Friday, January 31, 2025

Income Inequality: The Nitty Gritty, bad for the economy, bad for society

     At this point, almost everyone has heard about income inequality. It seems that income inequality defines itself in the very name. A few have a lot and a lot have very little.

     In the United States, income inequality increased through the “roaring 20s” and culminated in the Great Depression — which affected people throughout the world. In the US, the “Dustbowl” was a secondary factor which made the effects of the Great Depression even worse. One targeted the overlying economic system and the second targeted the underlying ability to produce food and other necessities.

     Once the Great Depression hit, it was a matter of figuring out how to allow the greatest number of people to survive. Horrible as it was, it did force the population and the government to stand back and look at what had been happening to have the country come to this position and to put so many people into such desperate situations. “Sacred cows” — things that “had always been such” came under questioning. Perhaps “just because they had “always” been done that way” was no longer a sufficient reason to do that.

Root Causes of the Great Depression

     Folks who know a lot more about history, and economics, than I do have split the root causes of the Great Depression into five areas.

  1. Vulnerabilities due to Massive Events. For the 1920s, this was the effects of World War I; it involved changing global trade agreements, war debt, and job displacement due to casualties in the war. In the present period, the global pandemic initiated situations very similar to that of the WW I.

  2. Financial Speculation by those that had large “footprints” in the global stock markets. There were very few regulations on the banks or investors and the actions of a very few people caused a ripple effect, and panic, through the economy. After reversing many of the safeguards instigated in the recovery from the Great Depression, we are once again vulnerable to financial speculation. In addition, the US government concept of “too big to fail” (TBTF) encourages large businesses to do unsafe, even foolish, things.

  3. Shortly before the Great Depression, the “Fed” decreased the money supply and greatly increased interest rates. This occurred because of panic moves by the controllers of the Fed. Hopefully, this is one factor that will not come into play at this time — but with oligarchic influence it cannot be certain.

  4. The Wall Street collapse influenced people to purchase gold with their currency. The Fed then increased interest rates to “protect” the value of US currency which led to a further economic slowdown.

  5. The Smoot-Hawley Act. This Act, initiated before the crash, but signed after the crash, increased US tariffs an average of 16 percent. This was responded to by other countries increasing tariffs and inflation roared, the value of the dollar decreased, and global market chaos ensued.

     In summary, the Fed has a good deal of influence. As long as they maintain independence from large businesses and wealthy people (and have competent people in charge) then that should act as a safety cushion. But the increasing oligarchy puts this into jeopardy. Also, the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, with fewer and fewer restrictions on businesses and wealthy individuals, easily transform small errors into large problems. Once again, the increasing income inequality brings this into question. Finally, it is normal that there is a reaction to every action (Newton’s laws apply to many areas) — and tariffs for control are likely to result with tariffs in reciprocal.

Putting All the Eggs into One Basket

     There are still some safeguards in place from the post Wall Street collapse/Great Depression days. Hopefully, they are still sufficient to avoid the “domino effect” that was a strong factor in the Wall Street crash of 1929. People who watch the stock market have probably noticed that the stock market has been “frozen” a few times over the past few years once certain criteria have been met — those instances are the safeguards at work. But, with the current oligarchic Executive Branch (including Cabinet) there is no guarantee that features protecting the general populace will stay in place.

     Still, even if safeguards prevent the domino effect, income inequality is still like putting all of your eggs in one basket. Let’s say that the eggs in your local coop number 100 per day. If the number goes to 75, or below, then it causes problems in being able to meet commitments to people buying your eggs. If one person owns 25 eggs, three own 10 each, five own 2 each, twenty-five own 1 each, and sixty-six own the remaining 20 then you have to keep your fingers crossed that the mega egg-carrier doesn’t trip and fall.

     Perhaps that may be a silly example — but our economy is such that large shifts can have extra large effects and if only a few people are needed to make those large shifts all by themselves, then we have a dangerous situation.

