Thinking though the debate on abortion and the devil dancing in the details.
Every human embryo has the potential to become a Da Vinci, an Einstein, an Elizabeth the Great. We all know this. We all get this. In a perfect world, abortion is a tragedy and would - should - be a crime.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
Andy, I think he did.
They can come out right to the end; if they're whole, they're a preemie. If they're not, they're a miscarriage.
27 - Lisa McKay
Andy, a commonly used (among the medical profession) definition of miscarriage is that it's the loss of a pregnancy prior to the 20th week of pregnancy. I think in the UK it's prior to the 24th week. A fetus that dies in utero later than that is classified as a stillbirth.
28 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
No, I don't think that either I or the social workers are doing the same thing as the right-to-lifers, because we're dealing with children who are already born, whose parents were unable (or in some cases, simply unwilling) to care for the children.
I think the overall point of my article is that we all know it's a human life that is discarded in an abortion. We all know what a sadness, a tragedy that is. But where does one draw the line in the protection of that human life? How closely and severely monitored must a pregnant woman's life be, if the embryo has all the rights of a breathing child? And this is regardless of any circumstances such as child molestation, rape, or incest if Ms. Palin has her way.
There certainly is a benefit to the right-to-life as conservatives hold. Of course there is - the priceless lives of children! But there are costs, too - and it's those costs that I'm illustrating in order to help people make a more informed choice of where Ms. Palin's policies (should she get her way) would lead: heavier tax burdens on society, a higher crime rate (and the higher level of unwanted pregnancies that brings), and the very real possibility of further loss of rights and freedoms of pregnant women.
Some might think I'm overdoing it with this Orwellian view of where the right-to-lifers may take America...but then if you'll recall, not so long ago we didn't think it was possible that America would torture, search w/o warrant, jail w/o trial or even access to a lawyer, and have an executive branch w/o accountability to anyone. It really is a slippery slope down the road to a future that isn't the America we knew...and I suspect we're further along that road than many realize.
29 - Cannonshop
Well, Glenn, I think you ARE getting a touch Orwellian on this, but maybe you've got a good point-after all, we've had lots of evidence even before 9/11 that the government will violate civil liberties, even kill witnesses in broad daylight and get away with it, only facing mild criticism from Pols that want to use that force for their own ends.
30 - Jon Sobel
I am pro-choice, because I feel I do not have the right to tell a young woman what she can or can't do when she is pregnant.
Ah, but that is a rational position, taken from a posture of humility. Right-to-lifers have no truck with humility. It's their way or the highway.
31 - Jet
Andy! you're starting to scare me my friend... #20 made sense!
32 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
Am I getting Orwellian about what Palin would do?
"Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."
Remember Valerie Plame (and the network of American spies who were exposed along with her)?
"Any man can stand against adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln
33 - Glenn Contrarian
More Orwellian tactics by the Republicans.
"The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day."
"The Macomb GOP's plans are another indication of how John McCain's campaign stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state. McCain's regional headquarters are housed in the office building of foreclosure specialists Trott & Trott. The firm's founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Republican nominee."
"Carabelli is not the only Republican Party official to suggest the targeting of foreclosed voters. In Ohio, Doug Preisse, director of elections in Franklin County (around the city of Columbus) and the chair of the local GOP, told The Columbus Dispatch that he has not ruled out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.
Hebert, the voting-rights lawyer, sees a connection between Priesse's remarks and Carabelli's plans.
"At a minimum what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systematic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote," he said. "Nobody is contending that these people are not legally registered to vote."
34 - Verge
Let me be clear, I was not complaining about the cost of raising disabled children. I have ADOPTED a disabled child. Made that way by the biological mother's use of alcohol, meth and heroin during pregnancy. In case you do not understand the impact of this decision, I PAY for the medical and psychological care of my disabled daughter NOT the state. What you may view as a lack of compassion I believe is actually a lack of a liberal viewpoint. Yes, I understand to many of you they are one and the same but, in reality, they are not.
I believe many you suffer from a lack of comprehension of my post altogether. My point plain and simple is that if we educated women about the need for proper medical care, not consuming alcohol, meth heroin or other drugs, yes even to the point of prosecuting them for manslaughter and perhaps even child abuse while in the womb, we would have far fewer children with severe birth defects. All that money we would not be paying for their care could be used to help provide for all those, "unwanted" pieces of flesh which I prefer to call human babies. In fact, given just a little reform and streamlining of our adoption regulations all those babies would very quickly be adopted by loving, caring parents.
