Category: confrontational politics

Equity and Equality

Leave a comment

This week the debate over the minimum wage continued in the Senate, on C-Span, other news outlets and social media. The Wall St. Journal presented the minimum wage in Big Mac terms. In 1968, it took 18 minutes of minimum wage to buy that iconic hamburger. Today, it takes 30 minutes of minimum wage. Using that as a guideline, the minimum wage should be at least $12.

Why don’t Democrat politicians propose a minimum wage that varies according to each region’s cost of living (COL)? According to survey data, Colorado’s COL is 73% of California’s COL (MERIC, 2021). Using that as a guideline, Colorado’s minimum wage would be about $11, the same as the current minimum. Missouri’s minimum would be $8.35, which is LESS than the state’s current minimum of $8.60. Many states have implemented a $15 COL-adjusted minimum wage.  

Advocates for a uniform minimum wage argue that they want to erase some of the disparity between urban areas and low paid rural regions, many of which are black or Hispanic. Those in rural areas worry that small businesses will lay off workers, driving the unemployment rate higher than it already is. Others worry that businesses will raise their prices, making it more difficult for those on fixed incomes. In that case, the minimum wage would benefit some at the expense of others.

Twenty years ago, an analysis of minimum wage increases and employment data found only one statistically significant correlation: increases had a minimal effect on teenage employment (Burkhauser, Couch, & Wittenburg, 2000). Other studies have found no effect on employment in the fast-food industry. A recent study examined minimum wage increases in the states and found that increases greater than a $1 had a negative impact of 1% on low-skill employment (Clemens & Strain, 2018). Smaller increases had either no effect or a positive impact. How can we have an informed debate if history does not provide a clear lesson?

Since Plato’s time 2500 years ago, we have wrestled with equality, equity, and justice. Equity measures by outcome, varying the inputs until the outcomes are about the same. Equality measures by inputs; if everyone gets the same chance, the same inputs, then equality is satisfied. Plato argued that justice was an individual functioning well within community. Some of his companions in The Republic argued for alternate versions of justice: that it was the interests of the stronger, that it was helping friends and harming enemies, or telling the truth and paying your debts.

John Maeda posted a Tony Ruth graphic that depicts these concepts of inequality, equality, equity, and justice (2019). Two kids stand on opposite sides under a leaning apple tree so that one kid below the overhang gets most of the apples that fall. That is inequality. They are both given a ladder of equal height; since they each have the equal tools, that is equality. The kid below the overhang is given a shorter ladder to compensate for his better opportunity at picking apples; that is equity. Justice is the equalization of opportunity and tools; using braces and ropes, the tree is straightened, and each kid is given the same size ladder. Justice is both equity and equality.

As a society we often can’t straighten the tree; if we could, who pays for the labor, braces, and ropes? Who owns the ladders? Writing 500 years ago, Machiavelli said that a republic is the best form of government because the two main political classes of society constantly wrestle with these issues. The two groups may be labeled nobles and common people, or Republicans and Democrats, but they are essentially a tug of war between these notions of equity and equality. One group champions equity over equality; the other fights for equality as a priority above equity.

As we listen to debates in Congress, the workplace, and our households, we can identify those two elements. The argument then evolves into the particulars of process, and this is used to justify either side of the equity / equality debate. Machiavelli wrote that people make fewer mistakes when they focus on the particulars. In working out the details we uncover the broad issues that we tussle over. The road of history is curved; to keep from running off the road, we adjust the steering wheel left and right, repeatedly correcting our previous course corrections. This is a time for correction.