A Dam in the Flow of Money

     A very small minority of economists still think that “trickle-down” economics has positive value; this is an argument for keeping, or increasing, income inequality. But the great majority acknowledges that this does not work. Perhaps “splash-over” will occur as the ultra wealthy hire masses of people at minimum wage to build their personal equivalent of a pyramid. But that helps very few — and mostly gets distributed to those at the lowest economic ladder.

     IF that huge pool of money retained by the ultra-rich gets dispersed throughout the economy then the economy still flows — though there is still no “trickle-down” effect. But that isn’t what happens. It is retained and, based on current rules (or lack of rules) on capitalism is able to “earn” more money by being available to other businesses and earning interest and capital gain. But it is not available for general people to exchange for goods and services. One person making larger purchases that do not always flow back into the general economy or ninety-nine people making purchases that do flow back into the general economy. Which is better?

Regulated Capitalism Works for All

     The economic system of capitalism works because it works with people as they are — not with how we wish they were. Many people are greedy. Most people want a direct correlation between their work and what they get back from the work. The book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell does a great job, in my opinion, of describing the problems that exist when an economic, and societal, utopia is attempted with people as they are. While most people would wish that people would be “better”, wishing doesn’t help a lot.

     I look at it as over a long period. Are people, in general, better off now than they were 500 years ago? Certainly they live longer, are healthier, and have access to facilities that would not have been dreamed of 500 years ago. There are some negative effects also; the direct connection to the land for most people has been lost and that may be lamented. All in all, in general (and that is always needed to be kept in mind as there are almost always exceptions) we treat each other better and live better now than back then.

     But, people are people. Capitalism may work because it works with people as they are — but that doesn’t mean that letting them move along freely works the best. Greed can be good as it motivates — unrestrained greed creates social problems, breaks “free market” restraints on how competition works, and creates income inequality. Unrestrained business practices can abuse the general workers, destroy the environment, and warp priorities around the specific businesses.

     People need money (or the equivalent of money) for basic needs. Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” lists the layers of physiological (food and clothing), safety (job security), love and belonging needs (friendship), esteem, and self-actualization. These are listed in the order of first needed. Everyone needs food and clothing (and shelter and other physical requirements). Those are necessary before the next step — security in being able to keep those items. And that is necessary before beneficial social interaction.

     But, a strange thing exists — well, not really strange but rarely pointed out. Money is needed for physical needs. Stability of income to provide for those physical needs comes next but as we ascend the “pyramid” of Maslow’s needs, there is less and less need for money. Assuming that Maslow’s pyramid of needs is correct and reflects reality, then money is superfluous beyond a certain point — it may even be counter-productive. So, restraint on greed within capitalism both allows a larger number of people to meet their needs (and preserve a healthier society) and may be of general benefit to the people whose greed is restrained. A progressive income tax, in conjunction with strong unions (which strive to balance the needs of those within companies), works to achieve that result.

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

Look and subscribe here.

Friday, January 24, 2025

Unwrapped: Scaling of actions and things

     I used to love watching a program called “Unwrapped” (the fact that it was hosted by a Marc Summers (no relation that I know of) didn’t hurt). The program (available via some streaming services) took the viewer into the factory to see how some everyday household, or food, item was produced to be able to sell it, and distribute it, nationwide or even globally. (There was also an Unwrapped 2.0 which I never saw.)

     I have a favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe — it comes from a Mennonite cookbook “More-With-Less Cookbook”. It requires a number of ingredients (surprise!). A cup of this, a teaspoon of that, 2 eggs, and so forth all get blended into the dough before it gets put into the oven. It takes a while to put together and doing it well takes practice. But, anyone can do it in their kitchen with the right tools and ingredients.

