Censorship: When a group, or individual, is terrified that the truth shall prevail over lies.

 "The real conflict is between truth and lies. One mark of a deteriorating society is when people cannot discern between truth and lies." — Ann Landers

     I used to firmly believe that, when presented with the truth and presented with a lie, the truth would always prevail (eventually). Ideally, I still think this is true, but with the advent of data silos (self-imposed restriction of information available), I no longer believe this is always so.

     A lie cannot be exposed if people choose to never to listen to the truth.

     Note that there is a huge difference between hearing and listening. Lies repeated over and over do not magically become true. And the truth presented calmly can be heard but never listened to even though it stays the truth.

     When a group, or individual, is afraid that people will believe the truth then their only option is to impose restrictions on the ability to hear/see/read that truth. Data silos are the form that it takes for self-restriction. Censorship is when restrictions are imposed from the outside. Such censorship may be enacted by governments or by local subsets of society.

     I usually do not take part in threads on the net about book banning in schools and libraries because those working to ban books rarely listen. Of late, I tried to interject a bit of rationality into a thread but pulled back quickly because they quickly started “responding” to things that were never said.

     One thread talked about removing pornography and sex from school libraries.

I asked them to name such a book.
          Hundreds of people on the thread — no one could name a book
IF someone had named a book, I would have asked for a page number or a quote
          But not one person had named a book and I have more faith in our
          hard-working librarians than I am in what is literally a mob that
          is just repeating what they hear from someone else and don’t care if it is true.

     I do know of books that contain “hard core” sexuality — though I do not seek them out. One set comes from a very popular author who also writes lesbian romance books. Another is from a New York Times bestselling author who doesn’t hold back an iota of what can be done with heterosexual bodies. But they are not in our school libraries and, frankly, I have never heard of any protests about them.

     So, what books do get banned — and why? In the list of the most-often banned books in the US, there are various reasons mentioned. “The top ten reasons books were challenged and banned included sexual content (92.5% percent of books on the list); offensive language (61.5%); unsuited to age group (49%); religious viewpoint (26%); LGBTQIA+ content (23.5%); violence (19%); racism (16.5%); drugs, alcohol, and smoking (12.5%); "anti-family" content (7%); and political viewpoint (6.5%).” [from referenced Wikipedia article].

     As mentioned above, most people who talk about banning books have not, themselves, read the book — and often don’t even know the title or author of the book (though sometimes it is ONLY the title or author that they know). But there is usually an initiator and, presumably and hopefully, that initiator of trying to ban a book HAS read the book.

     So, given the above “top ten” reasons to ban books, what are the underlying discomforts? For sexual content, it is possible that there are some books that slip past the scrutiny of even the best, eagle-eyed, librarian. And it is possible that there are some books that really should be pulled from a school library. This includes for the other stated reasons. There are books that are not suitable for particular ages — and when they have slipped past the educational guardians there usually is not much difficulty in getting them removed.

     I will also note that, even if banned, people can (and will) still read (or watch or listen to) them — just less easily. It calls out that the primary issue is that some parents want the government to control their children. Parents SHOULD be INVOLVED with their children and learn WITH their children and be PART of their children’s lives.

     But most of the criticisms I have run across are not about specific sexuality in a book but, rather, the idea that sexuality exists. A book about a mother and father raising three children is usually not disapproved of by any. But a family where two men raise three children is very likely to be objected to. Or a family where a “mixed racial” couple are raising three children. Or a family where a mother and father is raising a child who is very uncomfortable being treated as a specific gender or the child is attracted to others who are of the same gender. The root problem is acceptance of a situation different from the societal norm — not any explicit sexuality.

     Another situation is telling the tale of a situation that is not a positive one. Abuse — physical, sexual, or emotional — is not a comfortable subject. The same is true of the abuse of drugs or other substances. But people, including adolescent and younger children, do encounter such situations. Pretending that these situations do not exist is not helping children. They may be encountering such situations at home. How do they know that such situations are not normal and they should not feel terrible because they have been caught up in such situations? What if their parents are divorcing and they don’t understand, their parents cannot calmly explain, and the children may even blame themselves? In such cases, the books may be a literal “lifeline” for the children. The problem is not the book (or movie) but the reality that they feel they have no one to talk with about such problems.

     A third category enters the worlds of changed societal norms (acceptable language, behaviors, social strata, environmental or societal environments, etc.). This may be a difference between regions, countries, or periods of history. According to the current, local, set of societal norms a book may be in conflict with them. Many of the criticisms of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” arise because the completely normal and acceptable language and behaviors of THAT period of time are no longer acceptable today.