//////////////

Photo by Splint on Unsplash

Burkhauser, R. V., Couch, K. A., & Wittenburg, D. C. (2000). A reassessment of the New economics of the minimum Wage literature with monthly data from the current population survey. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(4), 653-680. doi:10.1086/209972

Clemens, J., & Strain, M. R. (2018). The short-run employment effects of recent minimum wage changes: Evidence from the American community survey. Contemporary Economic Policy, 36(4), 711-722. doi:10.1111/coep.12279

Maeda, J. (2019, March 11). Design in Tech Report 2019 | Section 6 | Addressing Imbalance. Retrieved March 06, 2021, from https://designintech.report/2019/03/11/%F0%9F%93%B1design-in-tech-report-2019-section-6-addressing-imbalance/

MERIC. (2021). Cost of living data series. Retrieved March 06, 2021, from https://meric.mo.gov/data/cost-living-data-series

A Nation of Storytellers

Leave a comment

February 28, 2021

by Steve Stofka

In our national narrative, the sheriff comes to town and the virtuous town folk walk without fear. Four years ago, President Trump promised to be that sheriff, routing out the miscreants that lived in the Washington swamp. When he was the unlikely winner of the 2016 election, religious romantics attributed his victory to God, not the arcane rules of the Electoral College. When he lost the 2020 election, God was nowhere to be found. He had been chased off by cheaters who had stolen the election from their candidate. Hollywood could only have been invented in America. We are storytellers.

On January 6th, a group of self-dubbed patriots attacked the Capitol building in Washington. In their eyes, the lawmakers in that building were illegitimate, and the vigilantes assumed their Constitutional duty to unseat those lawmakers. They were the Tea Party attacking the British in Boston Harbor more than two hundred years ago. Through social media they had amplified their role in the American myth, taking center stage in a fight for freedom.

America is a game of Prisoner’s Dilemma, the game theory scenario where two prisoners, each in a separate interrogation room, must decide whether to confess to a crime. If neither confesses (they cooperate), they get off with a light sentence. If one confesses and the other doesn’t, one goes scot free and the other is given a harsh sentence. If they both confess, they are both given a medium-term sentence. The players have a choice to cooperate (neither confesses) or defect (confess). If the game is played once, it is better for each prisoner to defect. If the game is played multiple times and there is a memory between games, the prisoners should cooperate.

American politics is not a cooperative game. Within a decade after the ratification of the Constitution, the founders realized, to their dismay, that they had created a vicious party system. In 1800, the founders themselves were engaged in an electoral battle, ready to smear each other’s reputations and the honor of their families to gain the power of the Presidency.

In the halls of Congress, the prisoners meet in committee rooms. They confess to the crime of representing their constituents. They confess to the sin of defending their principles. They handcuff themselves together with rules of order, then come out fighting. They play this game every day, each party unable to cooperate with each other, but telling themselves a story that they are cooperating with the rules. Outside the halls of Congress, their constituents are fighting without rules. The breach of the Capitol building brought the fight inside.

We are storytellers. After World War 2, many Americans lost their jobs and careers on suspicion that they were Communist sympathizers. Today a common phrase is “if you see something, say something.” The campaign began as a response to the 9-11 attack but has been extended to mean any suspicious activity. The “see something, say something” campaign means to promote predator awareness – those who would victimize children and women. Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery were two men who looked suspicious and were gunned down by white vigilantes who interpreted the Constitution to give them the right to defend their community against suspicious people.

Hong Kong is an island off mainland China that was formerly under British rule and prized its independence from Communist rule on the mainland. They are telling a different kind of story – turning on each other. As part of a campaign by the mainland Communist Party to repress street protests in Hong Kong, the government set up a hotline to report suspected violators of new security laws aimed to restrict criticism of the government in the media. 40,000 virtuous and vigilant residents have squealed on their neighbors.

Myths connect people but our stories are tearing us apart. Our media is saturated with a mixtape of opinion, lies and carefully filtered facts to present some Americans as the “other.” The Chinese government encourages Hong Kong residents to turn on each other. In our country, the media does the same job. We are proud of those freedoms even if they destroy our civility and our cohesiveness as a society.

///////////////

Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash

Alt Belief

Leave a comment

December 6, 2020

by Steve Stofka

Cognitive dissonance controls our political sensibilities. We speak in cryptic code and listen only to those whose code we understand. Our understanding is the standard by which we judge all other versions of reality. There is a dedicated band of people determined to preserve out of fashion ideas and explanations. Life would be easier if the people who disagreed with us would change their minds.

