all just get along?" comes to mind. Perhaps a better version might be: can't we all just be brothers and sisters in the human family and work together? Can't we quit trying to look out for others' needs as if they are children and instead help them meet those needs themselves?
Oh, wait... I quit talking politics here. Forget I said anything.
-- Robert
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A Better Way to Work Together
This post is inspired by Natasha's post on why socialist government policies make sense to her. She compares a socialist system of government to living what our church calls the Law of Consecration. In simple terms, the Law of Consecration calls on everyone in a community to pool their resources and only take back what is needed to live. At present, the General Authorities of our church who are called to full-time service consecrate their wealth and receive back a simple stipend to live on, but the church at large is not expressly living this idea.
I have a problem thinking of tax dollars to the government in the same way as the law of consecration because the government does a lot to 1) waste that money on bureacracy the while the Church does not (no one in the church is paid out of church funds), 2) use that money to fight against things I believe in (keeping religion out of public life and keeping abortion legal, for example), and 3) inflate the costs of things by those taxes thereby harming the poor they are supposedly trying to help (corporate taxes represent inflation, as do other taxes charged on goods and services in a way).
So no, I don't agree with the comparison. I would have no problem whatsoever living with the Law of Consecration with church leaders administering the funds. I have worked in a branch presidency and know how carefully funds are given out, and I have visited and loved Welfare Square and Humanitarian Center in Salt Lake. I do not begrudge one dime I have given to the Church to support those programs, even if they might help people on drugs.
One other problem: yes, teach a man to fish. Government policies in this country for decades made it harder for people on welfare if they got a job by reducing the welfare allotment by more than the job made up. That is teaching a man to hold out his hand, and to break his fishing rod (to use the analogy). Imagine how much more effectively welfare funds could be used if those on it were put into a system like the Law of Consecration - some funds would go to caretakers who watched the children (and that could be a rotating responsibility so the rest could be accomplished), some would go to offer training on job skills, and some would go to provide necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. Again, I look to how the Church manages these ideas and I definitely see an improvement over the government system.
Here's an idea along the lines of another post I wrote about health care: the government could remove all tax-related costs from goods and services paid for out of welfare or social security funds. A doctor would not pay taxes on health care provided. A store selling groceries would be able to make a small profit above the actual cost of the products and pay no sales or income tax on those items purchased. The Church (as a comparison) produces as many goods as possible and takes no profit on their sale to people so funds are not being expended on taxes (Many people in the Church donate their time and thereby reduce the money spent helping the poor - but that is an aside). Only goods that cannot be produced less expensively are purchased to help out the poor.
So reviewing: I do not agree that a socialist government compares at all to the Law of Consecration, at leas not favorably. It could, and I would be interested in seeing such a thing happen. I am not opposed to helping those less fortunate than myself. I love to help people through difficult times. I do believe, though, that the Church (and the teachings of the gospel) calls upon people to help themselves whenever possible, and those who have enough to help those who simply cannot help themselves or who need some help in difficult circumstances. There are wonderful blessings that come from helping others. I just do not agree that the government is the best conduit for accomplishing that goal.
-- Robert
I have a problem thinking of tax dollars to the government in the same way as the law of consecration because the government does a lot to 1) waste that money on bureacracy the while the Church does not (no one in the church is paid out of church funds), 2) use that money to fight against things I believe in (keeping religion out of public life and keeping abortion legal, for example), and 3) inflate the costs of things by those taxes thereby harming the poor they are supposedly trying to help (corporate taxes represent inflation, as do other taxes charged on goods and services in a way).
So no, I don't agree with the comparison. I would have no problem whatsoever living with the Law of Consecration with church leaders administering the funds. I have worked in a branch presidency and know how carefully funds are given out, and I have visited and loved Welfare Square and Humanitarian Center in Salt Lake. I do not begrudge one dime I have given to the Church to support those programs, even if they might help people on drugs.
One other problem: yes, teach a man to fish. Government policies in this country for decades made it harder for people on welfare if they got a job by reducing the welfare allotment by more than the job made up. That is teaching a man to hold out his hand, and to break his fishing rod (to use the analogy). Imagine how much more effectively welfare funds could be used if those on it were put into a system like the Law of Consecration - some funds would go to caretakers who watched the children (and that could be a rotating responsibility so the rest could be accomplished), some would go to offer training on job skills, and some would go to provide necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. Again, I look to how the Church manages these ideas and I definitely see an improvement over the government system.
Here's an idea along the lines of another post I wrote about health care: the government could remove all tax-related costs from goods and services paid for out of welfare or social security funds. A doctor would not pay taxes on health care provided. A store selling groceries would be able to make a small profit above the actual cost of the products and pay no sales or income tax on those items purchased. The Church (as a comparison) produces as many goods as possible and takes no profit on their sale to people so funds are not being expended on taxes (Many people in the Church donate their time and thereby reduce the money spent helping the poor - but that is an aside). Only goods that cannot be produced less expensively are purchased to help out the poor.
So reviewing: I do not agree that a socialist government compares at all to the Law of Consecration, at leas not favorably. It could, and I would be interested in seeing such a thing happen. I am not opposed to helping those less fortunate than myself. I love to help people through difficult times. I do believe, though, that the Church (and the teachings of the gospel) calls upon people to help themselves whenever possible, and those who have enough to help those who simply cannot help themselves or who need some help in difficult circumstances. There are wonderful blessings that come from helping others. I just do not agree that the government is the best conduit for accomplishing that goal.
-- Robert
Thursday, October 9, 2008
An Analysis of the Banking Fallout - Article Review
Yesterday Glenn Beck shared a letter he wrote to his sister about how we as a nation came to be in the situation we're in financially. I think he states a lot of it far better than I could hope to, and I appreciate that he did not point the finger at one party, but he did name names when particular individuals had acted or made statements clearly showing they played a role.
In simple terms, though, what he said was greed drove it all. I think he has hit the nail on the head. Politicians greedy for power, bankers greedy for profits, individuals greedy to have things NOW instead of waiting for when the time was appropriate, builders greedy to put up more and more homes while credit terms were so loose... greed greed greed.
It really is sad that such a base, animalistic drive got us here. Regulations were ignored, overlooked, or sequestered. Risk was ignored because it was all being passed on to someone else who didn't care about it. Everything spun out of control.
Fortunately, the economy is still functioning. Rampant inflation (caused at least in part by these slackening credit terms) has not managed to destroy it yet. People are still employed at high percentages, and they go to work and do their job, then come home and purchase goods and services from other people. We have not reached a total fallout, nor will we it would appear thus far. So hope remains. Today may seem dark, but tomorrow - or several hundred tomorrows from now - we can still hope for a brighter day. And maybe, just maybe, that day will bring with it the wisdom learned in the midst of these trials.
-- Robert
In simple terms, though, what he said was greed drove it all. I think he has hit the nail on the head. Politicians greedy for power, bankers greedy for profits, individuals greedy to have things NOW instead of waiting for when the time was appropriate, builders greedy to put up more and more homes while credit terms were so loose... greed greed greed.
It really is sad that such a base, animalistic drive got us here. Regulations were ignored, overlooked, or sequestered. Risk was ignored because it was all being passed on to someone else who didn't care about it. Everything spun out of control.
Fortunately, the economy is still functioning. Rampant inflation (caused at least in part by these slackening credit terms) has not managed to destroy it yet. People are still employed at high percentages, and they go to work and do their job, then come home and purchase goods and services from other people. We have not reached a total fallout, nor will we it would appear thus far. So hope remains. Today may seem dark, but tomorrow - or several hundred tomorrows from now - we can still hope for a brighter day. And maybe, just maybe, that day will bring with it the wisdom learned in the midst of these trials.
-- Robert
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Writing On the Wall
Today's post is somewhat in response to Natasha's post. To be clear, I was not angry at her post; this is definitely not a rant at her. I just wanted to share some thoughts I've had in the past year or more about the economy.
First, based on almost any economic measure, 2006 was a better year economically than 1996. Lower unemployment, larger growth in the economy, and so forth. Yet, in 1996, the media described that year as "one of the best in decades" or "a sign that a new day is dawning in America." In 2006 they began talking about "economic downturn" or "signs of a recession." In 1996, Bill Clinton needed to get reelected. In 2006, the press was ready to start sewing the seeds that helped usher in another Clinton, or at least another Democrat.
Because so much was said about a downturn, people started buying less. A slowdown did follow, but the economy was still growing (not contracting, which is what defines a recession). Fuel prices continued to rise, and a bio fuel craze followed, throwing inflation into the mix not seen since the early 80's or even the late 70's. The consumer price index (CPI) did not reflect this true inflation, though, because it does not factor in the price of gasoline among the goods measured. Still, with the negative talk on the economy and the inflation making things cost more, the slowdown continued.
With slowdown, fewer people were buying new homes, so the housing market started to crumble. Builders had overbuilt dramatically. In 2004, though, Fannie Mae had made a big push to make loans more available, which spurred those builders to feel confident they could sell more homes. The congressmen in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae and the banking regulations turned a blind eye while loans went out that should not have. Bonuses were paid to Fannie Mae employees for production - production of loans which was either poorly generated, or actually not generated at all. Many congressmen still talk about the need to make homes more available and affordable. Well, now there are plenty to choose from...
Now, here we sit, complaining about the dire straits we're in. I've been bothered by the talk of the "writing on the wall" of a recession, which simply had no basis for many months. So the question will forever remain in my mind: was the media predicting a recession that truly was imminent, or were they creating the recession by scaring people about the economy so badly that the house of cards fell?
I know one thing: the American people will survive. People might lose jobs, stocks may plummet, and homes will get foreclosed on. Still, we will all persevere. I hope we will finally start learning from our mistakes again. I know it sounds terrible, harsh, cruel and mean, but I really wish we would let the people who have these horrible failures actually fail, so next time they can remember and avoid the pitfall. Bailing out should be for sinking boats, not corporations, banking institutions, or even social programs that are underfunded.