     Does rewriting history really help anyone? Does pretending that life has always been as it ideally is today help anyone? This situation keeps arising — and not just for books and movies — but legal and historical cases where today’s standards are expected to have been held by the people of yesterday or some other locale.

     A fourth major category is simply that we don’t like the way the author thinks or the things that they put into print or a movie. They don’t have the same political, religious, moral, environmental, societal, scientific, or whatever viewpoint as someone else. True, and this is yet another case where parents should be INVOLVED with their children and what they are reading and watching and listening to. We have raised children to become adults who are unable to think about subjects, to discuss subjects, to research subjects. Is forcing children to NOT learn such skills really beneficial? Does society benefit from its citizens unable to discern reality from fantasy, facts from fiction, truths from lies?

     There are some books that slip past our hardworking librarians and should not be easily accessible by children. In such cases, all should know exactly what and why something is not appropriate. In other cases, the material may not be enjoyable or positive-in-viewpoint but still reflects something that is real. In such cases, the problem is primarily that the parents are not taking the time and energy to work with their children so that all understand what is going on and the effects of the situations on everyday interactions.

“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” — Voltaire

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Adolescence: When Once is Enough

     When one is just chatting with people, two related topics come up on occasion. They are two aspects of the same thing. Would you like to live forever and would you like to be young again? There is no “right” answer but, being me, I always respond with a question (my universe will never run out of questions) — “would I have to go through adolescence again? There is no way that I would go through adolescence again.”

     People are unique. I am sure there are those who had a fantastic adolescence and would go into a perpetual loop for those years over and over again. But I, personally, have never met such a person. I believe the odds are heavily against there being a lot of people who go through such an ideal period.

     Why? Humans change all through their lives. The first aware collision (after birth) between the maturing human and their environment is often called “the terrible twos”. This doesn’t mean the child is necessarily terrible but much adaptation is required on the part of the child and the part of the guardian. Both need to adapt. If neither adapts, it is difficult for the child to continue healthily on their unique path. This, however, usually occupies only a few months within our lives. (Admittedly, there are those who do not appear to have ever fully graduated this stage.)

     Change during adolescence may be better likened to that of a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly. So many changes. Some authorities (what is an authority — I don’t really know — only Google and other search engines know) indicate that adolescence should be extended until through about 24. I believe that this is because of the greater complexity of “growing up” and being able to fit into society. I suspect that “authorities” would have shortened the adolescent period in the 1700s or 1800s because you were expected to launch into the world much earlier than today.

     These changes can be grossly grouped as biological, psychological, and social. A person may encounter difficulties, and roadblocks, in one of these areas — or in all. As I said above, it is possible that there will be no difficulty for a person but I have never met that person.

     For me, I was fairly lucky (but still would never want to repeat it). I had severe acne but the worst was on my back and shoulders. I was moderately depressed in childhood so I benefited physically from the emotionally created sleep. I was tolerated amongst many different social niches — though I was still lonely as I was not part of any of them. And I was so aware of the power of women that I was scared s..tless of even approaching them much less run into the minefields of dating (which has gotten even worse over the years). (I did ask — and was refused by — three young women to the senior prom.)

     But my mild case of adolescent navigation is not the norm. As stated above, some focus on one area of changes and few (I believe) in all. Out pacing others — or lagging behind — in the class in terms of physical growth and changes activates the anxiety of those who are scared of the changes. This anxiety often is reflected in passive or active bullying. The attraction of the mythical “normal” becomes absolute. It is why some jeans commercials advertise being unique by everyone dressing the same.

     School districts (or superintendents) seem to be deliberately obtuse about the need for high schoolers to sleep later and start classes at not-so-early hours. Even when the parents of a district pummel the district enough to follow through on what is reasonable, it can be diverted. In our younger sons’ school district, it was planned to change schedules to ones better suited for the different ages. But the superintendent changed and the wealthy parents of the district succeeded in clobbering the plan. Back to square one for all.

     Biological changes and differences from the average have the advantage of being visible — there is something to point to. But the psychological and social changes are much more long lasting. Of course, some of that may be initiated by physical changes. Feelings of inferiority can arise out of comparisons to others — either ones that we make ourselves or by others about us.