Listening to Washington Journal on C-Span this past week, I realized why my sensibilities lie with the Democratic Party. I can argue with their ideas, some of which I do not agree with. A Republican Congressman said that the government has no right to dictate the personal behavior of people, even though that behavior might kill people. On the other hand, the government does have the right to dictate the personal behavior of women on the chance that they might kill their fetus. My head exploded and I moved on to something else.

Several decades ago, Republican voices used to make more sense. Either the party has changed, or I have. Is this any way to discover my political allegiances? American politics is driven more by disaffection. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but more like my foxhole companion on the political battlefield. Both sides of the political aisle would benefit more if they cooperated, but it pays to compete, or to defect as it is known in Game Theory. If the other side says 2+2=4, then our side will claim the answer is 5. Rally ’round the flag, boys. In this prisoner’s game, the American public is forced to play along.

The American people and the members of Congress, but especially the Senate, live in different realities. Many families cannot pay their rent; the lines at food pantries stretch for many blocks; 20% of retail businesses have closed their doors; depression, drugs and suicide are increasing. Lounging in their Roman baths, our Republican Senators argue the ontological points of another aide package. Republican led states, dependent on energy or tourism, are begging their party for help. Senate Majority Leader McConnell wraps his white tunic about him, bids his slaves to draw his bath, and refuses to budge.

It’s always the other fella who is living in an alternate reality. When Einstein first noticed that, he built himself a theory. Some people thought he was living in an alternative reality, but after a century, most agree that his explanation was a good one. E=mc2 is as well-known as the 2600-year-old Pythagorean theorem a2 + b2 = c2.

Many alternate realities die as people come to agree on things. There are a few people who won’t let an explanation die. The earth is still flat. The moon landing was a hoax. So is Covid. Massive voter fraud gave Joe Biden a 7 million vote victory over Donald Trump. I used to think that ideas changed one death at a time. Now I’m not so sure. Some ideas are stubborn.

People and mules have much in common. We respond better to carrots in front of us instead of whips behind us. Why then do people on each side of the political aisle whip each other with words? Did we all run out of carrots?

People fix their minds on something and never change. That’s a conservative. Facts will not budge them from their ideological foxholes. The economist John Maynard Keynes said that he changed his mind when presented with new facts. That’s a liberal. They respond to the whip of facts and the carrot of something better.

We begin life with no fixed ideas. Our parents and the people around us put their ideas in our heads. Some of them grow, some fall out. People get mad at us when the ideas they planted don’t take hold in our minds. As adults, we learn that lesson at the Thanksgiving dinner table.

We are more comfortable when we are with those who share a common perspective. Perhaps we think God controls every detail of our lives, or that [insert name here] is part of a conspiracy that controls every detail of our lives.

No matter how different political and religious institutions are, they want us to believe what they believe. That is the problem: getting others to believe what we believe. We believe that what we believe is not a belief, but reality. Your belief is a belief. You see that, don’t you?  

/////////////////

Photo by K. Mitch Hodge on Unsplash

Confrontational Politics

Leave a comment

It’s called confrontational politics – the yelling and shouting heard this month at town hall meetings on health care. The tactics were first devised in the 1960s by the SDS, the Students for a Democratic Society, to protest the war and include intimidation, physical and vocal defiance and provocation. An underlying presumption of these tactics is that the ends justify the means.

In a twist of irony that would spark a wry smile in Rod Serling, the creator of the Twilight Zone, these strategies were later adopted by the College Republicans in the 1980s to thwart liberal causes on college campuses. Jack Abramoff, a leader of the movement, crafted a disciplined organization that promoted intimidation as an effective tool for conservative political causes.

In the 90s, environmental groups amended the strategy to include both violent confrontation and the passive resistance tactics espoused by Ghandi.

In the late nineties and early in this decade, an anti-corporate movement adopted these “in your face” stategies at several economic forums to challenge the fiscal policies of governments.

Common to all these movements is the perception that compromise is a betrayal of one’s principles. Compromise complicates issues for it requires that one party understand, to some degree, the other party’s point of view. Complexity is the enemy of those who prefer simplicity in their lives, beliefs and ideologies.