What Ever Happened to Personal Responsibility: A Rant
“Life’s about choices,” said a college professor of mine. He taught finance and would impart to my classmates and me the importance of the decisions we all have as to how we use our money, time and resources. It was his mantra and something that he passed on, not only to his students, but his children as well.
For instance, he recalled an experience when his 8-year-old daughter and him were going on a walk around the neighborhood. He had told her to take her jacket because it was cold outside. “No, I don’t need it,” she proclaimed. He explained to her that she would get cold if she didn’t have her jacket, yet she still insisted she didn’t need it. “O.K.,” he said and they went on the walk.
A few blocks in she began grumbling about how cold it was and rubbing her arms. What did my professor do? Did he cut the walk off short? Did he take off his jacket and lovingly place it around his daughter? No, he made her walk the rest of the way home freezing her butt off. “Life’s about choices,” he explained to his daughter.
60 years ago people reading this article would say of this example, “Well done, he taught his daughter a valuable lesson.” But today, many reading this would cry, “Child Abuse!” “It was the father’s fault for not making her take her jacket!” “You can’t blame the daughter, she didn’t know, she can’t be held responsible!”
This is what’s wrong with our society. We’ve become a people that hold everyone responsible, but ourselves.
Never before have I seen so much blame being placed on everyone, but the person in the mirror. People waving angry fingers at big oil companies for high gas prices rather than blaming themselves for owning two S.U.V.’s and a boat. They completely ignore the law of supply and demand expecting that somehow prices will remain stagnant as consumption drastically increases.
This is like writing an angry letter to Hostess snack foods complaining about your recent weight gain while shoving 30 Twinkies in your gullet. Life’s about choices.
Or how about the debt-ridden homeowner’s shouting about the foul play of mortgage lenders who “deceived them” (code for I didn’t do my homework) and gave them their houses much too easily then DEMANDING government bail out for a house they had no business purchasing in the first place. Since when is your poor financial planning and decision making the government’s problem.
As Justice Casey Percell said, “It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.“ You made a poor choice, take your lumps and move on.
Is the economy in a slump, yes. But, who is really to blame? “Most of our economic wounds are self-inflicted, stemming from our inability to live within our means,” says Knight Kiplinger, Editor in Chief of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine.
Many Americans live in a house — and drive a car — that eats up too much of their monthly budget. They dine out when they could be eating at home, and they indulge their children with trendy clothes. They mistake wants for needs.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love America. I believe in America and what it stands for. This is why something needs to change – and instead of demanding it from everyone else it has to start with us. Government bailout is not the answer, it will only prolong and maybe even exacerbate the problem.
As Herbert Spencer aptly spoke, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”
Punishing corporations for their profits is not the answer, this will only send the message that in America you can try to be successful, but if you are too successful we’ll start taking your money. The answer lies in doing our homework and making the right choices. After all, at the end of the day it’s about taking a coat when it looks like it’s chilly outside. You can choose not to, it’s true, but don’t whine when you get cold. Life’s about choices.
Popularity: 10% [?]
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
56 comments
What a great post! I saw it over on BC and it made my day.
What a great way of bringing home a simple truth. Thanks so much for this, you made my day.
Wonderful post! I may only be 23 but sometimes I am amazed by the lack of common sense displayed by other people my age. My father drilled it into me from day 1 that only you are responsable for you. You are responsable for yourself, if you don’t do something you were supposed to DONT try to pass it on, own up to it, fix it, and move on.
Keep up the good posts, I have been following you for a bit and I love reading your blog.
I love that story about your professor and his daughter. I can relate. Life IS about personal choices, and it seems like personal responsibility is an endangered species. Great post, thank you.
[...] 2, 2008 in blog, decisions, lessons Bravo. It is exactly as Cameron Schaefer writes here: Life’s about choices. A refreshing [...]
Bravo. Thanks for the reminder.
I completely agree that people have forgotten what it means to take personal responsibility for their own actions.
Sometimes I also think they the whole child abuse claim is take out of context. At one point they even propose a bill where any spanking of a child under the age of 5 is considered child abuse here in CA. I grew up getting spanked and I fully intend to spank my future kids if they are naughty. There is a difference between discipline and abuse. And I think too many people cannot tell that difference.
While I totally agree with you in theory, I just wanted to point something out about corporate profits.
In the case of ‘big oil’, they have been consistently, substantially subsidized by the U.S. government. I can only hope that they are using the breathing room they have now to develop sustainable energy choices. However, they don’t have a history of doing that so much. As soon as they stop making money, they’ll probably push for more subsidies so they can ‘explore alternative fuel solutions’.
We aren’t looking at the whole picture I think.
[...] also quite enjoyed this rant on personal responsibility. His story on parenting is priceless. For instance, he recalled an experience when his [...]
