hmmm... in my youth, it was the church potluck. As the secular world ventures into replacing those functions...
Nolo Press: The Sharing Solution
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, August 1, 2009
10% or 10:1 Social Contract
How much more are one person's skills and labor worth compared to another's?
Ben & Jerry's corporate effort to keep salaries within the company at a 10:1 ratio were a failure. Their goal was that the highest paid executive would make no more than 10 times the lowest paid employee. Over time, they said they couldn't get qualified executives for that lowly amount (or couldn't make any money paying people higher than minimum wage?) I mean, how rich should someone get selling ice cream ? Or, do you need the most highly qualified financial wizards in the country to manage the sales of ice cream ? What's wrong with this picture?
Well, Ben & Jerry washed their hands of the idealistic failure, sold the financially successful company to a giant conglomerate, and feel they can do better by donating the millions they made to charity than they could by trying to run a company under higher principles. I've got news for anyone who thinks this is a great model: (secular) charity comes in a poor fourth to corporations, government, and religion.
Many sects mandate or recommend a 10% principle -- that is, you are required or should donate 10% of your income to the church. The churches have gotten wealthy this way.
What if a group of people tried to put Ben & Jerry's 10:1 ratio into real life practice. Let's call it a "social contract group." Individuals participating would form a group whereby the highest paid individuals would agree to assist in some way the lowest paid individuals. The amount of assistance would make their income levels 10:1 -- that is, any income an individual made that was over 10 times the wage of the lowest wage earner would be donated and used by the organization to either supplement the lower income wage or pay for their schooling, or whatever. Presumedly, people being helped could move up in the ranks to reduce their amount of assistance, and give back to the group. The group would seek to be representative of the surrounding socioeconomic environment, accepting new members as it was capable of managing the financial infrastructure.
Ben & Jerry's corporate effort to keep salaries within the company at a 10:1 ratio were a failure. Their goal was that the highest paid executive would make no more than 10 times the lowest paid employee. Over time, they said they couldn't get qualified executives for that lowly amount (or couldn't make any money paying people higher than minimum wage?) I mean, how rich should someone get selling ice cream ? Or, do you need the most highly qualified financial wizards in the country to manage the sales of ice cream ? What's wrong with this picture?
Well, Ben & Jerry washed their hands of the idealistic failure, sold the financially successful company to a giant conglomerate, and feel they can do better by donating the millions they made to charity than they could by trying to run a company under higher principles. I've got news for anyone who thinks this is a great model: (secular) charity comes in a poor fourth to corporations, government, and religion.
Many sects mandate or recommend a 10% principle -- that is, you are required or should donate 10% of your income to the church. The churches have gotten wealthy this way.
What if a group of people tried to put Ben & Jerry's 10:1 ratio into real life practice. Let's call it a "social contract group." Individuals participating would form a group whereby the highest paid individuals would agree to assist in some way the lowest paid individuals. The amount of assistance would make their income levels 10:1 -- that is, any income an individual made that was over 10 times the wage of the lowest wage earner would be donated and used by the organization to either supplement the lower income wage or pay for their schooling, or whatever. Presumedly, people being helped could move up in the ranks to reduce their amount of assistance, and give back to the group. The group would seek to be representative of the surrounding socioeconomic environment, accepting new members as it was capable of managing the financial infrastructure.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Uncharitable comments
belated listening to KQEDs forum "Uncharitable"
And my remarks, posted on the Uncharitable publisher's website:
Unfortunately, I listened to the show via podcast, so I could not present comments in a timely fashion. I agree with the basic premise that nonprofits should be allowed more of a performance-based "profit" incentive.
However, the MAJOR issue that I was disappointed was not asked was regarding market feedback mechanisms. Presumedly in the for-profit sector, a company has a product that is valued or not valued, and a CEO justifies his salary on the basis of the value of his product. If the product stops selling or declines in value, the CEO's salary is no longer justified, and the CEO either takes a salary cut or a golden parachute.
