I remember a time when the "women's movement" was about equal opportunity, the chance to compete with men on an equal footing. There was an idea I could get behind. For that matter, it's an idea I still could get behind, if I had the chance. Between the government and the gender feminists, that chance seems slimmer and slimmer all the time, at least as far as public policy is concerned.
This evening as I rode home, I was treated to a news story about Mary Barra, the new CEO of GM. The tenor of the story seemed to be outrage that, as a woman, her compensation appeared to less than that of her male predecessors. A follow-up to the story, with GM disclosing full details of her compensation appears to contradict that earlier report, which is completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. The questions I find far more pressing are 1) Why is there so much upset over a difference in salary, and 2) Why is it any one's business outside of the GM and Ms. Barra?
I am making a few assumptions here. I am assuming, for example, that no one was holding a gun on Ms. Barra or members of her immediate family during the salary negotiations, or that no other nefarious means of corporate duress were employed. That being the case, I would have to guess that anyone, male or female, capable of being CEO of a multi-national corporation would be capable of negotiating an equitable salary for themselves. If they were not, I can't see why the company would want them in the first place. Claiming that GM conspired to reduce compensation in the offer because Ms. Barra is a woman is not only insulting to GM but insulting to Ms. Barra as well. As we acknowledge that she is capable of looking after GM's best interests, let us acknowledge that she is capable of looking after her own as well.
For those who believe that publicizing such incidents benefits women, I disagree. Each time a case such as this arises in the media, it once again raises the specter of doubt with regards to the ability women to compete equally. Men have always worked with the assumption that they were responsible for negotiating their own salaries in professional positions. While calling attention to disparities might win sympathy for women in some quarters, women professionals don't need sympathy. They need respect. They won't get that if they are cast as victims incapable of speaking up for the compensation they deserve.
It's time for the gender feminists to take their belief in female competence past the "lip service" stage. You can't claim that they are fully capable of taking care of billion dollar companies but unable to look after themselves, and you can't expect people to see them strong if you constantly cast them as victims. Man up, ladies.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Horrible Opportunities
I can still remember my first full "real" job, as in one that I drew an actual paycheck. I worked part of a summer at a grocery store in North Carolina. I was visiting my father that summer. My mother and father had divorced years earlier, and he had made the arrangements for me to be hired. For various reasons, we hadn't got to spend very much time together when I was growing up, but we did that summer. I got up when he got up, I ate when he ate. I worked when he worked, and that man worked.
My recollection is that we worked six days a week, ten to twelve hours a day that summer. There might have been a few days that we knocked off after eight. Most of the work areas were hot. The work was hard. For my labor, I was paid the marvelous sum of $1.50 per hour (or about $1.12 after taxes and deductions).
I can't say that I really enjoyed it. I was never big or muscular, or coordinated, and grocery stock work required a skill set that I was dismally lacking. I'm sure my dad knew that before he arranged for the job. We hadn't spent much time together when I was growing up, but he had seen me do enough. He knew my strengths and weaknesses, and he knew I was way out of my element. I kept plugging along.
Time has wiped away a lot of the specifics of that summer. There were some times with my dad and I joking on the job. I think were probably times when I was tired on the job, and I would grumble the way tired fifteen-year-olds do. And I think there might well have been a point when my father looked at me when at told me to either quit or stop grumbling, and that's the point I would have shut up real quick.
Just prior to that trip to North Carolina, my father had purchased a new car, and he had talked to my mother about giving his old car to me as present for my sixteenth birthday. My mother said that she would agree, but that I had to find a way to pay for gas and insurance. As I said, the two had divorced some time ago, and while both had managed that was about all. Money was tight. She had no money to get me set up. There weren't any jobs available for fifteen-year-olds where we lived, and none for sixteen-year-olds either, if they didn't have a car. It was summer stock-boy, or spend my junior year at high school as the walkin' dude. I kept sweeping and placing cans.
I really disliked working as a stock clerk, and that's the truth. It was hot, boring, and I have little to no talent for the job. I am also grateful to everyone involved, from my father who patiently worked with that summer, to the store owner who hired me at that pitiful wage. In the brief span of six weeks in my fifteenth year I got lessons that have lasted the rest of my life. I learned about responsibility, follow-through, working in difficult conditions. I learned the kind of work that I don't want to do in life, which can be almost as important what kind of work you do want to do. I learned I was capable of more than I thought. And I was able to earn enough to by my initial car insurance and have gas until I could get a job at home.
