Age, gender and race have an impact, sadly, in the world today. That said, they don’t have the impact that they did when I was a young man. In fact, in the organization I currently work for, of the 6 senior IT leaders, 3 are women, 3 are men. That would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. Of the 6 senior executives of the organization (a 6 billion/year corporation), 2 are women, 4 are men. That also would have been unheard of not all that long ago. This is not to say that we have a perfect world where your gender is not taken into account, but that it is, from my observation, much better than 2 decades ago.

Having more, or less, wealth makes me no “better” or “worse” as a person. Money has no bearing on such subjective value judgements. I’ve had some luck, some skill and some hard work that paid off for me. And, using money to count I’m successful. That doesn’t measure if I’m a good person though. And I have no intention of trying to say that it does.

No, I am not considered poor. Having a car only gave me the ability to have a job, no more. I have a PC which financial aid paid for and now I owe beaucoup loans. I have gotten an education that now seems useless. I have been poor as you, and probably worked twice as many years as you and I can’t say I have obtained as much wealth as you. Most of the things you mentioned are on my wishlist. BTW I’m do not easily ask for help. I do seem to live in a different world. I still live in a world where age, gender and race matter. I have been told that the economy is not about me.
I am ranting too, this post is not about me, either.

VRB –

Costs are not all that goes into a price. They are a component, as is how much people are willing to pay. Housing is a perfect example. Around here, the actual cost of land plus the replacement of the house is, on average, about half of the selling price of the home. What makes up the other half? The value of the home in the eyes of the other people who want it.

Also, I’m not quite as utopian as you might imagine. I don’t believe that there is any single solution to our problems. What I do believe is that we are best off when government, through protecting our rights and our lives from those who wish to deprive us of both, leaves us in a situation where we are empowered to solve our own problems. And yes, I believe there will always be problems, it’s part of the way the world works.

Too many times, though, government tries to solve our problems for us. The effect of that is disaster, since we are slowly turned into people who cannot solve our own problems.

I’ve had the dubious privilege of growning up in a generation whose parents are only a cell phone call away. I know people with child-like mentalities who have access to cars, money, drugs, and sex and are continually hurt by these things, though not because the things are bad. They, by being shielded by their parents for far too long, have been doomed to remain children.

What the parents of these poor souls do in great measure is the exact same thing that a paternalistic state does bit by bit. It erodes the judgement and trust in oneself with every problem it solves. In doing so, it becomes another problem with which we have to deal.

OK, I’ve ranted long enough.

VRB: This is why I don’t like to place any moral value on an economic system.

Fundamentally, “classic” liberalism places no moral value on economic/social systems. Liberalism leaves moral value to the spiritual realm and asks only whether something leads to a measurable improvement, or not. Unlike socialism, fascism and conservatism, liberalism is dispassionate and objective. Of course, this leaves it vulnerable to rabble rousing demagogues who will claim that liberalism is heartless. Yet, the foundation of liberalism is the desire to find paths forward that are better for all people, not just one group of them.

VRB: I have said before that I don’t trust either government or the market place to promote the good of society.

The government is about power, nothing more and nothing less.

The market, on the other hand, has only one function. The most efficient distribution of goods and services possible. The market place cannot “promote the good of society” because that is not its function. Only people can do that, we who make up society.

VRB: I believe there are some people that would not be able to function in your society and they would not be able to count on the kindness of strangers.

There are some people who will not be able to function in any society. The question, as with any other such statement, is whether that number is lesser, or greater, in capitalism than other systems. Evidence, such as the number of alcoholics per capita, suggest that socialism leads to more people who cannot function within the society based upon it. There is no perfect system. The question is not whether bad things occur within capitalism, they do. The question is whether you can propose something that will have fewer bad things. So far, no one has succeeded in proposing that something.

VRB: What will temper the young person’s utopian ideals?

Unlike Quincy, I’m neither young nor utopian. When I was young and utopian I believed that anarchy was a real solution that could work in a real world. Now that I’m middle aged and pessimistic, I believe that the only solution is to give the government enough power to protect the life, liberty and property of others while limiting that power so that it cannot intrude on my own life. And keep my powder dry, for the government will surely overstep those bounds, most likely due to some well meaning busy body who wishes it do something for “my own good”.

That seems unlikely. Oil prices reached their peak in 1981 and steadily declined after that, especially when adjusted for inflation. This summer they peaked slightly higher than 1981 and are now beginning to slowly decline again. However, oil prices didn’t begin to climb back towards that point until just the past few years.

There are some local monopolies of energy (electricity and natural gas), although many fewer than existed 20 years ago. Add to that the fact that energy consumption occupies a much smaller portion of the full economy now than in 1981 and the argument that energy prices have kept the standard of living at status quo doesn’t look very good.

