Why Low Public Confidence in Government is Bad for Business

By: Dennis Schroader

Class: BUS 308

Instructor: Nicole Rodieck

Date: October 11, 2010

.There is, perhaps, no greater consumer or generator of statistical data than the federal government of the United States; in fact, every governmental agency generates some sort of statistic, the subjects of which range from business and economics to crime and punishment, and many more than can be described or are useful for the purposes of this paper. The mere fact that data is gathered, compiled and analyzed may concern some average Americans who worry about government intrusion and individual liberty, however, voters are increasingly questioning any statistic cited by politicians and government officials, particularly as an election looms near. Recent polls show a growing public distrust of government to do the right thing, which leads to uncertainty and volatility in financial markets, which further leads to a slowing of economic growth. This paper discusses two examples of federal agencies that generate large amounts of statistical data and their valid uses by the United States government, the growing distrust of government by the populace at large, and why that distrust is bad for America’s economy.

While statistical measures have been around longer than the United States, the Constitution of the United States specifically requires the government to collect such statistical data by way of the census (Article 1, Section 2, clause 3). Since 2010 is such a census year, this paper presumes the reader’s familiarity with the collection methods and type of information gathered. The original purpose for the decennial census was for apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s website (2010), census data is also used to redraw the lines of state congressional and legislative districts, distribute taxpayer dollars for social programs, and community planning. Many people, however, raise serious questions about the information required by the census.

One major opponent to some of the questions asked in the 2010 census was Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), citing questions such as race and homeownership as unnecessary and without basis in the Constitution (McCullagh, 2010). The former presidential candidate is not alone; a poll conducted by Zogby International – a widely recognized public opinion polling firm – dated March 16, 2010, showed forty-nine percent (margin of error ± 1.5%) of the voters surveyed were not confident that their information would be kept confidential. In this student’s analysis, this is a symptom of the greater problem. Before going into that, it is imperative to describe another major government source of statistical data.

The federal agency most directly responsible for gathering employment and other economic data is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This agency reports monthly on topics such as unemployment and the Consumer Price Index. The Employment Situation report, in which one finds unemployment data, is a large and complex document. According to media reports and politicians, the unemployment rate in America is currently 9.6% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). They glean this information from Table A-15 in the report, but it is a selective statistic, counting only those who are completely unemployed and actively looking for work. While some pundits prefer to cite the U6 number – currently 17.1% – this number is also misleading because it counts everyone who is unemployed and underemployed, even by choice. It is the opinion of this student that the U4 number – currently 10.3% –  is the more representative statistic because it includes the conventionally unemployed as well as discouraged workers. Ideally, this statistic would also include those employed part time for economic reasons (unable to find full time work). Be all that as it may, most cite the U3. The confusing nature of this report and the statistics contained within is another cause of public skepticism in government. The data from these two agencies – and particularly the latter – is widely cited by news outlets, politicians and bloggers (among others) to lend credence to a political agenda, the examples of which are so numerous that they defy quantification and thus this student presumes the reader’s familiarity.

Public distrust of government

A Pew Research Center report (2010) shows that fifty-two percent of those surveyed believe that the political system in American can work; it is the members of Congress that are the problem. The report issued by Pew states that no fewer than seventy-six percent of those surveyed agreed with each of the following regarding politicians in Washington D.C.: “…that they care only about their careers, are influenced by special interests, are unwilling to compromise, and are profligate and out-of-touch” (Distrust, discontent, anger and partisan rancor). The report ends with a note that the margin of error at the ninety-five percent confidence level is just 2.5 percent. By any measure, this shows a huge majority of public opinion against political insiders and elected officials.

Historically, it appears that the public trust has declined steadily over the course of the forty-two years shown in the graph with significant drops intersecting with significant political scandals, such as Watergate, the Clinton impeachment hearings, and the unpopularity of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. As an interesting side note, the most notable increases in public trust occur 1) when the Congress and Whitehouse are not controlled by the same party and 2) in response to catastrophic crises, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is also interesting to note that those increases seem to have been tempered with the advent of the twenty-four hour news cycle and the internet.

Political misuse of statistics & other spin

One of the causes of the public’s rampant distrust of the government is that the people simply do not believe their elected representatives are telling the truth. A quick search using Google Scholar yields 61,000 hits for “political misuse of statistics” (Google, 2010). A recent example close to this student’s home is found in an editorial by the editorial board of The News Tribune (2010) blast incumbent U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) for outright lies and fabrications in her attack ads against her Republican opponent.

This, of course, is not news. In 1973, The American Statistician published a piece by Phillip Hauser (Statistics and Politics) in which he excoriates governmental pressure on statisticians “to make a given administration, administrator, or agency ‘look good’, ‘make a case’ or support a decision already taken on other than factual grounds” (p 68). Hauser focuses particular attention on both the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, both of which faced public scandal and subsequent scrutiny at the time.

In 2007, then Senator Barak Obama (already running for president) made a claim that there were more young black men in prison than in college. According to the Washington Post (2007), no bastion of right-wing ideology, “this is an old myth that has been frequently shot down before” and that college enrollment of young black men is  roughly five times the population of young black men in federal and state prisons and about two and a half times the total number incarcerated (p A6).

These are just a few of the countless examples of politicians “playing politics” with statistics and other data, a practice widely known as “spin”, and although expected by the public, it is the root cause of public distrust of government. The following section describes just why this distrust is bad for business.

Correlation between trust and unemployment

The Pew Research Center’s website (2010) shows a line graph of public trust in government from 1958 to the present. When compared with the monthly unemployment rate, there is an apparent inverse correlation between the two: as public trust in government declines, unemployment increases shortly thereafter, at least since the Carter administration. Since it is widely known in economic circles that unemployment is a “lagging indicator” (Investopedia.com, 2010), meaning that the unemployment rate is used to confirm weakness in the overall economy rather than predict it, it follows that public trust in government may have some causal relationship to unemployment and that the reverse could not be true. Let it be clear that this paper does not suggest a direct causal relationship.

A graph of the percentage change in Gross Domestic Product also shows a decrease in the growth of GDP (and in some cases, actual declines in GDP) slightly lagging declines in public trust. Once again, the fact that declines in GDP growth lag declines in public trust, there seems to be a correlation, although a look at these graphs does not suggest such correlation is linear or even direct.

Correlation between trust and investor confidence

While the Dow Jones Industrial Average (hereafter, “the Dow”) – a measure of how the stocks of thirty large, publicly held companies in the United States have traded during a standard trading session – is the most recognizable stock index, and is often cited by pundits and politicians alike, it is only a measure of thirty companies and not very representative of the marketplace as a whole. The use of this index as a metric by which the U.S. economy is tracked by media pundits and politicians bewilders this student.

The Standard and Poor’s 500 index (hereafter, “the S&P 500”) is a far superior measure of U.S. economic health because it tracks five hundred publicly traded stocks and represents roughly seventy percent of the total value of stock markets in the United States (Schick, 2010). While the raw data necessary to draw a clear linear correlation is unavailable to this student, a look at the five-year history of the index  shows that public trust and the S&P 500 seem linked. This was determined by observing the shape of the graphs over the specified five-year timeline.