In the nonprofit world, there are two kinds of problems -- the problems that CAN be solved, and the problems that will NEVER be solved. Specific diseases can fall into the former, social inequity falls into the latter. There will always be social inequity, it's largely an issue of what degree of inequity or suffering is tolerable in a civil society.
In the for-profit world, a thriving company will continually improve their product or make an innovative new product, or another company will take their business. On the other hand, the profit motive in the nonprofit world is that the disease or inequity must NEVER be solved, because the "company" will be out of business. You could argue that the incentives must be carefully induced so that "solutions" are the goal, but that's not what you're arguing, or at least, that's not what I heard on KQED. What I heard on KQED is that higher salaries and more cash throughput is the goal, towards the end of more efficient discovery of solutions.
For solvable problems, the goal of a nonprofit should be to put themselves out of business, once the cure is discovered. The goal is not to create ever-higher salaries and job incentives for keeping the disease alive.
For non-solvable problems there are different issues. The goal is to arrive at a socially agreeable balance point, and maintain that balance point in a means that is (should have added "agreeable and") least expensive to the general public. You may employ high-cost methods to research and find the balance point, but part of the goal is to find the low-cost, low-salary means of maintaining that balance point. The goal is not to maintain the highest salaries or have ever-increasing salaries to maintain a social balance point (regarding inequity that will never be eliminated). Individuals employed in those sectors have to see their jobs as stepping-stones to something else, not as a career where their salary will continually rise.
And my remarks, posted on the Uncharitable publisher's website:
Unfortunately, I listened to the show via podcast, so I could not present comments in a timely fashion. I agree with the basic premise that nonprofits should be allowed more of a performance-based "profit" incentive.
However, the MAJOR issue that I was disappointed was not asked was regarding market feedback mechanisms. Presumedly in the for-profit sector, a company has a product that is valued or not valued, and a CEO justifies his salary on the basis of the value of his product. If the product stops selling or declines in value, the CEO's salary is no longer justified, and the CEO either takes a salary cut or a golden parachute.
In the nonprofit world, there are two kinds of problems -- the problems that CAN be solved, and the problems that will NEVER be solved. Specific diseases can fall into the former, social inequity falls into the latter. There will always be social inequity, it's largely an issue of what degree of inequity or suffering is tolerable in a civil society.
In the for-profit world, a thriving company will continually improve their product or make an innovative new product, or another company will take their business. On the other hand, the profit motive in the nonprofit world is that the disease or inequity must NEVER be solved, because the "company" will be out of business. You could argue that the incentives must be carefully induced so that "solutions" are the goal, but that's not what you're arguing, or at least, that's not what I heard on KQED. What I heard on KQED is that higher salaries and more cash throughput is the goal, towards the end of more efficient discovery of solutions.
For solvable problems, the goal of a nonprofit should be to put themselves out of business, once the cure is discovered. The goal is not to create ever-higher salaries and job incentives for keeping the disease alive.
For non-solvable problems there are different issues. The goal is to arrive at a socially agreeable balance point, and maintain that balance point in a means that is (should have added "agreeable and") least expensive to the general public. You may employ high-cost methods to research and find the balance point, but part of the goal is to find the low-cost, low-salary means of maintaining that balance point. The goal is not to maintain the highest salaries or have ever-increasing salaries to maintain a social balance point (regarding inequity that will never be eliminated). Individuals employed in those sectors have to see their jobs as stepping-stones to something else, not as a career where their salary will continually rise.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
College grads in childcare
This is not a "religious" issue except in the larger sense that many religions (including the Humanists of Palo Alto) have found that providing childcare (or quality schooling) is a great way to bring in converts...
Now for the question...
The Right Start Child Care and Education Act (S.210)introduced in the Senate would provide a tax credit of up to $2,000 a year for three years for college graduates who decide to enter the child care field.
