(Maybe this doesn't belong in the Garage, but...)
I recently read an article about the racial "Achievement Gap" in the Pittsburgh public schools. The "achievement gap" is not a problem. If it were, then the problem could be solved by "white" students getting significantly lower scores on achievement tests, which would eliminate the "achievement gap."
The problem is a conspicuous and measurable lack of academic achievement in the "minority" communities. But saying this or writing this makes people feel badly, so it is not said or written.
I read stories about a "lack of affordable housing." Again, this is nonsense. Housing prices - whether they be rents or the cost of purchasing housing - are set by market conditions. With a household income of over a quarter million dollars, there are neighborhoods where I would like to live, but can't afford to. Should I petition the Grievance Committee to force someone to build $500 thousand houses where now they all cost over a Mil? The problem is NOT a lack of affordable housing, the problem is that many people can't afford to live where they want to live. And this has nothing to do with "poverty." EVERYONE would like to live in a nicer neighborhood than they do, but they live where they can afford to live. And if your are "poor" the place where you can afford to live is likely to be a pretty crappy place. And that MOTIVATES you do go out and make more money so you can MOVE! (Unless you are convinced by your betters that some government program will see to it that you CAN live in a neighborhood where you really can't afford to live).
The biggest example of insidious semantic masturbation is in the area of "inequality." Inequality is not a problem, even if it is increasing (regardless of how you measure it). Indeed, "inequality" is always increasing in everything. The difference in price between the cheapest cars and the most expensive cars is always increasing. The difference in talent between the best golfers in the world and beginners is always increasing. The difference between the tallest adults in the world and the shortest is always increasing (though at a slowing rate).
By defining the problem as "inequality," there is a perverse movement to limit the highest earnings, or confiscate the wealth of those at the top, in order to fight "inequality." It becomes an excuse to advocate for confiscatory tax rates, as though people earning "too much" is a society problem to be "cured" by appropriate legislation. It is a curiosity to me why people who feel this way never rail on about Oprah Winfrey making hundreds of millions of dollars for...what, exactly is it that she does? Beats me.
No. The problem is not "inequality" but poverty. And the MAIN cause of persistent poverty is PEOPLE MAKING HORRIBLE DECISIONS in their personal lives. We all know what they are. Having illegitimate kids, dropping out of school, not working, taking drugs, and so forth. Of course, not all poverty is the result of bad decision-making, but I suspect most of it is.
But by defining the problem as "inequality," we have reason to blame the successful people for the failings of the unsuccessful people, and to excuse unacceptable behavior and life choices, as people simply being victimized by The One Percent.
It ain't healthy.
I recently read an article about the racial "Achievement Gap" in the Pittsburgh public schools. The "achievement gap" is not a problem. If it were, then the problem could be solved by "white" students getting significantly lower scores on achievement tests, which would eliminate the "achievement gap."
The problem is a conspicuous and measurable lack of academic achievement in the "minority" communities. But saying this or writing this makes people feel badly, so it is not said or written.
I read stories about a "lack of affordable housing." Again, this is nonsense. Housing prices - whether they be rents or the cost of purchasing housing - are set by market conditions. With a household income of over a quarter million dollars, there are neighborhoods where I would like to live, but can't afford to. Should I petition the Grievance Committee to force someone to build $500 thousand houses where now they all cost over a Mil? The problem is NOT a lack of affordable housing, the problem is that many people can't afford to live where they want to live. And this has nothing to do with "poverty." EVERYONE would like to live in a nicer neighborhood than they do, but they live where they can afford to live. And if your are "poor" the place where you can afford to live is likely to be a pretty crappy place. And that MOTIVATES you do go out and make more money so you can MOVE! (Unless you are convinced by your betters that some government program will see to it that you CAN live in a neighborhood where you really can't afford to live).
The biggest example of insidious semantic masturbation is in the area of "inequality." Inequality is not a problem, even if it is increasing (regardless of how you measure it). Indeed, "inequality" is always increasing in everything. The difference in price between the cheapest cars and the most expensive cars is always increasing. The difference in talent between the best golfers in the world and beginners is always increasing. The difference between the tallest adults in the world and the shortest is always increasing (though at a slowing rate).
By defining the problem as "inequality," there is a perverse movement to limit the highest earnings, or confiscate the wealth of those at the top, in order to fight "inequality." It becomes an excuse to advocate for confiscatory tax rates, as though people earning "too much" is a society problem to be "cured" by appropriate legislation. It is a curiosity to me why people who feel this way never rail on about Oprah Winfrey making hundreds of millions of dollars for...what, exactly is it that she does? Beats me.
No. The problem is not "inequality" but poverty. And the MAIN cause of persistent poverty is PEOPLE MAKING HORRIBLE DECISIONS in their personal lives. We all know what they are. Having illegitimate kids, dropping out of school, not working, taking drugs, and so forth. Of course, not all poverty is the result of bad decision-making, but I suspect most of it is.
But by defining the problem as "inequality," we have reason to blame the successful people for the failings of the unsuccessful people, and to excuse unacceptable behavior and life choices, as people simply being victimized by The One Percent.
It ain't healthy.