I was able to do all of that because I had the opportunity to work.
Today there are so many people at every level of government and out of government that are trying to protect people from "bad" jobs. If these same people had been around when I was growing up, I would not have had a summer job. That would have meant no car, at least not then. Life lessons would have been put off. I can't really say how things would have ended up. I do know this: I would not have thanked them then. Nor do I thank them now.
The current administration is not the first to shrink the ability of Americans to work or start new businesses, but it certainly has accelerated the process. The White House is now cheering the ability of people to be "free" of the need to work to meet the expenses of health care as the rolls of the long term unemployed and disabled grow. The path is clear, grim, and unsustainable, which leaves us a rather stark choice: we must either return the nation to a land of opportunity largely free of government interference, or resign ourselves to having no opportunity the government does not provide.
My recollection is that we worked six days a week, ten to twelve hours a day that summer. There might have been a few days that we knocked off after eight. Most of the work areas were hot. The work was hard. For my labor, I was paid the marvelous sum of $1.50 per hour (or about $1.12 after taxes and deductions).
I can't say that I really enjoyed it. I was never big or muscular, or coordinated, and grocery stock work required a skill set that I was dismally lacking. I'm sure my dad knew that before he arranged for the job. We hadn't spent much time together when I was growing up, but he had seen me do enough. He knew my strengths and weaknesses, and he knew I was way out of my element. I kept plugging along.
Time has wiped away a lot of the specifics of that summer. There were some times with my dad and I joking on the job. I think were probably times when I was tired on the job, and I would grumble the way tired fifteen-year-olds do. And I think there might well have been a point when my father looked at me when at told me to either quit or stop grumbling, and that's the point I would have shut up real quick.
Just prior to that trip to North Carolina, my father had purchased a new car, and he had talked to my mother about giving his old car to me as present for my sixteenth birthday. My mother said that she would agree, but that I had to find a way to pay for gas and insurance. As I said, the two had divorced some time ago, and while both had managed that was about all. Money was tight. She had no money to get me set up. There weren't any jobs available for fifteen-year-olds where we lived, and none for sixteen-year-olds either, if they didn't have a car. It was summer stock-boy, or spend my junior year at high school as the walkin' dude. I kept sweeping and placing cans.
I really disliked working as a stock clerk, and that's the truth. It was hot, boring, and I have little to no talent for the job. I am also grateful to everyone involved, from my father who patiently worked with that summer, to the store owner who hired me at that pitiful wage. In the brief span of six weeks in my fifteenth year I got lessons that have lasted the rest of my life. I learned about responsibility, follow-through, working in difficult conditions. I learned the kind of work that I don't want to do in life, which can be almost as important what kind of work you do want to do. I learned I was capable of more than I thought. And I was able to earn enough to by my initial car insurance and have gas until I could get a job at home.
I was able to do all of that because I had the opportunity to work.
Today there are so many people at every level of government and out of government that are trying to protect people from "bad" jobs. If these same people had been around when I was growing up, I would not have had a summer job. That would have meant no car, at least not then. Life lessons would have been put off. I can't really say how things would have ended up. I do know this: I would not have thanked them then. Nor do I thank them now.
The current administration is not the first to shrink the ability of Americans to work or start new businesses, but it certainly has accelerated the process. The White House is now cheering the ability of people to be "free" of the need to work to meet the expenses of health care as the rolls of the long term unemployed and disabled grow. The path is clear, grim, and unsustainable, which leaves us a rather stark choice: we must either return the nation to a land of opportunity largely free of government interference, or resign ourselves to having no opportunity the government does not provide.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
The Limits of Euphamism - Part II
Euphemisms have always had their place in polite society, but like any tool they are best employed in the correct situations and used appropriately. Whereas once the substitution of a palatable term for an unpleasant one was the province of diplomats and barely restrained argument, we have seen the practice form a major part of our social policy for decades. Where once terms such as "negro" and "Indian" were once accepted, they are now frowned upon in "polite" conversation at best and considered evidence of bigotry at worst.
Several words have gone through several replacement iterations, with predictable results: The attitudes about the groups referred to haven't changed for the better. If anything, relations have deteriorated as demands for use of such terms have become more shrill. The shifting terminology was not the only reason for the deterioration, nor was it the worst. Given the frequency of the shifts, however, it remains one of the more obvious symptoms in a culture that has come to emphasize demands for respect with no accountability for actions that are worthy of it.