To somewhat confirm this suspicion, the Reuters Deep Pocket blog reports that investors have shown themselves increasingly less risk tolerant, particularly with regard to the equities market. In a particularly plainspoken passage, Reuter states of investors, “They’ve taken their marbles – $70 billion worth during that time period – and essentially gone home” (Scared investors sitting on the sidelines, 2010). Further, the seemingly interminable rise of gold prices indicates a global no-confidence vote in the American dollar and expectations of huge inflationary conditions. The Huffington Post (Craft, 2010) reports that a recent surge in the price of gold was caused by the Federal Reserve’s indication of further lowering of already historically low interest rates, an economic environment known for spurring on inflation.

Why public distrust is so bad for business

Since it has been established that public distrust of government has a correspondingly negative effect on businesses – at least as far as can be established within the limitations of this paper – it is now incumbent upon this student to explain why. When a population at large does not trust its own government to do the right thing, there is a great amount of anxiety as to what is coming next. That anxiety causes market instability, particularly in the equities market where a large part of regular citizens’ retirement savings is invested (Dow, 2010). Governmental “tinkering”, such as abnormally low interest rates and massive new industry-wide regulations and takeovers – such as banking reform, large-scale healthcare legislation and governmental control of large automobile manufacturers – along with apparent tax hikes and new energy legislation create uncertainty in the marketplace (Konzelmann, Wilkinson, Fovarvue-Davies, & Sankey, 2010).

 While no one has ever successfully invented an economic crystal ball, a stable and growing economy requires a predictable set of taxation and regulation, otherwise entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have little incentive to take risks (Ringland, Sparrow & Lustig, 2010). It logically follows that this leads to fewer private sector jobs created, less discretionary consumer spending, lower tax receipts at all levels of government, and ever-higher personal and public debt levels. The U.S. private sector economy is largely dominated by consumer spending. As shown in the previously mentioned graphs, declining public confidence in government creates that instability.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to cover a great deal of ground in a relatively short amount of space. In an effort to explain one of the sources of the public’s distrust of government, two of the largest and most recognizable agencies responsible for data collection and reporting were discussed along with some of the complaints about how that information is used in political discourse and the confusing nature associated with its general dissemination. This was followed by a few examples of the misuse of statistical data to deliberately obfuscate an issue, and an analysis of how public trust is apparently linked with unemployment rates and the economy in general.

There are no simple answers to problems as complex and institutionalized as those described here. The public needs to be able to trust that their government is more concerned about looking out for the public well being and less concentrated on pet projects (pork barrel spending), filling their campaign coffers, and generally looking out for #1. Trust that has been eroded for so long cannot be rebuilt overnight, or even in a single election cycle. That process will need to begin with politicians telling the truth, using statistical data honestly, and passing legislation with greater concern for the overall health of the American economy. The vast amount of data collected by the federal government is not, in and of itself, bad or dishonest. The way it is used by people who should otherwise know better most certainly is.

References

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010, October 8). Employment Situation. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Census. (2010) http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_pageId=sp4_decennial&_submenuId=&_ci_nbr=null

Craft, M. (2010, September 23). Gold prices fueled by anxiety, distrust of government, analysts say. The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/gold-prices-fueled-by-anx_n_737787.html

Dow, S. (2010, September). Cognition, market sentiment and financial instability. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(5). First published online August 20, 2010 doi:10.1093/cje/beq029.

Editorial board. (2010, October 8). Murray’s attack ads stretch facts beyond recognition. The News Tribune. Retrieved October 8, 2010 from http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/08/1373699/murrays-attack-ads-stretch-facts.html

Hauser, P. (1973, April). Statistics and politics. The American Statistician, 27(2), 68-71.

Investopedia.com. (2010). What are leading, lagging, and coincident indicators? What are they for? Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp

Konzelman, S., Wilkinson, F., Fovarvue-Davies, M., & Sankey, D. (2010, September). Governance, regulation and financial market instability: the implications for policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(5), 929-954.

McCullagh, D. (2010, March 22). Census time heightens privacy concerns. CNet News online. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000859-38.html

n.a. (2007, October 3). The facts: Where do they get them? The Washington Post, p. A.6.  Retrieved October 10, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1351574481).

Pew Research Center. (2010, April 18). Distrust, discontent, anger and partisan rancor. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://people-press.org/report/606/trust-in-government

Pew Research Center. (2010). Public trust in government: 1958-2010. Retrieved October 8, 2010 from http://people-press.org/trust/

Reuters. (2010, September 29). Scared investors sitting on the sidelines. Deep Pocket blog. Retrieved on October 8, 2010 from http://blogs.reuters.com/deep-pocket/2010/09/29/scared-investors-sitting-on-the-sidelines/

Ringland, G., Sparrow, O., Lustig, P. (2010). Beyond Crisis: Achieving Renewal in a Turbulent World. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Schick, K. (2010). A market by any other name. Investopedia.com. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/102501.asp

Scholar.google.com. (2010. Search results for “political misuse of statistics”. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&expIds=17050,25657,26486,26488,26492,26494,26645,27007,27015,27028,27056&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=political+misuse+of+statistics&cp=9&client=firefox-a&hs=BFl&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, clause 3.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2010). Table 1.1.1: Percent change from preceding period in real gross domestic product. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=Yes&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1958&LastYear=2010&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=yes#Mid

Zogby International. (2010, March 16). Census consensus: 87% of Americans plan to complete census. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1833

Thinking Critically About Abortion

Thinking Critically About Abortion
Dennis Schroader
PHI 103
Stephen Carter
August 2, 2010

Introduction/Thesis
Very few topics generate as much passionate debate from both sides as does the issue of abortion. Even twenty-seven years after Roe v Wade (1973), the abortion debate rages on talk-radio, Sunday morning political commentary, editorial pages and even in the halls of Congress. While this student is under no delusion that this paper will encompass the entire debate, what follows will argue that abortion should not be legal due to medical, legal and ethical reasons. This paper will further attempt to argue the case from the pro-abortion standpoint, and then conclude by refuting those very arguments.

The medical arguments against abortion are legion; however, let it suffice for now to establish that the child in utero is not, in fact, a part of the mother’s body. Human embryos developing in the womb are individual human beings. At conception, an embryo is genetically distinct from his or her mother. The pregnant mother has her own presumably unique set of chromosomes and DNA, whereas the embryo is comprised of approximately 23 chromosomes from both parents, thus making its DNA an amalgamation of the two and distinct from each. This distinction makes the developing child a unique being, not merely an extension of the mother’s body.

Furthermore, according to the Mayo Clinic’s website (2009), the embryo develops a heart and primitive circulatory system between 15 and 21 days after conception, and possesses distinct brain activity at approximately 35-42 days. While these developmental milestones may not establish the beginning of “life” in the minds of everyone, they must certainly raise the question of when life begins.

This leads to the legal matter. To be plain, the law is unable to determine when life begins. According to the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States wrote:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to an answer" (Section IX, Part B).

If the judiciary is unable to make this determination, and if it is true that a child in utero is a biologically distinct being, then should not other laws and legal precedent apply? This can only be answered as a matter of opinion. It is the opinion of this author that human life is human life and should be treated as such, regardless of its “address” (in or out of the womb). Even absent that belief, the American justice system requires that individuals receive the presumption of innocence before they receive any form of punishment, especially execution.

A near universally held belief in America is that the destruction of human life, absent desert, is a reprehensible act. There are many types of and legal definitions for this sort of behavior, a discussion of which goes far beyond the scope of this discussion. At this point, it is important to define a term: for the purposes of this discussion, desert refers to a person deserving or having earned something. In the heated debate between pro-life and pro-abortion advocates, the topic of capital punishment – the only other form of state-sanctioned homicide – often comes up.