     Let’s ramp up “one level”. Now I would be cooking for 200 people at a food kitchen for the homeless. My recipe makes about four dozen. Saying two cookies a person, I would want to make about 400 cookies or about 8 times the recipe. Every cup becomes a half gallon. Two eggs increases to 16, and a teaspoon becomes about 2 2/3 tablespoons. This is a lot of material to work with but the biggest adjustment is with the tools. larger bowls are necessary and it is no longer possible to do all the mixing by hand (my sons still can’t understand why I mix by hand — but I like the tactile feedback of doing it by hand). Larger pans are also needed and a second oven would be very useful.

     The program “Unwrapped” takes this scaling a huge number of an increase. A cookie factory may make 40,000 cookies a day. If they used my recipe (unlikely, but not impossible) each cup would increase to 50 gallons. They would be using 1600 eggs (around 17 gallons), and the teaspoon would increase to 800 teaspoons (about 17 cups or a bit more than 2 gallons). European recipes use weights for much of a recipe and, perhaps, that might make more sense to many of you — but I am used to the US measurement system (though it does make scaling numbers harder).

     At any rate, for 40,000 cookies a day the standard mixing and baking processes are no longer adequate. Huge industrial mixers are needed along with pipelines filled with powders and liquids. Ovens turn into line ovens where a continuous stream of unbaked cookies are deposited on a conveyer belt and pop out of the other end of the very long (perhaps 50 feet or more) oven baked. Decorations require special mass tools. Of course, for this scale, one is also dealing with packaging and distribution — but I’m not going to tackle that here. (I think logistics — making everything occur as it needs to happen — is fascinating, and we all make use of it every day — but that is still not today’s topic).

     So far, we have only worked with the process of expansion. We have not looked at all the ramifications — or consequences — of this ramping up. We have to have herds of dairy cows and daily deliveries. Trucks of sugar are needed to put into the storage bins and pipelines. Acres of fields are needed to grow the spices, wheat, cocoa, and the various other ingredients.

     Say that we shift from cookies to loaves of bread. Recipes vary but 4 cups of flour in a loaf of bread is not unreasonable. The population of the US is presently about 335 million. Let’s just say (for estimates sake) that each person eats the equivalent of 1/4 loaf of bread per day (it may be in the form of pita, or tortillas, or whatever). That becomes 84 million loaves of bread per day. 84 million loaves boosts the number of cups of flour back to that 335 million cup level. That ends up at about 92 million pounds of flour. Each bushel of wheat produces around 50 pounds of flour. There are about 37 bushels of wheat produced per acre (on average). 92 million pounds of flour becomes 1,840,000 bushels which are produced from 49,730 acres of wheat. Almost 50,000 acres of wheat are needed per day to meet US needs for that 1/4 loaf per person.

     In the US, 55.9 million acres (approximately) of land are devoted to wheat farming. In a year, about 18 million (50,000 times 365.25) of those acres translates to 1/4 loaf of bread for each person for each day of the year. We use wheat for other than just bread and we also feed grain (more likely corn but wheat is not impossible) to animals. Some of the statistics I have read indicate that we use about 4/5 of the wheat grown internally and export the remaining 1/5.

     Is your mind overwhelmed by the effects of scaling? Mine certainly is.

     I have used an innocuous, everyday, item to illustrate the effects of scaling. However, scaling applies to everything. With 335 million people in the US and about 8 billion on the planet. Everything we do becomes part of something much, much, larger. 25 pounds of trash per week per household becomes around 2,500,000,000 pounds of trash per week for the US. One vote expands into part of a block of millions of people. One new pair of shoes per person per year gives us 335 million new pairs of shoes per year in the US.

     There is a saying that is attributed to a First Nation that one should always “tread lightly upon the earth”. This is maintaining an awareness of what we do and how it scales if everyone does it. (There is another saying that says we should “look at the effects to the seventh generation” — saying that our decisions affect the future and we should keep that in mind.) We may say, “oh my part of this is so small it doesn’t make a difference”. But, with scaling, it does.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to the substack.

Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Normal: Each person has their own definition

     It isn’t unusual for someone to say “that’s normal” or “that’s not normal”. But what do they really mean by that? What is this standard of normal to which they are comparing to whatever it is that they are noticing? “Normal” is what is normal to the person doing the perception. If I see something that would be something that is normal to me, then I might say “that looks normal”. It is possible that, if I know the other person well enough to know their regular habits, I might still say “that looks normal” even though it might not be normal for me. In whatever manner, the word “normal” will not have a single definition.

     Each person has their own “rituals”. This doesn’t necessarily mean religious behaviors (though it might). For example, I get up in the morning, use the restroom, inspect (and usually have to clean) the kitchen, get caught up with mail and social media, get hot tea and breakfast for my wife, and then do my morning language lessons (currently Spanish). And on it goes. But that schedule may seem extraordinary, strange, or peculiar to someone else.

     Our personal definition is based from our own histories. If I grew up as an orphan, I would have a different baseline from someone growing up in a “nuclear” family. Each would consider their own life to be normal — and the other person’s life something about which one might read in a book. If I was home-schooled, I would avoid certain experiences that someone attending a public, or “private”, school would expect to be as a part of their day. The other people of the household would have their own routines which interact with everyone else’s. And this combination will become unique for each person.

     Much of the time, these activities done by all the people interacting together are innocuous. But not necessarily. Alas, a child who grows up in a household in which they, or other members of the household, are abused in some manner will also consider that behavior to be “normal”. Unless corrected in their perceptions, they will grow up to consider the behavior as “something that everyone does and may have happen to them”. So, it is completely natural if they perpetuate the behavior with the people in their later-formed household. They would not consider it to be “abuse” — they would consider it to be “normal”.

     People are also influenced by their environment. On an island of Hawai’i, a school child may find it normal to go swimming, or surfing, on their way to, or from, school. That would certainly not occur to an Inuit who might be walking home across the snow and packed ice. Of course, since I grew up in a different environment from either of these children, I don’t really know what they would do or what they would each consider to be normal.

     Within the US, income class will make a huge difference between what is considered normal for a person. It will make a difference elsewhere in the world also but it may be cross-referenced with another social system such as caste or level of nobility. The behaviors, and expectations, within that group will seem “normal” to those who live within it — and the behaviors of those outside of that group will either be elevated or denigrated depending on perspective about those outside of the group.

     Although “rags to riches” stories do exist, it causes internal strain, and strains within relationships, when a person moves from one segment of society to another — even if they have “risen” in level. And it is very difficult for a person in one societal segment to truly represent, or understand, other segments because they live within different normalities and have very little insight into that of other segments.

     While it somewhat depends upon physical and cultural environment, people will do different activities. These activities will be different based on their histories, what resources are available, and their interests. Surfing, ice fishing, going to a mall — normal to the person doing it and, perhaps, quite exotic to someone else. A normal activity to one person may seem exotic to another.

     A child growing up in a war zone is in constant flux. There is little they can rely upon. Their house may be gone the next day — or a parent or sibling. There is no security possible. A child goes to school one day and is a refugee the next. This high aspect of instability must affect the perspective, and behavior, of the child. But it would still be normal to them. In older days of medicine — and still in too many segments of the world society — a large percentage of children died before they were a couple of years old. It was sad for all, but expected and “normal”.

     In my household a number of years ago, we adopted (or she adopted us) a cat from an animal shelter. We did not see her much for the first three weeks after we brought her to our house as she immediately ran for the back of our refrigerator as soon as we released her from the carrier. She did eat, and drink, as such resources would disappear overnight — but she had a huge readjustment to her own personal “normal”. I am sad to say that, after ten years with us, some of her baseline characteristics were still present.

     “All the world is a stage and we are only players”. A rich, well-nourished, male child in a stable city with easily accessible parents will absorb a very different normal from that of a poor, malnourished, female child surviving in a war zone.

     It is a cliché to say “walk a mile in another’s moccasins — yet it is still true that everyone has their own individual “normal”. We may have judgements on the other normals but they may have arguments, of equal weight from their points of view. of “incorrectness” of your own behavior.