Basically a good article. Unfortunately, it’s also a bit simplistic. It’s easy to say “don’t look for handouts/bailouts” to save you when you’ve bollocksed it up. However, what do you say to the people who *have* been acting responsibly that end up losing everything because their so many people around them were acting irresponsibly? What do you say to the family who loses their house because all the jobs dried up and and their house is worthless because the economy tanked because of the poor decisions that *others* made – even if they, themselves were previously living well within their means.
When I moved interstate several years ago, we sold our first home.
We moved from a regional area to the suburbs of Melbourne (Australia). Everything in me screamed “we have to buy another house”, and it took two years for that feeling to wear off.
Everywhere I looked, I was getting the message “you have to own your own home” – also “we will make it simple for you”. Truth is, I couldn’t afford it, and didn’t. Right now, I’m being gouged for rent, but still, I’m glad I don’t have a mortgage hanging over my head. I’ve still managed to make some pretty crappy financial decisions.
The US government looked the other way while the banks created practices enabling them to get away with lending money to people who clearly couldn’t afford it. There used to be checks and balances to stop you getting a loan when you couldn’t afford it.
The government doesn’t have the responsibility to bail people out of their bad decisions. However, it does of the responsibility of holding the feet of the banks to the fire for predatory lending practices. It’s not as simple as just “people should have done their research better”.
The fallout of the sub-prime meltdown is making it apparent that lenders made it hard for people to do their research. They used smoke and mirrors to prove to people how they could “afford” their loans. In many cases, they lied outright.
The banks need to be held responsible. Who’s going to do that?
I agree with you and think that America in general needs to stop feeling sorry for the people who are duped into these types of situations. Personal responsibility has taken a back seat these days, and there are reminders of that fact every day.
first off, great rant, and I couldn’t agree more (with the exceptions for the housing crisis and that there is a significant amount of blame due towards ceo’s and large corporations for so doggedly trying to avoid taxes they could easily pay, some things are too complicated to pin on one person), but this quote really stood out to me;
“As Justice Casey Percell said, “It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.”"
I thought that was the reasoning behind our national drug laws?
If a marijuana USER is only hurting his/her self by smoking marijuana, why is it the governments business?
…and don’t give me that second hand bs. Everyone who gets in the hot boxed car knows exactly what they are in for.
I personally accept the consequences of my marijuana smoking and blame no one else for it.
I know this is off topic a bit but that quote just kind of sparked the need for a mini-rant appendage.
While I agree with your general statement of the lack of personal responsibility, you really should get your facts/numbers straight before making some claims. Such as those about people spending more or too much on their wants. Take a look at the link pasted below and you will be presented with proper numbers in regards to what people are spending their money on and what part of spending has actually increased through the years (facts not assumptions). You will see it’s actually the money spent on needs that has gone up dramatically, not trendy clothes, 2nd & 3rd cars etc. Please stop perpetuating this myth.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/the-coming-coll.html
Spot on! I wish more people thought this way. The world would be a better place.
Well said mate! It’s unfortunate that in todays society people are so apathetic that they feel they need to be led… even if it is astray.
While I agree with you for the most part, Cameron (as usual), I can’t help but believe that Americans have responsibility not just for themselves but to each other. Indeed, it may not be my fault that gas prices are so high (I may drive a Prius, or bike to work every day, or something). And I may have done a good job of buying a house responsibly. The trouble, it seems to me, is that the effects of the actions of others have a dramatic effect on my life. The mortgage crisis has made it harder to sell a home, even for a reasonable price. The falling interest rate and the rising fuel costs have led to inflation at the grocery store. Because my neighbor eats 30 Twinkies in a sitting, my health care premiums go up slightly.
Individuals’ actions do not happen in a vaccum; rather, we are all connected in strange and surprising ways that should inspire us to do right by ourselves and by others. I think it’s reasonable for some Americans to be angry that they are punished for others’ acts, and to be looking around for ways to solve the problem. And I think our government should exist, in part, to help alleviate the strain on those who fly right and whose choices benefit those around them.
Nice! This article probably ticks off the liberals.
As one of my mentor’s put it, you’re the sum of your decisions.
@ EVERYONE,
Sorry I haven’t responded to your comments, it’s been a busy week of flying and hosting my good friend Justin. Anyway, I’ll do better in the future engaging you one-on-one, but thanks so much for all the insightful feedback! You guys are awesome!
I had not seen that Kiplinger quote before. I think you’re on the money as far as individual responsibility; I do, however, think the closing paragraph about “punishing” successful corporations might require a little more exposition than you’re giving it. It reads as a tangent to me–a conclusion you might have been leading to but hadn’t revealed fully–and the arguments supporting self-sufficiency don’t immediately apply (in my opinion).
@theBrooks’: for the record, I resemble that remark, and am far from ticked off by Cameron’s points. I was raised by two liberal democrats who taught me that if you’re ever unfortunate enough to get your ass in a sling, you better figure out a way to get it out yourself. Whether it be bad decisions–or good decisions and merely bad circumstances–only you are responsible for yourself.