-- Robert
P.S.: I didn't even get into the bad wrap that adjustable rate mortgages got in all these problems. I wrote a post about that here and here, though. They can actually be a good instrument, if used properly to gain more equity. The people complaining about them either didn't understand that or made no effort to do what they needed to make proper use of the lower interest rate period.
First, based on almost any economic measure, 2006 was a better year economically than 1996. Lower unemployment, larger growth in the economy, and so forth. Yet, in 1996, the media described that year as "one of the best in decades" or "a sign that a new day is dawning in America." In 2006 they began talking about "economic downturn" or "signs of a recession." In 1996, Bill Clinton needed to get reelected. In 2006, the press was ready to start sewing the seeds that helped usher in another Clinton, or at least another Democrat.
Because so much was said about a downturn, people started buying less. A slowdown did follow, but the economy was still growing (not contracting, which is what defines a recession). Fuel prices continued to rise, and a bio fuel craze followed, throwing inflation into the mix not seen since the early 80's or even the late 70's. The consumer price index (CPI) did not reflect this true inflation, though, because it does not factor in the price of gasoline among the goods measured. Still, with the negative talk on the economy and the inflation making things cost more, the slowdown continued.
With slowdown, fewer people were buying new homes, so the housing market started to crumble. Builders had overbuilt dramatically. In 2004, though, Fannie Mae had made a big push to make loans more available, which spurred those builders to feel confident they could sell more homes. The congressmen in charge of oversight of Fannie Mae and the banking regulations turned a blind eye while loans went out that should not have. Bonuses were paid to Fannie Mae employees for production - production of loans which was either poorly generated, or actually not generated at all. Many congressmen still talk about the need to make homes more available and affordable. Well, now there are plenty to choose from...
Now, here we sit, complaining about the dire straits we're in. I've been bothered by the talk of the "writing on the wall" of a recession, which simply had no basis for many months. So the question will forever remain in my mind: was the media predicting a recession that truly was imminent, or were they creating the recession by scaring people about the economy so badly that the house of cards fell?
I know one thing: the American people will survive. People might lose jobs, stocks may plummet, and homes will get foreclosed on. Still, we will all persevere. I hope we will finally start learning from our mistakes again. I know it sounds terrible, harsh, cruel and mean, but I really wish we would let the people who have these horrible failures actually fail, so next time they can remember and avoid the pitfall. Bailing out should be for sinking boats, not corporations, banking institutions, or even social programs that are underfunded.
-- Robert
P.S.: I didn't even get into the bad wrap that adjustable rate mortgages got in all these problems. I wrote a post about that here and here, though. They can actually be a good instrument, if used properly to gain more equity. The people complaining about them either didn't understand that or made no effort to do what they needed to make proper use of the lower interest rate period.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
For Those Who've Been Wondering...
I know some people first read this blog looking for political commentary. Two things: first, we started this blog to write about positive things in life - self improvement, money management, life experiences - and second, I really have nothing positive to say about this campaign season. I'm not particularly excited about either candidate for president, though I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain over Obama based off the insanity I hear from Obama. I just can't bring myself to write a lot about this year anymore because there is too much out there as it is, and I can't add anything meaningful to the mix. So, rather than stump for someone I don't have a lot of passion for, or share my views on someone I think will be at best incompetent and at worst a terrifying person to have as president, I would prefer to focus on good things in my own life and the life of my children. I do apologize, sincerely and with no ill will, if my recent posts have grown boring as a result. I write my posts as much for myself as for anyone else. Feel free to keep reading, though. I appreciate any comments I get.
-- Robert
-- Robert
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tax Law
The tax law in the state of Georgia required that I file by mail this year to get a small credit related to a business I own. I believe that credit amounts to roughly $25 for me. Because of the paper filing, though, I will not receive my refund from the state until late May, despite having mailed it during the first week of March. My brother-in-law, who files in Virginia, got his refund from Georgia a week after he e-filed his return. I have written a letter of grievance to one of the legislators I know well, and I will probably share similar letters with two or three more. I have a real problem with a law that gives an advantage to an out-of-state taxpayer in receiving his refund over an in-state taxpayer. I also have a problem with a law that requires paper filing knowing they have every intention of taking two and a half months to actually return funds. I would probably not care, but I was expecting to pay a lot of taxes last year when I paid a large estimate in the first quarter, only to later realize I would not have to (because of changes to my business). So the state has had my money for over thirteen months now, but I will only get some interest back if they decide they have taken more time than they consider reasonable to return the money.
It is time to pass the FairTax, and to enact similar legislation in the states. It is ridiculous that a bureaucracy has taken this much control over our lives and our money, and that we simply stand by and let it happen. I agree with Lee Iacocca, who recently wrote in his book Where Have All the Leaders Gone about his concern for the lack of leadership in this nation with regard to numerous pressing issues, including energy, health care, taxes, and industry. I have not yet had the chance to read his book, but the excerpt I read hit home for me. Too many have chosen to maintain the status quo instead of leading the charge to make needed changes. Our our tax system is broken, as is our governmental policy on welfare and minimum wage, and without major reformations the economy could suffer catastrophic losses. It has already taken major hits, and policies demanding the creation of false economies to establish some new way of polluting - some would say of creating energy - are driving inflation at a mind boggling pace. The time for action is now. Really it was yesterday, but we must not stand by. I am tired of pretending I am satisfied with the state of things as they are. My business is being crushed. My paycheck is being bled dry more rapidly than ever. I am sick and tired of feeling sick and tired of the state of the world. I know I am not the only one who is fed up.
-- Robert
It is time to pass the FairTax, and to enact similar legislation in the states. It is ridiculous that a bureaucracy has taken this much control over our lives and our money, and that we simply stand by and let it happen. I agree with Lee Iacocca, who recently wrote in his book Where Have All the Leaders Gone about his concern for the lack of leadership in this nation with regard to numerous pressing issues, including energy, health care, taxes, and industry. I have not yet had the chance to read his book, but the excerpt I read hit home for me. Too many have chosen to maintain the status quo instead of leading the charge to make needed changes. Our our tax system is broken, as is our governmental policy on welfare and minimum wage, and without major reformations the economy could suffer catastrophic losses. It has already taken major hits, and policies demanding the creation of false economies to establish some new way of polluting - some would say of creating energy - are driving inflation at a mind boggling pace. The time for action is now. Really it was yesterday, but we must not stand by. I am tired of pretending I am satisfied with the state of things as they are. My business is being crushed. My paycheck is being bled dry more rapidly than ever. I am sick and tired of feeling sick and tired of the state of the world. I know I am not the only one who is fed up.
-- Robert
Monday, April 14, 2008
Every Man
I have been fascinated by this political season. I must say I have never seen one like it. Eight years ago, Al Gore fought for everyone. Four years ago, John Kerry agreed with everyone. This year, though, we have someone who wants to be every man. Barack Obama fits among Muslims. He fits with Christians. He fits with the wealthy. He fits with the poor. He fits with blacks. He fits with whites. He makes people believe he is exactly what they want in a president, because he is exactly like them.
He wants change. I am glad to give him change, so long as he leaves me my folding money. He believes in hope. Hope is great, so long as it is a hope for a better tomorrow, not just a tomorrow that is not today. I see no clear vision from him, and I think that is largely intentional. It is much easier to use vague generalities and eloquent sound bites to inspire people to vote then it is to say something real and inspire people to act.
As for his wife, she wants people to "share their pie." She believes that those who have a big piece of the pie are not giving enough - though I don't quite understand what "enough" really means. Is what she and her husband give "enough"? If so, then most wealthy people should be asking for refunds, since the Obamas give a fairly small percentage of their income to charity, while many millionaires (such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) give many millions to help those less fortunate. No, what I see from the Obamas is a lot of rhetoric designed to encourage the "bitter Americans" out there to vote for Barack so they can have their way with the country.
Fortunately, I am sure of two things: 1) Obama will not be president, but in the absolutely unlikely event that he is, 2) I am very confident he has no chance to accomplish much in the office. Right now I am fascinated to watch the Democratic Party tear itself to pieces. If Hillary wasn't around, Barack's rendition of Bill Clinton 2.0 might well have gotten him the presidency. Without him around, she might be sworn in a few months from now. Instead, I get to watch this fascinating race. Am I pleased with the likely outcome, President John McCain? Not particularly. But again, as a student of politics, I am amazed at how many things have come out this race.
He wants change. I am glad to give him change, so long as he leaves me my folding money. He believes in hope. Hope is great, so long as it is a hope for a better tomorrow, not just a tomorrow that is not today. I see no clear vision from him, and I think that is largely intentional. It is much easier to use vague generalities and eloquent sound bites to inspire people to vote then it is to say something real and inspire people to act.
As for his wife, she wants people to "share their pie." She believes that those who have a big piece of the pie are not giving enough - though I don't quite understand what "enough" really means. Is what she and her husband give "enough"? If so, then most wealthy people should be asking for refunds, since the Obamas give a fairly small percentage of their income to charity, while many millionaires (such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) give many millions to help those less fortunate. No, what I see from the Obamas is a lot of rhetoric designed to encourage the "bitter Americans" out there to vote for Barack so they can have their way with the country.
Fortunately, I am sure of two things: 1) Obama will not be president, but in the absolutely unlikely event that he is, 2) I am very confident he has no chance to accomplish much in the office. Right now I am fascinated to watch the Democratic Party tear itself to pieces. If Hillary wasn't around, Barack's rendition of Bill Clinton 2.0 might well have gotten him the presidency. Without him around, she might be sworn in a few months from now. Instead, I get to watch this fascinating race. Am I pleased with the likely outcome, President John McCain? Not particularly. But again, as a student of politics, I am amazed at how many things have come out this race.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Wronged, Hump Day Hmm
Today's Hump Day asks us to "...describe an incident where you or someone was wronged, in what would normally be considered outside of the social norms, and how you reacted, how you wish you reacted and what is possibly the best way to inform these idiots that they screwed up if that is even possible."
I certainly have several that immediately come to mind, but I will write about one of the most egregious because it still bothers me. For the record, I cannot prove I am right about this situation, but I have reasonable confidence that what I am writing about here is the truth.