The failure of euphemisms to result in any tangible change in attitudes may account for part of the reason why gay advocacy groups were so insistent in classifying gay unions as "marriage." The recent history of other term substitutions show that people really aren't fooled for any length of time by similar words. Advocates may have recognized that there would be no chance for lasting acceptance of the unions under any other title than "marriage."
Eventually, all forms of verbal deception will fail as they collide with truth. While words have great power, they cannot alter reality. People will think no more respectfully of "older people" today than they did "the elderly" yesterday. Attitudes towards minorities haven't changed by adding hyphens, and gay "marriage" is not marriage. Until the groups involved are willing to understand that true tolerance goes in every direction, it will take a lot more than a Newspeak Dictionary for things to improve.
Several words have gone through several replacement iterations, with predictable results: The attitudes about the groups referred to haven't changed for the better. If anything, relations have deteriorated as demands for use of such terms have become more shrill. The shifting terminology was not the only reason for the deterioration, nor was it the worst. Given the frequency of the shifts, however, it remains one of the more obvious symptoms in a culture that has come to emphasize demands for respect with no accountability for actions that are worthy of it.
The failure of euphemisms to result in any tangible change in attitudes may account for part of the reason why gay advocacy groups were so insistent in classifying gay unions as "marriage." The recent history of other term substitutions show that people really aren't fooled for any length of time by similar words. Advocates may have recognized that there would be no chance for lasting acceptance of the unions under any other title than "marriage."
Eventually, all forms of verbal deception will fail as they collide with truth. While words have great power, they cannot alter reality. People will think no more respectfully of "older people" today than they did "the elderly" yesterday. Attitudes towards minorities haven't changed by adding hyphens, and gay "marriage" is not marriage. Until the groups involved are willing to understand that true tolerance goes in every direction, it will take a lot more than a Newspeak Dictionary for things to improve.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The Limits of Euphamism
I read a recent post describing some recent policy changes at a retirement home in England. The subject was a style manual that was being used to guide the staff on how to address the residents. Apparently, "elderly" is now on the ever growing list of words that should not be used. The approved booklet lists the preferred term as "older people." There were a host of others. The booklet was 31 pages long.
Considering the government relationship with health care in England, neither the changes nor the fact that someone thought it was worth a 31-page booklet is particularly surprising. Positions for bureaucrats grow, and are filled, quite readily in a well-funded organization like the British National Health Service, far more readily than positions for people who actually care for patients. And with the increase in officials, there is the steady pressure to issue new laws, rules, and guidelines, to justify those positions. I still have to wonder about the mentalities that thought this type of project worth the time and expense of producing a style manual of this size.
I would never want to minimize the idea of courtesy and respect to the elderly, or older people for that matter, but in what particular frame of reality is this type of change supposed to make a difference? I have to assume that any patient or client capable telling the difference between the two is already aware of their age relative to society. Regardless of the intention, I don't think that this clever ruse is actually putting anything over on the grandparents, nor do I suspect that they will find their standard of living improved by this type of change. The only logic I can seem to find in it is the shrinking of an already diminished language by declaring another word "out of bounds" for no good reason. That's hardly a new occurrence. At the rate we have been going the last few decades, I imagine there will come a time when the list of banned words outnumbers the ones that approved for use.
As with older people, I am also big fan of addressing other people respectfully. I sincerely try to do so. I find that it seems to make them feel good, if only a little, and that makes me feel good. It costs nothing, except a bit more time on occasion. Few things in life bring so great a reward with so little output. I simply cannot accept, however, that the precise form that courtesy has to take is so important that it justifies the time, effort, and expense of promulgating lists of words and phrases that may or may not be used. I always thought that type of training was covered along the same lines as washing before meals and potty training.
I also despise the impact on both liberty and societal relationships that such lists have had. While I fully support the right of any employer to maintain a standard for on the job behavior, I also feel that such standards to should be kept to the minimum to keep communications as clear and open as possible. This is especially true in government positions, where small policies have a habit of spreading into large programs with far reaching consequences. I am completely horrified that some words have been pretty much crossed out of the language as unacceptable regardless of circumstances, that property and lives can be completely disrupted by passing remark.