There’s something to be said for financial pessimism: instead of thinking “*maybe* I can afford this…” and over-extending ourselves, my wife and I tend to think “we can *probably* afford this, but we don’t want to risk it”. Pessimism can be closer to reality than optimism. It might not be as fun, but a little risk aversion is more fun in the long haul.
So no, @theBrooks’, I’m far from ticked off. But thanks for playing
I echo Hayden’s point that while it may be wrong to tax a corporation for its success, it is also wrong for the government to subsidize that success. Corporations needs to learn personal responsibility too, and we need to close their tax loopholes and axe the kickbacks they get from the government.
I also think there’s something to be said about the fact that some people these days accept personal responsibility, work hard, and play by the rules, and yet still can’t get ahead. If someone works full-time but can’t make ends meet, that’s a problem. Personal responsibility requires a fair and level playing field to work, and sometimes today’s world ain’t fair.
Those caveats aside, I agree with your points whole heartedly.
I read the article in its entirety an read every post; I was referred to this post from a buddy mind for a nice read (and a nice one I might add). I would only like to interject a few points that you may want to look into. I am into business analytics, market research, and web development.
>>As Justice Casey Percell said, “It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.“
You used this quote as a way to tell people to own up to their mistakes. While I can partly agree with this statement, it is also the duty of companies to have full disclosure and understand the competence of their audience. Is it right to give people who can barely read at a 8th grade level a credit card knowing very well they are going to default on it? I used to be a salesman and when I first started I probably sold people many things people didn’t need because I was taught to sell based on emotions. I was 16 at the time and I didn’t realize what I was doing was unethical. I later found out that selling a service plan on a product is just to increase numbers and provides no benefit to the customer. This is what is known as a non-zero sum game; wherein one party benefits and the other doesn’t. Companies should not sell to people if they have to do it unethically. Real estate agents who wanted to get bigger bonuses for selling houses are to blame, and their bosses, and their companies for not enforcing necessary precautions.
Should you sell to a couple who is starting a family knowing they don’t understand the implication of their action and what an amortization schedule is?
I know that each person is reasonable and must do their homework, but that is a given. You know that your audience, based on your assessment of asking questions, has a certain competence which may or may not “do their homework”.
@ Everyone (again),
I must say I’m impressed by how much you all have taught me. I think between my post and your comments we’ve reached a balanced and logical position. You guys are awesome, thanks for being such great readers!
It is interesting… Several of you are acting as apologists for the concept of everyone being responsible for everyone…. Perhaps I have generalized that too much for you to know what I mean, but, I am sure you’ll figure it out eventually…
The author of this post did not say (in my reading/opinion) that outside events may force you into situations of which you had no ability to make the right choice, what he did say was that FIRST you should always recall that WHEN you do have the ability to choose, you are responsible for that choice, no one else…
So, when you are screwing a screw in with your Stanley screw driver and you slip and slash your thumb, don’t blame Stanley, take bloody responsibility for your action and clean the wound, dress it properly, then finish screwing in the screw, don’t call your lawyer figuring to get rich quick… Or when you bloody order a cup of coffee and then spill it on yourself, well, most people have worked in a restaurant at least once in their life and so we all know that there is no such thing as a cup of coffee that is ‘too hot’.
Take responsibility.
Sure SOMETIMES things are outside your control. Okay.
But most times you have a part in the mess and so shoudl have a part in cleaning up.
End Rant.
That is what my take away from that article was.
Great post. It’s not just about the US however. This is a worldwide issue.
Great points Cam, and this is a great discussion to have. Let me add my two cents with the upcoming election in mind:
Today, Americans seem to demand a government that is an omnipresent and omniprovident cornucopia of entitlements, yet remains smalls and imposes low taxes.
Americans are about to choose a president who–judging by political rhetoric, which responds to voters’ expectations–is supposed to be an economic wizard, a national pastor, a Florence Nightingale in providing health care and an incredible diplomat. An unattainable set of credentials in reality. Again, expectations out of line with reality.
Nowadays, voters demand empathy from candidates in a way that voters never did of George Washington nor John Adams.
At the nation’s founding, Americans believed that government exists to protect people in the exercise of their pre-existing “natural” rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But time passed and the evolution of creature comforts ensued.
Now Americans believe that government exists to create new rights for them, to solve their problems, and that it can do so only if politicians empathize with voters’ conditions and “feelings”.
Liberal or Conservative, when you go to the polls this November please think critically about the direction that this country must proceed. The founding fathers believed in a government by the people, for the people–in the sense of providing national defense (to protect individual liberties) and ensuring everyone equal access to these liberties. I believe that the U.S. Government (to include both major parties) has lost its way in this respect–more attune now to: by the people, for the lobbyists.
Simply stated, the founding fathers spelled out how to deal with a government that gets beyond its original intent, OVERTHROW them and democratically elect new officials. I do not advocate overthrowing the U.S. Government, but I do advocate fixing the problem. Unfortunately, Americans seem to comfortable reaping the benefits of governmental handouts and bailouts alike.
