Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)

Jordon Flato · 19 May 2009, 23:26 · from 2009-May.txt.gz
This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.
From: jordonflato at gmail.com (Jordon Flato)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 16:26:43 -0700
Subject: (urth) Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)
In-Reply-To: <6A6E9DB2-F98D-4FB2-B783-95A98F2FC944 at io.com>
References: <mailman.68838.1242757770.12296.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
	<2BCC6FAA-905B-4A04-BFAE-817E0EDE9BD8 at io.com>
	<D67BBCB673F4491BB8DC3A37289BD563@eMachinePC>
	<002BF131-691F-4247-B56E-19C9D86BDA6D at io.com>
	<50586EEE2CA14862AA7A038867E0B211@eMachinePC>
	<9ABFD473-EF4F-44FA-8C53-9A140080E64F at io.com>
	<2D85DC7E1002442C9FFC385EBA1BB3A0@eMachinePC>
	<F692D3D3-5B04-432A-B757-4DDDECFD95F8 at io.com>
	<BD4FACD5AAA943568DAC238C1E3F3911@eMachinePC>
	<6A6E9DB2-F98D-4FB2-B783-95A98F2FC944 at io.com>
Message-ID: <273409710905191626q49f7f5deq1e4fc09e584743a at mail.gmail.com>

I currently make above $80,000.  I have made a little more than that in the
recent past, and MUCH MUCH less than that in the more distant past.

I'm certainly not speaking for everyone, but what I do now is MUCH MUCH
easier and more rewarding than what I did when I earned $7.50 an hour, or
$12.00 an hour.

I think it's a sad myth that those who make less money work less hard than
those who 'generate' wealth.  Some who hold that position have undoubtedly
help menial jobs.  Many have not.  I think you must be disqualified from
making a statement like that unless you've worked a labor intensive low wage
job.

I know that is an old canard.  But I've found it true in my case.

And I've certainly 'earned' my way to where I am.  I am from a very low
income family, with no breaks given to me, and only through my own dumb luck
and ingenuity have I reached my current position of relative economic
security.  However, I consensually pay my taxes, and appreciate the need of
society to deal with all of it's members in an equitable and humanitarian
way.  When I was a child, I certainly benefitied from the Welfare system.
My mom was off and on it for some time (not because she didn't work hard,
but because time were tough, and she had a hard time as a single mother
providing for me).  Now that I'm the one paying into the system, I'm
grateful to be able to help people who were once in my position.  Why should
I not want to pay into the system that helped me get where I am today?  If
not for those welfare programs, I would not be able to be where I am, nor
able to pay back into the system.

There is no system in place in the small town I grew up in for Private
Education.  Where would that come from?  Would I have to rely on a Religious
education?  What alternative system are you proposing that wouldn't require
a lifetimes worth of retooling/reinventing/locating private funding for that
wouldn't hamper an entire generation of future 'wealth creators?'

And this worship of the free market makes my skin crawl.  It is a great
system, with a lot going for it.  But it is as morally bankrupt and corrupt
as the government, or more so.  How is the Free Market any less oriented
toward robbery?

In any event, I'm not going to be able to argue this in any cohernt fashion
at this point, so I should just back out.

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Adam Thornton <adam at io.com> wrote:

> On May 19, 2009, at 5:06 PM, James Wynn wrote:
>
>> Marginal value decreases for whom? Not to the people who work to earn it.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I was saying: for the people who work to earn it.  At
> least, for *me*.
>
> I was arguing from my own experience: the marginal value of the $30,000
> between an income of $30K and $60K was much, much less than of the $15,000
> between $15K and $30K.
>
>  You're argument divorces the amount of money made from the people who
>> created it.
>>
>
> Well, in my case, yeah, it's the same guy.  Modulo Heraclitus and stuff.
>  So that factor is controlled for.
>
>  It assumes that a guy making $25K a year is exactly like the guy making
>> $250K a year except that one happens to make less.
>>
>
> Yes and no.  I mean, sure, there is a reason I eventually started getting
> paid more money: I was doing jobs that required skills that were rarer, or
> at least more valued by the people willing to employ me, and I had acquired
> those skills through experience and training.  But on the other hand, I'm
> still in some important sense the me I was twenty years ago.
>
> But I'm not arguing that I shouldn't be making more money; I'm arguing that
> taxation taking 25% of the $60,000 of the top-earning me in my example hurts
> a lot less than taking 15% of the $15,000 I was making as low-earning me.
>  (Now, to be fair, I am nowhere near sure these represent even approximate
> actual tax rates when those were about my income levels, and I'm not about
> to go digging through my tax records to find out.)
>
>  It ignores the risks the second guy took in capital, time, and effort in
>> order to create that wealth.
>>
>
> How so?  Those risks are compensated in the increased pay, aren't they?  I
> mean, by your argument, I should be doing four times the work to generate
> four times the income, right?  I'm certainly not.  My job now is *much* more
> interesting and much less unpleasant than when I was making crap wages.
>  Jobs that involve serious physical labor--and are thus, in many senses, the
> hardest--tend to also be at the bottom of the pay scale.  And sure, it took
> a lot of time and learning to get here, but the time spent *still* beat
> digging ditches.
>
>  It also ignores the fact that the first guy gets far more BENEFIT from
>> non-essential government services that the second guy.
>>
>
> Some more, sure: I rode a lot more public transport when I was poorer than
> I do now.  Far more, not so sure.  I probably walk or ride a bike around in
> public parks *more* now since--again, in my experience--higher-paying jobs
> tend to come with more flexible schedules.  There are a lot of nonessential
> services I don't use, and never did, but I don't begrudge the fact that I'm
> funding them: some people DO get value out of their services and there's
> value to me in those people being happier.
>
>  Some would say the differences therefore balance out so that both should
>> pay the same rate.
>>
>
> And I don't.
>
> Should Moe pay for half the well?  I don't know.  What's the benefit to him
> of building the well at all?  What are the downsides to him if the well is
> not built?  Should the well's costs be recouped through a per-liter charge
> on its usage, with the costs repaid to the financiers of the project, or is
> it actually going to be presented as a common good?  If the latter, how much
> does Moe value his participation in the society that he and his neighbors
> constitute?  If the answer is "not that much," does he get to be sad if he
> then has to provide his own fire protection if he withdraws from their
> society?
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090519/a3c6b2bb/attachment-0001.htm>
An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net