     As long as the thoughts, behaviors, and actions do not impinge upon another’s ability to follow their own normal, it is best to just recognize that each person is unique and what is normal for them is what they expect to do.

     “Normality” only exists as a unique attribute that applies to each of us.


Saturday, January 11, 2025

Universal HealthCare: A Capitalist viewpoint

     People in the United States, in general, don’t know much about economics. Upon graduation from high school, they often don’t know anything about credit ratings (and how they affect people), how to create and follow a budget, the difference between simple and compound interest, and so forth. Some people occasionally launch memes or threads talking about how schools should have a mandatory course called “Life” that teaches basic economics, basic cooking, basic laundry, basic childcare, and so forth. I think that is a great idea — but that’s not the way it currently is.

     In spite of the active use, in conversations, of the words “socialism”, or “communism”, or other political/economic system — people in the United States, in general, know even less about them than they do capitalism. They just make good scare words to toss about.

Some Basic Aspects of Capitalism

     People in the United States come to know something about capitalism because they are surrounded by it every day. They learn some the first time they get a job — or pay taxes. They learn some the first time they try to rent an apartment. They learn some the first time they run out of money before the end of the month. All of these situations are the “hard way to learn” — and why the potential “Life” course makes so much sense. But, at the end of it all, people in the United States do learn about the aspects of capitalism which affect them in their day-to-day lives.

     That does NOT mean that people in the United States all know all of the aspects of capitalism. People running businesses have knowledge of additional areas than those known by ordinary consumers. CPAs and tax lawyers know more about accounting-related aspects of capitalism. But there are aspects of capitalism (which is currently tightly coupled with consumerism) that most people just don’t think about, or understand, because they only affect them “behind the scenes”. Some of those “behind the scenes” activities affect people in external ways such as “inflation” — and the lack of understanding is taken advantage of by politicians.

     But this is not an economics course — and I am not an economist. I am just someone who is curious about, and questions, just about everything I encounter in life (which can be extremely annoying to those close to me <smile>).

     One of the basics of capitalism is the concept of “profit”. A profit is created when something is sold for more than it costs to create/excavate/manipulate it. It costs me $5 to make a widget. I sell the widget for $7 and I make $2 profit. Capitalism strives to make greater and greater profits — either by selling more or by making the difference between creation cost and selling price larger. Those profits go to various entities — employees, management, benefits, pension plans, stockholders, executives (separated from management because their situation is manipulated differently by governing boards and competition at the executive level), and so forth.

     A “non-profit” company differs from a “for-profit” company in that there is, officially, no difference between incoming money and costs for all that is needed to provide the product/service. It is not actually as different from “for-profit” as one might think — in order to be non-profit, all incoming monies must be spent and that extra money may go to larger employee/management/executive salaries, perks, and bonuses or it can be spent for more services (more wells for potable water to more people?). The money which would be called profits, and potentially distributed to stockholders, is absorbed into the daily workings/expenses of the company. A non-profit company is inherently a private company with no stockholders. That is the primary difference to people who interact with such companies.

     In the case of a charitable non-profit, it is important to know where that money goes. Sites like Charity Navigator can help donors know how much is really going to help people versus how much is being kept within the company.

A for-profit company will increase profits by:

  • Increasing the number of sales

  • Increasing the difference between cost to provide and price to acquire. They do this by:

    • Increasing the price to be charged for sales AND / OR

    • Decreasing the cost of the item/service to be provided

Capitalism as Applied to the Current US Healthcare System

     Now that we have a basic idea of how capitalism works, lets examine the current workings of the United States’ unique form of healthcare. As one of many for-profit companies, it will want to increase profits in the manner described above. In the US, there are multiple companies that compete to provide healthcare which reduces the number of potential customers/patients for each company. Unlike customers for other products, each customer comes with a certain amount of statistically-likely amount of services to be needed. Each company will want to attract the customers for which they will make the largest profit — charge the most and give back, in service, the least. In the near past, that could lead to the reality that NO company would want to provide service to a likely low-profit individual. The “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) addressed this in part, mandating that some form of medical care would be provided for each person who applied — if not within existing private for-profit companies then within existing government administered healthcare.