This is a tough issue, and certainly worthy of debate. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more critical as time goes on. Currently, we have a conservative President with enough power to send us to war without Congressional approval (extreme right), and a democratic Congress that is looking seriously towards socialized health care (extreme left). As a member of this country, it should scare you if we are proceeding just left or just right of center.
Great discussion on this issue…
* correction to the last line…”if we aren’t proceeding”…
Hi Marc,
Great points, however factually incorrect in a few points… Under the clear and present danger doctrine (that’s where the movie got it’s name) the president can initiate conflict, however Congress did vote to go to war… The President did not just send the troops off.
Other than that though I agree with you fully, Americans expect the government to do everything for them….
Marc,
I am intrigued; please send me your literature, as I would like to learn more.
(Seriously–very thought-provoking response. Good stuff.)
@ Britt,
I’m assuming what Marc meant was that there was never a formal declaration of war. There hasn’t been since WWII.
And I’m assuming what you’re talking about is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which was voted on by congress. Am I right?
@ Marc,
Great points friend, you are quite a thinker…though I shouldn’t expect anything less from an intel guy I suppose. I agree that we are expecting the candidates to do way too much….the impossible.
Instead of relying on government for all these great deeds I think we should look know further than individual Americans. Private organizations and groups of ordinary citizens can often accomplish far more and much more efficiently than the federal government…But, that would mean we’d actually have to do some hard work, which many aren’t too fond of.
Also, got your message, no worries on the pistol shooting this afternoon, we’ll go sometime soon.
Thank you for your correction Cameron, of course you are correct.
I too am a fan of Americans rising to the occasion rather than the government taking over… Do you recall the days right after 9/11? There were thee guys in Texas who had a barbeque , they hauled their butts up to New York and got there like two days after 9/11 and started serving food, gratis, to the workers… That type of action could not have taken place if the government had managed it… Same with all those businesses that donated sweatshirts to the workers cleaning up the mess… It would have had to go out to bid if the government had done it, probably would have taken 30 days at the very least to get a government contract in place…
Americans, standing together, can do anything that is necessary (don’t get me wrong, Brits and French, Germans, and Japanese can too, probably, I am just an American, so I speak to my countrymen).
Of course, Government intervention sometimes is the only way, like after the Tsunami, when the First Responders were the US Navy and Marines (because we have fleets all over the world). But in general Americans can act faster and sometimes that is what is needed, quick action… What Europeans sometimes call being a ‘cowboy’.
Britt,
Thanks for catching my lapse there, I believe I was thinking of the eavesdropping program while I was typing. My apologies, yes Congress approved this war. In desperate times though, US Presidents have stepped beyond checks and balances to deliever seemingly “necessary solutions” to the greatest perceived threats.
In fact, the tug over executive power traces back to the early years of the republic, and presidents have traditionally moved to expand their reach during times of war. John Adams, fearing a hostile France, presided over the imprisonment of Republican critics under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson jailed Socialist Eugene V. Debs, who had run against him for president, for protesting the entry into World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. And Ronald Reagan circumvented a Cold War congressional ban on providing aid to contra rebels in Nicaragua.
I think I’ve deviated from my original point though:
Again, left or right, we should always walk the line…
Hi Marc,
While your examples are factually correct, it is important to understand that this is not just limited to Presidents… The Intelligence Oversight Committee (created back in the 70’s if I remember correctly, by the Church Commission???) is supposed to be overseeing a great deal of this stuff, and CongressWeasels are supposed to be interested in only ratifying those things which makes sense… Unfortunately (regardless of party/platform/etc) they are just as corruptible/fallible as anyone else… So I would say that while our government is charged with doing what it takes to protect the country (among other things) the tripartite system we espouse is supposed to give sufficient check and balance to try to do the right things as defined by our laws and our Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments thereto… Unfortunately many of those in power (regardless of era) seem to forget that these laws (mostly!) apply to them as well…
I agree wholeheartedly that our government needs a serious change. I, for one, become incensed when a government representative tells me that the government is granting me some privilege or other… Makes me feel they have forgotten, government exists to serve the people (As defined by our Constitution) not the other way ’round!
Take it easy.
Britt…
Cameron,
As an economist I whole-heartedly agree on the issue of privatizing the “problems” that our Government is feverishly bailing-out. Hard-work is becoming less and less a virtue in our great country. We are the great consumer of services. We have a dwindling manufacturing infrastructure in this country, and its for obvious reasons.
At the same time people cry out against Globalization though, they demand the “low-price guarantee” at Walmart. You can’t have both though…
The natural evolution of capitalism requires globalization and of course, out-sourcing. I’m a big believer in the merit of outsourcing jobs as a measure to bring cheaper, but higher-quality goods to consumers. (In case you aren’t sure, you are too if you’ve ever shopped at WalMart to save a few bucks) In addition, it provides another tool for diplomatic negotiations when interconnected nations are considering aggression. When economies are tied to one another, such decisions must be second-thought and consequences must be considered before action is taken.