For those of you who feel we do not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her unborn child; we do have the right to tell that same woman she cannot kill her child after it is born and we do we have the right to tell her she cannot kill her husband, mother, father or anyone else. Why do we have the right to impose those limitations on her behavior? The answer is very simple, her rights stop at the point where they conflict with someone else’s rights. Why do you believe an innocent, defenseless, unborn child does not deserve the same respect? You lot dare to talk about my lack of compassion?
An unborn child is not at all like a block of aluminum. A block of aluminum kept in any environment without any external force acting upon it will always be a block of aluminum. That bunch of cells, left to their own, in an environment of nothing more than nutrition and oxygen will all by itself form a fully developed human child. The mother does not will it to happen, there is no assembly line and no union workers involved. My friends, and those of you who are not, that is called life! Don’t believe me, let’s put you in an environment with no nutrition and no oxygen and see how long you last.
Many people seem to think they are being reasonable to say that it depends on when the fetus is viable for instance it is ok at three months but not eight months. I say it is not a technology decision. That logic would have you believe that 40 years ago it was ok to abort a baby in the sixth or seventh month but today it is not because today it is viable. So I ask you does that mean, if in the future there are artificial wombs capable of sustaining the development of a fetus from conception to term, all abortion should be wrong?
If you still believe I did not comprehend the article, please point out where you believe this to be true.
35 - Glenn Contrarian
Verge - good thing you're not in charge of the world.
Your post is based on the assumption that it's a perfect world, or at least that there are enough trustworthy prospective adoptive parents to take all the unwanted children...and for all the disabled children, there'd be plenty of money to pay for their care.
Of all the religions and tyrannical societies over the millenia who have outlawed abortion, NOT ONE was ever truly successful in doing so. There were always back-alley abortions, coat-hangers (or the equivalent of the time), poisonous drinks...you name it, and it's probably been tried. There has always been abortion...and no matter what you wish (or what Sarah Palin wishes even if she became president-for-life), abortions will be done. So then, so now, so a thousand years from now.
You see, that's one basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives feel the world should be as they believe it should be - and have little compunction about making any changes they deem necessary. You and Palin are prime examples of such a belief system.
Liberals, OTOH, try to deal with the world as it really is, and try to make it better if possible.
Here's the real world, Verge - (1) there are NOT enough trustworthy adoptive parents for all the unwanted children; (2) if we stop the needless wars and cut our military budget down to a sensible level, we might have enough to care properly for all the disabled children AND ensure that education is made better than its present abysmal level; (3) we must learn from OTHER countries that having a much more comprehensive social support system (AND the higher taxes that go with it) is NOT a bad thing because it reduces poverty.
Read 'Freakonomics', Verge. The authors do a very good job of NOT being judgmental but simply present the numbers, the facts...and the FACT is that where abortion is legalized, the crime rate goes down...and the community as a whole becomes better.
It is a tragedy that such has to be the case...but neither do you or I or anyone else have the moral right to tell a young, scared pregnant girl that she must have that child - especially if she was made pregnant against her will.
36 - Verge
Glenn,
The liberal belief system is based on a nonexistent utopia where everyone gets what they want and there is no accountability. It invariably leads to socialism where you take from those that work and succeed and give to those who do not in the name of “fairness”.
The conservative belief system is based on the desire that people be held accountable for their actions and get rewarded for their efforts. Conservatives don’t require people give to those in need; we do not require that people act well.
The bottom line is people do what you incent them to do be that work hard or act well. People do not do what you do not incent them to do. This is why capitalist systems have created such wealth in the past two hundred years and socialist systems fail over and over again.
As for adoptive parents, there are tens of thousands of Americans going to Eastern European, African, Asian countries, all over the planet to adopt children because there are not enough available in the U.S. I know many families at my church that have done exactly this. I don't think there are enough available parents willing to provide homes to unwanted children, I know there are enough.
You liberal lot always fall back on rape and incest for your argument. First, how many pregnancies a year are attributable to this? I don't know that number but I would venture to guess it is but a infinitesimally small fraction of the abortions that are performed. Second, if it is ok to kill those children who did absolutely nothing wrong, can we also send that same scared pregnant girl to the offender's house and let her kill his other children? What about his grandchildren? Exactly how far do we go?
I don’t suppose you support the death penalty for those that commit the crimes of rape and incest but you certainly support the death penalty for the children that result from that same crime. There is something truly wrong with that.
37 - Jordan Richardson
I'm amazed that the world is divided into such easy-to-understand compartments, Verge. I congratulate you on solving the great mystery of mankind with your simple categorizations of different schools of political thought.
Now that I know that liberalism is geared towards those lazy fuckers who don't want to work a day in their lives and that conservatism is dedicated to ensuring that honest, hard-working people can get their fair share, I'll never stray over to the side of Evil Socialism again.
