This material might not float your boat; don't let this post sour you on our Blog :)
I have been observing what college kids do.
It used to be the case that college was where most young Americans began to relate to those who were not all white and middle-class. You met blacks, and then Europeans, and then Latinos, and kids from working-class families, and for the most part, you learned that they were not as different as you may have imagined: just regular folks. A very few kids, usually from somewhat more sheltered backgrounds, stuck to certain cliques, and that was how they survived: by creating for themselves what we nowadays call a bubble. They paid a price; if their future occupations needed them to be comfortable with minorities, immigrants and people of a poorer stratum of society, they had to work hard to acquire that comfort, or they had to pretend a comfort they did not feel.
These days, I'm noticing that kids seek out their bubbles very quickly. It could be a fraternity or a sorority, which only admitted a few selected upper-class people. It isn't just viciousness; it is seeking a level of comfort. Colleges are admitting increasing numbers of foreign students, and some kids just can't handle that, especially if they come from the suburbs and their parents never allowed them to mix with poor kids while in school. This was, to some extent, always the case. But it is getting more extreme.
A lot of people notice other things happening. For instance, you might go to a favorite store, and look for your favorite store clerk, and she or he is gone, and there is some foreign person working in their place. This could make some people unhappy and uncomfortable.
It has to do with middle-class Americans gradually fading from view; the people with whom the middle-class is comfortable are either leaving jobs, such as sales or service jobs in the cities or suburbs, or going back to school, or moving to other areas where the cost of living is cheaper. Businesses are cutting down on workers and worker hours. They usually claim that it is higher taxes, but it is probably higher rents in the malls (because store landlords just can't tolerate reduced incomes, or even the same income!), and they cut down overtime, and pretty soon you have an immigrant taking the place of someone you've known all your life, because typically an immigrant or minority is happy with smaller wages. (This is why we build cars in Mexico, so that the car manufacturer can make a bigger profit.) It appears that this is precisely what prompts some conservatives to deplore what has been called the browning of America.
Let's look at what people say is the cause of all this. Conservatives will immediately say that it is higher taxes (and more expensive benefits; it so happens that I agree about the benefits being a needless burden on employers). But, according to my reasoning, higher taxes get paid to somewhere: either Federal or State employees, or construction companies, or poor people on Social Welfare, or whatever. In turn, that money gets spent again, and it can get sucked in by various businesses hungry for profits. If nobody has money to buy anything, of course businesses will feel it.
In contrast, if taxes are lowered, each person sits on his income, especially the most wealthy. It stays in the bank, a great comfort to the individual, but of course it is no help to other businesses who would like this wealthy individual to come shopping. But the wealthy notoriously never go shopping. If they ever do, you can trace where the money goes: usually to another super wealthy individual, or abroad.
Lowering taxes keeps money out of circulation. Fiscal conservatives will contest this statement, based on tradition and ignorance. But there is no doubt that raising taxes puts money back in circulation.
Pretty soon I'm going to expand on a plan whereby you could lower taxes, but a lot of people won't like it. I'll give you an example: you notice that highways get crapped-up every winter. Well, there are these enormous trucks that barrel along them, and there just so much trucking traffic--and traffic, generally--that weak spots on a highway can take, before it starts needing attention. But we all use stuff brought to town by trucks; someone has to pay for it,right? But why should a poor person who subsists on a diet of baked beans for every meal have to pay the same taxes to support highways as a commercial farm, that is constantly sending out products by truck, getting farm machinery by truck, buying fertilizer by the truck-full, and so on? Shouldn't the supplier, who gets a profit from the can of baked beans pay more than the poor consumer? (No, the consumer usually pays; it's a tradition.) If we think about it, we should be able to make only those who benefit from the highways pay for their upkeep. Similarly, we can convert community swimming-pools into paid-admission swimming pools: $15 a day, to pay for the equipment, the wages, the materials, and maintenance. (Or $14, if you can manage on that income level.)
Think about it. The citizens with higher incomes will love this idea, since they probably have their own pools anyway, and can certain afford $15. But can we all support this sort of idea? Of course it won't work for hospitals, because a sick person is hardly likely to bring his piggy bank to the Emergency Room. I believe in subsidized health care for all, but then you probably think I'm a communist.
Arch
The great pizza conflict
-
(Sherman’s Lagoon) It used to be the case that people had very strong
opinions for and against anchovies on pizza. But as the range of pizza
toppings has g...
1 day ago
No comments:
Post a Comment