     It’s not my belief that children are inherently malicious but they can be quite insecure. Insecurity and fear can lead to very poor behavior with other children. One would think that a feeling of solid support from the family would offset the outside pressure. Unfortunately, all too often, the negative feelings that can be experienced during adolescence are locked inside and unable to be shared with the family (assuming that one is lucky enough to have a supportive family). Not shared, not helped.

     In the United States, sexuality is still considered to be a bad thing. Not just the acts of sexuality but even discussing it or the feelings associated with sexuality. This may result from religious roots (mistaken beliefs about the Garden of Eden and exile) or a general puritanical desire to hide away all aspects of the physical body. But, with hormones shifting and surging, adolescents need help and guidance especially when they won’t admit it. The US (and even worse in some other areas of the world) has shifting, unhelpful, attitudes about dating and gender roles. Confusing to adults, even more confusing to adolescents.

     Fear of the future during changes, fear of exposure of feelings of weakness and uncertainty. In the idyllic past, children passed through this stage by being part of a small local group. Within a small peer group, the dynamics could be sorted out, albeit with difficulty. Today, the adolescent is confronted with a world of their peers. Shaming goes from one-on-one to hammered attacks. A physical ideal expands from 1 out of 20 to 1 out of a 100,000 so that almost no one can even approach it. The anonymity of the Internet removes personal responsibility and the group mind of the folks of the “Lord of the Flies” situation can arise.

     With all of these myriad changes arising within a flood of humanity, individuals may give up. They may feel it’s hopeless. They need support.

     Are we lost? Never. But a shift of importance is needed. A shift from quantity to quality. Experienced, knowledgeable people (and not AI for the foreseeable future) need to be available to those going through the minefields of adolescence. Anonymity on the Internet is a new phenomenon — though closely related to the old “poison pen” anonymous letter in the mail or telephone call in the middle of the night. Precise identification of individuals may not be necessary but the ability to block them should be possible. Some individuals are trolls, bent to poison others and society. (Trollbots also exist though I am unaware of them targeting adolescents.) Banning books and knowledge has never, throughout all of history, been a positive response to chaos — but that urge is tied to the need for guidance of those in the search for identity.

     Particularly in the US, if something doesn’t generate profits it isn’t really considered important. (Lip service (but not the reality) is given to social workers and educational workers.) But the coming generations are the foundation of future workers (and even profits). Society, as a whole, needs the coming generations to be supported in all the ways we can. Parents and guardians can take up more of the support load but only by being supported themselves in their own needs.

     We need to shift from short-term goals and results to that of generational needs and long-term effects on each other and the planet.

“Make it so.”

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Labor Day: We sometimes forget that companies are a convenient illusion. People do the work.

     Here in the United States, we have a holiday called Labor Day. It is close in purpose to the International Workers’ Day. Supported initially by the various States, it became a Federal Holiday in the United States in 1894.

     In spite of some (to me) irrational decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, companies are NOT people. They are convenient definitions which encompass all the employees and their resources who join their efforts for a common cause (usually commercial).

     Companies use resources to make a product which then brings in money and the income is distributed. The income is distributed to what is called salaries & bonuses, material structures (tools, buildings, utilities, etc), working capital, and (the remainder) profits. All of the amounts, within the capitalist economic structure, are determined by the people who control/”own” the material structures and working capital (called the capital, as a whole).

     These controllers of the capital of a company can be divided among the owner(s), investors/shareholders, and employees. Depending on the legal structure within which the company is organized, specific restrictions may be placed upon the distribution. An “employee-owned” company places the control within the “hands” of the employees who determine salaries & bonuses, what equipment/buildings/land to buy, rent, or lease, and how the remaining amount (profits) are to be distributed. On the other end of such arrangements, a sole ownership private (no public issuance of stocks) company places all of the control within the hands of the owner(s). Investors may have input into decisions according to various agreed-upon contractural requirements. In a “public corporation”, stockholders act as investors and express their input into the decisions through a “corporate board”. And so forth.

     Both capital (material structures and working capital) and employees are needed to make the company function. Neither can be effective without the other. However, the “company” does not truly do anything.

• The company does not produce products.
  The employees produce products making use of the capital

• The company does not create profits.
  The employees create the profits making use of the capital

• Companies do not make decisions.
  The controllers of the capital make the decisions

     And here we come to the crux of Labor Day. (Little of this applies to employee-owned companies.) If more people need work than there are positions within the corporate structure then the controllers of the capital can make the salaries & benefits of employees as small as possible. This can continue until the salary & benefits are so small that no one wants to work for the company. Uncontrolled capitalism places no limits, or restrictions, on the decisions of those controlling the capital. In many ways, it is only a little different from feudalism where the employees/workers are included as part of the property owned by the controllers of the capital.