When I was in graduate school, I took a course in Human Resources as part of a sequence of courses required to get a specialization in risk management. Of all the business courses I recall taking, I felt this ranked among the most worthless to me. The professor was terrible, and she never really attempted to teach, but instead had guest lecturers who worked in certain areas of benefits to discuss their line of work. The final project of the class was to create a benefits package for an employee pool with a given quantity of dollars and certain parameters to meet. The project was worth at least 40% of our grade. My team for this assignment included me (who has never had a job in corporate America with benefits), a Navy Officer (who never had any benefits before his time in the service), and an Indian (who came to America to get his education and had no familiarity with benefits here). Despite our lack of familiarity, we were able to create a package that met all the basic requirements of the assignment - within budget, certain minimum coverages, and certain options available - and certainly did not demonstrate we had not made a strong effort to accomplish the assigned task.
We got a 40. For those who have never attended graduate school, most professors do not give grades below C's because an overall grade below a C does not count towards graduation and can sometimes lead to dismissal from the program. To give a 40 on such an assignment suggested we had turned in something made of paper mache and crayon, not a multi-page report complete with charts, budgets, and writing explaining the package. We were all literally shocked. It could have kept the Navy Officer from having his tuition paid that term. It was not a small matter to receive such a grade. We were given the opportunity to review the grade in her office, and there was almost no writing on the report itself. Just a big 40 on the grade page with a few notes. We appealed the grade to the department, and we were denied. The professor who explained it to us told us as delicately as he felt he could not to pursue it further, because no one would overrule this professor. It was the only class she taught, after all, because her primary role was the Dean of Research. She decided who got what funding in the College of Business. No one would overrule her for three graduate students who would be gone in six months regardless. So, we dropped it.
I was talking to another classmate one day about this situation, and he shed some light on why our grade might have been so terrible. One of his jobs was to type up written evaluations given by students just before the end of class. They were typed to protect the anonymity of the student giving the evaluation in the hopes of getting an honest review of the professor's performance and the course's value overall. What this classmate told me, though, was he regularly saw professors come in and demand to see the written evaluation after reading the typed version. The reason, of course, to read the written version was to compare it to hand-writing and decide who wrote it. My evaluation of the course was scathing. I suggested the professor never be allowed near students again, or at least not until she'd had a course or two on proper teaching methods. I also suggested the course be removed from the requirement for the sequence because it had very little to do with the other two courses involved and seemed to have been tacked on primarily for the purposes of giving the Dean of Research a class to teach once a year. I was mostly tactful, but I was not kind in my remarks. Clearly she had read my remarks and chosen to retaliate on my grade.
After learning the true cause of my grade, I decided to do nothing more. I knew no one would care what had happened, and I was not going to risk my reputation and possibly my degree over my evaluation. Instead, I chose to inform every student who called to invite me to give more to my college - which I dearly love - that I would not be giving an extra dime to my school until she retired. I could not, in good conscience, support my school while they kept such an unethical person in such a high ranking position, or on staff at all. I smiled when I read of her retirement this year in the school magazine. I may not give any time soon in large amounts, but at least she is gone from the ranks of teaching, and gone from my school.
How could I have handled it better? I probably should have done what most people do and written a bland review of the class. I would have gotten a B overall instead of a C for the course, and my transcript would have looked better. That certainly was the wiser course of action. The problem is, to answer the last part of the Hump Day Hmm question, is that to take the wiser course would not have helped anyone know how terrible that course was. It did not let anyone know that a person of high rank was obviously doing something highly unethical. If I were a brave soul, I might have gone to the Associate Dean (her immediate boss) or the Dean of the College of Business, or even the University President. But I know the politics of education too well. I know nothing would have come of it. Or if it did, I would more likely be remembered as "that disgruntled MBA student who went to war over a grade" instead of my other legacies. I am glad I took the path I did and just moved past it. I just sometimes wonder who else might have suffered at the hands of such an incompetent professor because I did.
-- Robert
I certainly have several that immediately come to mind, but I will write about one of the most egregious because it still bothers me. For the record, I cannot prove I am right about this situation, but I have reasonable confidence that what I am writing about here is the truth.
When I was in graduate school, I took a course in Human Resources as part of a sequence of courses required to get a specialization in risk management. Of all the business courses I recall taking, I felt this ranked among the most worthless to me. The professor was terrible, and she never really attempted to teach, but instead had guest lecturers who worked in certain areas of benefits to discuss their line of work. The final project of the class was to create a benefits package for an employee pool with a given quantity of dollars and certain parameters to meet. The project was worth at least 40% of our grade. My team for this assignment included me (who has never had a job in corporate America with benefits), a Navy Officer (who never had any benefits before his time in the service), and an Indian (who came to America to get his education and had no familiarity with benefits here). Despite our lack of familiarity, we were able to create a package that met all the basic requirements of the assignment - within budget, certain minimum coverages, and certain options available - and certainly did not demonstrate we had not made a strong effort to accomplish the assigned task.
We got a 40. For those who have never attended graduate school, most professors do not give grades below C's because an overall grade below a C does not count towards graduation and can sometimes lead to dismissal from the program. To give a 40 on such an assignment suggested we had turned in something made of paper mache and crayon, not a multi-page report complete with charts, budgets, and writing explaining the package. We were all literally shocked. It could have kept the Navy Officer from having his tuition paid that term. It was not a small matter to receive such a grade. We were given the opportunity to review the grade in her office, and there was almost no writing on the report itself. Just a big 40 on the grade page with a few notes. We appealed the grade to the department, and we were denied. The professor who explained it to us told us as delicately as he felt he could not to pursue it further, because no one would overrule this professor. It was the only class she taught, after all, because her primary role was the Dean of Research. She decided who got what funding in the College of Business. No one would overrule her for three graduate students who would be gone in six months regardless. So, we dropped it.
I was talking to another classmate one day about this situation, and he shed some light on why our grade might have been so terrible. One of his jobs was to type up written evaluations given by students just before the end of class. They were typed to protect the anonymity of the student giving the evaluation in the hopes of getting an honest review of the professor's performance and the course's value overall. What this classmate told me, though, was he regularly saw professors come in and demand to see the written evaluation after reading the typed version. The reason, of course, to read the written version was to compare it to hand-writing and decide who wrote it. My evaluation of the course was scathing. I suggested the professor never be allowed near students again, or at least not until she'd had a course or two on proper teaching methods. I also suggested the course be removed from the requirement for the sequence because it had very little to do with the other two courses involved and seemed to have been tacked on primarily for the purposes of giving the Dean of Research a class to teach once a year. I was mostly tactful, but I was not kind in my remarks. Clearly she had read my remarks and chosen to retaliate on my grade.
After learning the true cause of my grade, I decided to do nothing more. I knew no one would care what had happened, and I was not going to risk my reputation and possibly my degree over my evaluation. Instead, I chose to inform every student who called to invite me to give more to my college - which I dearly love - that I would not be giving an extra dime to my school until she retired. I could not, in good conscience, support my school while they kept such an unethical person in such a high ranking position, or on staff at all. I smiled when I read of her retirement this year in the school magazine. I may not give any time soon in large amounts, but at least she is gone from the ranks of teaching, and gone from my school.
How could I have handled it better? I probably should have done what most people do and written a bland review of the class. I would have gotten a B overall instead of a C for the course, and my transcript would have looked better. That certainly was the wiser course of action. The problem is, to answer the last part of the Hump Day Hmm question, is that to take the wiser course would not have helped anyone know how terrible that course was. It did not let anyone know that a person of high rank was obviously doing something highly unethical. If I were a brave soul, I might have gone to the Associate Dean (her immediate boss) or the Dean of the College of Business, or even the University President. But I know the politics of education too well. I know nothing would have come of it. Or if it did, I would more likely be remembered as "that disgruntled MBA student who went to war over a grade" instead of my other legacies. I am glad I took the path I did and just moved past it. I just sometimes wonder who else might have suffered at the hands of such an incompetent professor because I did.
-- Robert
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Free Speech, Hump Day Hmm
Today's Hump Day Topic states: "we're going to tackle the notion of free speech in writing, particularly blogging, considering that court cases are considering it fair to limit free speech on blogs and are definitely willing to use your words against you. "
I have tried writing an entry several times, but I keep coming back to the feeling that it will not be well received. And each time I think that, I consider the irony of it, given what I keep wanting to write. If free speech doctrine truly protects my writing, then I am safe to write what I feel without fear of rebuke or reprisal. But the rebuke and reprisal can absolutely follow comments of dissent. Fortunately, though, in the United States, I do feel safe from government rebuke or reprisal for what I write. In so many countries around the world, the same cannot be said. News media that disagrees with the government in most Middle Eastern countries will be shut down, and those guilty of attacking the government might disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Even in Europe it has only recently been safe to write against the "king and crown" without fear. So I am thankful to be an American, as I write about free speech without fear.
Can what we write be used against us in court? It absolutely can, in the court of public opinion. Whenever I write something on a blog that disagrees with typical crowd who frequents that blog, I can expect (and have often received) a backlash. It feels somewhat like being the "ignorant redneck" (or whatever derisive term would follow) who walks into an art show and wonders if the artist just spilled a can of paint. "He must not be refined enough to appreciate such vision, what a half wit."
How easily we turn against those who disagree with the group. I find that people of like minds congregate to avoid feeling like a lone reed in the wind, so dissent is met with ridicule. Is that healthy? Should we revile those who speak against us? Perhaps, but I think not. Rarely do we learn from sycophants and yes-men who parrot the groupthink we agree with. Watch what happens, though, when a student disagrees with a teacher - either in writing or in speech. Even if the teacher lets the comments slide, the other students often mock the student as a fool. In rare cases, the class supports the student when they agree but were too afraid to say anything, but most of the time the student who stands out is beaten down.
So, in the end, what is true of free speech? Are we truly free to write what we believe? We are, in most cases, free from the expectation of going to jail for what we say and write. We are not, however, free to write without expectation that it can be used against us.