With regard to the matter of capital punishment, Dr. Louis Pojman, a renowned American philosopher, explains the ethical basis for retributive punishment for the commission of crimes as it is practiced in the United States:

“The retributivist holds three propositions: 1) that all the guilty deserve to be punished; 2) that only the guilty deserve to be punished: and 3) that the guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime” (Pojman, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 8242).

Pojman continues to provide a persuasive ethical argument in favor of capital punishment as retribution:

“People often confuse retribution with revenge. Governor George Ryan, who recently commuted the sentences of all the prisoners on death row in the State of Illinois… quotes a letter from the Reverend Desmond Tutu that ‘to take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice.’ This is simply false. While moral people will feel outrage at acts of heinous crimes… the moral justification of punishment is not vengeance, but desert.” (Kindle location 8248).

The point is that capital punishment is practiced as a form of retributive justice in response to the actions of the individual condemned to death. This is absolutely and necessarily different from abortion in that the child in utero - or children at all according to Roper v Simmons (2005) – is/are incapable of committing any offense so heinous as to deserve death.

Antithesis
While this author would very much like to think the above arguments should prove sufficient to convince even the staunchest of abortion supporter, that simply is not the case. Pro-abortion activists commonly take the position that abortion is legal and should remain so.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of legal abortions is that they provide safe alternatives to “back alley” abortions, which would occur anyway if made illegal. This author presumes the reader’s familiarity with at least some of the horror stories about pre-1973 abortion practices, particularly in states where it had not been legalized. This argument is often chosen because it is extremely difficult to argue in favor of putting pregnant women in dangerous situations. This, however, seems to demonstrate the fallacy of the false dilemma, “if not one, then surely the other” (Moore, 2007, p181).

Abortion supporters will also correctly assert that abortion is a settled matter of law in the United States. The legal history of abortion is a lengthier matter than the average American might expect. Legal abortion existed under English Common Law and is found in the writings of James Wilson, one of the founding fathers of the United States:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger” (On the Natural Rights of Individuals, 1790-1792).

Upon first reading, this may not seem like much of an approval for terminating life in utero, however, the statement that “life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb” (Wilson) leaves room for the time from conception and implantation through those months where such stirring either does not happen or is perhaps undetectable.

Moving forward to the late 1960’s, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a number of cases that either directly or indirectly affected the legality of abortion under certain circumstances. Additionally, the state legislatures of at least twenty states had passed laws making abortion legal to varying degrees – restricted in sixteen of the twenty and only available on demand in Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and New York. In 1973, the Supreme Court effectively removed the major barriers to abortion (Roe v Wade), and all subsequent rulings have served only to expand its access and applicability, with the exception of Gonzales v Carhart (2007), which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Finally, the pro-abortion supporter may assert that “choice” is an essential part of women’s empowerment. Elisabeth Porter, an Australian professor and researcher, arguing in favor of the “special rights” of women, writes:

“Given women’s body, sexuality, and reproductive potential, reproductive rights affirm equality as an extension of the principle of bodily integrity and self-determination. Given the social position of women, a defense of autonomy in important. Insofar as women are not only responsible for pregnancy but also usually for the care of children, women must be the ones who ultimately decide on contraception, abortion, and childbearing” (Porter, 1994).

Synthesis/Conclusion
These are just a few of what this author views as the more convincing arguments in favor of maintaining legal abortion. The problem with these arguments is that they are logically flawed. The premises that because abortions are legal they are safer (presumably for the mother as they are by definition unsafe for the child), that the legal matter is settled and that women are entitled to “special rights”, even if true, fail to justify an act that amounts to infanticide.

Making an unconscionable act legal and medically safe does nothing to make the act morally acceptable. As has already been established in this paper, children in utero, at whatever stage of development, are distinctly individual human beings. The only way to make a moral argument in favor of abortion is somehow to de-legitimize the life by referring to the child as an “embryo”, “fetus”, or “blob of tissue” since those words are less emotionally charged than “baby”, or even outright deception. According to one Kathy Sparks, a former abortion clinic worker:

“Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks, a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say ‘ it’s not a baby yet. It’s just tissue, like a clot’” (Williamson, 1986, p 28).

Even the words used to describe the procedure, such as “abortion” or “termination”, are chosen because they are clinically accurate and sound much better than “kill your baby”.

Additionally, with regard to the false dilemma fallacy mentioned above, overturning Roe v Wade (1973) would neither immediately make all abortions illegal nor return women or the medical profession to pre-1973 states. In fact, also as previously established, twenty-three states already had laws on the books, which made abortion legal within those jurisdictions. It stands to reason that other states would follow suit in the event Roe were overturned. The only difference is that the authority would come from elected state legislatures rather than appointed judges and thus ostensibly reflect the will of the voters in those states.

Furthermore, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and a abortion provider himself, wrote in his book Aborting America (1979):

“I confess that I know the figures [5,000 to 10,000 annual  deaths resulting from “back alley” abortions] were totally false…But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?” (p 193).

The simple fact is that bad law, no matter how “settled” is still bad law. By deciding Roe, the Supreme Court seized authority not granted by the Constitution. Instead of interpreting the Constitution and its amendments, the Court established a new Constitutional right to privacy, which did not previously exist (Ely, 1973). While the Court has authority to interpret the Constitution, the power to amend it lies with the Congress, the President and the states (Article V). Further, the tenth amendment limits federal authority to those powers specifically granted to it and reserves all others to the states or people. By that rationale, the Supreme Court was wrong to invent what did not exist in the Constitution. The Court should therefore overturn this decision and devolve the issue to the states, who have actual Constitutional authority in this matter.

Finally, as far as women’s rights are concerned, what makes murder wrong is the loss of the victim’s future, presumed to be of value. This is unarguable when discussing any human being having already been born. Professor Porter (1994) may argue for the “special rights of women”, however no reasonable person would argue that such rights would extend to infanticide. Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy, argues against abortion from an ethical perspective by first establishing the wrongness of killing adults, stating, “… it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future” (Marquis, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 8556). He goes on in his explanation of his theory of wrongness to include infants and children: “…it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill children and infants, for we do presume that they have futures of value” (Kindle location 8590).

This reasoning leads to his ultimate thesis that the argument for determining rights by personhood as established in current law is flawed and incomplete (Kindle location 8592). In fact, similar legal justification was used in the Dread Scott(1857) decision that slaves were not “legal persons”, but the property of their owners. This author assumes that no refutation of that reasoning is necessary.

As first quoted, what makes killing wrong is the loss of that individual’s future (Marquis). If that is true, he argues, then it follows that a child in utero, at whatever stage of development has a valuable future, thereby making the killing thereof “prima facie seriously wrong”. Whatever the role of women in society, whatever “special rights” they may claim, surely those cannot extend to these kinds of acts.

References
Ely, J. (1973, April). The wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade. Yale Law Journal, 82(5), 920-949.

Gonzales v Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)

Marquis, D. (2008). Abortion is immoral. In B. Waller, Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition. (Kindle locations 8519 – 8669). New York: Pearson

Mayo Clinic. (2009). Fetal development: The first trimester. Retrieved July 31, 2010 from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

Moore, B., Parker, R. (2007). Critical Thinking, 8th Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill

Nathanson, B. (1979). Aborting America: The Case Against Abortion. New York: Pinnacle Books.

Pojman, L. (2008). The death penalty is sometimes morally legitimate. In B. Waller, Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition. (Kindle locations 8213 – 8458). New York: Pearson

Porter, E. (1994, Summer). Abortion ethics: Rights and responsibilities. Hypatia, 9(3), 66-87.