     As the qualifications, that the employees must meet to be useful, increase the pool of potential employees shrink. If that pool is greater than the number of positions then the controllers of the capital continue to have the same power to control the salaries & benefits of those employees — but the lower limit may have to be higher as the general pool is smaller. If the number of positions is greater than the number of qualified potential employees then the employees determine the minimum salary & benefits they will accept (or they will go to a different company).

     Unions provide an aggregation of influence for potential, and actual, employees. Grouping together, they can determine whether or not products (and profits) can be created. They negotiate with the controllers of capital for conditions for the employees. These conditions may include salaries, tenure, benefits, working conditions, and other items specific to the type of work. The primary method of “leverage” that they can employ is that of the strike — where the employees refuse to continue to work unless guaranteed certain conditions — often concerning wages, working conditions, or benefits.

     Governmental, or legislative, support is needed to make sure that other, non-union, people cannot “volunteer” to become employees without being in the union. “Right to work” laws try to eliminate collective bargaining by requiring that non-union people be allowed to seek work without joining the union. Early unionizing efforts were strongly opposed by existing oligarchs (people who have accumulated both capital and political power) who, in turn, had out-of-proportion influence upon legislators. Much of the conflict ended up violent until laws started moving towards granting protection to the non-capital-possessors (or “labor”).

     Labor Day is directed towards honoring the vast number of workers in the United States, without whom there would be no products, services, or profits. It is directed towards the unions which allow collective aggregation of efforts to maintain influence over the power of the controllers of capital. Although both employees and controllers of capital are required for the system to work, unions and/or legislative support is too often needed to keep that awareness present. A worker who does not make enough to live is unable to live long enough to produce. A well-treated employee provides longer and better service, products, and profits. Short-term views on profits cripple long-term viability.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Recidivism: When the past just will not let go

     This newsletter/blog is unusual for me. I am extremely grateful that I have no direct experience about the subject matter — recidivism. To come back to jail means that you have been in jail. And I haven’t — though every time I stand up at a nonviolent protest to protest injustice there is a part of me that wonders whether I will end up in jail.

     Being arrested does not necessarily mean that you have done anything wrong. In fact, especially in current days, it may mean that you are doing something very right. Not that current protests (yet) approach the dangers of protests in the 1960s. Or the labor protests in the U.S. in the early 1900s. Being convicted does not mean that you are guilty. When discussing a person’s record, it is more accurate (and fair) to say they have been convicted of a crime.

     As part of a book club in which I participate with my wonderful wife, we often read books that I would not choose. Although I would have to admit, if asked, that I sometimes verge on the edge of doomscrolling (currently very difficult to avoid without ignoring the entire outside world), in my books/movies I veer towards the opportunity to move away from conflicts, difficulties, and tragedies. But book clubs often choose such — perhaps because such topics give more to discuss. One such book is “The Many Lives of Mama Love” by Lara Love Hardin. I won’t reveal many details of the book because I hate to give out spoilers but let’s say that it is a book of “move smoothly, stop at roadblock, work around roadblock, move smoothly again, …”. And there are a LOT of such roadblocks in the book.

     There are other books, and movies, about the effects of having a jail record. In the movie “Ant Man”, Scott Lang (who is this universe’s Ant Man) faces the problem of not being able to get a job because of his jail record. It doesn’t even matter if his area of conviction has no relevance to the job position. Large corporations do this for liability reasons and they are not noted for compassion. Smaller companies have more options but they, also, have the tendency to use the old adage of “better safe than sorry”. (This is, of course, from the company’s point-of-view.) This is played, in the movie, as comedy but the realities are quite tragic.

     Please note that this essay only applies to middle income people and the poor. In the U.S., the rich have a different justice system (not in theory but very much in fact). Their penalties (if any) are not even close to proportionate to the penalties given to the less wealthy. Corporate penalties are often completely laughable — so much so that the companies have very little incentive to not commit crimes. A million dollar fine sounds like a lot to a poor person but it sounds like nothing when it is less than a day’s profits. A crooked con person steals millions of dollars from poorer people, destroying their lives or retirement, and goes to minimum security jail for three years. Someone poor steals a car for resale in order to have food to feed their family and goes to jail for ten years in maximum security. “Les Miserables” is not just a historic book and film. It continues to reflect the truth of society.