At the same time, globalization lends itself to countries that tolerate cheap labor and do little to regulate workplace conditions for the employees. Sweat shops are often accurately portrayed in a negative light. Are they evil? Maybe so, but do we as Americans buy into the evil? Of course we do! We are a society that wants what it doesn’t need, and we are far beyond filling our basic necessities at the cost of others. Americans love conflict diamonds as much as they love Nike shoes, Kathy Gifford Handbags, and Liz Claiborne dresses (examples of big sweat shop scandals). We can’t get enough of things that, if we were deprived of, we would eat, sleep, and receive nourishment just fine without them. Perhaps Maslow’s American Hierarchy of Needs would include iPods and Plasma TV’s. All of this to say that whatever makes us feel good, our creature comforts, ultimately fuels whatever unethical practices other countries engage in, as long as our costs to enjoy them remain low.
Wal-Mart is an excellent example for this discussion. Usually you can walk in and find a product that’s of “good-enough” quality and at the market’s lowest price. The country that made the product probably forgoes regulation or oversight (quality control) to the glitter of the almighty dollar. Sometimes in America we pay the price for the cheap, unregulated work orders (i.e. Mattel’s recall for lead-based paint). Majority of the time, these things do not affect us though. If a Barbie doll makes our daughter smile but forces another ten children to endure twenty-hour work days seven days a weeks, we take the smile because we can afford it and they are not our kids.
On the other hand if all of the goods that we bought at WalMart were produced by unionized American laborers, we would experience a cost of living so high that it would make us accept four-dollar gas without batting an eye. The reality of the situation is that globalization produces winners and losers. I would argue that the winners far outweigh the losers, and thereby take a utilitarianism approach to approving of globalization.
The unpopular reality: Sweatshops provide jobs and pay wages regardless of whether or not Americans consider them to be fair.
So Cameron, the next time you drive by the Boeing plant and see the picket line…slow down, honk twice, create some roaring cheers, then roll down your window and say “don’t expect to be paid a higher wage for the same unskilled labor you do now, go back to school for it” Drive away fast.
Even if you look like a coward, you will make a sound economic argument.
Sorry for my rant on your blog…
Hi Marc,
Once again you make a good point, but have a slightly different version than mine….
Back around 1990 a coworker of mine moved here from Thailand… She goes back to visit her family every 2 years (She is an engineer, educated herself here, worked her way through college, quite a smart lady) She and I were having a discussion wherein I said stuff similar to what you said concerning American companies and sweat shops in other countries… Her response was that that was the way it used to be in her country, back in the 80’s but since the 90’s public pressure here in America has made those ’sweat shop’ jobs the best jobs you can get in that country…
I am speaking specifically about Thailand.
When I read about ’scandals’ these days it seems that people HERE think that if you live outside Beijing and are working in a plant there making trash for WalMart that you are virtually a slave and have a terrible life… Well, you do, by OUR standards. But, when talking to Chinese nationals, they will tell you that Chinese stand in line for those jobs because they are better than the alternative…
So, I am not opposed to ’sweat shops’ as currently defined, because We, The People, successfully Forced Levi’s Jeans to ensure that their 14 year old employees get company paid educations, pay in the top 10% for the country, full medical and dental, housing in the top 10% for their country, and are NOT required to have sex with anyone as part of their job… These are all improvements over most jobs in that country…
We, The People of the USA forced this and we can continue to. Maybe we will, maybe we wouldn’t, one never knows what the will of the people is… President Bush had like a 90% approval rating when he decided to take out Saddam, but today every acts like they never were in favor of that… The UN Passed 187 resolutions against Iraq, of which Iraq broke each and every one… During the Clinton Presidency UN Combat missions were flown every day over Iraqi airspace to try to get that government to abide by these resolutions, but no one recalls that… President Clinton actually authorized more Tomahawk strikes into Iraq during his presidency than did President Bush…
But don’t get me started about Presidents Bush 1 and 2, I could go on for hours…
Anyway, my original point was, while by our definition sweat shops exist in other countries to produce goods which we want, our citizenry has (in most cases) managed to force our big business to make sure that those sweat shops are (in those countries, when compared with the standard types of work there) dream jobs.
B…
@ Britt and Marc,
Thanks for showing me up on my own blog, jerks! Haha, just kidding. You guys are really bringing up some great points.
In regards to outsourcing, I’m all for it, but here’s why the debate often reaches deadlock.
The disadvantages of outsourcing are embodied by people who have lost their jobs…they are tangible and very loud. Think about critics of outsourcing, they most likely will tell you the story of the mom and pop shop that was put out of business when Wal-Mart came to town, or the software programmer that lost his job to a guy in Bangalore. Either way they are incredibly visible because they are people.
On the other hand the advantages of outsourcing are much more sly and quiet because they are numbers. How much money have you saved as a consumer in the last year as a result of outsourcing? If you did the math it is a great deal, but who wants to do the math? It’s complex, long and boring. The story isn’t nearly as accessible.