Rice, B. (2006, March 23). Abortion: Ethical analysis. Lifestyle. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/25347/abortion_ethical_analysis.html

Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Williamson, G. (1986, January). The conversion of Kathy Sparks. Christian Herald. 28.

Wilson, J. (1792). Of the Natural Rights of the Individual. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, TeachingAmericanHistory.org Project Web site: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=831

Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power
Dennis Schroader
SCI 207
Jeremiah Convery
Feburary 8, 2010

The decision to develop a civil nuclear power program is one of immense gravity for any nation seeking to step further into the “first world” of industrialized and post-industrial societies. By its very nature, nuclear power comes with the great responsibility to take every precaution while building and operating a power plant as well as disposing of the extremely toxic waste. These weighty considerations notwithstanding, every country with the technological capability and economic and political fortitude are seeking to join the “nuclear club”.

For the United States of America, the nation that invented the use of atomic energy, the infrastructure and knowledge is already in place. All that lacks is political will. In light of the 9/11 attacks, the two wars that followed and the huge spike in energy prices – especially oil – nuclear power rises as a potential answer to all of America’s energy related woes. The purpose of this paper is to discus why increased use of nuclear power is key for American political, economic, environmental and security interests.

Increased use of nuclear power will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Whatever position the reader takes on the global warming debate, pollution is an indisputable fact. All reasonable people would prefer to live in a clean, healthy environment. To that end, replacing heavily polluting sources of energy with nuclear reactors would drastically reduce energy production caused pollution. In an article titled Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Using Nuclear Power to Fight Global Warming (2008), the author states:

“The realization that global warming could be man made and the increasing evidence that the rise in greenhouse gas could have disastrous consequences for mankind, has forced society to rethink its attitude to nuclear power. The Financial Times, one of the world's most highly respected publications, reported in November 2006: 'For the first time in its 32-year history, the International Energy Agency [IEA] will urge governments around the world to help speed the construction of new nuclear power plants.'” (O’Sullivan, 2008).

Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a division of the United Nations, issued a report citing nuclear power as a key component for reducing air pollutants believed by some to contribute to the phenomenon known as “global warming” (IAEA, 2000).

While greenhouse gas emissions are all but eliminated, there are other environmental concerns associated with the development and use of nuclear power. In particular, the by-product of nuclear reactors is a highly toxic and radioactive “soup” that cannot be disposed of without great difficulty. The same article states:

“Nuclear reactors produce toxic waste. The waste material is highly radioactive and according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can remain so for ten thousand years or so. Storage and management of this waste is costly and dangerous to those involved.” (O’Sullivan, 2008).

The problem of disposal is not news. Scientists from all over the globe continue to work on plausible solutions that will make disposal of nuclear waste – and therefore the expanded use of nuclear power – more palatable to the public. Some of these solutions range from storage miles deep in the earth to ejecting capsules of waste into a solar orbit (orbiting the Sun, not Earth). The science and public opinion of these solutions, among the many others proposed, are yet to be settled.

In addition to environmental considerations, increased use of nuclear power will help to revitalize the American economy. From 2007 to present, the American economy has suffered through its worst post-World War II recession. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars – largely borrowed from China and other foreign investors – in so-called “stimulus” projects with questionable results. A potential long term stimulus for local and the overall national economic woes is to expand federal investment in new nuclear power sites. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute:

“Each year, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services (economic output) in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labor income. These figures include both direct and secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the plant’s expenditures for goods, services and labor. The secondary effects include subsequent spending attributable to the presence of the plant and its employees, as plant expenditures filter through the local economy (such as restaurants and shops buying goods and hiring employees). Total labor income calculates to $153.6B paid over 60 years from 64,000. Economic value calculates to $1.65T paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.” (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2009).

United States Senator Mark Udall (Democrat, Colorado) also acknowledges the importance of nuclear power as a means of meeting many national interest concerns – including economic – simultaneously:

“Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats that our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner energy policy. In this regard, nuclear energy clearly has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions.” (Udall, M, 2009).

The primary economic argument against further investment in nuclear reactors is the staggering upfront expense to build the site. According to the website NuclearInfo.net, a recent proposal by Westinghouse to build their AP1000 reactor would cost approximately, $1.4 Billion (2010) while coal and hydroelectric generators cost a mere fraction of that figure.

Increased use of nuclear power is a vital component to America’s national security interests through energy independence. According to the US Energy Information Administration (USEIA, 2010), a division of the Energy Department, in 2009 the United States imported an average of 1,023,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Saudi Arabia, 1,099,000 barrels per day from Venezuela, and 570,000 barrels per day from Russia. While the US does have other significant sources of petroleum, namely Canada and Mexico, these three unfriendly sources make up roughly 27% of total US petroleum imports. Increasing the amount of energy produced domestically, such as that produced by nuclear power, could reduce or eliminate America’s dependence on foreign oil.

On August 4, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed HR 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. This bill addresses some of the concerns about the United States’ vulnerability due to its dependence on foreign sources of energy. Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California), Speaker of the House and third in line for the Oval Office behind the Vice President, said in a statement on her website, “This legislation will move the United States toward greater energy independence and security…” (2007).

In a speech given on January 26, 2010, General Wesley Clark (US Army, retired), a well known political liberal and one time candidate for the Democrat Party’s Presidential nomination, while speaking on behalf of the benefits of ethanol optimization, stated that energy independence is critical to America’s national security interests (Clark, 2010).

On the other hand, “Unfortunately one of the products of nuclear reactors is weapons grade plutonium. This could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons” (O’Sullivan, 2008). Promoting and implementing a global nuclear power program could therefore prove contrary to American and global security interests. The principle answer to this concern, at least in this student’s mind, is for the United States and other nations already part of the “nuclear club” to build the reactors and sell the energy. Another option is light-water reactors, such as those sold to North Korea under the Clinton administration, which cannot produce such weapons grade material.

The threat of such nuclear proliferation and environmental damage gives people great cause for concern. Unfortunately, the nuclear reactor accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 have given civilian nuclear power generation a bad name altogether. At least in the case of Three Mile Island, no real damage was done and the Kemeny Commission Report (1979) predicted no increased incidents of negative health effects associated with radiation.

Due to the passage of time, increased awareness of environmental concerns and the ever-increasing cost of energy produced with fossil fuels, increased use of nuclear power can be a political win for America, both at home and abroad. Recent studies on public perception of nuclear energy conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (2010) indicate a rising positive public opinion in the United States. Similar reports have surfaced in Germany (der Spiegel, 2007, July 3), the United Kingdom (World Nuclear Association, 2009, November 30), and Japan (Kolter, M and Hillman, I, 2000), all indicating a greater global acceptance, especially among America’s closest allies, to increased use of nuclear power generation.

When it comes to the long-term production of energy and the national concerns arising therefrom, nothing has proven as versatile as the atom. Atomic energy provides a plausible answer to environmental, economic, security and political concerns. No other energy source can produce as much energy with as little environmental impact for as low a cost – as calculated by dollars per kilowatt-hour produced over the lifetime of the reactor – while providing for much needed economic stimulus.