Some words are ugly. No doubt about it. They have ugly meanings based on ugly histories. They are used to convey ugly feelings. That's part of the human condition. We can't escape our failings of the past with the stroke of a pan, or a deletion in a file. The history, all of the incidents that inspired such words to begin with, remain. It puzzles me, really. There are times when I think that some people believe that if we can just get rid of the words that are used to make people feel angry or weak or afraid or uncomfortable, that those feelings will go away with the words, that all we need for harmonious living is a properly adjusted dictionary.
Whether people believe that or not, there are enough who act as though they do, going after everything from words, to books, to flags. To stars and crosses, too. Like government regulations, the list of things that make people uncomfortable enough to attack keeps growing as well.
I still remember coming home as a child and complaining to my parents about the teasing and insults I got at school. Some was spite. Some I deserved, no doubt. Most of it was kids being kids. I'd like to think that most of us have grown out of it. The advice I received from my parents was pretty much the same advice that I have given to my own children: Toughen up. There will always be someone, somewhere that gets their entertainment from tormenting others. If it doesn't work on you, they will move on.
It was hard advice to take. I got my feelings hurt a lot growing up. And then I didn't. That's the payoff that makes all the pain worthwhile. Sooner or later, you have the ability to go where you will without worry of an unkind word, whether ugly or racial or sexist, or any new description likely to be invented. With the right attitude, and a knowledge that your worth comes from God, then you will know that ugly words are still just words. They have no power over you that you do not give them.
Words will never hurt me. That's what I was taught growing up. I find that sometimes that isn't the case. A harsh word from a loved wound can still wound. When you give your love, that's giving a power over you on a whole new level. That's how it should be. Where we are going now, where have been going for years, is giving the easiest to offend power over all. I hope we can change direction soon. Frankly, I can't think of a more frightening place to end up.
Considering the government relationship with health care in England, neither the changes nor the fact that someone thought it was worth a 31-page booklet is particularly surprising. Positions for bureaucrats grow, and are filled, quite readily in a well-funded organization like the British National Health Service, far more readily than positions for people who actually care for patients. And with the increase in officials, there is the steady pressure to issue new laws, rules, and guidelines, to justify those positions. I still have to wonder about the mentalities that thought this type of project worth the time and expense of producing a style manual of this size.
I would never want to minimize the idea of courtesy and respect to the elderly, or older people for that matter, but in what particular frame of reality is this type of change supposed to make a difference? I have to assume that any patient or client capable telling the difference between the two is already aware of their age relative to society. Regardless of the intention, I don't think that this clever ruse is actually putting anything over on the grandparents, nor do I suspect that they will find their standard of living improved by this type of change. The only logic I can seem to find in it is the shrinking of an already diminished language by declaring another word "out of bounds" for no good reason. That's hardly a new occurrence. At the rate we have been going the last few decades, I imagine there will come a time when the list of banned words outnumbers the ones that approved for use.
As with older people, I am also big fan of addressing other people respectfully. I sincerely try to do so. I find that it seems to make them feel good, if only a little, and that makes me feel good. It costs nothing, except a bit more time on occasion. Few things in life bring so great a reward with so little output. I simply cannot accept, however, that the precise form that courtesy has to take is so important that it justifies the time, effort, and expense of promulgating lists of words and phrases that may or may not be used. I always thought that type of training was covered along the same lines as washing before meals and potty training.
I also despise the impact on both liberty and societal relationships that such lists have had. While I fully support the right of any employer to maintain a standard for on the job behavior, I also feel that such standards to should be kept to the minimum to keep communications as clear and open as possible. This is especially true in government positions, where small policies have a habit of spreading into large programs with far reaching consequences. I am completely horrified that some words have been pretty much crossed out of the language as unacceptable regardless of circumstances, that property and lives can be completely disrupted by passing remark.
Some words are ugly. No doubt about it. They have ugly meanings based on ugly histories. They are used to convey ugly feelings. That's part of the human condition. We can't escape our failings of the past with the stroke of a pan, or a deletion in a file. The history, all of the incidents that inspired such words to begin with, remain. It puzzles me, really. There are times when I think that some people believe that if we can just get rid of the words that are used to make people feel angry or weak or afraid or uncomfortable, that those feelings will go away with the words, that all we need for harmonious living is a properly adjusted dictionary.