I have tried writing an entry several times, but I keep coming back to the feeling that it will not be well received. And each time I think that, I consider the irony of it, given what I keep wanting to write. If free speech doctrine truly protects my writing, then I am safe to write what I feel without fear of rebuke or reprisal. But the rebuke and reprisal can absolutely follow comments of dissent. Fortunately, though, in the United States, I do feel safe from government rebuke or reprisal for what I write. In so many countries around the world, the same cannot be said. News media that disagrees with the government in most Middle Eastern countries will be shut down, and those guilty of attacking the government might disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Even in Europe it has only recently been safe to write against the "king and crown" without fear. So I am thankful to be an American, as I write about free speech without fear.
Can what we write be used against us in court? It absolutely can, in the court of public opinion. Whenever I write something on a blog that disagrees with typical crowd who frequents that blog, I can expect (and have often received) a backlash. It feels somewhat like being the "ignorant redneck" (or whatever derisive term would follow) who walks into an art show and wonders if the artist just spilled a can of paint. "He must not be refined enough to appreciate such vision, what a half wit."
How easily we turn against those who disagree with the group. I find that people of like minds congregate to avoid feeling like a lone reed in the wind, so dissent is met with ridicule. Is that healthy? Should we revile those who speak against us? Perhaps, but I think not. Rarely do we learn from sycophants and yes-men who parrot the groupthink we agree with. Watch what happens, though, when a student disagrees with a teacher - either in writing or in speech. Even if the teacher lets the comments slide, the other students often mock the student as a fool. In rare cases, the class supports the student when they agree but were too afraid to say anything, but most of the time the student who stands out is beaten down.
So, in the end, what is true of free speech? Are we truly free to write what we believe? We are, in most cases, free from the expectation of going to jail for what we say and write. We are not, however, free to write without expectation that it can be used against us.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Behind the Scenes - Managing Leadership Roles
This post was inspired by Melissa at Taking What Is Left, whose post yesterday discussed the differences between boys and girls in school. I want to write about how I have managed leadership roles as a follower and a leader in my past, and a couple of those experiences deal directly with gender-related topics.
Many men I have worked with in life prefer to lead. They seek after important positions on teams - forward of the soccer team, point guard of the basketball team, quarterback of the football team, captain of any team. They seek recognition in the classroom - highest grade on a test, STAR Student, valedictorian. They seek after recognition in their business - promotions, important assignments, being "boss", titles with C-O or President in them. They seek after recognition in community groups - chairman of a political party, president of a social club, chairman of a fundraising effort, deacon of a church. They seek after public office. They lead from the front whenever possible. First into the fray, top dog, head of the class, alpha male. They are revered by many around them, hated by some, feared in some cases, but almost always respected for their talent or charisma (or both) in some regard. Not all of these men are born to lead, but most of them definitely aspire to it.
I have certainly encountered many women who want to lead as well. Some of the most dynamic leaders I have worked with have been women. One such leader took a high school Interact Club which had formerly been comprised of about ten members and grew it to over 100 members in one year. She did it by word of mouth, recruiting her friends and getting them to recruit their friends, and by being warm and inviting to anyone interested in the club at all. I think she shaped the future leaders of that group as well, because the president who followed her led it in a very different way than she had presided over the Key Club the year before (which still only had ten members when she was done being president). She built an organization that became a cornerstone of the high school in the years that followed, and one that became an important part of recognition at graduation, as members who worked enough hours of service received a rope to wear with their robes.
I realize the last paragraph did not parallel the one before very well, but I have also had somewhat less experience with seeing women seek after leadership roles. Because I have a fairly broad range of experience, I feel reasonably confident in saying that women are less inclined to seek top leadership positions in general, but there are definitely those who want to lead. Some are, as the one I described, compassionate leaders who inspire. Many, especially those in politics and business, built their careers on a reputation of bone crushing and ball breaking, emulating the men in those fields but outdoing them in that way. I have certainly known compassionate female politicians, like the current State School Superintendent of Georgia and my former State Representative from my hometown. I have seen compassionate bosses in the corporate world, at least in articles I have read. But again, my experience shows me that in general men are more often driven to lead from the front than women. Women regularly assume the roles of party or club secretary, vice president of public affairs, and other supporting offices that are not number one. The first female chair of the Georgia Republican Party was just elected last year, and most people would probably agree she received the position because she had earned it by serving in so many offices of support before being chair. I have a tremendous amount of respect for women who do so much of the work of so many organizations and get so little credit because they are not the one whose name is mentioned first. The same goes for men who choose supporting roles, but I find more of them seem to take those roles in the hopes of one day being on top, while many of the women are quite happy being reelected year after year to serve in supporting roles - or they simply support without any office recognition at all.
I have held many positions of leadership. President of clubs and men's groups, captain of several teams, treasurer of a political party, vice president of several social clubs, counselor to the leader of my local church, and president of my company. I might say I have experience in leadership, certainly for someone as young as I am (I still think of myself as young in general). One of the things I most prefer to do, though, is to identify leaders and encourage a group to follow them. I have handpicked numerous officers of various clubs, encouraged peers to enter politics (yes, I admit it is shameful to wish such a thing on anyone), and selected leaders to head social organizations I have started. I know there is a huge amount of work involved in being at the head of any group, and I would rather help those who want the job to achieve it by being part of their support group than to be the leader myself.
In graduate school, I personally chose to follow two women in two different teams because I felt they were the best to lead their projects, and I personally picked two men to lead two clubs I organized because they were uniquely suited to guide those clubs.
The first team leader I chose because I liked her project and it was hers by virtue of her forming the idea, namely to start a Hispanic movie theater in Atlanta. She knew the market from having grown up in that community in Atlanta, and she had identified a perfect location that was available in the heart of most Hispanic part of the city. She obviously had passion for the project because she wanted it to truly happen. I knew my experience with accounting would be an asset to her team because she was a public affairs specialist by degree, and her teammate had a background in journalism. I helped another classmate who was an excellent fact finder, data miner, and data analyzer decide to join the team, and we made a wonderful project. I came within a few signatures of actually starting that business after graduate school, but the project fell through when the movie supplier reneged on his promise to supply first-run blockbusters to our theater. Instead my teammate and I (her original teammate was "fired" from the group by both of us and my friend left because we had what we needed from him) wished each other well and both got married that summer, moving away to different cities.
The second team leader I chose to follow was one who I felt had the best chance to lead a team we were assigned to by our teachers. She had experience in consulting, and it was our job to work on a project consulting with a county school district in the Atlanta area on whether or not they should centralize food production into one facility in their district. I wanted to do a quality job, and her experience in handling consulting jobs would be key to making sure we broke up th project into logical parts. I also knew that the other female on our team would want to lead (I knew her personality) and I would not have wanted to work for her nearly as much. It was clear from the outset that none of the three men on the team would want to be project manager, so I quickly endorsed the experienced consultant within five minutes of our first meeting. Our project was highlighted in the school magazine for what we were doing (at least in part because we were helping a school district, but hopefully because we did a good job) and we gave the district leaders a lot to think about.
The two men I chose to head the clubs were pretty different, but both ambitious to lead. The president of the Terry MBA Toastmasters had a lot of friends, got along well with people, and had a passion to become better as a public speaker. I knew he would encourage many of our classmates to join the club, despite the fact that it meant more work on top of a very busy class schedule. To my knowledge, that club lived on because his presidency formed a succession that a second-year student would always be president, and a first-year student would always follow him so the club would never go without leadership through the summers and after graduation. The other young man I chose made sense to me because he had experience in ILA Toastmasters (ILA stands for Institute for Leadership Advancement, and was comprised entirely of Juniors and Seniors mostly in the business school), and because he was a junior who could serve the club after I was gone and steward it along. Not having the luxury of an experienced Toastmaster in the MBA club made my friend and classmate a logical choice for that club, while experience made more sense in the younger club. I would have been fine with another person who also wanted to be president of that club, but he was popularly elected by the club's members (as was my friend, but he had no opponent in his election). She was dynamic, passionate - a born leader. He, though, still did a great job of helping the club establish order and follow an agenda, which is an important part of the teachings of Toastmasters (running a meeting). He might have made a better second president, because she was a Senior and he a Junior, but I was glad for his leadership nonetheless.
Each of those graduate teams and each of those clubs demonstrate the value of being willing to follow, regardless of the gender of the leader. Great leaders can accomplish a great deal, but without men and women willing to follow them, they have a much more difficult job. I, for one, am glad for someone else to get the recognition when they ask for the job or demonstrate to me they would do a good one. By being a leader's follower, I can shape an organization through their efforts and my own, instead of fighting against a leader I do not agree with or having to lead myself and find people willing to help me. One day, perhaps, I will feel I can no longer avoid the role of leader anymore in certain areas, but by then, hopefully I will have found others like me who will encourage followers to join me.
-- Robert
Many men I have worked with in life prefer to lead. They seek after important positions on teams - forward of the soccer team, point guard of the basketball team, quarterback of the football team, captain of any team. They seek recognition in the classroom - highest grade on a test, STAR Student, valedictorian. They seek after recognition in their business - promotions, important assignments, being "boss", titles with C-O or President in them. They seek after recognition in community groups - chairman of a political party, president of a social club, chairman of a fundraising effort, deacon of a church. They seek after public office. They lead from the front whenever possible. First into the fray, top dog, head of the class, alpha male. They are revered by many around them, hated by some, feared in some cases, but almost always respected for their talent or charisma (or both) in some regard. Not all of these men are born to lead, but most of them definitely aspire to it.
I have certainly encountered many women who want to lead as well. Some of the most dynamic leaders I have worked with have been women. One such leader took a high school Interact Club which had formerly been comprised of about ten members and grew it to over 100 members in one year. She did it by word of mouth, recruiting her friends and getting them to recruit their friends, and by being warm and inviting to anyone interested in the club at all. I think she shaped the future leaders of that group as well, because the president who followed her led it in a very different way than she had presided over the Key Club the year before (which still only had ten members when she was done being president). She built an organization that became a cornerstone of the high school in the years that followed, and one that became an important part of recognition at graduation, as members who worked enough hours of service received a rope to wear with their robes.