After all, what's more important than wealth? Capitalism surely has succeeded where socialism has failed (where has socialism been fully implemented, bythe way?) and has shown The Way to all of the heathens who want equality and fairness. What hideous principles!
38 - Doug Hunter
Abortion is 'good' for society but that doesnt make it right. Humanity would also 'improve' if every human with an IQ below 80 or who exibited violent tendencies was killed at the start of kindergartern. Society would be 'safer' if everyone had a GPS tracker shoved up their ass at birth and all movements and locations for every person were tracked in a massive database. Society would be 'better' if everyone with a genetic defect was sterilized.
39 - Verge
Jordan,
The problem is you don’t want equality of opportunity, you want equality of results. We have equal opportunity. We live in a country where the poorest can be successful. Surely, the wealthy have a leg up but you cannot change that by taking all their money and giving it to those unwilling to work for it. I came from a poor family. My dad was a soldier for 23 years from the 50’s into the 80’s. My mom was from a small town in Louisiana. When dad left the army, I was in Jr. High. I went to work sacking groceries at 14 and I gave ½ my paycheck to my family to help buy food and pay for the power and water. Still, we were so poor that we didn’t have a phone. I have earned my way up the corporate ladder through hard work, long hours and a lot of dedication to my career. I am in the top 5% of earners and every week I earn every penny that I get paid. I didn’t ask for nor did I receive any government help so I have been down that road and I know anyone that is willing to learn and work can succeed in this country without your handouts stolen from someone else’s paycheck.
I give to my church. I give to United Way, Red Cross, Cars for Kids. I give to my family members when they need help. I promise you I do not have any relatives living in a box in Africa. I give to every panhandler that asks for a dollar. Can you say that? Recently, at a gas station, I was approached by a panhandler. I let him use my phone to “call a friend” so he could get a ride because his care “ran out of gas just down the road”. Of course the “friend” was not there. I gave him a 5 though he only asked for a 1. A gentleman at the pump next to me asked, did you really fall for that line about needing to call a friend to pick him up? I answered, no, but he was in need and if I didn’t help him that is on me, if I do and he chooses to buy beer instead of calling that friend that is on him. You see, it goes back to actions and consequences.
By the way, socialism has never been fully implemented because as you get closer to pure socialism, without any incentive to work harder in order to be more successful, productivity falls to the point it is unsustainable leading either to failure of the government or a collapse into totalitarianism where the government can force you to work such as occurred the Soviet Union.
40 - Glenn Contrarian
Verge!
I was waiting on that - I really was. I knew you'd bring up the old pro-life standard about the tens of thousands of adoptive parents just waiting for a child to adopt.
So let's just prevent every one of those abortions and once they're born, let's start the adoption process. Simple, right?
Now consider how those tens of thousands of waiting families are going to take in ONE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND children?
And bear in mind, this is not just a one-time deal, but EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And if you take into account the rest of the world, it's about 42 million.
In case you're wondering, this is from a pro-life website.
I'll give you your point about the rape and incest being a small minority of the total - you're absolutely right. But by the same token, if you make abortion completely illegal, then make sure you can absorb an extra 1.3 million American mouths to feed. Per year.
And again I say abortion is a sorrow, a tragedy. No sane person WANTS abortion. Women don't go down to the abortion clinic on a fanciful whim. Don't think we see as any less of a tragedy than you do - if liberals' anti-war stance is any indication, we value life more than conservatives, for a pro-BIRTH conservative who is also pro-WAR e.g. the current Iraq occupation... is the worst kind of hypocrite. I didn't include you in that because I don't know your views about it.
P.S. I just checked on another pro-life page and found that the number of abortions grew every year until it peaked at 1.6M abortions per year during the Bush I administration. It did not drop significantly until 1995, during the CLINTON administration.
41 - Franco
#37 " Jordan Richardson
"(where has socialism been fully implemented, by the way?)"
As pure as it gets Jordan North and South Korea by night
Now a lot of yankey imperialist capitalist fought and died so those lights you see in the south could be put in place and used by the people who now live there.
Since the 1960s, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth and integration into the high-tech modern world economy. Four decades ago, GDP per capita was comparable with levels in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. In 2004, South Korea joined the trillion dollar club of world economies. Today its GDP per capita is roughly the same as that of Greece and Spain.
Market value of publicly traded shares:$1.051 trillion (2007)
Exports:$371.5 billion f.o.b. (2007) Imports:$356.8 billion f.o.b. (2007)
But if what you truly want is fully implemented socialism, send us a post card from the North.
As Verge states at the end of post #39
"socialism, without any incentive to work harder in order to be more successful, productivity falls to the point it is unsustainable leading either to failure of the government or a collapse into totalitarianism where the government can force you to work."