     Assume that you were convicted based upon a law that you broke rather than for something that you had nothing to do with. Further assume that it was a law that makes sense — that the crime affected other people and, thus, would be a bad thing for you to do again. Once you have completed the required penance, there truly is a large percentage (it depends on the state, but as high as 61%) of people who commit similar crimes once again and go back to jail (recidivism). There are no statistics as to how many actually wanted to commit the crime again.

     What? Why would a former convict commit a crime if they didn’t want to? Sometimes it is because it is the only thing they know how to do. A con person is best at being a con person. An embezzler can most easily embezzle. A drug addict may find themselves unable to resist the attractions of the drug. More often, however, it is because almost all legal options of earning money are denied them. What are the difficulties that they can (and probably will) face?

• Forever. Google (or any other search engine) means never able to say you are sorry. Unless you have a brand new legally searchable identity, anyone will be able to track down your past. And you can only get a new legally searchable identity through a “Witness Protection: situation or via someone who is able to illegally change, and enter, records into appropriate government databases. And the “Internet is forever”. This will likely affect the ability to work, relationships, general reputation and the ability to move on from the past. And it doesn’t matter if you were innocent or guilty, whether it was a crime against injustice or a crime against people.

• The “Big Net”. If the bureaucracy can use you, they will. Let’s say that you committed Identity Fraud by stealing (or buying from the Dark Web) credit information that allowed you to illegally access fund or create new fraudulent credit liens. Once arrested, there may be other unsolved identity fraud cases. The authorities need to only prove specific crimes but they can add on whatever similar crimes they wish. After all, if they can prove that you did SOME crimes, can you PROVE that you didn’t do the other similar crimes? They get to take it off their books as now having been solved and you get to pay for someone else’s misdeeds.

• Finances. Who do think does the work in a prison? Yes, there are wardens, and guards, and repair people, and such. But who cleans the cells, prepares the food, does the laundry and so forth? If you guessed inmates, you win a prize. In our peculiar mechanisms of capitalism, if everyone released from prison never came back, the prison system would collapse. Taxes would have to go up to have paid labor do these jobs. Whenever, in capitalism, more money is made/saved by doing something stupid rather than doing something well — guess what usually wins out?

  Also, the cost to the government (state or federal, which means taxpayers) is between $25,000 and $300,000 per inmate. How much does added educational and social support cost, and child care, and so forth to support people as they make their way in society? Yes, a lot less. Prison makes no sense within a capitalist economy and education and social support make a lot of sense. I have no solutions to propose — that is just a side-effect of U.S. capitalism and social policies.

• Income. As discussed briefly in a previous blog/newsletter, prisons/jails are allowed to lease out inmates. They perform jobs at prices that go into the prison’s budget (or to stockholders for private prisons). Keeping a good supply of prisoners is healthy for the bottom line.

• Employment. As already mentioned, it is hard for a person with a criminal record to get a job. It’s a circular societal problem. In theory, they want you to begin a great life free of crime. On the other hand — “not in my neighborhood” — few people are willing to take ANY risk to hire someone with a criminal record. (The rich don’t need to worry about being hired, of course.)

• Bureaucracy. The system has a lot of very loving, caring individuals that want the convicted person to be released and succeed. However, the system as a whole makes it very difficult. Had trouble getting, and paying for, childcare before you were convicted? Wait until you try now. You have to attend two different meetings with two different departments 50 miles apart from each other? You have no car and they want you to meet at both places at the same time or you violate probation? Some individuals may care but the system doesn’t and they don’t want to hear excuses.

• Society. Your friends all wanted you to do drugs, commit small crimes, and so forth? Stay away from them. What, they are the only people you know and if you try to make other friends, you are in a catch-22. If you tell them about your record, there is a good chance they will avoid you. If you do NOT tell them and they find out later they are likely to be mad, ostracize you, and malign you to everyone they know. So much for support groups. Family is a likely potential source of support — except, if they didn’t support you before are they really likely to support you afterwards?

     Exceptions happen. People do succeed after being released. They are the exception and are a variant of the vanishing urban legend of the “rags to riches” story.

     If a person really does do the penance for a crime (defined as having broken a law — or convicted of such whether you actually did it or not) then why do we keep a manacle on them for the rest of their lives?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Budgeting & Financial Health: When ends don't meet, you really learn to budget

     I have a number of Substack newsletter subscriptions. Fewer than many but more than some. I try to at least skip-read each of the newsletters. The week before last, I read something that startled me by its simplicity and directness. Poor people MUST budget. There isn’t any “learning to budget” type of situation. However, poor people have a somewhat different type of budgeting.