As far as whether your standard of living is status quo, I find that not likely as well. Clearly you have internet access, something you likely did not have as few as 10 years ago. It is likely you have cable or satellite television, a better television than in 1981, a safer, more fuel efficient car, a VCR, DVD player and many other electronic items in your home. All of these things, which provide entertainment, productivity or more leisure time (like a dishwasher) are items that you likely did not have, or weren’t as good, 25 years ago. All of them contribute to a better standard of living than was possible 25 years ago. I’m using 25 years ago because oil is now at the same price, adjusted for inflation, as it was then.

Generically speaking, the average person spends a smaller portion of their income for energy needs, has more luxuries, more energy saving devices, more entertainment, eats out more often, buys more quality clothes (the cost of a pair of Levi’s has gone up much less than inflation, for example), has a safer, more fuel efficient car than they did in 1981. I remember the 25″ console TV my father bought in 78 or 79, with an infrared remote. He paid $1000, or so, for it. Today you can buy a 27″ flat panel LCD HDTV monitor for less than my father paid for that very high end 25″ console 28 years ago.

In other words, by any measurement I can think of, we are wealthier, by far, than we were in 1981. I’d be interested in a source for the statement since it doesn’t jive with evidence that can be gathered statistically or empirically.

Certainly such things happen. The question, of course, is not whether such things are bad. Nor even whether capitalism is bad. The question is, can any social structure other than capitalism be better than capitalism for society? If the answer is yes, then we should replace capitalism immediately. If the answer is no, then we should fully embrace capitalism.

Oh, and so far as that gentlemen’s agreement goes, such things may exist in a small area, for a short time. However, like any other unnatural cartel, they are inherently unstable and cannot last. It requires no government intervention to fix the problem, the laws of supply and demand will bring about the end of it. Soon enough one of those employers will need more labor than is available in the area and begin to offer better wages. The rest of the story is easy to figure out.

I would imagine that the cost of my cup of coffee in the morning might go up.
The cost of clothing is dependant on more that wages, availability, desirability and variety are more important.
Where I live, desirability determines more of the housing cost. It’s the neighborhood. New construction or not.
Don’t think any energy companies pay minimum wage. Would putting gas in my car and heating my house get more expensive because the minimum wage is increased?
Now food is being produce with less than minimum wage workers. What’s driving that cost up?
These things are what I consider basic. Energy cost have kept my standard of living at status quo for most of my working life.

Thanks.

VRB –

When does a worker truly not have a choice? Can you point to a situation in this country when one is truly bound to stay in his job?

When the relationship between employer and employee is left undisturbed by legislative enactment’s or by violent measures on the part of trade unions, the wages paid by the employer for every type of labor are exactly as high as the increment of value that it adds to the materials in production. Wages cannot rise any higher than this because, if they did, the employer could no longer make a profit and hence would be compelled to discontinue a line of production that did not pay. But neither can wages fall any lower, because then the workers would turn to other branches of industry where they would be better rewarded, so that the employer would be forced to discontinue production because of a labor shortage.

Don\’t you get it? In the long run, it hurts many and gives NO ONE a leg up. Things end up costing, in relative terms, just as much since prices rise, plus some people making minimum wage lose their jobs.

My position is not callous at all, in fact it is quite the opposite–I want to *prevent* harm to the working poor, while the left wants to inflict it in the name of helping them. As I\’ve asked several times now, who pays for this increase?

Eric –

Yes, we do need studies and proof to make our point, I never meant to imply we didn\’t. But, we must also, in looking for those studies and that proof, make sure that they actually show the whole picture, and not just desireable portions. If you pick the right portion of a photo of lower Manhattan on 9/11, you could very well make it look like it was any other morning. Pull back and show the entire scene, it\’s different. Before we begin looking for proof, we need to be sure we can see the totality of what we\’re addressing. That means finding the right question to be answered.

Finding the truth on this issue means answering the essential question, who pays? It\’s a disarmingly simple question, yet one that is being avoided by every one of my critics on this thread. I could very well go out in the immediate window after a hike and ask minimum wage earners whether they\’re better off, or calculate how much their spending power increased, or calculate how many have been lifted out of poverty. So what? It ignores what\’s happening in the rest of the economy and what the repercussions there will be. Those data are almost meaningless in supporting a minimum wage increase, since the minimum wage has consequences throughout the economy that need to be considered in calculating the benefit to those that the minimum wage was intended to help.

In addition, supporters of the minimum wage need to argue that the harm inflicted on the rest of the citizenry by this increase is justifiable for the benefit for the beneficiaries. At a minimum, this would include a comparison of the harm done to the many against the benefit of the few. This doesn\’t make it right or aligned to any principles, but it is a basic filter for the issue.

I don\’t claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim to have all the right questions. All I can do, without the background that you or Brad or others in the group have, is ask questions and put opinions out to spark debate.