42 - Doug Hunter
"if liberals' anti-war stance is any indication, we value life more than conservatives"
Not really. An anti war stance is sort of like someone who refuses to defend their family. If someone sneaks into your house and starts raping your wife and strangling you kid what sort of dumb fuck is going to stand their saying 'sorry honey, I'd do something but I'm against physical violence'. What if the police officer you called said the same thing?
Not supporting a specific wars or even most wars is perfectly normal, being anti-war in general is sheer stupidity.
43 - Glenn Contrarian
Jordan -
The GOOD socialism of which I speak is NOT that of N. Korea, but by NEARLY EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACY IN THE FREE WORLD EXCEPT FOR THE UNITED STATES.
ALONE, out of the industrialized democracies of the free world, America does not have Universal Health Care - and that is why nearly EVERY industrialized democracy has a HIGHER national life expectancy for its citizens than America does - the sole exceptions being Denmark, Portugal, Taiwan, and Ireland - and they're all pretty much tied with us.
So are the rest of the industrialized democracies of the world actually part of an EVIL socialist plot, and America stands alone against them ALL? OOOooooOOOOHHhh! Or are the HMO's, the insurance agency, and the pharmaceutical giants - and the Republican party they pour tens of millions into - simply lying to you?
We DO have the finest health care in the world, for those who can afford it. For those who can't, well, they're just out of luck.
So who's right? Instead of looking at this or that SINGLE problem, the key is seeing the BIG picture. The final proof is in the OVERALL life expectancy of the populations of the countries WITH Universal Health Care...and those without.
I'd post my reference on the Wiki, which draws its numbers from the 2007 CIA Fact Book, but I'm getting a 'spam' error. Just search for it.
44 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
Do you hear liberals against the Afghanistan war and occupation? Almost NONE. You hear us against the IRAQ war.
But what did you try to describe us as? That's rude, guy.
Our anti-war stance is because we KNOW the Iraq war was started on FALSE pretenses. There were NO WMD's, but what happened to those who had the courage to say so? Ask Scott Ritter, or ask Valerie Plame and the spy network that was exposed with her.
If a war is NECESSARY, we say GO for it. But an aggressive war against the Geneva convention, started on false pretenses, including the 'legalizing' of torture and the jailing of hundreds for years without trial?
NO. That is NOT right. That is NOT honorable. That is NOT defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Bush violated his oath, and he and Cheney should stand in the Hague as war criminals, plain and simple.
One last thing - I'm retired military. So are at least twenty generals and admirals who endorsed Hillary. And so are the other generals who endorsed no one, but retired rather than fight an illegal war.
Rush Limbaugh - who AFAIK NEVER served in the military - referred to some soldiers who spoke out against the Iraq war as 'phony soldiers'...but he never realized that his comment also applied to the flag officers and retired military who know FAR better than he.
Next time, Doug, listen to both sides of the story before making your assumptions.
45 - Cannonshop
Glenn, before anyone Said "Iraq" there were protesters against the Afghanistan action! (Lack of national coverage =/= lack of presence) In 2002 there were quite few fulminating out here, opposing "Imperialism" and all that rot, alleging "war crimes" etc. etc.
46 - Christopher Rose
Franco, sorry to disturb your fantasies with reality but take note:
1. Socialism is a general term, just like Capitalism. It is easily possible to be both socialist and capitalist.
2. North Korea is more Communist than Socialist, but actually describes its philosophy as Juche, which loosely means self reliance.
Oh, and Verge, Could you show me an example of how socialism automatically reduces productivity?
47 - Dr Dreadful
Verge, in comment 39, reminds me irresistibly of Josiah Bounderby in Dickens' Hard Times, who boasts to anyone who'll listen that he grew up in a ditch.
Of course Bounderby is eventually exposed as a fraud, and I'm not saying that's true of Verge, but something that often escapes the 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps' brigade is that just because they did it does not mean everyone else has the same opportunities or even ABILITY to do so.
48 - Clavos
A question for all you idealists:
Does your vision of a realistic (as opposed to utopian) "good" society eliminate an underclass altogether?
If so, who collects the garbage?
49 - Andy Marsh
Clavos - Do you know how much garbage men make? I don't think with those kinds of wages that they qualify as underclass!
50 - Jordan Richardson
Christopher's #46 pretty much covered every question I was going to ask.
But if what you truly want is fully implemented socialism, send us a post card from the North.