Do we really need more college graduates in childcare? I suppose someone with a college degree might manage a larger childcare facility, but that's like, uh, a business degree? Is that what we really need in childcare? I DO agree with most of the other provisions of the bill, but I can't quite fathom the notion of urging someone to go to college for a job that is traditionally performed by someone without a degree, and at a lower cost. While going to college theoretically makes you a more rounded person, and a person specializing in childhood development might create better programs for the children in daycare, that would be the high-end, more expensive daycare option, for parents who CAN afford daycare and are willing to pay a premium for it. Those people don't need financial assistance, and we probably don't need more high-end daycare people; what we need is daycare more available to the average working parent, which generally means affordability is the issue.
Now for the question...
The Right Start Child Care and Education Act (S.210)introduced in the Senate would provide a tax credit of up to $2,000 a year for three years for college graduates who decide to enter the child care field.
Do we really need more college graduates in childcare? I suppose someone with a college degree might manage a larger childcare facility, but that's like, uh, a business degree? Is that what we really need in childcare? I DO agree with most of the other provisions of the bill, but I can't quite fathom the notion of urging someone to go to college for a job that is traditionally performed by someone without a degree, and at a lower cost. While going to college theoretically makes you a more rounded person, and a person specializing in childhood development might create better programs for the children in daycare, that would be the high-end, more expensive daycare option, for parents who CAN afford daycare and are willing to pay a premium for it. Those people don't need financial assistance, and we probably don't need more high-end daycare people; what we need is daycare more available to the average working parent, which generally means affordability is the issue.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Wall of Separation
Getting this from Dan Barker's book, "Losing Faith in Faith" page 304.
In 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education), they wrote:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pas laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. Not tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
page 310
And speaking of "Christian Nations" of which most Scandinavian countries are OFFICIALLY:
In 1536 Christian III, who had met Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, marched into Copenhagen and expelled the Catholics, appropriating the Roman wealth to pay off huge war debts, establishing Protestantism as the new faith of the area, not by any true religious revival, but by edict. (It is only fair that the Catholic wealth was confiscated for military purposes. After all, if the state and the church are allied, then can't religious donations be considered a governmental tax?) Since the middle of the sixteenth century, Scandinavia has been a stronghold of Lutheranism.
Much of Dan Barker's book is a compilation of "nontracts" and letters to the editor published under the auspices of the Freedom From Religion Foundation Also, since the author is a former fundamentalist minister, much of the book reviews bible verses often quoted by evangelists, and explores the actual context and historical meaning of the verses. He also reviews a surprising number of items often quoted that aren't actually in the bible.
In 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education), they wrote:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pas laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. Not tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
page 310
And speaking of "Christian Nations" of which most Scandinavian countries are OFFICIALLY:
In 1536 Christian III, who had met Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, marched into Copenhagen and expelled the Catholics, appropriating the Roman wealth to pay off huge war debts, establishing Protestantism as the new faith of the area, not by any true religious revival, but by edict. (It is only fair that the Catholic wealth was confiscated for military purposes. After all, if the state and the church are allied, then can't religious donations be considered a governmental tax?) Since the middle of the sixteenth century, Scandinavia has been a stronghold of Lutheranism.
Much of Dan Barker's book is a compilation of "nontracts" and letters to the editor published under the auspices of the Freedom From Religion Foundation Also, since the author is a former fundamentalist minister, much of the book reviews bible verses often quoted by evangelists, and explores the actual context and historical meaning of the verses. He also reviews a surprising number of items often quoted that aren't actually in the bible.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Miracle of Christmas
Awoke to look out and see the miracle of Christmas at my doorstep. The miracle didn't actually happen on Christmas, I just happened to notice it on Christmas morning. Over a month ago, when the first rains started, the building settled, causing my door frame to stick. Then, the building settled more, and the door frame unstuck.
Lo and behold, on Christmas morn, I realized that the miracle had occurred. Water no longer puddles outside my door -- it now puddles in front of my neighbor's door. Halleluja!
Lo and behold, on Christmas morn, I realized that the miracle had occurred. Water no longer puddles outside my door -- it now puddles in front of my neighbor's door. Halleluja!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