     When a person, or family, doesn’t have enough money for all needs, the first step is to determine the minimum things needed to survive. There are items that most of us think are mandatory that may not make the list. For example — housing. What is NEEDED is sufficient warmth (in colder climates — one reason why certain areas of the country attract more of the homeless) and shelter from the “elements” (primarily rain/snow, direct sun, and wind) — plus sufficient clothes to meet societal requirement and add to survival in the weather. It isn’t “ideal”, but a minimum warmth/shelter does not require a permanent structure. Health care is not mandatory — until it is. The son of a friend of mine lived a homeless life until a leg started to develop gangrene from an infection and, left untreated, led to a very early (in his early 30s) death. In summary, a list of truly minimum will be calories, shelter/warmth, and safety from attacks. None are assured without income but approaches can be made to live on very little.

     Beyond these very basic foundational survival needs, it is necessary to triage remaining items. People are sometimes shocked to see a homeless person talking into a cellphone (though it is also possible they are talking into a non-working cellphone). If you have no permanent residence, have no owned means of transportation, and find yourself and your family/friends in need of being spread out through a wide area to make minimal needs then a cellphone becomes a necessity rather than a luxury. It may be high on the options beyond the minimum. Other things may be possible, depending on the level of income that exists — health care, better food, better clothing, potential permanent housing, It becomes similar to checking the temperature before going outside and determining the need for layers of clothing. If you have $X more than minimum, you get A. If $2X more than minimum, you get A, B, and C. And so forth. This is not what is usually considered to be budgeting — it is more of a skeletal envelope that gets filled when more money is available.

     Although I pray that I never again enter into that scenario of being poor (I was a part of it within my family for a short period while growing up), it can be a blessing later to know what is really needed, what is optional, and how to decide which is which. My parents grew up during the Great Depression and many, among those who survived, came out of that period with a feeling of monetary insecurity that eliminated “excess” spending and mandated a tight control of the budget. It may be a significant factor about the amount of savings of the “boomer” generation — the financial survival of their parents followed by excess budget-tightening within their growing up period. When you spend less than you make, then you save. That rule is still true.

     For those not in an extremely poor situation, budgeting is a matter of taking that sufficient amount of income, allocating what is needed, and then deciding how to split up what is in excess of the “nut” for the period of time. For most of my adult life, I have had the luxury of not having to watch my spending very closely. (There was one period when our company was not doing well when I had to keep a “running total” of items as I put them into the grocery cart in order to not be surprised at check-out. I hated it.)

     When you know you have enough, you can create a budget by examining all of your purchases for the previous month. Write down all of the items that you “had” to purchase. Be aware of the other “luxury” items that you didn’t really need. The items on your list make the core of your budget and the total is your monthly “nut”. Minimally, you also need to add a “disaster fund” — aim at 10% of your wages as you receive them. You will find that you have missed some items that are paid quarterly or just missed the edges of the month you reviewed. Add them onto your nut as you find them. In particular, watch out for “subscriptions”.

     With your nut and disaster fund taken care of, the remainder is “discretionary”. I recommend investing 1/3 to 1/2 of this “extra”. Then enjoy the final amount— but keep track so you do not exceed your budget.

     What if you have no spending history (just moved into your own place for the first time) or aren’t sure if you will have enough. You have to put together a tentative budget. Try to think of all of the things you need to pay for — rent, food, transportation, utilities, etc. Try to limit the items you consider necessary. There are example budgets as well as budget templates available free on the Internet.

     If you find that you are running out of money before your next budget period, re-examine your expenses. Something is increasing your nut — or invading it by not being on either the nut budget or any discretionary budget. You shouldn’t have any surprises if you make your budget and stick to it. If you cannot mentally keep track of any credit card/delayed payment items — write them down!

     A budget is a luxurious thing because it says that you have money available for more than the bare minimum. It is a luxury that not everyone hase. Congratulations!

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Wealth: When the needs of the many are more important that the desires of the few

     There is a peculiar mindset for many people about the distribution of wealth. There is a feeling that those that have it must deserve it — or have earned it. Those without it don’t deserve it, haven’t earned it, won’t work to get it. But, in reality, that is not how wealth works.

     Let’s use the name “capital” as a parallel to “wealth” to fit in better with the dominant economic system in the “West” — capitalism. When we work, we get paid according to the amount that our society has determined. If we have more than we spend, we can save it as “working capital” or “savings”.