I realize the last paragraph did not parallel the one before very well, but I have also had somewhat less experience with seeing women seek after leadership roles. Because I have a fairly broad range of experience, I feel reasonably confident in saying that women are less inclined to seek top leadership positions in general, but there are definitely those who want to lead. Some are, as the one I described, compassionate leaders who inspire. Many, especially those in politics and business, built their careers on a reputation of bone crushing and ball breaking, emulating the men in those fields but outdoing them in that way. I have certainly known compassionate female politicians, like the current State School Superintendent of Georgia and my former State Representative from my hometown. I have seen compassionate bosses in the corporate world, at least in articles I have read. But again, my experience shows me that in general men are more often driven to lead from the front than women. Women regularly assume the roles of party or club secretary, vice president of public affairs, and other supporting offices that are not number one. The first female chair of the Georgia Republican Party was just elected last year, and most people would probably agree she received the position because she had earned it by serving in so many offices of support before being chair. I have a tremendous amount of respect for women who do so much of the work of so many organizations and get so little credit because they are not the one whose name is mentioned first. The same goes for men who choose supporting roles, but I find more of them seem to take those roles in the hopes of one day being on top, while many of the women are quite happy being reelected year after year to serve in supporting roles - or they simply support without any office recognition at all.
I have held many positions of leadership. President of clubs and men's groups, captain of several teams, treasurer of a political party, vice president of several social clubs, counselor to the leader of my local church, and president of my company. I might say I have experience in leadership, certainly for someone as young as I am (I still think of myself as young in general). One of the things I most prefer to do, though, is to identify leaders and encourage a group to follow them. I have handpicked numerous officers of various clubs, encouraged peers to enter politics (yes, I admit it is shameful to wish such a thing on anyone), and selected leaders to head social organizations I have started. I know there is a huge amount of work involved in being at the head of any group, and I would rather help those who want the job to achieve it by being part of their support group than to be the leader myself.
In graduate school, I personally chose to follow two women in two different teams because I felt they were the best to lead their projects, and I personally picked two men to lead two clubs I organized because they were uniquely suited to guide those clubs.
The first team leader I chose because I liked her project and it was hers by virtue of her forming the idea, namely to start a Hispanic movie theater in Atlanta. She knew the market from having grown up in that community in Atlanta, and she had identified a perfect location that was available in the heart of most Hispanic part of the city. She obviously had passion for the project because she wanted it to truly happen. I knew my experience with accounting would be an asset to her team because she was a public affairs specialist by degree, and her teammate had a background in journalism. I helped another classmate who was an excellent fact finder, data miner, and data analyzer decide to join the team, and we made a wonderful project. I came within a few signatures of actually starting that business after graduate school, but the project fell through when the movie supplier reneged on his promise to supply first-run blockbusters to our theater. Instead my teammate and I (her original teammate was "fired" from the group by both of us and my friend left because we had what we needed from him) wished each other well and both got married that summer, moving away to different cities.
The second team leader I chose to follow was one who I felt had the best chance to lead a team we were assigned to by our teachers. She had experience in consulting, and it was our job to work on a project consulting with a county school district in the Atlanta area on whether or not they should centralize food production into one facility in their district. I wanted to do a quality job, and her experience in handling consulting jobs would be key to making sure we broke up th project into logical parts. I also knew that the other female on our team would want to lead (I knew her personality) and I would not have wanted to work for her nearly as much. It was clear from the outset that none of the three men on the team would want to be project manager, so I quickly endorsed the experienced consultant within five minutes of our first meeting. Our project was highlighted in the school magazine for what we were doing (at least in part because we were helping a school district, but hopefully because we did a good job) and we gave the district leaders a lot to think about.
The two men I chose to head the clubs were pretty different, but both ambitious to lead. The president of the Terry MBA Toastmasters had a lot of friends, got along well with people, and had a passion to become better as a public speaker. I knew he would encourage many of our classmates to join the club, despite the fact that it meant more work on top of a very busy class schedule. To my knowledge, that club lived on because his presidency formed a succession that a second-year student would always be president, and a first-year student would always follow him so the club would never go without leadership through the summers and after graduation. The other young man I chose made sense to me because he had experience in ILA Toastmasters (ILA stands for Institute for Leadership Advancement, and was comprised entirely of Juniors and Seniors mostly in the business school), and because he was a junior who could serve the club after I was gone and steward it along. Not having the luxury of an experienced Toastmaster in the MBA club made my friend and classmate a logical choice for that club, while experience made more sense in the younger club. I would have been fine with another person who also wanted to be president of that club, but he was popularly elected by the club's members (as was my friend, but he had no opponent in his election). She was dynamic, passionate - a born leader. He, though, still did a great job of helping the club establish order and follow an agenda, which is an important part of the teachings of Toastmasters (running a meeting). He might have made a better second president, because she was a Senior and he a Junior, but I was glad for his leadership nonetheless.
Each of those graduate teams and each of those clubs demonstrate the value of being willing to follow, regardless of the gender of the leader. Great leaders can accomplish a great deal, but without men and women willing to follow them, they have a much more difficult job. I, for one, am glad for someone else to get the recognition when they ask for the job or demonstrate to me they would do a good one. By being a leader's follower, I can shape an organization through their efforts and my own, instead of fighting against a leader I do not agree with or having to lead myself and find people willing to help me. One day, perhaps, I will feel I can no longer avoid the role of leader anymore in certain areas, but by then, hopefully I will have found others like me who will encourage followers to join me.
-- Robert
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Assertiveness And Gender Politics, Hump Day Hmm
Today's Hump Day Hmm asks us to evaluate assertiveness and gender politics in the workplace, relationships, educational environments, or where ever else they come into play. I started to write this post about success (and the techniques I have seen used to find it), and I may still post that effort on another day, but instead I will talk about gender politics in the community where I presently reside. I am not from here, or as locals have been wont to say I "ain't from 'round here", so this commentary might sound judgmental and perhaps even condescending. I don't mean for it to come across that way, but I do want to look at the gender dynamics I observe very frequently here as a relative outsider to them.
Women in this community, for the most part, are not expected to be terribly outspoken. That is to say that those who are outspoken and under the age of fifty tend to look peculiar to the rest of the group. Women are expected to do more behind the scenes work to accomplish their goals and desires. Conversely, men make bold statements full of hyperbole (and swearing in many cases). Coming from a major city where plenty of women quickly spoke their minds on politics, religion, economics, and whatever else they felt like, this "gentile" mindset sometimes disorients me. When I brought a wife who "ain't from 'round here" to this place (I first live here as a single man) and who is definitely outspoken, it was very hard for her. People gave us both peculiar looks, and some even openly ostracized her or both of us. We have overcome some of those early "outsider" attitudes, but it still bothers some people (I think, anyway) that my wife holds an office in a political party when I don't, or that she is so free with her opinion. I know it bothers her (she tells me, for one thing), but it disturbs me. Many of the smartest people I know happen to be women, so why not listen to their ideas? I know it causes some strange looks from men that I almost always respond to questions with "I'll talk to my wife and get back to you." I've been called all manner of derisive names (which I don't care to write down) because I consult with or even let my wife in on decisions I make about how I spend my time. I won't say I was exactly raised to do that, but it is how I run my life and how I act in my home and marriage. We are equal partners who share in our responsibilities.
I also notice that tradesmen here have a habit of verifying things my wife tells them by asking me. They did it a lot to my mother when she built a home here, often asking my father "Your wife asked us to" whatever it was, then "Is that okay with you?" He finally got them cured of it by explaining it was "her house, she can do whatever she wants, don't ask me anymore." My wife recently asked a landscaper to trim some plants around our house, and he pulled over in front of me while I was walking to work to ask "Is what she said okay?" Their attitude seems to say "I know you're the one who writes the checks, so I better ask you." Fortunately most of the ones I have dealt with once have learned not to bother asking again.
The women in this community also do a great deal to organize events. They work with school and club fundraisers, Vacation Bible School, Relay For Life, and myriad other groups here. Men tend to fund these events through their businesses in lieu of spending the volunteer hours. These duty separations appear to be the case even when both spouses in a couple work. There are certainly men who give a great deal of their time to various projects, but besides a choice few in my age bracket (myself included), most of those men are retired or advanced enough in their careers not to need to worry about time spent out of the office now and then.
I can understand a lot of the dynamics of gender politics here. I grew up in Atlanta, where the South still has some influence, and I grew up visiting South Georgia often. Still, I got used to women being more able to share their opinions publicly without ridicule, or without being ostracized by most people for it. Women were definitely vocal in community groups and politics. In short, I notice that too many people here still think "the good ole boys" still need to run things. I'm just fine with that attitude going away, personally, and I'm happy to support my wife in her vocal nature as a small way of breaking down such stereotypes.
-- Robert
P.S.: I apologize that my post did not specifically point out one thing I meant to include in my explanation of gender politics here: assertiveness is not a trait appreciated in women here, unless it relates to advocating for their children. Aggressiveness is openly derided, but even women are simply assertive with their opinions are thought of as "uppity" in many cases. It is unfortunate.
Women in this community, for the most part, are not expected to be terribly outspoken. That is to say that those who are outspoken and under the age of fifty tend to look peculiar to the rest of the group. Women are expected to do more behind the scenes work to accomplish their goals and desires. Conversely, men make bold statements full of hyperbole (and swearing in many cases). Coming from a major city where plenty of women quickly spoke their minds on politics, religion, economics, and whatever else they felt like, this "gentile" mindset sometimes disorients me. When I brought a wife who "ain't from 'round here" to this place (I first live here as a single man) and who is definitely outspoken, it was very hard for her. People gave us both peculiar looks, and some even openly ostracized her or both of us. We have overcome some of those early "outsider" attitudes, but it still bothers some people (I think, anyway) that my wife holds an office in a political party when I don't, or that she is so free with her opinion. I know it bothers her (she tells me, for one thing), but it disturbs me. Many of the smartest people I know happen to be women, so why not listen to their ideas? I know it causes some strange looks from men that I almost always respond to questions with "I'll talk to my wife and get back to you." I've been called all manner of derisive names (which I don't care to write down) because I consult with or even let my wife in on decisions I make about how I spend my time. I won't say I was exactly raised to do that, but it is how I run my life and how I act in my home and marriage. We are equal partners who share in our responsibilities.
