Greed is Good: Use It or Lose It

In a 2014 article published in Sociological Forum (March 2014) we quoted Gordon Gecko, the lead character in the movie Wall Street, who was telling an assembled audience of stockholders that what makes our economy strong and vibrant is "greed." We propose to harness that greed by letting Gordon Gecko be Gordon Gecko, and give him the social honor of recognizing that his wealth and lavish life style do contribute, however indirectly, to the public good. Moreover, we propose to create
entrepreneurial projects or philanthropic gifts for the common good that the Geckos of the world might embrace under a heading of "targeted opportunity philanthropy" (TOP). In this proposal we would link wealthy donors with specific projects like college tuition endowments for talented students from low-income families; support for students to attend non-college technology programs; rebuilding schools in poor neighborhoods; and second-chance programs for school dropouts and ex-offenders.

But, and it is a big but, we propose that a major portion of the accumulated wealth that Gecko does not consume or give away in his lifetime via targeted opportunity endowments must be returned to the public treasury upon his death. In short, use it or lose it. There is much more to this proposal including the creation of a Family Inheritance Court to allocate some of Gecko's unspent wealth to family members. What the proposal prevents is the creation of family dynasties that allows wealth to be transferred across generations.

If you want to know more about our "use it or lose it" proposal we encourage you to read the article in Sociological Forum. 

On being an "outsider": From Ike to Trump

We were recently discussing the possible reasons why the media seem to be so hard on Trump, and why he has responded in kind. Thinking about past presidents it occurred to us that former presidents like Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter also had strained relations with the media. Why would that be the case, and what might it have to do with Trump? Our speculations took us to a view of Eisenhower, Truman, Carter, and Trump as "political outsiders;" that is, they did not have political careers that would have properly "socialized" them for their new job. If you have a political career in Washington, DC, you would have learned about the proper respect that should be shown to media elites, and the conventions of Congress and the proper respect that is shown to persons in various leadership positions.

Lacking this prior political socialization people like "Ike" Eisenhower were treated as a "mental midget" when he first assumed he could be president of Columbia University. How could he possibly become the leader of this elite university when he lacked any academic credentials that might give him credibility with the faculty? Moreover, he had the audacity to want to become President of the United States. The media somehow didn't give him credit for leading the Allied invasion of Europe and driving the German Army out of Western Europe.    

Next we have Harry Truman, who had the misfortune to be Vice President when a beloved President (who was a political careerist) died in office. The press frequently reminded us that Truman was a "haberdasher" from some Podunk town in the Midwest. When they weren't beating up on Truman, the media focused on his daughter Margaret's musical talents, and reported that she had none. Truman's experiences with the media led him to refer to them as "prostitutes of the mind."

And then there is Jimmy Carter, who could not escape the fact that he was a rube peanut farmer, and totally out of his element in Washington. Rarely mentioned was the fact that the "rube" had a degree in nuclear engineering, but then, he talked funny.

So we offer the theory that what Trump has in common with Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter, is that he is a "political outsider" who has not learned the tribal customs of the political and media elites. As an "outsider" he is fair game for the media and the careerist politicians to reject someone who is not a political careerist.

Now it is your turn. See if you can apply this theory to your favorite past presidents.   

Sociology and Science

When Robert was a graduate student his major research professor would often say: There is only one field of sociology that has any chance of having standing as a science. What was it and why? It was demography, and the reason was that they didn't talk to people, they only counted them.

When sociologists interview people or ask them to complete a questionnaire you are learning about their opinions, beliefs, and recollections, all of which are unstable and questionable as real data. The only  possible way out of this dilemma is to measure something that is more stable like a person's education or income, and then compare persons with such "structural" differences on their opinions, beliefs, etc.
Unfortunately, a great deal of sociological research today is based solely on recollections, beliefs, and attitudes, and often comparisons are made about what people report that they believed at different points in times ---not exactly what we would call "hard data." The only solution is to pay less attention to people and what they say, and more attention to the collective products of what people create--that is, their social institutions, like their educational system, or their economy, or their criminal justice system.
The sociological study of social institutions may be the best way to move beyond what people say and to realize some of the advantages of demography.

What is in the swamp: Lobbyists or Bureaucrats?

When Trump was running for President he made  much of his intention to "drain the swamp." Robert had always assumed that he meant a swamp full of lobbyists. In contrast, Carolyn believed that what he had in mind were the thousands of low-level and mid-level bureaucrats that every  new President hires as a way to say "thank you" to his biggest campaign contributors. So we both now believe Trump's "swamp" is filled with the thousands of newly hired people in the State Department, Department of Defense, Commerce Department, and the dozens of other departments that make up the continuing bureaucratic structures of government, those who stay while Presidents come and go. Others may have called Trump's "swamp" by different names, like the "deep state" or the "permanent government," but we now believe that they are all referring to the same thing.