     The following discussion primarily applies to the United States but there are aspects that apply to other countries and systems. Only you know how much and where.

     Within a capitalist (not officially feudal) system, people can be separated into three groups.

The poor (group 1). This group is always struggling to achieve the “standard of living” for where they are. Note that the precise income boundary will vary from location to location, country to country, area to area. In the US, those in this category must forego something(s) that many consider “normal, everyday” items — such as permanent housing (ie., they are homeless), clothes that fit, healthy food (junk food is cheaper), a car (public transit in the US, where available, is useable but not convenient, or easy, as it is in many other countries in the world), and so forth.

     For the poor, any savings needs to be set aside for emergencies (flat tire, car accident, faulty tooth, …). There are many working for minimum wage (in the US — even assuming a higher state minimum wage rather than the sub-livable federal wage) who have NO extra. Each week is a matter of what they must forego. This percentage of “surviving working poor” has increased each year since 2009 when the U.S. federal minimum wage was last raised (for most people) to $7.25/hour. Living expenses have gone up 53% since 2009 and this means that “rags to riches” story has become more and more of an urban legend. In the US, about 11% of the population are at the official poverty level but there are many more “working poor” doing without and living payday(s) to payday.

     So, the reality is that people who earn less than a certain amount (greater than official minimum wage) often have no savings above expected living needs. Is this what they deserve? They worked, they earned, they just don’t have any “extra”.

Middle income (group 2). This group can meet the “standard of living” for their area and have some extra. The extra, however, is often reserved for making retirement more enjoyable.

     Working the way up the wage ladder, we get to the vanishing segment called “middle income”. In this case, there are truly choices. Any “extra” income above needs is called “discretionary” income. People can CHOOSE how to spend it. They COULD save it as “working capital” but there is always the temptation to enjoy life at present rather than save for the future and the attractions of a consumeristic society makes it easy to find something to do with the “extra” income. There are also desires to help the members of the family — paying for schools, degrees, vacations, cosmetic work, … .This group may not work any harder (perhaps even less hard) than the poor but, because of the higher wages allocated for their job positions, they have extra capital.

     It is very difficult to move from group 1 to group 2 but much easier to move from group 2 to group 3 as long as they have good financial and investment skills and reduce their discretionary spending as much as possible. No second home, no boat or rv, no special catered vacations,

The rich (group 3). They have so much that they don’t even know how much basic living expenses cost. Considering oneself rich, or not, is subjective. People threw themselves out of windows during the Great Depression because they lost 80% of their wealth — putting them back into the rank of middle income. And, after having had all of the excesses of being rich, they were scared to death (literally) to have their income reduced so far and to lose their cook, maids, butler and so forth.

     In this group, income is primarily via unearned salaries and bonuses or dividends/capital gains from investments. Earned income is not a substantial part of their income. (Bringing in $500,000+/year ($250+/hour) can, in no manner, be justified as having been earned in my opinion.) And their requirements for living are such a small percentage of money available that costs aren’t even considered when making purchasing decisions.

     Thus, wealth is concentrated in group 3. Group 1 is being made larger and larger via mandated lower wages in comparison to living costs. Group 2 is getting smaller each year. And group 3 stays about the same size.

     How is the ability to gather wealth determined? The first factor is salaries. It is fantasized that salaries are market determined. In other words, they are paid what they are “worth”. This isn’t really the case. There is a lot of “lip service” about this but teachers still start off with very low pay (because of unions, they may leave their careers, upon retirement, with a decent income level). The low end is determined by legislation and not the market. The higher income levels for “blue collar” workers is dependent on education, certifications, and experience — often with a union interceding with management. The gradation of what experience and what education is “worth” is a crystal ball type of situation.

     In some instances, “appropriate” wages and benefits are determined by comparisons to how much money in sales per employee is achieved For example, if the company figures that an employee, in a specific job position or category, brings $300,000 into the company, then allocating $200,000 for salary and benefits is “reasonable” for the company. But this works only as long as the need exceeds the number of qualified employees (“market driven” — paid what they are “worth”).

     In the US, about 21% of all millionaires had inherited money as part of their foundational wealth. About 60% of all billionaires started with inherited money. The other 79% of millionaires built up their worth by saving, and investing (sometimes starting successful companies), for many years.