     The other aspects of for-profit healthcare still largely exist independent of the existence of the ACA. Each company will try to provide the least amount, or least expensive, form(s) of service. Each company will try to charge the most for the least service. The formulas become so complicated, and difficult for the general consumer to understand, that it is not surprising that many “throw up their hands” and just pick the healthcare option that, on the surface, seems to be most appropriate, and valuable, based on their individual circumstances.

     The advantage of this situation, within the US capitalistic society, is that stockholders can invest and expect large returns — basically a transfer of money from the pockets of the served to those who have invested in the companies.

     It has another advantage to the executives of stockholder-owned companies in the way that executives obtain their salary/perk/bonus/severance packages. For public stock-providing companies (not just healthcare), in spite of stockholders having some control (usually unused), the governing boards decide these financial aspects and they have incentives to keep it as high as possible. The primary one is “bragging rights”. Very expensive executives must be worth it, or they wouldn’t be paid such, right? That is the assumption, and governing boards use that assumption to justify increasing amounts.

     It is extremely strange if one steps back from the situation. They are “worth more” because they are paid more — and they are paid more because it gives external companies/stockholders/people the feeling that they must be worth more. Whether they truly are worth these extremely large financial packages is a matter of opinion. Their financial packages certainly raise the prices of services/products produced by the company.

Capitalism as Applied to Universal Healthcare

     We have seen that aspects of private multiple for-profit healthcare are strongly against the benefit of the customers (patients). Why is a centrally administered universal healthcare better for the customers (patients)? Note that this could still be a non-governmental non-profit company. However, the administration of the medical system by existing sections of the government is also possible — and might be easier than setting up a new non-profit. It is essentially still following the capitalist formula.

     A Universal HealthCare system doesn’t have to keep track/authorize use of healthcare. Some ID is still needed to make sure all providers get the money they deserve for providing their share of the services needed by the patient but many aspects of authorization and benefit calculation/matching becomes moot — no need of that extra overhead (which amounts to a very large amount of time, money, and frustration within the US system). Imagine a doctor saying you need something and not having a need to check through your insurance policy to see if it is covered!

     A Universal Healthcare does not have to be concerned about short-term, or long-term, profits. All decisions can be made based upon the needs of the patients. If the cost of services rise (averaged from the needs of a very large number of people) then the price to the consumers goes up — whether it is provided directly by the customers (patients) or whether it is provided through their tax money funneled through the government.

     A Universal Healthcare still has employees/service-providers/management & executives. But there is no platform for justifying huge packages for executives.

     All-in-all, staying within the capitalist political/economic system, a Universal Healthcare lowers the cost to the customer (patient). It lowers overhead, it provides a direct connection between services provided and cost, and it eliminates very large executive packages. This is true no matter what entity provides the services — a non-profit company outside of the government or a non-profit company run within the government structure.

If you have an interest in these thoughts, please consider getting a free (or paid) subscription to my substack to have them sent to your ebox.

Substack view and subscribe

Saturday, January 4, 2025

What's Happened to our Educational System (cont'd)?: Quantitative vs Qualitative

      All parents want their children to attend “good” schools. “Good” or “bad” is an answer to a set of questions that we would like to have quantifiable. And that isn’t easy to do. In the first place, all schools do not teach the same things. Secondly, they may not all evaluate the students’ progress in the same manner or use the same scales. Lastly, there are many types of educational achievements and many of them do not have “scores” associated with them.