Whether people believe that or not, there are enough who act as though they do, going after everything from words, to books, to flags. To stars and crosses, too. Like government regulations, the list of things that make people uncomfortable enough to attack keeps growing as well.
I still remember coming home as a child and complaining to my parents about the teasing and insults I got at school. Some was spite. Some I deserved, no doubt. Most of it was kids being kids. I'd like to think that most of us have grown out of it. The advice I received from my parents was pretty much the same advice that I have given to my own children: Toughen up. There will always be someone, somewhere that gets their entertainment from tormenting others. If it doesn't work on you, they will move on.
It was hard advice to take. I got my feelings hurt a lot growing up. And then I didn't. That's the payoff that makes all the pain worthwhile. Sooner or later, you have the ability to go where you will without worry of an unkind word, whether ugly or racial or sexist, or any new description likely to be invented. With the right attitude, and a knowledge that your worth comes from God, then you will know that ugly words are still just words. They have no power over you that you do not give them.
Words will never hurt me. That's what I was taught growing up. I find that sometimes that isn't the case. A harsh word from a loved wound can still wound. When you give your love, that's giving a power over you on a whole new level. That's how it should be. Where we are going now, where have been going for years, is giving the easiest to offend power over all. I hope we can change direction soon. Frankly, I can't think of a more frightening place to end up.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Oregon Resets the Calendar to 1984
I remember 1984. Vaguely. I turned 23 that year. The movie adaptation was coming out, but I decided to read the novel first. It seemed the "intellectual" thing to do. I went to see the movie after I had finished. It's hard to say which was more depressing, the bleak world described by Orwell or the bleak world interpreted by film director. Both conveyed the sense of despair admirably, and I set aside both the film and the book feeling uplifted, knowing that I would never be part of such a world. It was a rare moment of optimism in my life, and thus doomed to ring false eventually.
One of the major concepts dealt with in the novel is "thought crime," or the idea that simply considering an act against authority is a punishable offense. Acting on the thought was a secondary offense, compounding your guilt. In Orwell's world, the authority was the Party, led by Big Brother, and he was always watching. There were microphones and cameras everywhere. Everyone had a television where the viewer worked both ways, and you couldn't turn it off. Yes, big brother was watching alright.
Late in the novel, the main character gets himself into criminal activity against the Party. He has an unsanctioned affair. He is, of course, arrested. The party is completely atheist and has no morals, but they do have rules, and no infraction can be tolerated. He is not be killed, however. Not immediately, anyway. The Party has learned through experience that killing its opponents makes them into martyrs, and gives enemies a cause to focus around. Instead, those who are arrested are tortured until they are broken in mind and spirit. When that is complete, they are allowed to recover a semblance of a healthy appearance so that they can publicly recant their treason. Then, at some later time when their misdeeds are no longer remembered, the Party will dispose them. And what might have been a rallying point for opposition instead becomes a symbol of how futile it is to resist.
Fast forward...
Last year a Christian owned bakery declined to make a wedding cake to celebrate a lesbian union. There were plenty of other bakers who would have been happy to accommodate the pair, but that wasn't the point. The two sued the owners under state law for discrimination. There was also a campaign of threats against the family and against vendors who business with them. Additional details are available here:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
The position of the Oregon attorney general is as clear as it is chilling. "Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
"Rehabilitate" is a fine word in some contexts. Its usage here, however, is simply a euphemism for surrendering principles of belief and conscience, rights fought and died for, and guaranteed in our Constitution. I find in our modern society that Christians are being increasingly identified as in need of "rehabilitation." There are several other cases in the link above. I'm sure that I will get around to discussing others as time goes by.
The important thing to remember at present is that as we have accepted Christ, the rehabilitation process has already begun. He is the Great Physician, and it is our faith in Him that will lead us to ultimate recovery. If this is a time of testing, then let it also be a time of faith increasing, of seeking wisdom, and looking for ways to overcome evil with good. In this way, we will honor Christ, and our nation.
One of the major concepts dealt with in the novel is "thought crime," or the idea that simply considering an act against authority is a punishable offense. Acting on the thought was a secondary offense, compounding your guilt. In Orwell's world, the authority was the Party, led by Big Brother, and he was always watching. There were microphones and cameras everywhere. Everyone had a television where the viewer worked both ways, and you couldn't turn it off. Yes, big brother was watching alright.