     How could we spread more fairly and equally? First, the starting point needs to be set at a living salary (meets some predetermined minimum “standard of living”), with automatic increases based on cost-of-living. Next, salaries need to be more transparent so that, eventually, comparative salaries will seem more in keeping with our official beliefs in freedom and equality. Last, the non-material (cash, stocks, bonds, and so forth) transfer of inherited wealth (transfer of properties, intellectual properties, or unrealized collections need to have special acknowledgement and allowances in order to preserve family farmers, children of artists, and so forth) must have much higher taxes. “Progressive” taxes need to come back into fashion — with a severe closing of loopholes. (Social Security and Medicare taxes should have no “cap” on wages — everyone should contribute and, later, get their investments back.)

     Changing the status quo is dependent on the wills of those who presently benefit from the existing status quo. Women being able to vote depended on the males who already had such rights. Blacks got the ability to vote via the ballots of approved voting people. The voting age changes arose out of protests during draft registration and a reflection of rights associated with responsibilities.

     It is very difficult to change any system from the status quo. But it needs to happen to have a society that cares for, and honors, each of us for the spirit which resides within.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Criminality: Just a Law Away

     Everyone knows what a criminal is, don’t they? They’re the ones that rob or break things or get into fights. All of those things can happen, and they may be a criminal because of those actions — but it’s really not the root of the situation.

    A criminal is someone who has broken a law.

    The law might be a good law. The law might be a bad law. It might be an old law … or a brand new law. It may be a law that is only occasionally, and haphazardly, enforced. In each case, it is still a law, and breaking it makes you a criminal. For example, in the following weird laws, if you

• Put salt on a railroad track (Alabama)

• Refuse to give a person a glass of water (Arizona) [in Florida, it is illegal TO give people food or water]

• Fish from a camel’s back (Idaho)

• Take a bath between the months of October and March (Indiana)

• Don’t shower at least once a year (Kentucky)

• Keep an armadillo as a pet (Maine)

• Serenade your girlfriend (Michigan)

• Ride a camel on the highway (Nevada)

• Wear roller skates in a bathroom (Oregon)

• Wash a mule on the sidewalk (Virginia)

then you have broken the law (and, sometimes, with potentially very serious penalties).

     These don’t sound so serious, do they. And it is true that they are rarely enforced. But, these laws were written — and written for a purpose. The purpose may have been against the actions of one person. That is scary. Someone in authority can make you a criminal by enacting a law forbidding you to do something that you normally do. They don’t even have to inform you of the enacting of the law (“ignorance of the law is no excuse”).

     We don’t lose much sleep over weird laws and most people are happy about the “good” laws. It doesn’t make much difference as to whether it is an old law or a new law as long as it is a “good” law. Alas, laws aren’t always good.

     The use of laws to make people criminals is widespread throughout the world and there are a number of such laws in the U.S.’s relatively recent history.

     One very, very serious instance of laws written deliberately to allow the creation of a group of criminals derives from the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

     This Amendment is very important. It made it illegal to have slaves in the United States. In terms of this newsletter, however, it is the “escape clause” that is of great concern. “except as a punishment for crime”. Slavery and/or involuntary servitude is legal if a person is convicted of a crime. And crimes are described as breaking laws. (Fortunately, the full evils of U.S. slavery do not apply — the children do not become slaves.)

     In many areas of the South, “chain gangs” (almost always “minorities” (called such even where they are the majority of the population)) of people are assigned to do the same tasks as were done by slaves. They can even be hired out to individuals or businesses to do their menial work, as was done by slaves. (Unlike slavery, however, such does not extend to ownership of their children and family members.) All that is needed is to enact a law, or laws, that apply largely to the targeted group (and not enforce the law for others not in the targeted group) and the Thirteenth Amendment is legally nullified to a great extent.

     My father served in the US Navy, on an aircraft carrier, during the Korean War (or, officially, the Korean Conflict since no war has been declared by Congress since 1942). He mentioned to me the casual use of the completely legal substance, marijuana, as a normal part of ship life during that time. But, in the 1970s, it was no longer widely used. Therefore, J Edgar Hoover, who was passionately racist, decided that it was appropriate to encourage the use of marijuana within areas of targeted groups AND to persuade Congress and the President to make use of marijuana illegal. Thus, J Edgar Hoover could legally facilitate the subjection, and harassment, of his hated prey.

     In all areas of the world, we would like it to be true that laws are always enacted for the safety, and betterment, of people and society. But a law can be a potent weapon and recognition of that is important for people to be aware.

     A person may be changed from a non-criminal to a criminal by the enactment of a law. So, every law is of importance and it is the responsibility of every citizen to keep legislators carefully monitored.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.