References

Clark, W. (2010, January 26). Ricardo and Growth Energy to Demonstrate Benefits of Extreme Ethanol Optimization. PRNewswire. Washington. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ricardo-and-growth-energy-to-demonstrate-benefits-of-extreme-ethanol-optimization-82658352.html

der Spiegel. (2007, July 3). Merkel Nudges for Nuclear Power Comeback. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from der Spiegel’s website: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,492202,00.html

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2000). Nuclear Power for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from the IAEA website: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/GreenhouseGas/greenhousegas.pdf

Kemeny, J., et al. (1979). Report of The President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. Retrieved on January 18, 2010 from: http://www.pddoc.com/tmi2/kemeny/commission_and_its_staff.htm

Kolter, M. and Hillman, I. (2000). Japanese Energy Security and Changing Global Energy Markets: An Analysis of Northeast Asian Energy Cooperation and Japan’s Evolving Leadership Role in the Region. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from: http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/JES_NuclearEnergyPolicyPublicOpinion.pdf

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2009). The Economic Benefits of New Nuclear Power Plant Development. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from the NEI’s website: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/factsheet/economic-benefits-of-new-nuclear-development

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2010). Perspective on Public Opinion, Winter 2010. Retrieved  on 26 January 2010 from NEI’s website: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/publications/perspectiveonpublicopinion/winter-2010/

NuclearInfo.Net. (2010). Everything you want to know about Nuclear Power. Retrieved on 27 January 2010 from: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

O’Sullivan, L. (2008, April 1). Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Using Nuclear Power to Fight Global Warming. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from: http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/lowering_greenhouse_gas_emissions

Pelosi, N. (2007). New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from: http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0076

Udall, M. (2009, October 29). Senator Mark Udall’s speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate. Retrieved on 20 January 2010 from Senator Udall’s website: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=video&id=306

US Energy Information Administration. (2010). Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries. Retrieved on 27 January 2010 from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

World Nuclear Association (2009, November 30). Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom. Retrieved on 26 January 2010 from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf84.html

The Ethics of Death: An Analysis of Abortion and the Death Penalty

The Ethics of Death:
An Analysis of Abortion and the Death Penalty
Dennis Schroader
Phi 107
Tirizia York
April 19, 2010

The state sanctioned termination of life – particularly as it applies to capital punishment and abortion – is an ethical quagmire generating heated debate on both sides of these issues and endless fodder for politicians and pundits alike. This essay attempts to analyze the history of both capital punishment and abortion as it relates to United States Supreme Court decisions, the ethical arguments for and against each, and then answer the question of whether consistency allows an individual to take a “pro” position on one issue while taking an “anti” position on the other.

In order to accomplish this, it is important first to establish the meaning of consistency. In the textbook used in the class for which this essay is written, Bruce Waller states, “…allowing contradictions within my views makes it possible to prove anything, and thus makes careful critical thinking impossible” (2008, Kindle location 547). Therefore, it is assumed for the purposes of this essay that an analysis of consistency is both appropriate and desirable for furtherance of the ultimate goal of determining the answer to the question posed in the paragraph above. This analysis calls for a bit of historical context. As with many such controversial topics, the Supreme Court of the United States issues forth the final word on constitutional legality.

A Brief Legal History
With regard to capital punishment, the Supreme Court, decided in a five to four decision, in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Furman v Georgia (1972), a consolidated case which included Jackson v Georgia and Branch v Texas. This decision hinged upon the apparent inconsistency with which the death penalty had been applied in the cases and states considered. The majority ruled that a requirement exists for consistency in the application of capital punishment – note, not that capital punishment is, in and of itself, cruel and unusual – thus imposing a de facto moratorium on executions in the United States.

This moratorium was effectively overturned in 1976 with Gregg v Georgia, another consolidated case which included Proffitt v Florida, Jurek v Texas, Woodson v North Carolina, and Roberts v Louisiana, also known as “the July 2” cases.” This seven to two decision established the guidelines by which states may impose capital punishment. The first is that they must provide objective criteria to direct and limit death sentencing, which must then be ensured by appellate court review of all death sentences. The second guideline required the states’ death penalty statutes must allow the judge or jury to take into account the character and record of the defendant. By establishing these guidelines for the states, the Supreme Court made clear the requirement for consistency, established a method to ensure it, and gave the states a way to legally apply capital punishment once more. Other, later cases established further restrictions and requirements on capital punishment: forbidding capital punishment for the crime of rape (Cocker v Georgia, 1977), restricting application in cases of felony murder (Enmund v Florida, 1982), exempting the mentally handicapped (Atkins v Virginia, 2002) and exempting juvenile murderers (Roper v Simmons, 2005), among others.

The legal history of abortion is another story altogether. Legal abortion existed under English Common Law and is found in the writings of James Wilson, one of the founding fathers of the United States:

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger” (On the Natural Rights of Individuals, 1790-1792).

Upon first reading, this may not seem like much of an approval for terminating life in utero, however, the statement that “life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb” (Wilson) leaves room for the time from conception and implantation through those months where such stirring either does not happen or is perhaps undetectable. Moving forward to the late 1960’s, the Supreme Court ruled on a number of cases that either directly or indirectly affected the legality of abortion under certain circumstances. Additionally, the state legislatures of at least twenty states had passed laws making abortion legal to varying degrees – restricted in sixteen of the twenty and only available on demand in Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and New York. In 1973, the Supreme Court effectively removed the major barriers to abortion (Roe v Wade), and all subsequent rulings have served only to expand its access and applicability, with the exception of Gonzales v Carhart (2007), which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Ethical arguments
The legal matters, for the present, being settled, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze the ethical arguments for and against. With regard to the matter of capital punishment, Louis Pojman provides a persuasive ethical argument in favor of punishment as retribution for the commission of crime:

 “The retributivist holds three propositions: 1) that all the guilty deserve to be punished; 2) that only the guilty deserve to be punished: and 3) that the guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime” (Pojman, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 8242).

“People often confuse retribution with revenge. Governor George Ryan, who recently commuted the sentences of all the prisoners on death row in the State of Illinois,… quotes a letter from the Reverend Desmond Tutu that ‘to take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice.’ This is simply false. While moral people will feel outrage at acts of heinous crimes,… the moral justification of punishment is not vengeance, but desert.” (Kindle location 8248).

Another argument in favor of capital punishment is that of deterrence. This is perhaps the most controversial of the utilitarian lines of reasoning and the counter argument is presented later. In an article in The American Economic Review, Isaac Ehrlich states, “Contrary to previous observations, this investigation, although by no means definitive, does indicate the existence of a pure deterrent effect of capital punishment” (1975). The specifics of his investigation, while fascinating, extend far beyond the scope of this essay. Let it therefore be sufficient to say that Ehrlich’s research did indeed indicate the existence of a deterrent effect.

The ethical arguments against capital punishment receive equal thought and consideration by modern philosophers. One such, Stephen Bright, refutes the deterrent effect, claiming, “Nor is crime deterred by the executions in fewer than half the states of an arbitrarily selected 1 percent of those who commit murders, many of whom are mentally ill or have limited intellectual functioning.” (Bright, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 7997). Bright goes on to indict the judicial system that applies such sentencing as fatally flawed, stating, “The race of the victim and the defendant, political considerations, and other extraneous factors influence whether prosecutors seek the death penalty and whether juries or judges impose it.” (Bright, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 8042). In both cases, his argument seems to echo the thinking of the Supreme Court.

