Triple Threat: A fictional short-short story

The Year-End Bonus: A fictional short-short story

A Shameless Worship of Heroes. By Will Durant

On Rewards

What if Schools Didn't Give Grades? A thought experiment

Wiser to Give to the Neediest or to the Higher-Potential? A Debate.

Thanksgiving kicks off “The Season of Giving.” The unspoken next phrase is “to the ‘less fortunate’” or some such. That concept is viewed as non-controversial as apple pie. But it may merit a bit of examination.

An underdiscussed foundational belief is whether it’s wise to increase the amount of resources—our own or society’s—gives to those with the greatest deficit or to those with greater potential to make a difference. There are solid arguments on both sides. I offer them in my PsychologyToday.com article today.

In Praise of the Privileged

Of course, many middle- and upper-incomers start out with advantages. For example, they are more likely to come from families that inculcate the value of hard work.

But could it be that the meritocracy/redistribution pendulum has swung too far, that middle- and upper-income people deserve more credit? I explore that in my PsychologyToday.com article today. HERE is the link.

Redistribution Toward Egalitarianism: Positive and Negative Outcome Scenarios

We are in an era of calls for increased egalitarianism, redistribution from society's haves to its have-nots. The terms vary, for example, "reduce income inequality," "social justice," "close the achievement gap,"  but the meaning is the same: redistribute.

Redistribution already has many manifestations in public policy. For example:

• A progressive income tax in which the top 5 percent of earners already pay 59 percent of the tax but the call is to additionally "soak the rich."
• Welfare/food stamps/subsidized housing. There now are 47.4 million people on food stamps, one in six adults.
•  File "sharing." Producers of music, especially record companies have more money than the pool of illegal downloaders. File "sharing" (stealing) redistributes to lower-income people. Congress, last week, held a hearing to explore legalizing file sharing.
• Extending unemployment benefits. The pool of taxpayers (predominantly working people) are 'haves" compared with the unemployed, so extending unemployment checks to 99 weeks redistributes more money to lower-income people.
•  Raising the minimum wage. That redistributes money to the poor not only from the employer but from the customer. Why? When the minimum wage rises, for example, in a fast food restaurant, the employer raises prices. That forces the customers (disproportionately of modest income) to pay for that redistribution to lowest-wage workers. And do remember that the people who end up working in fast-food restaurants didn't end up there at random. Better-paid workers generally, for example, were willing to defer gratification and income by attending college.
• Disparate impact policies.The current federal government wants to prohibit use, for example, of credit checks or being long-term unemployed as a criterion for employment or apartment rental because it has disparate impact on people of color. As a result, we have the Alice-in-Wonderland reality that people who have good credit and been employed are penalized. Now the Dept of Justice is meeting with leaders from the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology to try to replace tests, for example, of reasoning, with tests that won't have disproportionate negative impact on "underrepresented" minorities.
• No Child Left Behind--the dominant federal education policy--mandates carrots and sticks for dealing with low-achieving kids but none for average and high achievers.  As a result, schools have dumbed down their curriculum, disproportionately benefiting low-income kids and hurting everyone else. More broadly, the U.S. has spent literally trillions of dollars over the past 75 years, starting with Lyndon Johnson's anti-poverty/New Society program yet the racial achievement "gap" is as wide as ever.  In our personal lives, we lament wasting even a few dollars yet we've wasted literally trillions and no one seems unduly exercised. Indeed the call is to spend more to try to close the achievement "gap."
• Most colleges admit weaker students if they come from low-income households. Also, colleges employ Robin Hood pricing: Overcharge the middle- and upper income people to subsidize the poor. In addition, government financial aid redistributes from the taxpayer to a pool of lower-income people. 
• Some employers, in part because of government and activists' pressure, use reverse discrimination in hiring and promotion. Indeed a study conducted by Harvard and Tufts researchers found that both whites and blacks believe discrimination against blacks has decreased and whites feel that discrimination against whites is a bigger problem.
• ObamaCare redistributes the health care pie to the poor from everyone else. The number of doctors, nurses, MRI machines, operating rooms, etc will grow too slowly to accommodate the planned 40 million additional covered people plus 11.7 million illegals when President Obama achieves his promise to legalize them. That will mean 50+ million disproportionately lower-income people with high health care needs will take a larger share of the health care pie but pay little into the system. They will be paid for by employers and, indirectly by employees because their premiums will be raised to compensate for the costs of providing health care to the poor. The already overwhelmed health care system kills 440,000 people a year just in hospitals because of medical errors. The result of adding 50+ million more who pay little will mean that their addition will kill many thousands of people who do pay for health care. That may be the ultimate redistribution. 
• Legalizing the illegal immigrants. Poor people who sneaked into the U.S. illegally and their families will receive the benefits of US citizens, compliments of the taxpayer.
• Unrecorded redistributions: Every time we do something good for someone, even if part because they are poor, a woman, or minority, we are redistributing. 
• Nonprofits' mission is to solicit donations from the haves to redistribute to the have-nots: literacy, food, health, etc, here and worldwide.
• Indeed, redistribution policies extend beyond the U.S., for example, foreign aid from the U.S. and other developed nations to "developing" nations. Another example: the World Bank and EU pressure successful countries to bail-out unsuccessful ones such as Greece or Rwanda, and for private banks to forgive loans to developing nations. A final example: the worldwide support of the (have-not) Palestinians over the (have) Israelis. The Israelis have contributed more to the world in science, literature, women's rights etc, than any nation in the world, yet it is viewed as equivalent to the Palestinians. Worse, we have a double-standard: We expect Israel to allow Palestinians to have equal rights when their government calls for Israel's extermination while we accept without question the many Muslim countries insisting that only Muslims can escape punishment. We should be rewarding merit more than redistributive egalitarianism.
• And a catchall: In every industry, nonprofit, and government agency, in recent years the focus has been redistributed from what's best overall for society or for the middle class to how to better serve the have-nots. 