I also notice that tradesmen here have a habit of verifying things my wife tells them by asking me. They did it a lot to my mother when she built a home here, often asking my father "Your wife asked us to" whatever it was, then "Is that okay with you?" He finally got them cured of it by explaining it was "her house, she can do whatever she wants, don't ask me anymore." My wife recently asked a landscaper to trim some plants around our house, and he pulled over in front of me while I was walking to work to ask "Is what she said okay?" Their attitude seems to say "I know you're the one who writes the checks, so I better ask you." Fortunately most of the ones I have dealt with once have learned not to bother asking again.
The women in this community also do a great deal to organize events. They work with school and club fundraisers, Vacation Bible School, Relay For Life, and myriad other groups here. Men tend to fund these events through their businesses in lieu of spending the volunteer hours. These duty separations appear to be the case even when both spouses in a couple work. There are certainly men who give a great deal of their time to various projects, but besides a choice few in my age bracket (myself included), most of those men are retired or advanced enough in their careers not to need to worry about time spent out of the office now and then.
I can understand a lot of the dynamics of gender politics here. I grew up in Atlanta, where the South still has some influence, and I grew up visiting South Georgia often. Still, I got used to women being more able to share their opinions publicly without ridicule, or without being ostracized by most people for it. Women were definitely vocal in community groups and politics. In short, I notice that too many people here still think "the good ole boys" still need to run things. I'm just fine with that attitude going away, personally, and I'm happy to support my wife in her vocal nature as a small way of breaking down such stereotypes.
-- Robert
P.S.: I apologize that my post did not specifically point out one thing I meant to include in my explanation of gender politics here: assertiveness is not a trait appreciated in women here, unless it relates to advocating for their children. Aggressiveness is openly derided, but even women are simply assertive with their opinions are thought of as "uppity" in many cases. It is unfortunate.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Proposed Legislation on the Tax Code, More from the Senator
When the Senator came Wednesday, he also discussed various elements of the new stimulus package, Social Security, and tax code. I want to highlight some of what he said, most of which I found encouraging.
Stimulus Package
In the past month, the Congress worked to pass a stimulus package in the hopes of avoiding an economic recession. He was proud of the bipartisan effort that went into getting the bill passed, and of what the package did. He like that the plan helped individuals and families with a rebate, and it helped business by allowing faster write-offs of new equipment purchases. The spending by families and investments by businesses should spur growth in the economy. While I am not as big of a fan of the package passed because it did not make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, I always appreciate the government cutting taxes.
Social Security
He explained that the plans President Bush had of allowing individuals to retain a portion of their Social Security had been sidetracked early in the president's first term. The senator believes, though, that the only long-term solution to save Social Security is to allow people to invest a portion of their Social Security withholdings in a private account like an IRA or 401(k). By allowing them to invest the funds, they can grow and actually build a retirement instead of relying on the present Social Security system, which does not invest any funds at present. He basically described a plan similar to the one I described here. I was very encouraged to hear what he had to say.
Tax Reform
The Senator definitely favors tax reform, but not overnight. He sponsored a bill that would dissolve the present tax code by 2010, with the understanding that it had to be rebuilt by that time. He recalled the effect that sudden changes in the tax code in the 80's had on the Savings and Loans industry (it was wiped out) and how it contributed to the recession of 1991. He favors a consumption tax (like the FairTax) because it allows individuals to decide whether or not they want to pay the tax instead of making it compulsory. I definitely appreciated his take on how to properly implement tax changes, and I look forward to seeing what else comes out of Washington in the next few months and years.
I really appreciated the senator's visit to our small town. He had not met my wife before, so it was good to introduce him to the new parts of my family, and to let my wife see why I supported him even though he was not the candidate we first supported when he ran for Senate. He is a good man, not so full of himself as many politicians. He had engaging answers, and regularly referred to the problems in Washington as something "we" need to change, instead of "they" (he knows he is there and shares in the blame, he explained). I hope he remains in Washington and gets more accomplished for now. If he decides to run for governor in the next election, though, I can't say I wouldn't support him.
-- Robert
Stimulus Package
In the past month, the Congress worked to pass a stimulus package in the hopes of avoiding an economic recession. He was proud of the bipartisan effort that went into getting the bill passed, and of what the package did. He like that the plan helped individuals and families with a rebate, and it helped business by allowing faster write-offs of new equipment purchases. The spending by families and investments by businesses should spur growth in the economy. While I am not as big of a fan of the package passed because it did not make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, I always appreciate the government cutting taxes.
Social Security
He explained that the plans President Bush had of allowing individuals to retain a portion of their Social Security had been sidetracked early in the president's first term. The senator believes, though, that the only long-term solution to save Social Security is to allow people to invest a portion of their Social Security withholdings in a private account like an IRA or 401(k). By allowing them to invest the funds, they can grow and actually build a retirement instead of relying on the present Social Security system, which does not invest any funds at present. He basically described a plan similar to the one I described here. I was very encouraged to hear what he had to say.
Tax Reform
The Senator definitely favors tax reform, but not overnight. He sponsored a bill that would dissolve the present tax code by 2010, with the understanding that it had to be rebuilt by that time. He recalled the effect that sudden changes in the tax code in the 80's had on the Savings and Loans industry (it was wiped out) and how it contributed to the recession of 1991. He favors a consumption tax (like the FairTax) because it allows individuals to decide whether or not they want to pay the tax instead of making it compulsory. I definitely appreciated his take on how to properly implement tax changes, and I look forward to seeing what else comes out of Washington in the next few months and years.
I really appreciated the senator's visit to our small town. He had not met my wife before, so it was good to introduce him to the new parts of my family, and to let my wife see why I supported him even though he was not the candidate we first supported when he ran for Senate. He is a good man, not so full of himself as many politicians. He had engaging answers, and regularly referred to the problems in Washington as something "we" need to change, instead of "they" (he knows he is there and shares in the blame, he explained). I hope he remains in Washington and gets more accomplished for now. If he decides to run for governor in the next election, though, I can't say I wouldn't support him.
-- Robert
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A Senator's Tale
Wednesday morning, one of our U.S. Senators came to town to hear from his constituents. He is not up for reelection, so he really was just on what he called a "listening tour", giving people a chance to tell him their perspective. He started out by sharing a story about his recent trip to Iraq. He explained that he had been to Iraq every January since we had gone to war with them. Each time he had been flown in on a cargo plane, then quickly rushed onto a Blackhawk helicopter waiting on the airstrip. The Blackhawk would then fly low maneuvers into town to avoid radar detection and limit the chance a senator would be attacked. This January, though, after deboarding the cargo plane, he drove in a Chevy Suburban into town. He went to a plaza of store fronts that had been abandoned for years. He ate bread and drank "some of the stiffest coffee" he'd ever had at a coffee shop opened by two brothers. Twenty of the twenty-four stalls had stores now.
As I said, the story gave me hope. It gave me hope that things are truly improving in Iraq. It also gave me hope that most of our troops will be coming out. Right now, 500,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained to take over the military and security enforcement in Iraq, and provincial government elections will be coming soon. Democracy seems to have found root in the Iraqi landscape. Here's hoping it flourishes.
-- Robert
As I said, the story gave me hope. It gave me hope that things are truly improving in Iraq. It also gave me hope that most of our troops will be coming out. Right now, 500,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained to take over the military and security enforcement in Iraq, and provincial government elections will be coming soon. Democracy seems to have found root in the Iraqi landscape. Here's hoping it flourishes.
-- Robert
Thursday, February 21, 2008
One Man's Proposal to Curb The Rising Cost of Health Care, Part 2
3. Government incentives to enter the most needed fields of medicine
Programs already exist that pay off loans for doctors who work a certain number of years in rural areas. Programs could also reimburse some measure of tuition or pay off some measure of loans for doctors to enter the fields in high demand that are not presently attracting as many doctors. There would be more primary care physicians available, helping people have greater availability. Loan payoffs could be tied to working in a given field as well as working in geographic or economic areas that need more doctors. If those programs already exist, then perhaps I am showing my ignorance. As it stands, new doctors are focusing on fields that earn them more money, and some further incentive to encourage more people to work in medicine as the field continues to have an increasing demand in years to come. I freely admit I am fairly ignorant on how these programs presently work to encourage doctors to work in rural areas. If they already include the requirement to go into certain fields, then good for them.
4. Remove the requirement that students must have an undergraduate degree to enter medical school
Once upon a time, students could go to veterinary school without completing a bachelor's degree. I know my former vet, now retired, did just that about fifty years ago. As it stands, for a person to become a doctor, they have to go through eight years of study and four years of residency to be a doctor free to practice on their own. If we removed the requirement for students finish the bachelor's program first, and instead required something more like an associate's in pre-med that involved all the necessary sciences, we could at least remove some of the time spent becoming a doctor. I know the enormous commitment to become a doctor has deterred many of my very intelligent friends from pursuing it, even some who planned all through their childhood to become one. If we shorten the path, we might hope to get more doctors.
5. Final Thoughts
In addition to these ideas, I also completely agree with Lawyer Mama that the system already pays for people's care, whether we like it or not. One commenter, SarcastaMom, on her blog post about universal health care, suggested we take the large sums spent on expensive care after the fact and invest it in more preventative care and education. I agree, but we need to come up with a good way to accomplish that shift in spending. Making it part of Medicaid and Medicare might make some sense, but not if it becomes "add-on" instead of "in-lieu-of" spending. My suggestion would be to require those on Medicaid to have an annual physical, which would help in curtailing major illnesses growing unchecked before they turn into something serious. Private insurance could also pay for an annual physical without regard to deductible as a further encouragement for people to get a better idea of how their general health is doing.
Doctors are already swamped in any office I visit, but with these government incentives, the cost of medical care to the consumer could and would go down and the availability would go up. These programs would also avoid the government taking over the role of insurance companies, but instead help the actual cost of medical care go down by removing the government-related costs from the equation. That's my two cents on the matter. Now I'd love to hear other ideas.