Another argument against capital punishment is that of simple economics. While that may not, on its surface, seem an ethical consideration, the fiduciary duty of the state to spend wisely the taxpayers’ money is, in every way, an ethical consideration. In this line of thinking, Corinna Barrett-Lain, a professor and former prosecutor, while writing for the Christian Science Monitor states:

“The bittersweet reality is that money, rather than morality, has become the tipping point for saving lives. Why? Administering the death penalty is breathtakingly expensive. Contrary to popular opinion, it costs substantially more to execute people than to send them to prison for the rest of their lives. In California, which houses the nation's largest death row, it costs about $137 million annually to maintain the state's death penalty system. The state has conducted only 11 executions since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, bringing the average cost per execution to $250 million. That's right – a quarter of a billion dollars per execution” (Barrett-Lain, 2009).

While clearly not intending to make an ethical case against capital punishment, hers is, nevertheless, damningly effective, particularly given the current economic climate in the United States, and particularly California, which is the subject of her article.

As it relates to abortion, the ethical debate focuses on the rights of the mother and those of the unborn child. Making a completely rational argument in favor of so-called “reproductive rights”, Brian Rice, while apparently a simple blogger, makes an effective utilitarian argument when he writes:

“When using the rule-utilitarian consequential principle of ethics, we establish a set of general morals and rules in which we can apply to every moral question based upon our utilitarian findings. When this is applied to abortion, we can see that abortion is a completely ethical entity that provides the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.” (Rice, 2006).

Elisabeth Porter, an Australian professor and researcher, arguing in favor of the “special rights” of women, writes:

“Given women’s body, sexuality, and reproductive potential, reproductive rights affirm equality as an extension of the principle of bodily integrity and self-determination. Given the social position of women, a defense of autonomy in important. Insofar as women are not only responsible for pregnancy but also usually for the care of children, women must be the ones who ultimately decide on contraception, abortion, and childbearing.” (Porter, 1994).

The voices against abortion make similarly impassioned cases on their side of the debate. Such notables as Susan B. Anthony and Norma McCorvey – aka Jane Roe, of Roe v Wade - neither of whom presumably require introduction, have lent their weight to the struggle to end abortion in the United States. Anthony, in her publication, The Revolution, wrote:

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" (Anthony, 1869)

Here she indicts not only the woman who “commits the deed”, but especially the man who drove her to it. As is well known, Susan B. Anthony was a 19th century women’s rights activist, so is Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey:

“I felt "crushed" under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion--at any point--was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.” (McCorvey, 1998).

Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy, argues against abortion from an ethical perspective by first establishing the wrongness of killing adults, stating, “… it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future” (Marquis, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 8556). He goes on in his explanation of his theory of wrongness to include infants and children:

“… the account of the wrongness of killing defended in this essay does straightforwardly entail that it is prima facie seriously wrong to kill children and infants, for we do presume that they have futures of value.” (Kindle location 8590).

This reasoning leads to his ultimate thesis that the argument for determining rights by personhood (as has been established in current law) is flawed and incomplete (Kindle location 8592). As first quoted, what makes killing wrong is the loss of that individual’s future. If that is true, he argues, then it follows that a child in utero, at whatever stage of development has a valuable future, thereby making the killing thereof “prima facie seriously wrong”.

Consistency
Finally, with all the preceding now established can the question be asked, “Can an honest person hold differing views on abortion and capital punishment?” It seems obvious that one could hold an anti-abortion and anti-death penalty stance without jeopardizing consistency. It might then logically follow that one could hold a similar opinion from the opposite point of view (pro-abortion/pro-death penalty), but it only appears that way. If Marquis’ argument that personhood is moot and that what makes killing wrong is the denial of the future is true, then abortion – in all cases – must therefore be wrong without exception. If that is untrue, then the murder of children or adults could just as easily find justification, given anyone sufficiently intelligent with the stomach for such a macabre line of reasoning.

Therefore, the only seemingly contrary position allowable should be the one of anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Remember from Pojman that capital punishment is not vengeance but desert. Since the United States’ justice system follows a form of retributivist theory - that “1) all the guilty deserve to be punished; 2) only the guilty deserve to be punished; and 3) the guilty deserve to be punishment in proportion to the severity of their crime” (Pojman, in Waller, 2008, Kindle location 8242) - desert is central to the philosophy. The arguments made by Barret-Lain – that execution is mind-bogglingly expensive – and particularly Bright – that capital punishment is applied in an arbitrary and unjust manner – are issues to be addressed within the system and indict application rather than the form of punishment itself.

References

Anthony, S. (1869, July 4). Untitled editorial. The Revolution, 4(1), 4.

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

Barrett-Lain, C. (2009, May 11). The new case against the death penalty. The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0511/p09s01-coop.html

Bright, S. (2008). The death penalty should be abolished. In B. Waller, Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition. (Kindle locations 7958 – 8212). New York: Pearson

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)

Ehrlich, I. (1975). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death. The American Economic Review, 65(3), 397-417.

Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)

Furman v Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)

Gonzales v Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Marquis, D. (2008). Abortion is immoral. In B. Waller, Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition. (Kindle locations 8519 – 8669). New York: Pearson

McCorvey, N. (1998). Roe v McCorvey. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://www.leaderu.com/norma/nmtestimony.html

Pojman, L. (2008). The death penalty is sometimes morally legitimate. In B. Waller, Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition. (Kindle locations 8213 – 8458). New York: Pearson

Porter, E. (1994, Summer). Abortion Ethics: Rights and Responsibilities. Hypatia, 9(3), 66-87. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 5846778)

Rice, B. (2006, March 23). Abortion: Ethical analysis. Lifestyle. Retrieved on April 16, 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/25347/abortion_ethical_analysis.html

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)

Waller, B. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues, 2nd Edition. New York: Pearson

Wilson, J. (1792). Of the Natural Rights of the Individual. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, TeachingAmericanHistory.org Project Web site: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=831

Minimum Wage vs. Living Wage: Making a Bad Idea Even Worse

Minimum Wage vs. Living Wage:
Making a Bad Idea Even Worse
Dennis Schroader
ECO 308
Nicholas Bergan
March 30, 2009

Every year politicians and pundits spend countless hours on Sunday morning news shows debating how to improve economic conditions for the country as a whole and for the lowest wage earners in particular. To be fair, they have taken advantage of the twenty-four hour news cycle and are on the air much more frequently than Sunday mornings. These debates inevitably lead to discussions of the minimum wage with someone crying about the injustice that unskilled, inexperienced workers aren’t paid enough to support a family of three. The minimum wage defies actual market forces and does not actually do anything to help the poor. Minimum wage laws serve only to establish an artificial floor for wages, thereby circumventing market forces and artificially raising prices.

The CATO institute published Policy Analysis No. 106, written by Matthew Kibbe, then a graduate student of economics and fellow at the Center of the Study of Market Processes at George Mason University. In this policy analysis, Kibbe asserts:

“Minimum-wage legislation is and always has been the result of special-interest politics. Behind the rhetoric of economic justice and fairness lie purely self-serving political considerations. [sic] The simple truth about the issue is that any minimum-wage rate that is forced onto the market will have only negative effects on the distribution of economic justice. Minimum-wage legislation, by its very nature, benefits some at the expense of the least experienced, least productive, and poorest workers” (1988).

The Real-nominal Principle states, “What matters to people is the real value of money or income – its purchasing power – not the “face” value of the money or income” (O’Sullivan, Sheffrin, & Perez, Survey of Economics: Principles, Applications, and Tools, 2008, p. 40).