The advantages of outsourcing are tremendous, but they don’t stand out because they don’t involve nearly as much emotion or as many sob stories. No one cries about how much money they saved as a result of outsourcing, they only cry about the job they lost.
During my senior year at the Academy for a class project I researched outsourcing opportunities for a semiconductor company in Colorado Springs. In talking to one of the vice president’s I got a clear view of why more companies are looking across the globe rather than across the street.
“Why would I spend the extra money to develop a new product in the U.S. when I can find an engineer in China that is equally educated, works harder and for longer hours without complaint, for half the pay?” he asked me. I stared at him without a good answer.
It used to be that America held a huge advantage when it came to the level of education and training, but that gap has slowly evaporated as China and India’s education system’s have improved rapidly.
Anyway, I’m tired now and ready for sleep. Just wanted to pitch in my two cents on a subject I enjoy discussing.
Hi Cameron,
Yeah, outsourcing really does suck…
I believe it was President Carter that started killing off the government educational loans/grants programs in the US, followed by President Reagan, the President G. H. W. Bush (who broke all three if his campaign promises within 90 days of taking office, a new worlds record that stands to this day) who killed like 90% of the remaining loans… So, even for those people interested in an education, it is much harder to achieve than it used to be… Not to mention how tuitions have risen at about 2.5X the average increase in cost for other stuff over the years…
Of course some counter this argument by saying that in the USA a much larger proportion of students go on to college than in most other countries, so we should be happy and not complain… But I say, Great! I want every-damn-body to go on to college/university who wants to!
If America wants to continue thinking of itself as a world leader, then (besides venues like this blog in which varying points of view are discussed) we need to invest in educating our young!
B…
Ah, outsourcing. You’ve hit upon the one issue that I actually get pretty fired up about.
I understand the economic value of outsourcing. As you say, if you can pay a foreign worker 1/4 of what you pay an American worker, than why wouldn’t you? Right?
Well here’s my beef. Cameron, you talk about all the cost savings we experience from outsourcing. And it is certainly true that companies save money by outsourcing, but those cost savings are not proportionately passed on to the customer. New Balance shoes used to be made in the USA, now almost all are made overseas. Are they any cheaper now? Nope. The keep going up in price. Are Gap clothes of LL Bean clothes any cheaper now that all of their items are made overseas? Nope. A Nike shoe is made by someone who works for $2 a day but their shoes are still $140.
So you where do the cost savings go? To the corporation of course. Now, corporations making more money is basically a good thing, well, at least it used to be. It used to be that corporations would then let those profits trickle down to their workers whose wage would rise. And they’d reinvest it in research and development. Now it mostly goes to fuel the ever rising and wholly outrageous CEO salary. And so the standard of living in this country has been refusing to rise, and we’re going to be the first generation to be worse off than our parents.
These issues asides, let me get to the heart of the matter-economists say that outsourcing is good because while we lose jobs in the short term, we’ll gain jobs in the long term. I say B-S. Maybe that was true when only manufacturing jobs were outsourced. And you could say to someone, “Just get more education and get a more skilled job!” But now even those jobs are being outsourced. Tech jobs, legal research jobs, medical jobs, science jobs…all are being outsourced. There was just an article in the NYT that even jobs that recent MBA graduates would take at financial companies, 200k a year jobs, are now being outsourced. So where are these new jobs going to come from? They certainly haven’t been created this year, as we’ve shed 400,000+ jobs so. And where is outsourcing going to end? There are very few jobs that can’t be done cheaper overseas. So again, where will these new job come from?
The answer given as I mentioned is always more education….just get more education and get a white collar job! We’ll outsource the basic jobs which will create more tech jobs. Well, first, again, even white collar jobs are being outsourced. The idea pushed by people like Thomas Friedman is that lack of science and engineering education is what is holding back Americans. B-S. At any given time, there are more highly educated scientists, software guys, and engineers than there are job openings in this country. And even if you’re the most highly educated engineer out there, some guy in India is still gong to work for cheaper than you, and corporations are still going to choose him over you. So what’s your motivation exactly?
Second, not everyone is supposed to go to college. Really. We’ve pushed this idea that college is for everybody and it’s not. There’s no way to make every American college material or the kind of person that would thrive in academia. Even if you could, and let’s say we get every American go to college and even get their masters, what then? Are there enough jobs to go around? Nope. Today only 1/3 of Americans have college degrees. If that was 100%, we could not possibly employ them all in good jobs.
So what are non-college educated Americans to do? They used to be able to support a family on a middle-class income by working in a factory…but those days are gone. Without manufacturing jobs, the only jobs we have less are customer service and food service jobs. So now they’re trying to support a family on minimum wage.
So in summation, sure the cost of a laptop has gone down….but I’d rather the standard of living start going up.