     So, it was “decided” (in a rather arbitrary manner), in the US, to make schools comparable. Require schools to teach the same materials, in the same ways, and evaluated in the same way. And just eliminate (from the scoring at least — possibly completely from the curriculum) all of those “messy” areas that are difficult to assign numerical evaluations to. “Messy” areas like art, music, physical education, creative writing, and such. In addition, there are many “messy” areas that CAN be evaluated to a score but, in order to do such, much time and effort is needed. Such areas include non-fiction essays, book reports, topical research papers, and such.

     The “No Child Left Behind” Act had admirable goals but, in order to achieve much of it, all schools needed to be comparable. Doing such required the above methods. Teachers had to start “teaching to the test”. Things that would be on the standardized national tests were important to know — everything else was not.

     “No Child Left Behind” still might have worked — but not in conjunction with reduced resources and exploding class sizes. (I think around 12 to 15 students per teacher would be optimum — but those numbers are certainly up for debate.) The quantifiable “teaching to the test” stuff could be a part of the day’s curriculum. But most of the time should be devoted to material that fosters the creative, analytical, and investigative sides of their education.

     The “whats” and “whens” have become even less important in these days of information access. It is those “hows” and “whys” (and whether it is true or not) that humans most need to be able to do.

     Back to reality, however. Class sizes are NOT reasonable. Teachers are not well rewarded or recognized. When classes overflow, “teaching to the test” is what survives. The teacher is considered “good” if their students get good test scores. The school is considered “good” based on their test scores. These numbers affect school funding and teacher retention. Great teachers can lose their jobs in a manner that is parallel to the situation of dedicated school cafeteria cooks being replaced by less healthy pre-processed foods.

     Great teachers teach for the benefit of the students and not for the benefit of a numerical score.

     Being able to check the correct box on tests becomes more important than being able to write — or to read beyond recognizing the questions and answers. The numbers become more important than being able to create the next important “widget” for a future business. The numbers become more important than being able to research, and verify, what is correct and what is a falsehood. The numbers win. Education loses. Society loses.

     I am trying to shift my newsletters over to the substack system. If you are interested in my thoughts, please sign up for a free (or paid) subscription.

Check substack and subscribe

Tuesday, December 31, 2024

What's Happened to Education?: Effects of Income Inequality

     By almost all measures, as an overall average, our children in the US are not emerging from the education system (public or private — but more so with public) as well prepared for the world as they were 40 years ago. This is true in most measurable areas — but especially true for the non-measurable areas. Education (public, private, home schooled, or self-schooled) should end up with people able to use knowledge, able to research knowledge, able to evaluate knowledge, and with a desire to continue to grow in knowledge and the ability to use it. For most, that’s not the case.

     Overall, people have not changed that much in their potentials. This is true for all humans no matter the gender, ethnic background, nationality, or other qualities. There is, of course, a range of abilities from not so capable to enormously capable. We have now also recognized that there are different types of intelligence and each type is most useful in particular situations. Often we emphasize intellectual (or academic) intelligence but other types of intelligence are often more important in the pursuit of happiness and “success”.

     Assuming (though not likely to be something upon which all agree) that this is true, what has happened? What has happened over the past 40 years to lend support to such a trend? There are many things that are possible causes — environmental contamination and change, educational methodologies, social support, and societal expectations, and on.

     I propose that one of the primary reasons for our faltering educational system is that of greatly increased income inequality.

From the Pew Research Center:







     Okay. These are the numbers, but what does it mean for the general populace in the US? It means that a much larger percentage of people in the US find it difficult to support themselves within our economic system. Note especially the widening gap between middle-income and upper income. Some specific outcomes, for lower and middle income people, are:

  • People are spending a higher percentage of their income on rent or mortgages.
  • People are having to tightly prioritize expenses.
  • There is less of a cushion available in case of emergencies or fast changes in income (such as layoffs). 
  • Parents are working more hours — sometimes more jobs — and spending less time with families.
  • Due to lack of time and energy, parents are also interacting less, with teachers and schools, in a direct manner.
  • In regards to education, one direct result of income inequality affects tax support of schools. Funding for schools is different for each state in the US but they all involve some combination of property tax, local taxes, state taxes, school levies, and federal support. Increases in taxes must be approved, directly or indirectly (through representatives). As budgets tighten, there is a desire to reduce taxes and expand classes.

