Blogaround

Lt. Uhura, from "Star Trek." Image source.

1. Nichelle Nichols, trailblazing 'Star Trek' actress, dies at 89 (July 31)

2. The profit surcharge (July 5) "The reason, of course, is ideological: they only add in the tax later so that you feel that the tax is an extra imposition." 

Hmm, my first reaction to this is "yeah when I came to China it BLEW MY MIND how the price that it says is the price that IT ACTUALLY IS. You don't have to budget a few extra dollars in your head for tax and tip. It's WILD." And then my second reaction is, I am not sure this writer has an accurate view of what it means that "profit" is built into the prices of things. As I understand it, it's not just a like a silly extra thing added on because rich people are greedy; it's about compensating investors for taking the risk, and it's an important part of our economy.

I like his post though; it's an interesting thing to think about. It's worth reading. :)

So I think he is oversimplifying it, but probably I am also oversimplifying it because I am not an expert in economics. But it seems to me like there are 2 different mindsets about how to handle one's money- there are people who have less money, who are just trying to meet their basic needs for survival (food, housing, health care), and then there are people with plenty of money, who are thinking "okay, how can I grow my money to be bigger? what are my investment options, and what are the risks for each one?" (Perhaps there is also some in-between category- people who would be struggling, except that they followed some really good advice about investing, so now they are doing fine- is that a thing?) And then if you make some change in policy to make life easier for those who are struggling, then the rich people are like "okay I made this whole long-term plan about how to grow my money, and now you're changing the rules and it screws up my plan, now I'll end up losing money instead" and those in power who are making the policies treat that like it's just as important as lower-income people's need to have enough money to stay alive. (Because those in power are members of the "how do I grow my money bigger?" group.)

I see this sort of dynamic in online discussions about landlords- you have the forums where landlords talk to each other, where they advise each other about the realistic costs and how to set the price of rent to make sure you make a profit- it's not just "rent > mortgage", and you have to consider a lot of risks like what if you don't have renters for a period of time, what if someone doesn't pay their rent, etc. And then you have online threads where renters complain about how evil their landlords are. (And yes, some of them really are evil.) To me, it looks like the landlords became landlords to make money off of a basic human need, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that in and of itself (though many people on twitter certainly do, and say that all landlords are evil or whatever)- but if you do that, then you have to consider carefully what your policies are if you end up with a renter who is dependent on you for this basic human need, but doesn't have enough money to pay rent. Like you need to set your profit margin high enough so that if a situation comes up where you need to show some compassion and not charge them/ evict them (even though it's within your rights legally), you still make money overall. Right? Am I right? Otherwise, that means that those of us who care about justice are expecting landlords to just be fine with losing money if they end up with a renter with a very sad story who can't pay rent. And then, if that's the way it is, then before becoming a landlord, one should take that risk into account and then probably decide it's not a good idea at all, and they'd be better off "growing their money" in a different way. And then all the landlords end up being people who don't care about humanity and just want to make money off people. Maybe to some extent that's true anyway- the nice ones aren't as competitive as the ones who cut corners and treat their renters like crap, so the nice ones don't end up doing as well in the market.

Full disclosure, I am in the "I have enough money, how do I make it into more money?" group. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that- though it does mean that I have a responsibility to give away money to people in need. The bible is clear about that. (I read the parable of the rich fool and sweat.) And I don't think there's one "right answer" to the question of how much should I give away vs how much should I save for myself- though there are certainly some answers to that question that are going to get you in big trouble with the God of the bible someday. "The wages you have failed to pay your workers are crying out against you." 

Anyway... I don't have a wonderful conclusion here or anything, but here's an idea: I think investment advice for people in the "how do I grow my money bigger" group should talk A LOT more about the risks, so much so that the idea of losing money feels as normal to them as "oh the rent suddenly increased and there's just no way to make ends meet" feels to the "barely enough money to live" group. Or, maybe I'm not saying this in the right way... what I mean is... if rich people oppose some new policy (that helps poor people get healthcare, for example) because it messes up their calculations about what percentage growth they would be able to get on their wealth every year or whatever, society should respond to that with the same disdainful "well you should have set aside money for an emergency fund instead of buying avocado toast" attitude that society has towards poor people. Well you should have known all investments are risky, it's not our fault you're so irresponsible. That kind of thing.

Gif from "The Emperor's New Groove," where Yzma says, "Ha! You really should have thought of that before you became peasants!" Image source.

3. The Puzzle They Said We Should Never Do... (March 9) A 1-hour-13-minute sudoku solve video, with a complicated ruleset. I love it.

4. I’m a trans woman exhausted by the broken conversation around sports (July 25) "If the people having this debate took care to avoid it impacting normal trans people’s lives, to distinguish between elite sports and school sports, and to prevent this debate from becoming culture war ammunition, that would be fine. But they don’t, because it is a culture war issue." Very much agree with this article. The question of how to categorize trans people in sports seems like it should be a fascinating discussion about biological differences between men and women (averages and standard deviations), the purpose of having separate categories for men and women in sports (and the history behind it), statistics about the athletic abilities of trans people as a demographic, and then breaking those stats down further based on when and how they transitioned, ethical considerations about trans people's need to be affirmed as their gender, and so on. Seems like that's what it should be- but in reality, this discussion is very much NOT that. Instead, it's a culture war, and some of the loudest voices are actually saying that trans people shouldn't even exist- like not even trying to hide it, that's what they're saying. Not cool.

5. A Satanist got a Kansas school to rethink its anti-‘Satanism’ dress code (July 22)

6. Speaking of suicide: How institutions help people and save lives (July 26) [content note: discussion of suicide] "I disagree strenuously with Herrold’s statement that suicide treatment is 'by no means safe and caring.'"