Lol, right...
socialism has never been fully implemented because as you get closer to pure socialism, without any incentive to work harder in order to be more successful, productivity falls to the point it is unsustainable leading either to failure of the government or a collapse into totalitarianism where the government can force you to work such as occurred the Soviet Union
The leading critique, "nobody will work hard because it's all done for you," isn't easily dealt with because of natural human nature. However, most of your post belies a complete misunderstanding of socialism as a system. Its inefficacy lies not in the fact that the system is flawed, but rather in the fact that humanity is flawed and has grown accustomed to greed more than productivity, selfishness more than the idea to support others, and so on. A socialist society primarily exists with the premise of having enough of something (enough money, enough food, enough clothing, etc.) and today's extreme capitalism simply doesn't know that term. Ask an executive if there can ever be enough profit.
The "incentive" under socialism is to support one's community as a whole, to uplift one's brother or sister. It is idealism. But in terms of how I'd actually prefer to live in my personal life with my family and friends, I have more socialistic leanings. I find that laziness isn't an issue when I'm working towards feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, taking care of the sick, and so on. And you can call that bland moralizing if you want, but what motivates me isn't simple greed or cash. What motivates me is a better world for everyone.
And Glenn,
Do you really believe American health care is the "best in the world?" Have you taken note of how many people die in American hospitals unnecessarily? Or how many people are forced out of hospitals and left on the streets because they can't pay their bills? You've already noted the notion that many can't afford it, so I'd ask you: can it really be the best health care system in the world when it lacks the basic component of health care - compassion?
Clavos,
I would hope that the "underclass" would cease to exist. My concern for the world wouldn't operate on a strict sense of socialism, mind you. I would have more distribution of wealth so that each individual had adequate clothing, shelter, access to health care, food, and working possibilities. That's globally, not simply on a local basis. We have enough resources and money in our world now to feed every single person on the planet and make sure nobody dies from archaic diseases. So we would all "collect the garbage" so to speak. We would all work towards a better world. But that's idealism, see? Ideally, we'd all want to. Realistically, we all don't care...
51 - Dr Dreadful
Clav,
Select from the following answers:
1. Who says I'm an idealist?
2. It is an error in logic to assume that garbage collectors do or should constitute an underclass.
3. Robots.
52 - Verge
Christopher,
I would be glad to provide you this observation. The US, most would agree, the least socialized of western democracies has the highest productivity rate per worker in the world. This is generally followed by western Europe, which we can all agree is more socialized that the US and then by Russia, China, eastern Europe and the like again more socialized than western Europe and then a whole gaggle of third world countries and up-and-comers like India. Any time you take away the incentive to improve, you lower productivity. The proof is there if you will open your closed mind and see it.
I find it interesting that liberals like to think they are enlightened and open minded when in reality that is false. Your leaders attack anyone who disagrees with their “enlightened” and “intellectual” viewpoints and you sheeple that follow them pick right up on it and try to destroy anyone that is not of your ilk. You are a pitiful lot. It is no surprise that your demographic peaks in those with little education and those with advanced degrees. For those of us that live in middle America that is the “government owes me” crowd and the “I am better than you” crowd. Well, I am no better than my fellow American and my government owes me nothing but to get out of my way.
I have faults and I have gifts. I try to recognize and minimize my faults and maximize the gifts given me. I support my neighbor because it is the right thing to do not because my government makes me.
As for you Dreadful,
Believe what you want, I don’t answer to you and I will not try to prove my roots to you. I answer to my God, my family and myself in that order.
Andy,
Is it your belief that the garbage man, dish washer, clerk, nurse, doctor, executive should all make exactly the same salary, live in the same houses, drive the same cars? In your utopian society who gets to pick whether your son or daughter is the dish washer or the doctor?
53 - Jordan Richardson
The US, most would agree, the least socialized of western democracies has the highest productivity rate per worker in the world.
Do you have a source for this observation?
Is it your belief that the garbage man, dish washer, clerk, nurse, doctor, executive should all make exactly the same salary, live in the same houses, drive the same cars? In your utopian society who gets to pick whether your son or daughter is the dish washer or the doctor?
Are you sure you mean to ask Andy this question, Verge?
54 - troll
Verge - I question your premise...as is clear from the numerous bailouts and subsidies over the years the US socializes risk like no other country
55 - Clavos
Jordan,
I would hope that the "underclass" would cease to exist.
If one defines "class" purely in financial terms, that would be doable, but it seems to me that class encompasses far more than simply how much money one makes or has.
Such variables as intelligence, educational level, and occupation, none of which, IMO, can ever be completely equal across the entire spectrum of even one society, much less globally, will contribute to determining what "class" an individual occupies.
To use an extreme example: It is unlikely that an individual with an IQ of 90 whose occupation is commercial fisherman will occupy the same hierarchical level in society as an astrophysicist with an IQ of 140, even if they were to be compensated equally (which would be unfair to the astrophysicist, but is postulated for the sake of argument).