     An example of the direct effects of the expansion of class sizes could be an example from my wife’s situation as a teacher within a much-too-numerous student class-size. During the last year that my wife taught 5th grade, she had 39 students in the class. Assuming six hours in the classroom (it varies from state to state and district to district), that allowed less than ten minutes to be spent with each individual child. Of course, that is not how classroom time is structured. Most of the time is allocated to the class as a whole and the amount of time, to be allocated among those 39 individual children, might not even be an hour (or less than two minutes apiece) and the majority of that time will be spent with children who have attention-seeking behaviors (usually via misbehaving).

    With less time available to get to know the teachers and the schools, parents are left with what is said by their children, and by other teachers and groups, to determine what is going on in the classroom. Not a surprise to the children but, somehow, a great surprise to the parents is that the children do not always tell the truth or take responsibility for their own behavior and actions. And other parents and groups are not always a good source of information as they may be responding to things said to them — with similar lack of direct interaction with the teachers and the schools.

     This lack of adequate awareness of what is really going on within the classroom can lead to an antagonistic relationship between parents and teachers/schools. After spending a 60-hour workweek (40ish at school and another 20ish at home grading papers and preparing lesson plans), it is difficult for teachers to find time or energy to disentangle parents’ misbeliefs.

     Expanding upon the last three bullet items stated above, income inequality can directly lead to fewer resources to the schools, unworkable increases to class sizes (and a decrease in the amount of time available for the teacher to work with individual students), and lack of positive communication between the teachers and schools with the parents. Another large factor in educational performance is a shift in emphasis from qualitative experiences to a hyper-focus on quantitative experiences. I will expand on that in the next newsletter. Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Gifting: An Intersection of Desires

     ‘Tis the season (although, fairly, this newsletter’s topic may be a bit on the late side) for gifts and giving. Together, they create a situation of “gifting”. To gift someone is to give and for it to be accepted. Just giving is not sufficient. You might say, “well if I have given something to them then they have accepted it, haven’t they”. No, not really. To just take possession is not quite the same as acceptance. acceptance is a combination of receiving, possession and acknowledgement.

     Giving is also not quite as clearcut as many might tend to believe. If you give there are no attachments. It is no longer “yours” and any preconceptions you may have had about how that gift would be used or appreciated is no longer in your hands. They may throw it away, ignore it, sell it, put it into a “white elephant” sale, or put it onto a pedestal as their newly favorite possession. Whatever they do with the gift is fully their right.

     Nor is a gift necessarily appreciated — although that is the goal. When choosing a gift, there are at least two people’s desires coming into play. (It is possible that it must also be appreciated by a third party or parties.) High priority is giving something that the recipient will want. However, highest priority is to give something that the recipient will want AND something that you will enjoy giving to the other — an intersection of desires.

     If it is something that only the recipient will enjoy, it may still be a good gift — but it is somewhat of an anonymous gift. The gift could have come from anyone — or even could have come from themself. When you give something that you want to give, it means that the gift means something to you also. There is a much better chance that the gift will act as a mutual experience between the two of you. This can foster greater closeness and increase the likelihood that the gift (if kept) will remind the recipient of you.

     It is sometimes said that a true gift is “something from oneself” or “a gift of the heart”. Certainly, in the Christian tradition, the gifts to the Christ child from the Three Magi are of less importance than (in modern tradition — not noted anyplace in the Bible) those gifts from “the little drummer boy”. They are still of import — not because they are expensive, precious, items of the time, or as they may be interpreted as representing — but because of the long, and difficult, journey of the Three Magi. It is the journey, and recognition, that is the true gift.

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

Substack link

Income Inequality: The Nitty Gritty, bad for the economy, bad for society

     At this point, almost everyone has heard about income inequality. It seems that income inequality defines itself in the very name. A fe...