-- Robert
Programs already exist that pay off loans for doctors who work a certain number of years in rural areas. Programs could also reimburse some measure of tuition or pay off some measure of loans for doctors to enter the fields in high demand that are not presently attracting as many doctors. There would be more primary care physicians available, helping people have greater availability. Loan payoffs could be tied to working in a given field as well as working in geographic or economic areas that need more doctors. If those programs already exist, then perhaps I am showing my ignorance. As it stands, new doctors are focusing on fields that earn them more money, and some further incentive to encourage more people to work in medicine as the field continues to have an increasing demand in years to come. I freely admit I am fairly ignorant on how these programs presently work to encourage doctors to work in rural areas. If they already include the requirement to go into certain fields, then good for them.
4. Remove the requirement that students must have an undergraduate degree to enter medical school
Once upon a time, students could go to veterinary school without completing a bachelor's degree. I know my former vet, now retired, did just that about fifty years ago. As it stands, for a person to become a doctor, they have to go through eight years of study and four years of residency to be a doctor free to practice on their own. If we removed the requirement for students finish the bachelor's program first, and instead required something more like an associate's in pre-med that involved all the necessary sciences, we could at least remove some of the time spent becoming a doctor. I know the enormous commitment to become a doctor has deterred many of my very intelligent friends from pursuing it, even some who planned all through their childhood to become one. If we shorten the path, we might hope to get more doctors.
5. Final Thoughts
In addition to these ideas, I also completely agree with Lawyer Mama that the system already pays for people's care, whether we like it or not. One commenter, SarcastaMom, on her blog post about universal health care, suggested we take the large sums spent on expensive care after the fact and invest it in more preventative care and education. I agree, but we need to come up with a good way to accomplish that shift in spending. Making it part of Medicaid and Medicare might make some sense, but not if it becomes "add-on" instead of "in-lieu-of" spending. My suggestion would be to require those on Medicaid to have an annual physical, which would help in curtailing major illnesses growing unchecked before they turn into something serious. Private insurance could also pay for an annual physical without regard to deductible as a further encouragement for people to get a better idea of how their general health is doing.
Doctors are already swamped in any office I visit, but with these government incentives, the cost of medical care to the consumer could and would go down and the availability would go up. These programs would also avoid the government taking over the role of insurance companies, but instead help the actual cost of medical care go down by removing the government-related costs from the equation. That's my two cents on the matter. Now I'd love to hear other ideas.
-- Robert
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
One Man's Proposal to Curb The Rising Cost of Health Care, Part 1
Saturday, my wife and I were taking a lovely walk through our neighborhood. As we walked, we discussed this post on universal health care. We both agree that we do not want universal health care, but what good is simply disagreeing without proposing a solution, or at least an alternative. I came up with something I would love to have input on. Today I will post the first two parts of where I thought we could start.
1. Medical professionals no longer pay federal taxes on income
If we removed the income tax and payroll tax from medical professionals, we would allow doctors to charge less for their services. We would also encourage more people to consider entering the medical field. Presently, various economic studies have shown that the average doctor makes less than the average businessman when the costs and time spent becoming a doctor are taken into account. In simpler terms, while a doctor's actual income may appear quite high, the investment spent to become a doctor is much higher in dollars and time, and the average business school graduate can make a higher living with less time and money invested thanks to several more years of earning power to build up with. If doctors no longer had to pay taxes, we would substantially increase their ability to make a living, some of which could be passed on to patients in the form of reduced fees. As more students become doctors, the increased supply would also reduce the cost of medical care on the system. Presently, we need similar increases in the supply of other medical professionals, such as nurses and EMT's, and removing their taxes would definitely encourage more people to consider medicine when choosing a career.
2. The Federal Government pays malpractice insurance premiums on doctors
One of the highest costs any medical practice copes with is the premium on malpractice insurance. If government paid those premiums, doctors could again charge less for their services. If particular doctors had continual problems with malfeasance, then the government could revoke their license and cease paying their premiums to avoid a rise in those costs. Managing those malpractice premiums would also encourage the government to oversee medical care as well as evaluate awards in malpractice cases more carefully. Taking more of the burden off of doctors to manage the business side of their practice would give them more time to focus on actual medical care. If the cost of paying these premiums is anywhere near the cost of insuring the forty-six million presently without insurance in this country, I would be fairly surprised. Even if it was close, paying the malpractice premiums would go a long way to reducing the cost of medical insurance as the cost of medical care reduced, making the malpractice premiums an investment in reduction.
The second half of this proposal will be up on Thursday. I look forward to plenty of comments on both days.
-- Robert
1. Medical professionals no longer pay federal taxes on income
If we removed the income tax and payroll tax from medical professionals, we would allow doctors to charge less for their services. We would also encourage more people to consider entering the medical field. Presently, various economic studies have shown that the average doctor makes less than the average businessman when the costs and time spent becoming a doctor are taken into account. In simpler terms, while a doctor's actual income may appear quite high, the investment spent to become a doctor is much higher in dollars and time, and the average business school graduate can make a higher living with less time and money invested thanks to several more years of earning power to build up with. If doctors no longer had to pay taxes, we would substantially increase their ability to make a living, some of which could be passed on to patients in the form of reduced fees. As more students become doctors, the increased supply would also reduce the cost of medical care on the system. Presently, we need similar increases in the supply of other medical professionals, such as nurses and EMT's, and removing their taxes would definitely encourage more people to consider medicine when choosing a career.
2. The Federal Government pays malpractice insurance premiums on doctors
One of the highest costs any medical practice copes with is the premium on malpractice insurance. If government paid those premiums, doctors could again charge less for their services. If particular doctors had continual problems with malfeasance, then the government could revoke their license and cease paying their premiums to avoid a rise in those costs. Managing those malpractice premiums would also encourage the government to oversee medical care as well as evaluate awards in malpractice cases more carefully. Taking more of the burden off of doctors to manage the business side of their practice would give them more time to focus on actual medical care. If the cost of paying these premiums is anywhere near the cost of insuring the forty-six million presently without insurance in this country, I would be fairly surprised. Even if it was close, paying the malpractice premiums would go a long way to reducing the cost of medical insurance as the cost of medical care reduced, making the malpractice premiums an investment in reduction.
The second half of this proposal will be up on Thursday. I look forward to plenty of comments on both days.
-- Robert
Monday, February 18, 2008
Conservatism Versus Liberalism - One Man's Perspective
I have spent some time recently reading the blogs of self-described liberal women. I have once again been reminded of the definite similarity between the internal perspectives of their values and my own. They want people to be well cared for, and their fellow man to do well. They want to see injustices in the system reduced or removed, and they want to take care of their own needs while still not stepping on others to accomplish it. In short, all of us of care about the world around us a great deal, and we want to make a better world for our children to grow up in. The difference, in my opinion, comes in the outward projection of those inward designs.
For the most part, I find liberals prefer to mandate compliance with laws to affect a change in the world. They want the government to force corporations to do what the market will not. They want the government to supply insurance (and thereby health care) when the insurance agencies will not. They want to give those who are less fortunate a government handout - derived from taxing others - to help those who don't make enough to take care of themselves and their children. They look to the government to create logical retirement solutions in programs like Social Security and Medicare. In short, they prefer government regulations and government programs when the time comes to solve a problem.
As a conservative, I prefer to find solutions that encourage private entities and individuals to solve problems. I prefer to change the world by increasing opportunities for education and employment to encourage people to take care of themselves. I would rather cut taxes and regulations on employers (most often, corporations) to allow them to employ people at more suitable wages and charge prices more reasonable for all. I would like to give insurance companies tax breaks as an incentive to offer broader coverages to all people. I would rather the government allow people to save their own money for retirement in lieu of paying for Social Security. I can concede that mandating they put money into a retirement account to avoid payroll taxes would be a suitable first step, but I again prefer not to force people to take care of themselves through taxation. I believe the government has created numerous programs that hamper the market's ability to meet more people's needs. I believe excessive regulations and corporate taxes have driven jobs overseas, when removing the corporate taxes would likely promote an influx of jobs to this country.
I think liberals and conservatives both want to help their fellow man. They just go about it in very different ways. Liberals want the government to handle the job by taxing the haves and sharing with the have nots. Conservatives want to help people learn to take care of themselves, and for the government to primarily provide for the safety of individuals from criminals and foreign threats but otherwise leave people alone. I know I have oversimplified the arguments and viewpoints of both sides. My point is to look for common ground - the desire to help others - and to work toward that common goal with solutions that will work. I am willing to listen to both sides, with the understanding that I want to be listened to when I make my suggestions. The time has come that we forget the tension the media builds up for the sake of a good story and move forward as one people. Otherwise, we'll continue to be mired in the growing problems of economics, health care, national security, and individual rights. I want to start building a better tomorrow now, instead of waiting for catastrophe. Who's with me?
-- Robert
For the most part, I find liberals prefer to mandate compliance with laws to affect a change in the world. They want the government to force corporations to do what the market will not. They want the government to supply insurance (and thereby health care) when the insurance agencies will not. They want to give those who are less fortunate a government handout - derived from taxing others - to help those who don't make enough to take care of themselves and their children. They look to the government to create logical retirement solutions in programs like Social Security and Medicare. In short, they prefer government regulations and government programs when the time comes to solve a problem.
As a conservative, I prefer to find solutions that encourage private entities and individuals to solve problems. I prefer to change the world by increasing opportunities for education and employment to encourage people to take care of themselves. I would rather cut taxes and regulations on employers (most often, corporations) to allow them to employ people at more suitable wages and charge prices more reasonable for all. I would like to give insurance companies tax breaks as an incentive to offer broader coverages to all people. I would rather the government allow people to save their own money for retirement in lieu of paying for Social Security. I can concede that mandating they put money into a retirement account to avoid payroll taxes would be a suitable first step, but I again prefer not to force people to take care of themselves through taxation. I believe the government has created numerous programs that hamper the market's ability to meet more people's needs. I believe excessive regulations and corporate taxes have driven jobs overseas, when removing the corporate taxes would likely promote an influx of jobs to this country.