Despite Jefferson's Utopian language in the Declaration of Independence, all humans are not "created equal."
Equality of opportunity is a worthy ideal.
Equality of results is an injustice, and attempting it is a travesty.
56 - Christopher Rose
Clavos (#48): Nanobots convert the rubbish into wanted stuff.
57 - Jordan Richardson
Ah fuck it.
Verge, the idea that everyone makes the same salary and lives in the same houses under a socialist system is one of the many myths circulating to keep you in constant fear of the Red Menace. Unfortunately, such a myth completely undermines the reality of what a socialist system would look like, properly and effectively implemented.
Instead, socialism works to distribute wages in a humane, responsible way. There are still some significant differences in wages and people are by no means regulated to buy or sell whatever they want to. While under laissez-faire capitalism, the profit is largely out of the hands of the worker and in the hands of the executive, socialism puts the money back in the worker's hand where it belongs. Obviously the incentive to work harder is to earn more money.
When you look at the gross inequality between the wages of CEOs and the wages of workers making money for the CEOs, there's a problem. CEOs are making up to 500 times as much as the worker! Is that fair? Is that equality? Not on your life. And such an unfair profit margin has nothing to do with the "amount of work" a CEO does in his or her position. Instead, it is the factory slaves that keep things together. It is the truck drivers, the warehouse workers, the stockpersons, the cleaners, etc. who are earning the profit for the company. The worker in the United States doesn't have the first clue how backwards it is that your president comes on a stage, smugly, and suggests to a woman working two-three jobs as a single mother that there's "nothing more American than that.
Meanwhile, the CEO can golf four hours a day, make 500 times as much, and can go home to a mansion on the hill, his bleach-blonde wife, and 2.5 kids in a private school. The woman with two-three jobs, conversely, heads back home to her apartment in the slums, feeds her kids Kraft Dinner, and goes to bed with a gun under her pillow for fear of being raped in the night.
Fuck idealism, just look at reality.
58 - Andy Marsh
To comment #52. All I can say to that question is...NO! Don't know what you'd ask me that either.
59 - Jordan Richardson
Equality of opportunity is a worthy ideal.
Equality of results is an injustice, and attempting it is a travesty.
Indeed. But here's the thing, Clavos.
If we're talking about equality of opportunity, the results will follow. If everyone has the same opportunity to learn, if inner city kids have the ability to use the same technology and textbooks to educate themselves as white kids in the suburbs and gated communities, I think the equality of results has a far better chance at actually being fucking equal.
But at this point and time, there is such disparity between rich and poor that it isn't so much a question of ability as it is a question of possibility. Lots of kids and workers flat out don't have the opportunity to advance, they weren't blessed with the providence of being in the right place at the right time like so many other kids. I was adopted out of a bad situation (that's all I'll ever say about it) and had I not been given the opportunities I was given, I would never have come close to realizing my potential. Lots of kids face those odds every day. So while you cannot dictate results, you can dictate opportunity and ensure that more people have the same shot at making it in life. And that would naturally impact the results, I'd say.
60 - Christopher Rose
Verge, your example doesn't actually show that the productivity figures are a function of socialism. Perhaps you could lay off the little digs and provide some solid reasoning?
PS: I'm not a liberal and don't have a leader I look to. Could you be any more stereotyping?
Finally, is one of the faults you recognise banality?
61 - troll
for Chris' benefit:
"The whole Darwinian theory of the struggle for life is simply the transference from society to organic nature of Hobbes' theory of bellum omnium contra omnes, and of the bourgeois economic theory of competition, as well as the Malthusian theory of population. When once this feat has been accomplished...it is very easy to transfer these theories back again from natural history to the history of society, and altogether naive to maintain that thereby these assertions have been proved as eternal natural laws of society." F Engels
imo this argument applies to Clavos' proposed 'hierarchical levels in society' and naive anthropology
62 - Dr Dreadful
I find it interesting that liberals like to think they are enlightened and open minded when in reality that is false. Your leaders attack anyone who disagrees with their "enlightened" and "intellectual" viewpoints and you sheeple that follow them pick right up on it and try to destroy anyone that is not of your ilk.
It's called 'debate', Verge. It's what happens in a democracy. Your caricature of liberalism is what is false. Glenn, Jordan, Christopher etc. are not trying to destroy you or anyone else. They are DISAGREEING WITH YOU.
Of course there are those who will try to shout down dissenting viewpoints, but such people are as likely to be on the right as the left. Human nature is non-partisan.
And if you'd read my previous comment more carefully, you'd realize that I wasn't accusing you of being a Bounderby. I was merely pointing out that the 'I did it, so anyone can do it' mantra is very simplistic.