Minimum Wage Effect on Labor Costs
Among the many inputs used by companies for production is labor. That labor comes with a cost which includes wages, mandatory employer match of federal withholding, unemployment insurance, L&I, and other labor related expenses. In most states, all of the aforementioned costs of employment are calculated as a percentage of wages. When that wage goes up, so do all of the other costs associated with employment.

“For many businesses, particularly those in the service industry, such as restaurants or manufacturing companies that are labor intensive, the cost of payroll is the single largest line item on the profit and loss statement” (BusinessTown.Com, 2003). Assuming that most of the personnel of such firms are minimum wage earners (a faulty assumption, as will be discussed later, but it serves to illustrate the point), any small increase in the per unit cost – the hourly wage times the number of employees – is likely to have a sizeable impact on the firms’ profitability.

In an article for the Washington Policy Center, Carl Gipson, Director of the Center for Small Business, wrote:

“For most businesses, the largest expense is the cost of labor. When labor costs increase, a business has only a few options. First, it can simply absorb the cost (often limited to businesses with large cash reserves). Second, it can take active steps to decrease the cost of labor—often through layoffs, increasing workloads for employees or implementing automation. Third and most common, it can increase the cost to the consumer to cover the difference” (2007).

Gipson goes on further to state, “When a government actively takes steps to arbitrarily set a higher wage rate th[a]n the market dictates, it faces the unintended consequence of passing the cost onto taxpayers.” Gipson’s article refers specifically to wages earned by employees of companies bidding for government contracts, but if the word “taxpayers” is substituted with “customers”, the rest of the statement holds true for non-state businesses.

Minimum Wage Effect on Unemployment
The law of supply and demand with regard to market equilibrium tells us that as prices increase, demand decreases. This is as true of employees as it is with pizza. As the minimum wage increases, the demand for minimum wage labor decreases. This is illustrated by the following graph taken from the Congressional Joint Economic Committee Report:

 (Saxon, 1996).

Congressman Jim Saxon (R-NJ), used this graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to demonstrate that a higher minimum wage results in higher unemployment, particularly among teenagers and other unskilled/inexperienced workers. The greatest danger lies in their inability to gain valuable work related skills and experience, thus becoming more productive and able to demand higher than minimum wages. Craig Garthwaite, chief economist at the Employment Policy Institute, wrote in an article for the Seattle Post Intelligencer, “Decades of research confirm Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker's observation: "A higher minimum will further reduce the employment opportunities of workers with few skills” (High Minimum Wage = High Unemployment, 2003). Higher than natural unemployment also has a significantly detrimental affect on a nation’s Gross Domestic Product. The text states, “… in 1983, when the unemployment rate averaged 9.6 percent, typical estimates the shortfall of GDP from potential were near 6 percent” (O’Sullivan, Sheffrin, & Perez, 2008, p. 312).

Minimum Wage Effect on Purchasing Power
In addition to the real macroeconomic damage of decreased GDP due to unemployment caused by a high minimum wage, there is a microeconomic detriment as well. As previously discussed, increasing wages increases the cost of doing business which causes a decrease in employment and an increase in product prices. When the price of goods increases, the real value of a dollar decreases. This is known as the Real-nominal Principle.

The politicians who legislate increases in the minimum wage may do so with the intention of lifting the poorest workers out of their poverty. Good intentions cannot always be accurately ascribed to those holding elected office, but for the purposes of this discussion, we give them the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, good intentions are not good enough. At least a passing familiarity with economic principles is necessary for making good public policy.

The following graph shows the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage, both nominal and inflation adjusted from 1958 to 2001. While some would view the information contained herein as proof that the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living, this data more accurately demonstrates that as the minimum rises, the cost of goods rises, thereby decreasing the purchasing power of everyone in the economy, but most notably the minimum wage earners.

(Fiscal Policy Institute, 2002).

Dr. Tim Kane, Ph.D, writes in an article for the Heritage Foundation:

“The notion that increasing the federal minimum wage will push up real wages is also fiction. Average pay in America has been increasing steadily in recent years, despite the fact that the minimum wage has not changed since 1997. Real wages rise when productivity rises. Labor productivity has gained 26 percent since 1997, and real earnings for non-supervisory workers are up 7 percent.” (2005).

Myth of the Living Wage
The whole idea of a “living wage” versus the minimum wage is nothing new. According Robert Shelburne, of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, “The current attempts to define a wage rate that would provide an “acceptable” standard of living which is above the minimum required for biological existence go back at least to the Middle Ages.” (The History and Theory of the Living Wage Concept, 1999). More recently – say within the last half century – politicians misuse the concept of a “living wage” by contrasting it against the current minimum wage laws. In an article originally appearing in the Boulder Weekly, Ari Armstrong writes, “Is a policy better merely because we say it's "living" versus "minimum?" (“Living Wage” Hurts the Poor, 2003).

To further exacerbate the problem, politicians – who are more likely to be lawyers or teachers rather than business-persons or economists – ignore the principle of diminishing returns. Our text assumes that wages are stagnant and that diminishing returns is a function of how much each person is able to accomplish given the facilities available (O’Sullivan, Sheffrin & Perez, 2008). The principle of diminishing returns states that as one input increases while all others remain fixed, the marginal benefit of each unit of increased input will decrease. Economists assume that all firms are operating at or near the point where marginal benefit equals marginal cost. Politicians seem to fail to realize that the price of labor is one of those inputs. When that input increases while all others – including labor force – remain the same, the marginal cost curve shifts. In order to continue operating at that equilibrium point, firms are likely to make do with fewer employees.

D.W. MacKenzie, professor of economics at State University of New York, wrote:

“The economic case for a living wage is unfounded. Current minimum wage rates do create high levels of unemployment among low productivity workers. Higher "living wages" would only make these problems worse. The alleged moral case for a living wage ignores the fact that minimum wage increases adversely affect the very people whom advocates of living wages intend to help. If politicians wish to pursue sound policies, they should consider repealing minimum wage laws, especially where teens are concerned” (Mythology of the Minimum Wage, 2006).

The idea that a living wage is required for everyone who works at the lowest paid rung on the economic ladder is, in itself, ludicrous. To prove that statement, we examine just who earns the minimum wage. Consider the following statistics compiled by the Heritage Foundation. These numbers indicate that the vast majority of minimum wage earners either do not have a family to support or are not the sole wage earner in the household. That fact alone alleviates any real need for a so-called “living wage”.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers
                                                      16-24 years old     25+     Total
Men                                                           35.2%     33.6%     34.4%
Women                                                      64.8%     66.4%     65.6%
White                                                         83.6%     79.5%     81.7%
Black                                                         11.1%     11.8%     11.4%
Asian                                                           1.7%       5.4%       3.4%
Married                                                       4.8%     42.5%     22.5%
Wage and Income Characteristics of Minimum Wage Earners
Part Time                                                  67.0%     55.6%     61.7%
Full Time                                                   33.0%     44.4%     38.3%
Avg. Family Income                               $64,273   $33,606   $49,885
At or Below the Poverty Line                     16.9%     22.8%     19.5%
Family Income > 200% of Poverty Line     64.7%     44.8%     56.1%
Education Levels of Minimum Wage Workers
Less Than High School                              36.3%     22.0%     29.8%
High School Graduate                                20.9%     38.5%     29.1%
Some College                                            35.6%     20.5%     28.5%
Associates Degree                                       3.4%       8.5%       5.8%
Bachelors Degree or Higher                         3.4%     10.6%        6.8%
   
Source: Heritage Foundation calculations based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005 Current Population Survey and merged outgoing rotation group files

Furthermore, we know from the law of supply and demand that as supply increases, prices decrease, and as demand increases, prices increase. In this case, the price is wages. Lowering or eliminating the minimum wage will necessarily increase employment. As to the argument that eliminating the minimum wage will lead to abuse of employees, the fact is that employment in America is non-compulsory. Workers also obey the law of supply and demand. They will not supply their labor unless the demand yields a price (wage) sufficient to make it worth their while. This is exactly how everyone who does not work for minimum wage operates in the real world.