All of this of course is fueled by a media that disproportionately does stories praising redistribution.

As a thought experiment, here I  lay out a positive and a negative scenario of what might occur as a result of our accelerating egalitarianism. Yes. we see headlines lamenting the tiny sliver of people who earn big incomes (like top CEOs) but the middle class is hollowing out as we redistribute ever more to the poor. Even if we tax the rich at 100%, they represent too small a percentage of the population to provide a solid existence for the poor. To do serious redistribution, we must soak not only the rich but the middle class.

Assumptions
Immigration, differential birth rates, the Democrats' superior ground game and Internet marketing, and making Puerto Rico and D.C. the 51st and 52nd states, will result in an ever more Democratic-party-run government, resulting in ever more redistribution. Within about 20 years, except for the tiniest sliver of the ultra-wealthy, most people will be living at about 200% of the poverty line, approximately $45,000 in today's dollars for a family of four. People will thus afford only basic food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. As a result, whole industries, for example, car manufacturers, will not be able to survive because few could afford a new car. As a result, government will nationalize it, making only tiny utilitarian vehicles, which could be sold new for under $10,000 like the Tata Nano. The shutting down of industries producing non-essentials will cause an even greater shortage of jobs, and the egalitarian ethos will result in government passing a 20-hour maximum workweek.

A positive scenario
The deemphasis on material acquisition will result in people living more rewarding lives, finding pleasure in creative expression, relationships, and life's simple pleasures: nature, beauty, sex, etc. The more egalitarian society will reduce competition and increase cooperation among people, reducing stress and increasing a communal sense of purpose. The small percentage of entrepreneurial types will start small businesses, mainly simple service businesses: repairing, garden preparation, artistic performance, etc.  While health care won't be as good, the lower stress lifestyle will result in less need for elaborate health care and people will come to accept dying without high-tech intervention. The more cooperative, less materialistic society, with most people being of relative equal financial condition, will result in less violence. Life will resemble that on an Israeli kibbutz.

A negative scenario
The lack of financial incentive will make most people work minimally. That will cause the food and service shortages that existed in the Communist Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and exist today in Cuba and socialist countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia.  Single-payer health care will be adopted but lead to lack-of-access and vastly increased deficits as is occurring even in countries liberals like to point to as models: Sweden, Canada, and Great Britain. As is often the case with welfare recipients, an egalitarian society will cause an increase in entitlement and frustration with shortages and, in turn, an increase in drug abuse to anesthetize the pain and in violent social upheaval as has occurred in recent years in, for example, the thousands of car torchings in socialist France. For example, gangs will flash-mob-invade the homes of people who have more than they do and rob them empty. Life in the U.S. will become more like life in a "developing" nation.

Which scenario do you think is more likely?

A Case for Meritocracy over Egalitarianism

America is becoming ever more egalitarian: Make things more equal: from health care to education, money to media accolades. That has obvious appeal but in the end, is it a net good for America?

Will America get better because of our new practice of reallocating education resources from average-and-above kids to low achievers? That policy is now being taken to such extremes that even when parents in middle-class schools donate additional money to their kids' school, it's viewed as unfair--It's argued that that money should be distributed equally to low-performing schools. Despite what politicians and the media disingenuously assert, not everyone has the same potential to profit from instruction and to abet society. So reallocating resources away from those with the greatest potential to cure our diseases, start new businesses, and run government wisely can only accelerate America's decline. 