Late in the novel, the main character gets himself into criminal activity against the Party. He has an unsanctioned affair. He is, of course, arrested. The party is completely atheist and has no morals, but they do have rules, and no infraction can be tolerated. He is not be killed, however. Not immediately, anyway. The Party has learned through experience that killing its opponents makes them into martyrs, and gives enemies a cause to focus around. Instead, those who are arrested are tortured until they are broken in mind and spirit. When that is complete, they are allowed to recover a semblance of a healthy appearance so that they can publicly recant their treason. Then, at some later time when their misdeeds are no longer remembered, the Party will dispose them. And what might have been a rallying point for opposition instead becomes a symbol of how futile it is to resist.
Fast forward...
Last year a Christian owned bakery declined to make a wedding cake to celebrate a lesbian union. There were plenty of other bakers who would have been happy to accommodate the pair, but that wasn't the point. The two sued the owners under state law for discrimination. There was also a campaign of threats against the family and against vendors who business with them. Additional details are available here:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
The position of the Oregon attorney general is as clear as it is chilling. "Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
"Rehabilitate" is a fine word in some contexts. Its usage here, however, is simply a euphemism for surrendering principles of belief and conscience, rights fought and died for, and guaranteed in our Constitution. I find in our modern society that Christians are being increasingly identified as in need of "rehabilitation." There are several other cases in the link above. I'm sure that I will get around to discussing others as time goes by.
The important thing to remember at present is that as we have accepted Christ, the rehabilitation process has already begun. He is the Great Physician, and it is our faith in Him that will lead us to ultimate recovery. If this is a time of testing, then let it also be a time of faith increasing, of seeking wisdom, and looking for ways to overcome evil with good. In this way, we will honor Christ, and our nation.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
The Morality of Income Inequality
I can still remember the day that I learned the difference between a wasp and a butterfly. I was about four years old and playing in our screened-in-porch when I spied a large insect crawling on the inside of the door. Curious, I wandered over to check it out. It was yellow and black, but it was much bigger than any of the bees that I had ever seen before, and the shape wasn't quite right. If you've ever seen a mud dauber, you know what I mean. So, using four-year-old logic, I decided that what I was looking at was a different kind of butterfly, and, since I knew that butterflies were harmless, I reached for it.
It wasn't one of the more pleasant lessons that I've had in my life, but it was one of the best. Quick. Effective. Both of us (the wasp and I) survived. Would that every important life lesson could be taught so quickly and well.
I learned that day bad decisions lead to bad outcomes. I'm not talking about bad in the sense of "evil" necessarily, though that can come into play. I'm talking about the kind of bad decisions most of us can and do make on a regular basis. It can be anything from a mistake in judgment due to ignorance (thinking a wasp is a butterfly, for example) to loaning the rent money to a friend who has an investment that's a "sure thing." We put off our homework, eat too much, push the accelerator a little too hard. And while often there are no immediate consequences, most of us realize that sooner or later a bill is going to come due. In fact, we count on it. If there are no consequences for actions, then there is no civilized society.
Right now, the concept of "income inequality" is being widely discussed in political and news circles across the country. Many people seem to think that there is a great moral tragedy occurring that some people make a small fraction of what others make in terms of income. (These are often the same people that cry that religion has no place in the public square, but we'll leave that for another day.) I see a great many moral tragedies in our nation today, but income inequality doesn't seem to find a place on the list.
As human beings, each made in the image of God, each of us has infinite worth. There is no difference between the shop clerk and the CEO, the astronaut and analyst, the teacher and the truck driver. Because of that, it can be tempting to view great differences in their earnings as unjust. But such a view is not supported Biblically.
The first thing to remember is that the income a person receives does not reflect the value of the person, but the value of the person's labor. This is influenced by a great many things, and a large percentage of them are under the control of the person himself. The skills that we choose to develop, the course that we take in school, and the work habits that we develop along the way all play a part in how valuable our labor becomes to current and future employers.
Another thing to remember is that, with very few exceptions, people do not control their own salaries any more than businesses control their customers. That implies that if someone is being paid well, their employer expects their labor to earn them even more. If they are paid poorly, their employer expects little benefit. If the person cannot make the employer enough to cover the labor cost, there is no reason to hire the worker at all.