Hi Karen,
I completely understand your position… And I believe that in order to have a healthy economy, we need to be able to have jobs available that one can actually live off of at all levels, from unskilled laborer, to master craftsmen, from bus person to PhD… but that does not necessarily mean we find some way to artificially limit ones ability to attend a college or university… I think your post points to one of the biggest problems in the USA today, people thinking college is about getting a job!
College may be partially about getting a job, but some of us just like to learn and grow… Am I a psychologist? Nope, but I spent quite a few years studying psych. Am I a historian? Nope, but I enjoyed learning about that too… Am I a musician? Nope, but music theory was something I found interesting… How about a write? Nope, but I took graduate level literature courses for the fun of it… One of the guys I worked with at a restaurant in Norwood, MA was a waiter… he loved working with people and had been a waiter for 15 years… Before that he had gone and gotten his MS in Computer Science because he liked computers.
Education is something that enriches your life.
Sure, maybe it helps you get a job too. But if you think it is only about getting a job, you have missed out… and that is unfortunate.
Oh, I am a Physicist, got my degree at the age of 38, 10 years ago, and I fully believe what Good Will Hunting said, that one can get a great education for roughly $1.26 in late fees at any public library, but I also believe that having the class interaction helps make it easier and broader.
Britt…
Personal responsibility is a value with which everyone agrees. That makes it an effective frame to use when talking about corporate responsibility.
Fairness is another American value. A corporation is a person by definition although they are held far less culpable than an individual morally and legally.
A person who owns no car still pays for the high gas prices when they buy food, pay increased local taxes, etc. A person who needs to sell their home may find themselves owing the bank more than the house is worth because of a 20% drop in home values. These people through no fault of their own are subject to serious economic pressures.
I have a hard time feeling for oil companies while they rack up astronomical profits at the expense of everyone. This is primarily because it feels to me like the fix is in. If this were a freer market, there would be companies willing to take a few billion less in profit for the increased market share. I see none of those forces at work. Predatory lenders, price gougers, polluters, and people who put shareholder value before the value of human life need some responsibility. The little guys who make poor financial choices are a symptom not the disease. They are the ones getting the shaft. The banks are getting the bailouts and the CEOs of Freddy and Fannie are leaving with 6 million bucks for their poor financial choices.
Hi Ray,
I gotta say I agree with you, Exxon has had it’s fourth straight year of record profits and at the same time is saying that it has to raise prices due to costs, those two facts seem incongruent to me, but I am just a poor, dumb Physicist, not an economics person…
[...] in Life tagged Choices, Life, People at 1:24 pm by Andrew McMillen An excellent post on Schaefer’s Blog linked from The Art Of Manliness discusses a general lack of personal [...]
Amen man. You pretty much the nail on the head with this post. Very impressive.
Thumbed up on StumbleUpon.
An excellent point, eloquently made. I try to talk to clients about this all the time. Some listen, some refuse to listen. Those who hear the message are empowered, take responsibility for their lives and make them into what they want. Those who don’t stay trapped in unhealthy relationship patterns and unfulfilling jobs, blaming everyone else and then going to the doctor to be medicated for their depression or anxiety.
Now if only we applied this logic to bailing out corporations as well. They too made choices.
Now, now, Brit. Exxon rocks! Over half of American citizens have Exxon in their retirement portfolio. One of the few bright lights in our economy.
Has anyone heard of Corporate psychology? Or did anyone hear president say “Take this stimulus check and buy things”? Brainwashed fools believe anything to be a part of wealth which is a perceived need rather than a necessary need. I once fit in this category; however, am free now of this obsessive greed. Good luck to all that still buy in to this because as the public becomes smarter, you will become average and you will have to live with the fact that you don’t truly understand what life is about.
It’s a good point, and a good lesson, but young children don’t have fully developed brains. They can’t understand consequences as well as someone older would.
@Alice,
Of course, that is one (of many) reasons why Parents are held responsible for their childrens actions in some respect. At least in the USA. Depending upon the actions, age of the child, and other factors.
It is one of a perents (many) responsibilities to give a child an understanding of authority and responsibility, slowly, over time, as the child develops and can understand/accept the concept.
It is not the case that because a three year old can not understand the concept of responsibility for one’s actions that we should never teach this concept and suddenly when they are 18 or 21 they have to understand it. No.
It is the fact that when the three year old smashes their favorite toy that the parent must say, “Well, you smashed it, so now you do not have it anymore, that is too bad. If you had wanted to have it, you should not have smashed it.” And NOT GO running out to buy the child a new one!
[...] Sure, you don’t have to answer to anybody but yourself. But you still have to answer for yourself. And it’s surprisingly difficult to have the guts to do this in a country where people don’t take responsibility for themselves. In a society that seems to subsist on finding fault. Explaining problems away. When it’s just you, there is nobody to blame but yourself. [...]
Thanks for the post. I certainly need to take some of this article personally.
It’s a good point, but your illustration misses something else that has changed in society.