By almost any measure, Trump has been slower than any of the recent Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Bush) in filling top-spot and second-spot jobs at 20 agencies. It is not clear if this represents his "swamp cleaning" efforts or simply poor administration. We would like to get more information on the thousands of positions below the top spots, because this is where we will find evidence of the existence of a permanent government. So, there is more work to be done on this question.

We are back. It is not easy finding the number of bureaucratic-type employees in the federal government. Using the Internet, we found out that there are 2.7 million federal civilian employees, from "janitors to judges" as they put it. We are more interested in how many janitors and judges are employed and what are there salaries. The best we could do was to determine that the "entry level" salary for cabinet and cabinet-ranked officials is $205,700. So, it is back to the drawing board. Please send us your information on these questions, as well as ideas for using the internet to uncover the data that is needed.

Update, 11/18/17. On the swamp-draining front. Tonight's TV news reported great anxiety among employees of the State Department about the possibility of "cuts" in personnel in the near future. A spokesperson for the State Department expressed great concern about these rumors and spoke at great length of the importance of the work done by all members of the State Department to further the goals of the United States. The news reporter also commented that the State Department has 25 thousand employees around the world. That is a lot of bureaucrats in the swamp, which obviously extends beyond DC. Stay tuned!

What is the question?

This post is one of Robert's deep ruminations. Carolyn is much too practical to waste her time on such stuff.

I have been thinking about the "world today ' and have come to several observations.

(1) Most of the mysteries of nature are gone. The only thing left is "Is there life on other planets?" That is an interesting question but not a serious one, because there are no real answers other than hot air speculation that serves only the media. When scientists speak of "life" they are talking about bacteria, not someone with whom you can have a beer.

(2) Climate change is a small mystery, but the climate has been changing long before farting cows and cars. Much of the earth was at one time covered in ice, and the "why" has been accounted for by location of the orbits of the earth and sun. Anyway, the time scale for such conclusions would put you in the same category as a person traveling across the country to buy a lottery ticket everywhere, believing that it will improve their chance of winning.

(3) Beyond the certainty of death, we already know what will kill us and how long it will take. There are no mysteries here.

(4) We know, or believe we know, about other places on the globe and about the people who live in those places. Much of what we know comes from the media shows (why do they do it?) but it does little more than create a context for believing that we are "open" to other cultures and other peoples.
But, what does that mean?

(5) What is left? The impact of the Internet on people and human societies, is still an unknown, and the speculation about impact is in the realm of science fiction, but still interesting. This is the one area where there may be new mysteries, but I doubt that it will ever go beyond "How many friends do I have Facebook?"

Where are the politcal Luddites today?

In the early 1800s, English workers in the cotton mills who were fearful of losing their jobs destroyed their production machinery. They became known as Luddites, and the term is used more generally today to describe those who oppose technological change.

The August 26th issue of The Economist contains an article on the advances in automated and robotized production in the apparel industry. Machines operating without human intervention are now producing rectangular goods (towels, rugs, pillows) without human intervention. Automated production is headed toward apparel with the mass production of T-shirts and other simple apparel items. Nowhere in this article is there any mention of the number of unskilled workers and skilled tailors who will be displaced by automated production. Nowhere in this article is there any mention of labor leaders and politicians who should be the "political Luddites" who are monitoring this development and protecting the interests of workers.

Student Debt--Tell us more.

I find myself being increasingly annoyed with the discussion of student debt--how much it is and how long it will take to pay off. There is debt, and there is student debt. The latter should be viewed as an investment made by a student against future earnings, but it is always presented as some drag on the economy or some indicator of unfairness in the game of life. But I need to know more before I can decide about whether or not student debt is a "problem." Questions: (1) What are the majors of students who leave college with debt? Are they in the potentially high-paying professional programs like medicine, law, and some STEM degrees. Or are they headed toward modest entry-level jobs, or modest paying professions in elementary school teaching, or social work.  (2) What are the socio-economic backgrounds of the debtors, especially parental income. Do they have parents who are professionals with high incomes, or are their parents in occupations with modest incomes?

In short, the student debt syndrome is used to hide important differences among college graduates, and to float proposals such as "make college free" that will great for privileged class students heading to elite schools with high tuitions.

So before we are stampeded by the fear of "student debt " the agencies that collect such data should tell us more and then maybe we can shape proposals that will help those with greatest need.