The Bible addresses income inequality from a number of different causes. Proverbs notes frequently that foolish behavior will result in poverty. In Deuteronomy, God warns the people through Moses that righteous living will result in prosperity while depravity will lead to ruin. If we take these warnings literally, then not only is income inequality not immoral, it is part of God's plan for teaching his followers and others the value of following God's laws. Like my younger self learning not to grab the wasp, few things can make the truth so plain as a difference in outcomes.
None of this is to say that some people are not the victim of bad luck and circumstance. Where that is the case, it behooves everyone in society to find ways to offer those who want to improve their lives the opportunity to do so. But I can't think of anyone who just "knows what people should be earning." That means that any law trying to reduce inequality is going to be driven by politics instead of reality. I can't think of a better way to destroy the working incentive of the nation.
It is good and proper to honor work with just compensation. It is also good and proper to encourage people to pursue more value and difficult skills by offering better compensation. It is moral to pay well for loyal, faithful, and excellent service, and little for poor and haphazard service. To try to change that paradigm is to invite further ruin on the nation. For Christians to try to promote such a thing in Christ's name does our Lord and Savior no honor.
It wasn't one of the more pleasant lessons that I've had in my life, but it was one of the best. Quick. Effective. Both of us (the wasp and I) survived. Would that every important life lesson could be taught so quickly and well.
I learned that day bad decisions lead to bad outcomes. I'm not talking about bad in the sense of "evil" necessarily, though that can come into play. I'm talking about the kind of bad decisions most of us can and do make on a regular basis. It can be anything from a mistake in judgment due to ignorance (thinking a wasp is a butterfly, for example) to loaning the rent money to a friend who has an investment that's a "sure thing." We put off our homework, eat too much, push the accelerator a little too hard. And while often there are no immediate consequences, most of us realize that sooner or later a bill is going to come due. In fact, we count on it. If there are no consequences for actions, then there is no civilized society.
Right now, the concept of "income inequality" is being widely discussed in political and news circles across the country. Many people seem to think that there is a great moral tragedy occurring that some people make a small fraction of what others make in terms of income. (These are often the same people that cry that religion has no place in the public square, but we'll leave that for another day.) I see a great many moral tragedies in our nation today, but income inequality doesn't seem to find a place on the list.
As human beings, each made in the image of God, each of us has infinite worth. There is no difference between the shop clerk and the CEO, the astronaut and analyst, the teacher and the truck driver. Because of that, it can be tempting to view great differences in their earnings as unjust. But such a view is not supported Biblically.
The first thing to remember is that the income a person receives does not reflect the value of the person, but the value of the person's labor. This is influenced by a great many things, and a large percentage of them are under the control of the person himself. The skills that we choose to develop, the course that we take in school, and the work habits that we develop along the way all play a part in how valuable our labor becomes to current and future employers.
Another thing to remember is that, with very few exceptions, people do not control their own salaries any more than businesses control their customers. That implies that if someone is being paid well, their employer expects their labor to earn them even more. If they are paid poorly, their employer expects little benefit. If the person cannot make the employer enough to cover the labor cost, there is no reason to hire the worker at all.
The Bible addresses income inequality from a number of different causes. Proverbs notes frequently that foolish behavior will result in poverty. In Deuteronomy, God warns the people through Moses that righteous living will result in prosperity while depravity will lead to ruin. If we take these warnings literally, then not only is income inequality not immoral, it is part of God's plan for teaching his followers and others the value of following God's laws. Like my younger self learning not to grab the wasp, few things can make the truth so plain as a difference in outcomes.
None of this is to say that some people are not the victim of bad luck and circumstance. Where that is the case, it behooves everyone in society to find ways to offer those who want to improve their lives the opportunity to do so. But I can't think of anyone who just "knows what people should be earning." That means that any law trying to reduce inequality is going to be driven by politics instead of reality. I can't think of a better way to destroy the working incentive of the nation.
It is good and proper to honor work with just compensation. It is also good and proper to encourage people to pursue more value and difficult skills by offering better compensation. It is moral to pay well for loyal, faithful, and excellent service, and little for poor and haphazard service. To try to change that paradigm is to invite further ruin on the nation. For Christians to try to promote such a thing in Christ's name does our Lord and Savior no honor.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Is God the King?
There is a debate among Christians today about the nature of God and what His role is toward humanity. And, as is often the case, the dividing line is faith. The imperative question: Is God the King?