I think liberals and conservatives both want to help their fellow man. They just go about it in very different ways. Liberals want the government to handle the job by taxing the haves and sharing with the have nots. Conservatives want to help people learn to take care of themselves, and for the government to primarily provide for the safety of individuals from criminals and foreign threats but otherwise leave people alone. I know I have oversimplified the arguments and viewpoints of both sides. My point is to look for common ground - the desire to help others - and to work toward that common goal with solutions that will work. I am willing to listen to both sides, with the understanding that I want to be listened to when I make my suggestions. The time has come that we forget the tension the media builds up for the sake of a good story and move forward as one people. Otherwise, we'll continue to be mired in the growing problems of economics, health care, national security, and individual rights. I want to start building a better tomorrow now, instead of waiting for catastrophe. Who's with me?
-- Robert
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Universal Health Care
This post is written in response to a post by Lawyer Mama which can be read in part here and in full here.
To preface, I am one of those who has to pay for my own insurance out of my paycheck. I have spent an average of more than 20% of that paycheck each year on medical costs.
I don't want universal health care. I would much prefer a private solution where group health care were more readily available to those who do not work for employers that provide coverage in the benefits package. There are more and more companies getting out of that benefit area anyway because the costs are skyrocketing. By the insurance companies offering group coverage based on locality, age, or whatever other logic diversified their risk adequately, more people could get coverage.
I also think a better solution is that more health-related items should be tax deductible. Pay for a gym? Tax deductible. Get an annual physical? Tax deductible. If more preventative medicine practices were covered by insurance or tax deductible, people would be more encouraged to undertake those practices. Universal health care without those remedies would only increase the velocity of the costs increases as more people become encouraged to "just wait 'til it blows" (my father once told me to do that with a tire that was leaky, and I did, so it happened on the way to school, kind of fits the poor timing comment). As one driver once said to another, regarding his truck, "I don't maintain my equipment. I just hope it goes out while I'm under a load with [my company]." I don't let him work with us anymore. Because the current system encourages people to wait until their problems are chronic, our costs will continue to go up.
The last reason I would not want universal health care is the same reason I don't want Social Security in its present form anymore. When the government takes tax dollars to pay for something, they are matching dollars with dollars. When an insurance company takes in premiums, they invest those premiums and use their profits to pay for health care. Government could never compete with them on their ability to cover costs (even as bad as they are already about paying for what they are supposed to). If government took tax dollars in and paid them to private insurance companies to handle those who qualify for some program, I would be willing to entertain proposals on the idea.
I have one further problem with creating one more program to help those who are "unable to help themselves." By aiding those considered less fortunate, more people become less fortunate. If I could quit paying what I do for insurance and just qualify for a government program instead, I might. Certainly many would. It happens time and again. The welfare rolls have plenty on them who could do more for themselves than they do, but they're satisfied getting by on welfare because they get medical costs handled and basic needs met. I won't discuss the criminal subculture of welfare recipients who find other sources of income here because I don't want to cloud the issue. Creating universal health care to insure those who are not presently insured would actually mean insuring more than their 46-million.
I know plenty of young people who are healthy and able-bodied who simply don't have insurance because they choose not to. Sure, they're taking a risk, but that's their choice. If I had saved all my premiums and simply paid for the various costs of medical care I had incurred with my family (and no, they are not low) over the past four years, I would still have money left over from my premiums I am sure. But I pay for insurance to cover catastrophies. I am also a diabetic who will need further health care for probably the rest of my life. If I had not gotten on insurance before, I might be faced with a serious problem now. Still, I don't want universal health care to save me. I prefer to look for better solutions than government managed programs. I am definitely interested in discussing government aided private solutions when the aid comes in the form of tax breaks and positive incentives instead of increased taxation to build more programs.
I would love to hear more thoughts on this subject. I have posted the links to the inspiration for my comments on the subject, so hopefully comments here will be something new beyond those endorsements.
-- Robert
To preface, I am one of those who has to pay for my own insurance out of my paycheck. I have spent an average of more than 20% of that paycheck each year on medical costs.
I don't want universal health care. I would much prefer a private solution where group health care were more readily available to those who do not work for employers that provide coverage in the benefits package. There are more and more companies getting out of that benefit area anyway because the costs are skyrocketing. By the insurance companies offering group coverage based on locality, age, or whatever other logic diversified their risk adequately, more people could get coverage.
I also think a better solution is that more health-related items should be tax deductible. Pay for a gym? Tax deductible. Get an annual physical? Tax deductible. If more preventative medicine practices were covered by insurance or tax deductible, people would be more encouraged to undertake those practices. Universal health care without those remedies would only increase the velocity of the costs increases as more people become encouraged to "just wait 'til it blows" (my father once told me to do that with a tire that was leaky, and I did, so it happened on the way to school, kind of fits the poor timing comment). As one driver once said to another, regarding his truck, "I don't maintain my equipment. I just hope it goes out while I'm under a load with [my company]." I don't let him work with us anymore. Because the current system encourages people to wait until their problems are chronic, our costs will continue to go up.
The last reason I would not want universal health care is the same reason I don't want Social Security in its present form anymore. When the government takes tax dollars to pay for something, they are matching dollars with dollars. When an insurance company takes in premiums, they invest those premiums and use their profits to pay for health care. Government could never compete with them on their ability to cover costs (even as bad as they are already about paying for what they are supposed to). If government took tax dollars in and paid them to private insurance companies to handle those who qualify for some program, I would be willing to entertain proposals on the idea.
I have one further problem with creating one more program to help those who are "unable to help themselves." By aiding those considered less fortunate, more people become less fortunate. If I could quit paying what I do for insurance and just qualify for a government program instead, I might. Certainly many would. It happens time and again. The welfare rolls have plenty on them who could do more for themselves than they do, but they're satisfied getting by on welfare because they get medical costs handled and basic needs met. I won't discuss the criminal subculture of welfare recipients who find other sources of income here because I don't want to cloud the issue. Creating universal health care to insure those who are not presently insured would actually mean insuring more than their 46-million.
I know plenty of young people who are healthy and able-bodied who simply don't have insurance because they choose not to. Sure, they're taking a risk, but that's their choice. If I had saved all my premiums and simply paid for the various costs of medical care I had incurred with my family (and no, they are not low) over the past four years, I would still have money left over from my premiums I am sure. But I pay for insurance to cover catastrophies. I am also a diabetic who will need further health care for probably the rest of my life. If I had not gotten on insurance before, I might be faced with a serious problem now. Still, I don't want universal health care to save me. I prefer to look for better solutions than government managed programs. I am definitely interested in discussing government aided private solutions when the aid comes in the form of tax breaks and positive incentives instead of increased taxation to build more programs.
I would love to hear more thoughts on this subject. I have posted the links to the inspiration for my comments on the subject, so hopefully comments here will be something new beyond those endorsements.
-- Robert
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Social Security - An Investment Strategy
Last night as I was driving home, I heard Dave Ramsey explain how Social Security looks as an investment of our wealth. If a person making $40,000 a year from age twenty to seventy with no pay increases were allowed to keep two percent of his paycheck out of the 7.65% held out now for Social Security, and he invested that $800 a year for that entire fifty years at the average market return of 12%, he could retired with over $2.6M in savings. If he lived off five percent of that and kept it invest at seven percent (for security), he would have three times the annual income he had made his entire life to live on, and he would still have the same money left when he died for his children to inherit. Instead, for the 7.65% he put in, he gets back about $1,200 a month to live on. Imagine how well off he would be if he had gotten to keep all his social security withholdings to invest. In other words, Social Security represents one of the worst investments in the history of the world. Our government withholds money, never invests it, and then gives it back at a faster pace than it was paid in, but the money never had a chance to even counteract inflation. Should we still continue to tinker with a system based on the hope that its investors die off before they ever collect, or should we let people opt out? I would love to hear input on this topic.
Updated:
I am sure some government analysts (I will do my best not to sound condescending here) can determine what amount needs to still be paid in by employees to make sure everyone presently on Social Security can get it until they're 85 or so, and anyone who wishes to stay in will just be aware they will only get paid out of it up to the level of total contribution (which will give them an added incentive to opt out). Since it's so popular to burden the employers with this cost, they could continue to pay in on all employees who opt out for the first few years, with a phase out on any employees who have opted out. That will give employers a great incentive to offer employees who choose to opt out: they can use the 7.65% they're not longer paying to match retirement funds in a 401(k) plan. Let me explain that more clearly: presently, many employers match retirement funds for employees vested in their retirement plan (called a 401(k) when involving businesses). Since the employers are already matching those taxes, it will not cost them any more to give those funds to the employee in a matching situation, which will help even more people retire well. Those funds will be invested in the market in some fashion (stocks or bonds, most likely) which will help the economy. Social Security would be protected for anyone still paying in, but those who choose to opt out have a great opportunity to prepare themselves for the future in a way that unburdens the government and other taxpayers.
-- Robert
Updated:
I am sure some government analysts (I will do my best not to sound condescending here) can determine what amount needs to still be paid in by employees to make sure everyone presently on Social Security can get it until they're 85 or so, and anyone who wishes to stay in will just be aware they will only get paid out of it up to the level of total contribution (which will give them an added incentive to opt out). Since it's so popular to burden the employers with this cost, they could continue to pay in on all employees who opt out for the first few years, with a phase out on any employees who have opted out. That will give employers a great incentive to offer employees who choose to opt out: they can use the 7.65% they're not longer paying to match retirement funds in a 401(k) plan. Let me explain that more clearly: presently, many employers match retirement funds for employees vested in their retirement plan (called a 401(k) when involving businesses). Since the employers are already matching those taxes, it will not cost them any more to give those funds to the employee in a matching situation, which will help even more people retire well. Those funds will be invested in the market in some fashion (stocks or bonds, most likely) which will help the economy. Social Security would be protected for anyone still paying in, but those who choose to opt out have a great opportunity to prepare themselves for the future in a way that unburdens the government and other taxpayers.
-- Robert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)