(If it's true, let's see you run the 100m in 9.69 seconds. After all, if Usain Bolt did it...!)
63 - Christopher Rose
troll, no hablo Engels...
64 - Dr Dreadful
As for Verge's claim that the US leads the world in labor productivity thanks to the wonders of all-new, all-natural, fiber-rich Capitalism, it all depends whose statistics you look at. The OECD's are probably the most comprehensive, and they don't show the US as a world leader at all. The UK's national statistical bureau begs to differ, but shows Japan as lagging some way behind most other industrialized nations, even though their governmental system is far from socialistic in nature.
But the most important point is probably this one, quoted in the Wikipedia entry on labor productivity:
So there are a whole host of factors affecting worker productivity, and it's very far from being a simple correlation with how socialized a country's economy is.
65 - Doug Hunter
"But at this point and time, there is such disparity between rich and poor that it isn't so much a question of ability as it is a question of possibility."
When comparing the top 1% of the population to everyone else what you're saying is completely true. A person who gets a ten million dollar head start could do the most idiotic thing imaginable and put it in a bank CD and 90% of the people will never ever get near catching his income regardless of how many jobs they work.
For the other 99% of the population our wealth and income are strongly tied to our social skills, wisdom/intelligence, and work ethic. Those three areas determine 'success' in an economic sense and all are basically either genetically determined or largely fixed at a very young age (even before the start of schooling). If you analyze poor people they normally fail miserably in at least one category or are simply weak across all three.
Note: I do believe luck is a factor in economic success but only plays a minor role for the poor and middle class and doesn't become a critical factor till your into the upper crust.
66 - Jordan Richardson
There are so many safeguards operating in capitalistic systems to keep the rich in the positions they are and to keep the wealth circulating at the top of the bowl. People rarely move upwards in class in capitalism; they almost always move downwards. For every story of the self-made man a la T. Boone Pickens, there's about 100 stories of men and women who have lost everything or had everything taken from them. That has nothing to do with work ethic, intelligence, wisdom, or social skills. Instead, it has everything to do with perpetual greed and cruelty.
For the other 99% of the population our wealth and income are strongly tied to our social skills, wisdom/intelligence, and work ethic.
When young children are born into ghettos, slums, and poor neighbourhoods, how do you expect them to turn out? When students who can afford to get into top-notch private schools are given oppportunities based on family name and class and not abilities, how do you expect the system to operate? It's utter nonsense to suggest that the wealth and income is so strongly tied to "social skills, wisdom/intelligence, and work ethic" while ignoring the significant framework under which those things operate.
As I pointed out, when a CEO earns 500 times as much as the worker, "social skills, wisdom/intelligence, and work ethic" have little to do with it. The CEO is not necessarily (if ever) more gifted than the worker. Often, the CEO is less capable than most of the workers below.
If you analyze poor people they normally fail miserably in at least one category or are simply weak across all three.
Perhaps you can provide some figures as to this analysis. And, along with the figures, perhaps you can include some variables as to why the poor lack these traits.
I know capitalistic societies are conditioned to believe that the rich are the way they are because they were rewarded for their innovation, skills, and good looks. But reality tells a much different story, one that includes theft, greed, and crime.
67 - Clavos
naive anthropology
???
68 - troll
perhaps a poor choice of words meant to signify 'not critically examined' - sorry Clavos
69 - bliffle
Life begins at rape.
Many people believe that, and apparently Sarah Palin is one of them. As mayor, locals say, she required the police to charge victims of rape the price of the Rape Kit ($300 + ) that is customarily used (free, most places). She did it because the standard kit supplies the victim with 3 morning-after pills, which is against her personal religious beliefs.
70 - Verge
Regarding my theories on productivity. Google this; page 3. The Productivity Gap between Europe and the United States: Trends and Causes
Jordan,
Your thoughts are simplistic to say the least. Of course the CEO does not do 500 times as much work as the worker and perhaps he is even less capable of working a lathe or programming a computer than the lathe worker or the computer programmer.
However, if you put that CEO in the lathe workers position for a quarter, he might lose a finger, his coworkers might get mad because they missed their safety bonus but odds are the company would not fail and all those workers would still have a job.
On the other hand, if you put that lathe worker in the CEO’s position for a quarter, on day one the stock holders would go into a selling frenzy because of the sheer stupidity of such a decision. On day two, a good number of customers would find alternate suppliers, because of the sheer stupidity of such a decision. On day three the banks would call in their loans, many of them are tied to stock performance and order backlogs which have both tanked … because of the sheer stupidity of such a decision. By the end of the quarter all of those workers would be in the unemployment line … because of the sheer stupidity of such a decision.
