Who's the Boss?

Most people are a boss at one time or another and don't even know it -- and the person people usually think of as the boss, isn't.

When someone works a 9 to 5 job, and they are not 'the boss' -- when 5pm comes, they can generally forget about their job and rest easy. The 'boss' however, still needs to worry about whether his company's orders are being filled on time, whether his immediate competition is outpacing his company, and so forth. At 5pm the office may close, but the worries remain. In that sense, the 'boss' is not truly the boss - his company's customer base is the true boss.

The ultimate top feeder in the boss / employee chain, is the person sitting back in their easy chair, and handing the waiter $20 to bring them a drink. That person, is temporarily, the boss.

Love Your Enemy

What does 'Love Your Enemy as Yourself' mean? The enemy is another person, who is separated from you by something that deserves the enmity - not the person itself.

If jealousy makes someone your enemy - overcome the jealousy

If race make someone your enemy - overcome the racism

If there is only one loaf of bread and two of you, and that makes you enemies - make another loaf of bread

Community

What do these images have in common?

The Community as a Solution

Today in America we are faced with issues large and small, from microscopic health maladies to city and state wide upheaval and alienation.  Our response to those problems has focused on the individual failing in the system, in the case of microscopic health maladies the question is how do we cut out the malignant or potentially malignant cells and in the macroscopic level it is how do we eliminate or block the individual from being violent or unjust.. Are we neglecting to see the solution to these problems that nature has used to solve them for millions of years, and only focusing on treating symptoms due to an intellectual myopia?

In the cells of the body we are bombarded by destructive forces constantly, whether it is from free radicals, foreign bacteria in the food we eat, pollutants in the air or water.. How is any one living cell supposed to be able to resist all these forces bent on its destruction?  The answer is, it isn't - it is always part of a community of cells that distribute the load and seek mutual survival.  One cell contributes to the success of other cells in the tissue, and they in turn contribute to the success of the cell under attack.  In healthy systems of cells, they are able to resist most attackers.  Does our medical community analyze the system of cells, to make sure they are functioning correctly as a system that can resist foreign invaders, or does it focus on the individual cells that go wayward?

At the macroscopic level, at the city and state level -- do people feel part of a community, do they contribute to the well being of others in their community, and do the other members of the community in turn contribute to their own well being? Do you reader, contribute to the wellbeing of others and receive supportive treatment in return?  This is of course the historical role of the church or religious organization in American society; but more and more the religious community has been undercut by 'intellectuals' to replace it with a supposed government core community.

Unfortunately, the community centered around the government begins at the mailbox and ends at the courthouse. There is no genuine mutual interest on behalf of a member of society by an employed hourly bureaucrat. Bureaucracies have had to implement cash rewards (see the Department of Family and Children Services) to incentivize a sham of concern.  While the 'intellectuals' have undercut the religious or small community mutual support networks, they have replaced them with a fragile and unhelpful network that results in an alienated and genuinely unsupported people.

If we can work to create communities of people that can provide mutual support again, perhaps we can heal our populace.

Wealth and Poverty

Imagine two islands, islands A and B, located within a boat ride of each other, each having 10 people stranded on them. The people on island A and B are completely unaware of the existence of the other island and the people on them.  On island A and B some people are more skilled at fishing, or climbing for coconuts, or building huts or fire, or weaving clothing, as mentioned in the earlier post.  One day a ship has an accident, and two sailors are lost at sea. Sailor 1's wallet contains $150 in one dollar bills. Sailor 2's sea chest contains $3,000 in one dollar bills. Sailor 1's wallet washes onto island A. Island A's inhabitants find the money, and use it to help them trade their goods and services with each other, reaching a point at which each person on the island has money in the range of $10 - $20.  On island B, the sea chest washes up, and their inhabitants likewise use the $3,000 to help them trade their goods and services with each other, so that soon most of the inhabitants of island B have money in the range of $150 - $450. In both islands, members climb for coconuts, fish the sea, weave baskets and clothing, and build huts and fires, but use the money so that they are not limited to simple barter.

Now -- which island has wealthier people?

Imagine that one day after this, island A discovers island B and they send boats back and forth -- does island B, having far more money than island A, buy all of island A's coconuts, fish, huts, and assume mastery over island A?  Or does island A, realizing that their currency of trust no longer has the same value, adjust in a different way?

-- Should island A assume the money of island B has the same value after the merge as before, and give up their goods and services to island B believing in the intrinsic value of the money?

-- Should island A force the members of island B with the most money to give up some of their money to the poorest members of island A?

-- Is there another way for island A to maintain its quality of living in the face of the currency disruption?

 -- When members of island B visited island A and paid larger amounts of money for island A's goods and services than they were used to, was island A made richer or poorer?

The Myth of the Minimum Wage

   Mass Media trumpets a raising Minimum Wage as a boon for the low paid members of society, but in fact, it is destructive to the quality of living of the poor at every turn. It removes access to community resources and economies from the poorest communities and relegates them to government dependent environments.
  To explain this apparent contradiction between what is claimed and what is actual, consider a small population of eight people living together on an island with fish and coconut trees, and a few rare cowrey shells. 
   Two of the people are skilled at basket weaving, but are mediocre fishers, coconut climbers, builders or weavers. Two are skilled at building huts. Two are skilled climbers. The final two are not skilled at any of the trades, but can catch fish passably well. A skilled fisher can catch ten fish in a day.
   Instead of fishing, one of the weavers makes a deal to weave a basket in return for a fish to eat. The fisherman spends the time fishing, and trades the weaver the fish for the basket.  The next day the weaver would weave another basket for fish but the fisherman already has a basket. Why fish for the weaver? Once the coconut climber has a basket, why climb for coconuts for the weaver?  The hut builder would like a basket, but the weaver needs a fish more.
   Currency and economy solves the problem - the builder gives scarce cowrey shells to the weaver for the basket, the weaver gives some of the cowrey shells to the fisherman for a fish, and the fisherman collects cowrey shells together and pays the hut builder to build a hut. The currency and economy allows the society to create and enjoy surplus and the fruit of each others' labor, ultimately providing all the residents of the island with food, shelter, and clothing.
   A new person comes to the island from the mainland.  They plan to return but in the meantime notice that the poorest, the fisherpeople, only earn 3 cowrey shells on average per day, and institute a law requiring minimum wage of 7 cowrey shells per day. The more skilled fisherperson can fish ten fish per day but the economy is strained to pay the less skilled fisherman, and the other people no longer trade with them. The least skilled now have to appeal to the stranger from off island for sustenance.  The exchange rates have been shifted, but the poorest member of society has suffered.
   To bring this to the present reality, vast business and service deserts have appeared in the poorest communities in America since the Minimum Wage law was first instituted by Franklin Roosevelt, at $.25 per hour. In the South Side of Chicago and Detroit poor communities have lost all business to service their needs and to provide employment. Residents of those communities do not have legal businesses and trade - no legal business can profitably sell to poor people and pay the legally required minimum wage to employees, so they cease to exist.  The businesses that cease to exist no longer hire young people in those communities, who must then resort to either illegal businesses, government dependency, or leaving the community, to take care of themselves.   Over decades giant trade wastelands grow.  The surviving economies readjust and adapt, inflating the currency. The 'visitor from the mainland' again convinces the gullible that the Minimum Wage is insufficient, and increase it - multiplying the problem, destroying the beneficial economy for the people living at the bottom margins of the legal economy.
   Once people recognize the Emperor's New Clothes for what they are, perhaps they will throw off this perverse cause of so much misery in America - the Minimum Wage.