If God is the King, then He has acted and will continue to act as a king acts. He is able. He is powerful. He is faithful. His is just, but is standards are demanding. He is merciful, but He will see his will done. He keeps his promises, and all that we know about him comes from him.
The God I worship spoke a universe into creation and banished darkness with a sentence. He formed man from dust, and completed the work with woman. He knows the number of the stars in sky, for He made each one, and He knows me by name. My God is awesome. He has prepared a future for me of many blessings. I know this because He promised all this in his word, and He promised his word would never pass away.
There is another God worshiped by Christians. He is not the King, though. I am not really sure that He is God. Because while the God I know can command the storm and raise the dead, the God they claim cannot even manage dictation. The scriptures, they say, though divinely inspired, were nevertheless dependent on men and corrupted by men. They were influenced by the social values and prejudices of the times. God was powerless to stop it.
Think about it: The God who saw Jonah heading away from his assigned task, and ordered a storm to stop the ship, a great fish to swallow the prophet: powerless. A God who ordered a strict Jewish prophet to marry a prostitute, yet unable to get those who record the scriptures to overcome their social values. A King who told his servants they had to face death over and over for his sake supposedly incapable of getting men to faithfully record his Word.
And it's not as though this is a trivial thing. The emphasis that God placed on it, reaffirmed through Christ, is clear: We do not live simply by bread, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. These were the scriptures that Moses commanded the people to discuss when they went in and out, when they got up and lay down, in all aspects of life. More than that - these are our life.
If we cannot trust the scriptures, each and every one, how do we know we can trust any of them? How can we know where the truth begins and the lies end? What do we base that decision on?
If we are the ones making that decision, then aren't we saying we have more faith in ourselves than in God? Seriously. If we have more faith in our ability to discern what is "true" in the Bible than we have in God's power to direct his prophets, what does that say about our faith in God? Is that an awesome God? Is that a God that can rescue anyone? Or is that more like the description of the idols in the Old Testament, the gods that can neither see nor here nor move.
As it was when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, so it is with each new generation. We all have to decide which "God" we will serve. For more than a generation now, Christians have become very comfortable with the "friend" we have in Jesus. I think it's time to reassert our faith in Christ as King.
If God is the King, then He has acted and will continue to act as a king acts. He is able. He is powerful. He is faithful. His is just, but is standards are demanding. He is merciful, but He will see his will done. He keeps his promises, and all that we know about him comes from him.
The God I worship spoke a universe into creation and banished darkness with a sentence. He formed man from dust, and completed the work with woman. He knows the number of the stars in sky, for He made each one, and He knows me by name. My God is awesome. He has prepared a future for me of many blessings. I know this because He promised all this in his word, and He promised his word would never pass away.
There is another God worshiped by Christians. He is not the King, though. I am not really sure that He is God. Because while the God I know can command the storm and raise the dead, the God they claim cannot even manage dictation. The scriptures, they say, though divinely inspired, were nevertheless dependent on men and corrupted by men. They were influenced by the social values and prejudices of the times. God was powerless to stop it.
Think about it: The God who saw Jonah heading away from his assigned task, and ordered a storm to stop the ship, a great fish to swallow the prophet: powerless. A God who ordered a strict Jewish prophet to marry a prostitute, yet unable to get those who record the scriptures to overcome their social values. A King who told his servants they had to face death over and over for his sake supposedly incapable of getting men to faithfully record his Word.
And it's not as though this is a trivial thing. The emphasis that God placed on it, reaffirmed through Christ, is clear: We do not live simply by bread, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. These were the scriptures that Moses commanded the people to discuss when they went in and out, when they got up and lay down, in all aspects of life. More than that - these are our life.
If we cannot trust the scriptures, each and every one, how do we know we can trust any of them? How can we know where the truth begins and the lies end? What do we base that decision on?
If we are the ones making that decision, then aren't we saying we have more faith in ourselves than in God? Seriously. If we have more faith in our ability to discern what is "true" in the Bible than we have in God's power to direct his prophets, what does that say about our faith in God? Is that an awesome God? Is that a God that can rescue anyone? Or is that more like the description of the idols in the Old Testament, the gods that can neither see nor here nor move.
As it was when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, so it is with each new generation. We all have to decide which "God" we will serve. For more than a generation now, Christians have become very comfortable with the "friend" we have in Jesus. I think it's time to reassert our faith in Christ as King.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)