The CEO does what the CEO does and, YES, that is worth many times more than the lathe worker. Why? Most CEO’s spend nearly as much time in college obtaining a bachelors degree, then a masters degree in their specialty and then an MBA on top of that. As much or more time in college as an MD. Then they do their internship, running a department, perhaps then a few years running a division, several more at the Director, V.P. and then “C” level before even being considered for the position of CEO at the age of 45, 50, 55. They understand business, finance, law, how to get investors, how to sell customers and how to manage companies and employees. They spend much more time training for their job than an MD and hundreds of times more training than that lathe worker. Yes, Jordan, the vast majority of them actually earn what they get.
biffle,
"She did it because the standard kit supplies the victim with 3 morning-after pills, which is against her personal religious beliefs."
Got any documentation for that?
71 - Glenn Contrarian
Jordan - apparently you didn't see my caveat. The U.S. DOES have the best health care in the world...for those who can afford it. For the rest of us, we're out of luck unless we can engage in medical tourism. Speaking of which, two years ago I had six crowns put in, several fillings replaced, two or three other fillings done, and a tooth cleaning, and my wife and youngest son also had fillings and cleaning done - all in a week overseas for about a thousand dollars...by a dentist registered with the American Dental Association. Yes, you can fly there, stay in a nice hotel or even a resort, have all your dental work done just as well as it would be done here, all in a very reasonable amount of time...all for significantly less than what you'd pay here stateside.
bliffle -
I want to see your reference for the rape kits too. I was one of the charter members of the rape response team on an aircraft carrier, and I would like to verify whether Palin did indeed make such a decision.
72 - Dr Dreadful
Here is the report in the Alaskan newspaper, The Frontiersman, which is the source of the story making its way round the blogosphere.
It confirms that Wasilla was one of the few cities to charge victims for the kit. Although Palin was mayor at the time, the report does not say whether she was responsible for introducing the charge - in fact, she is not even mentioned at all.
However, the mere fact that this extremely callous charge was in place does mean she has some explaining to do.
73 - Daniel Miller
Doc,
Here's the thus far. Make of it what you will.
Dan(Miller)
74 - Dr Dreadful
Yeah, Dan, there doesn't seem to be much to Bliffle's claim.
Of more concern to me is the attitude of the police chief at the time, Fannon, who seems to have been more concerned about appeasing taxpayers than having the decency to stump up for a kit that, in a town Wasilla's size, couldn't be needed more than a few times a year at most.
The very good point was made - I don't think it was in the newspaper report but on the blog I saw that linked to it - that victims of crime should NOT have to foot the bill for a police investigation, whether it be rape or anything else.
75 - Jordan Richardson
Your thoughts are simplistic to say the least.
Agreed.
The point isn't about skill or education level, it was about working. There is nothing in the content of the job, other than our current economic set-up, that tells me that teachers should be getting paid less than government workers who put in a two-three day week, nor is there any supportive notion that a CEO ought to earn more than someone working much harder.
You claim that a CEO is the glue that holds an occupation together, but most CEOs defer to other workers (accountants, payroll departments, safety departments, etc.) in a company to get the job done. And those workers to whom the CEO delegates have just as much, if not more, training than the CEO. Of course, this answer is simplistic and based around generalizations and almost entirely around a small business model. It all depends on the company and the field of industry.
Socialism, as was the crux of the original argument, calls for less disparity between those incomes. Sure, we can cook up all of the reasons in the world to keep CEOs paid enormous amounts of money for work that is mostly delegated to more skilled committees. The corporate world loves that; anything to keep the fat cats on top.
But if you start talking about actual job skill, actual education, actual business principles that allow those with the will and education to advance rather than a fossil-filled Board of Directors holding down the glass ceiling with their Italian leather shoes, people start to get worried. People start to see Red.
No CEO, no matter how much education he or she has had, is worth 500+ times more than a worker. No CEO, no matter how skilled her or she is at their occupation, is worth more than a doctor or teacher. The CEO is a completely superfluous position; any CEO responsibilities can easily be handled by other skilled departments. Much like government, the figurehead at the top is often the most useless in terms of the good of society. At the very least, the pay ought to reflect the nature of the position WITHOUT hype and the inflation of his or her actual responsibilities.
Let me close with a question: do you oppose fairer working wages and employee profit sharing as a general concept, or do you believe the CEO deserves the bulk of the company's profit?
Glenn,
Jordan - apparently you didn't see my caveat. The U.S. DOES have the best health care in the world...for those who can afford it.
If everyone can't afford it, it's not the "best health care in the world." I did see your caveat and found that it cancelled out the veracity of your statement. Granted, we're probably just picking away at semantics here and I do take your meaning overall.