60 years ago nobody would have said “Well done. He taught her a valuable lesson.” They would have said, “What the heck kind of parent lets an 8-year-old decide how she wants to be dressed to leave the house??”
Choices have consequences, but positions of power come with responsibilities to others under our care as well.
I’m glad to see their are still some people in this world who have sense.
As a pro-active parent of 3 teenage children for whom I am constantly presented with teaching opportunities regarding personal responsibility and the reality of consequences- both positive and negative for our actions, I appreciate where you’re coming from with this rant on many levels but I also take that protective responsibility very seriously and still make choices as a parent in the best interest of my children based on age-related experience that they may not always agree with but respect because they understand that I am the parent and they are the child- and so have their best interests in mind with every such action or lack of it; and while I talk to them like fellow intelligent human beings rather than screaming at or belittling them for their mistakes, acknowledge that respect is a two way street and must be earned and appreciate that as they grow we can often laugh and have fun together, they know that if by their actions they put me in a position of having to choose between being their parent and and being their friend, it is no contest- friendship is a great fringe benefit but it is not my job and I will be the parent every time. Thus I have to agree with Peter on this one point – I do not believe in treating children as miniature adults any more than I believe in treating young adults the same way I would a pre-teen child. I can honestly say that as an adult, though I have not always made the best choices, thanks to my own parents’ training and example, I at least accepted the consequences of my actions and learned from my mistakes. Thus I have no regrets from my youth. My point is that there is an appropriate time be take the protective obligations of parenthood seriously and an equally appropriate time to start letting go and rejoicing in a child’s individualism and independence by – it is good to let children make choices that will affect them so they can eventually learn to make good decisions and function as responsible adults, but it is a process and choices should start with simpler things- we do not ask a three year old: what do you want to wear today? but: you can choose between the blue outfit and the red one- or, what do you want for lunch? but instead: you can have a cheese sandwich or a peanut butter sandwich/ do you want an apple or a banana for your snack- which will it be today? etc…open ended choices overwhelm young children who are not cognitively equipped yet to handle them appropriately; nor do they have the ability to comprehend the consequences of those choices- eg. 8 yrs old is not an appropriate age to let a child decide not to wear a coat outside in the winter because a child that young has no real concept of cause and effects for things like pneumonia regardless of repeated warnings about such things. Some choices must be made for a young child by the adult who is ultimately responsible for that child’s well being whether the child agrees with the adult or not- the primary reason for parental authority is to ensure those things and for one’s children until the child can legitimately do so themselves and failing to do so constitutes neglect on the part of the parent. On the other hand when a child can decide and do for himself he should be given the opportunity. On the one hand if my 13 year old, however uncharacteristically, mouths off at school and is assigned a 1000 word essay on how to speak respectfully to her elders -I back the teacher up and let her figure it out rather than write it for her, but I also carefully monitor her wardrobe and do not let her shop at the mall unsupervised with other teenage girls; if my 15 year old chooses not to eat after school even though he’s hungry because I am not right there to make him a sandwich at the time and he is too lazy to make it himself- then he can go hungry until supper time and it won’t bother me a bit- but to let a 5 year old go hungry for the same reasons would constitute neglect- or if that same 15 year old chooses to stay up all night past the household bedtime, he still has to go to school in the morning no matter how tired he is and if he falls asleep in class and gets in trouble for it, I will likewise back the teacher and let him face the consequence she deems reasonable for such behavior at school as well as rescinding appropriate privileges at home (such as non-academic use of his computer) until he has earned them back by trust so he is less tempted to chat all night with other insomniac teenagers and after I’ve gone to bed and he is no longer under immediate supervision; but if his 11 year old sister is up all night because her allergies are making her sick and uncomfortable, then she should be cared for the next day by being allowed extra time to rest and a scheduled visit to the doctor to address the problem later in the day so that her absence is excused and she gets help with the work she missed that day if needed; or if my 17 year old has used up his pre-paid cell phone minutes and can’t afford to refill them himself, or chose not to work enough hours to cover his insurance because he wanted to go out with his friends instead spending all of his own money in the process, I will not front him the money for those things or let him use the car and endanger the rest of us by liability- but let him live without those privileges until he can remedy his cash-flow problem on his own by learning to manage his money and work within an appropriate budget. Anyway, there’s my own rant- hopefully, you get the point.
Im glad that there are others that still know how to think, and i like that we share the same opinion.
Responding to number 10: Even being responsible and careful doesn’t give us a right to having everything work out correctly for us.
Part of being careful and responsible is considering the future and putting aside for that rainy day. And there are days when the rain is beyond what our rainy day fund can survive, or when it is the fund itself that is rained upon.
None of these circumstances gives us the right to blame anybody besides ourselves for what has occurred. And if we can’t blame ourselves, there may just be nobody to blame, reasonably.
The problem with the blame game, no matter how qualified, is that there is no way to get back what was lost through placing the blame anywhere besides ourselves justly. Only we can pull ourselves back up, and therefore only ourselves can be responsible.
Leave a Comment