Will America get better by further taxing the top 20 percent, which already pay 70 percent of the taxes while the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.3 percent, even though the top 20 percent is far more likely to use the money to create jobs or to invest it so others can create jobs. For example, when middle-income people get to keep more of what they earn, they are likely to invest it, perhaps in a stock, which enables the company to invest more in research and development. Or a person might put the money in a bank, which then has more funds to lend to home buyers which, in turn, creates jobs for home builders. Far less ripple effect accrues from taking money from the middle class to give to the poor. At best, that redistribution results in basic purchases. At worst, some of it goes for drugs, guns, etc., not to mention junk food, smartphones, and $150 sneakers, not exactly inspiring uses of your tax dollars. 

Will America get better if able-bodied welfare recipients, for not working, get more money than does someone earns for working 40 hours a week at a $15 an hour job. That is the case in 35 states.

Will America get better when--per the egalitarian goal of single-payer health care--a person who has paid into the system all his life and has otherwise contributed to society should get the same level of health care as someone who hasn't? Should short wait times for non-emergency appointments, choosing your own doctor and hospital, a semi-private room, and electing to have expensive unclear-benefit treatments be equally available for both groups of people? Even though that will result in excess morbidity and mortality to the contributory group? Or will that, along with the egalitarian dream of making education and money more equally distributed, create major disincentive for people to work hard?

Will America get better when the culture demands that the accomplisher give credit to everyone but himself--Think Academy Award speeches, political candidate acceptance speeches, etc.  "It was a team effort. Without a lot of other people and especially my family, it would have been impossible."

Will America get better for its colleges having opened its doors to virtually all comers? As stated in the New York Times, "nearly everyone gets accepted by a worthy institution." In fact, our nearly open-admissions policy has resulted in dumbing-down higher education to the lowest common denominator, resulting in such frightening authoritative findings as that 36 percent of today's college graduates grow not at all in college in writing and critical thinking. Pity not the weak student but the strong one who could have profited from a not dumbed-down college education. Sure, you can get a rigorous education at the relative handful of highly selective colleges but only the tiniest percentage of even strong students can attend there. What counts is what goes on at the majority of our colleges. And let's remember that only half of students graduate even if given six years.  Again, not a great use of our tax dollars, which heavily subsidize even so-called private colleges.

Meritocracy yields more good--including for society's have-nots--than our Alice-in-Wonderland redistributing to and excuse-making for the have-nots. Alas, even if you agree, I'd predict you don't dare speak up or even Tweet or Facebook like this article. And that does not bode well for America.

Should a Law Prohibit Job Ads That Say "Currently employed only?"

I was interviewed today on KCBS on the pending laws in three states that would prohibit want ads that ask for employed or short-term-unemployed applicants only.

Here's an expanded version of what I said:

I understand the urge to feel sorry for the long-term unemployed and thus support such legislation, but would that be fair to job applicants who are employed? I mean, what would you say to the person who has been a good-enough and motivated enough employee to stay employed, even if the job isn't great. Now he'd like to look for another job and he's told that long-term unemployed people will now have as good a chance as he does of landing the job. Would that be fair to that applicant?

And would it be fair to the employer who placed the ad? There are no perfect hiring criteria: an attractive resume could reflect that the person hired a resume writer rather than that he's a better candidate; a college degree is no guarantor of an applicant being better than someone without a degree. In the economy of the last few years, employers often get dozens if not hundreds of applicants for every position. So employers need ways to narrow down to the handful of people they'll interview. The pool of employed people no doubt consists of, on average, better job candidates than the pool of long-term unemployed people. If you were running a business and got a hundred applicants, wouldn't you narrow down, in part, by looking for candidates who were employed or recently unemployed rather than the long-term unemployed?

If the long-term unemployed become a legally protected class, the EEOC or other government watchdog agency would likely require all employers to regularly report the percentage of their employees who were long-term unemployed when hired, just as employers are required to report the percentage of minorities in each employment category.

A similar law is also being proposed to protect ex-felons. If a business, say KCBS, were required to not discriminate against felons and the long-term unemployed, mightn't KCBS's quality be affected?

And if it becomes illegal for an employer to screen out felons or the unemployed, what's the next protected group? Applicants without college degrees? Underskilled applicants? People with difficult personalities? Fat people, ugly people, quiet people, and bald people also don't fare well in landing jobs. Should employers be required to hire a proportionate number of all those and issue quarterly reports to the government to ensure compliance?

We can make everything equal by requiring employers to hire at random. But if we care about quality goods and services for all people and care that employers don't offshore and automate even more jobs than they already do, we should decry legislation that makes it more difficult to hire based on merit.

Underdogma: How our love of the underdog is ruining America

A new, praised book, Underdogma, asserts that America's now replacing meritocracy with egalitarian policies such as redistributive "justice" is a formula for accelerating the decline and fall of the American Empire.

While the benefits of egalitarianism may have exceeded those of meritocracy in the agrarian or even industrial era, in the complexity-demanding global information age, meritocracy will ever more trump egalitarianism--look, for example, at Singapore's trajectory versus the U.S.'s.