Conclusion
Although it makes for great political theater, the minimum wage is really nothing more than an artificial floor on the price of labor. In all markets, demand should dictate prices, not government meddling. Contrived price controls increase the cost of production to a company, thus disrupting the equilibrium of marginal cost and marginal benefit. A company has no choice at that point but to change other inputs: either reducing labor costs by reducing the workforce or raising prices to the customer, or both. In the case of laying off workers, the company reduces its cost of labor, but also reduces its potential customer base. In the case of raising prices to the consumer, the company serves to reduce the purchasing power of all of their customers and reduce their own demand. Neither case is desirable for employers, employees or the public at large.

The argument that the minimum wage is somehow a moral issue – that society as a whole must pay a premium to provide least skilled and most inexperienced workers with wages higher than they could demand on the free market – is absurd on its face. The fact is that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are not solely responsible for the support of their household. In fact, most of those who work for minimum wage are teenagers and college age young adults.

Perhaps the most important unintended consequence of artificially high employment costs, high unemployment, and diminished purchasing power is the negative affect they have on Gross Domestic Product. All of the facts point directly to the obvious conclusion that the minimum wage (never mind the so-called “living wage”) is an overall detriment to the lowest paid workers and society in general. Of course, if facts alone influenced policy makers, the minimum wage would be abolished and there would be no talk about this living wage nonsense.

References
Armstrong, A. (2003, November 20). “Living Wage” Hurts the Poor.  Boulder Weekly. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from the Colorado Freedom Report web site: http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/01/livingwage.html

BusinessTown.Com. (2003). Payroll and the Cost of Labor. Retrieved March 28, 2009 from http://www.businesstown.com/accounting/slashing-payroll.asp

Fiscal Policy Institute. (2002) Minimum Wage Update. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/MinimumWageGraphs.pdf

Garthwaite, C. (2003, December 26). High Minimum Wage = High Unemployment. Seattle Post Intelligencer on the Web. Retrieved March 28, 2009 from http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/153901_unemploy26.html

Gipson, C. (2007). Living Wage Proposals: Imposing Price Controls on Labor. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from the Washington Policy Center web site: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/smallbusiness/legislativememo/07_gipson_livingwages.html

Heardman, R, and Sherk, J. (2006, August 3). Who Earns the Minimum Wage – Single Parents or Suburban Teenagers? The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1186.cfm

Kane, T. (2005, March 4). Minimizing Economic Opportunity by Raising the Minimum Wage. The Heritage Foundation.  Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm676.cfm

Kibbe, M. (1988). Cato Policy Analysis No. 106: The Minimum Wage: Washington’s Perennial Myth. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from The Cato Institute web site: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

MacKenzie, D.W. (2006, May 3). Mythology of the Minimum Wage. Daily Mises. Retrieved March 28, 2009 from the Ludwig von Mises Institute website: http://mises.org/story/2130

O’Sullivan, A., Sheffrin, S., & Perez, S. (2008). Survey of Economics: Principles, Applications, and Tools. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Saxon, J. (1996). Joint Economic Committee Report: The Case Against a Higher Minimum Wage. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm

Merit Essay

Merit Essay
Dennis Schroader
Phi 107
Tirizia York
March 29, 2010

The concept of merit, in the context of a philosophical argument, is one in which the subject receives an award based upon a characteristic or attribute possessed by the subject. In this context, merit is entirely different from desert. To be clear, for the purposes of this paper “desert” means the condition of being deserving of something, rather than a barren wasteland characterized by a severe lack of precipitation. Therefore, whereas merit conveys an entitlement, desert conveys a reward.

In his essay, “Merit: Why do we Value it?” (1999), Louis Pojman leads with a brief description of the evolution of prevailing philosophical thought on the matter of morals. Beginning with Homeric society (ancient Greece), the predominant philosophy was that success or failure were all that mattered. Those individuals in high stations merited their position in society by virtue of their birth (p 84). This was the foundation for what developed into the feudal society of Europe and was the dominant philosophy until Immanuel Kant (1781) defined a new world order (my terminology, for want of a better one) in which the concept of merit faded in favor of desert. Simply put, Kant proposed that a subject’s intentions are more important that their end results (Pojman, p 84). John Rawls (1971) takes political philosophy to a new level. “For Rawls all desert claims reduce to entitlements and justified entitlements are those obtaining in a society governed by the principles of justice-as-fairness” (p 88). That which follows is Pojman’s attempt to lay a broad foundation for the defense of a meritocracy in stark contrast to the notion of the communist ideal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (Marx, 1875). Rather, Pojman cites Marx’s fallback position, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution” (p 92).

While this student loathes agreeing with Karl Marx on anything, at least that second position seems more tenable to free market sensibilities than the first. It is this student’s firm opinion that individual freedom is an inherent concept in market-based capitalism a la Adam Smith and the cornerstone upon which the foundation of the United States was built. In order for individual freedom to reign truly supreme, a society must successfully marry both the concepts of merit and desert. This deeply held conviction aligns with Pojman’s statement regarding, “… a theory of natural rights, as opposed to positive rights [sic] are recognized in our nations Declaration of Independence…” (p 97).

Pojman goes on to eviscerate the practice of “affirmative action” in the United States (pp 98-99). It is assumed that the reader is sufficiently familiar with this term and that it needs no special definition. His conclusion and argument leading thereto could not be more correct. This practice is an affront to merit or desert based justice and causes greater social ills than those it seeks to cure.

The argument against Rawls’ claim of justice-by-fairness (p 99) is incomplete. In simple terms, Rawls argues that we do not deserve that into which we are born: our genetic make up, natural talents, socio-economic status, etc. This thesis extrapolates to a psychological and sociological indictment of our notion of free will, which this student ardently rejects. Pojman states:

“Human beings, though thoroughly the products of casual forces, still act voluntarily and may be held as the centers of these casual operations, and treated as such. We hold each other responsible for our voluntary acts, praise and blame, reward and punish whether or not determinism is true” (p 99).

Insofar as it goes, Pojman’s claim is correct. The problem lies in the fact that it does not go far enough; a truth to which Pojman himself confesses, to his great credit (p 99). Take, for instance, the case of two men from a lower-middle-class part of town. Both have divorced working mothers and absentee fathers. Neither are particularly talented in athletics or the performing arts, nor do either have any exceptional intellectual gifts. Societal norms would expect at least one of these men to be involved in some sort of criminal (or at least illicit) activity. A moral relativist might claim that such an occupation is perfectly acceptable for that person in their circumstance. What is missing from the sociological thirty-thousand-foot view of the world is that human beings are not in fact ants. Free will and self-determination do indeed exist. The example above is a fair – if crude – approximation of the teenage experience of this student and his best friend through high school. Both chose to work their way out of their poverty and lead lives as productive and useful (and law abiding) members of society despite the so-called disadvantages.

Human beings, in the strictest of biological terms, may belong to the animal kingdom, but are in fact distinct from animals, as the word is used in the common vernacular. Because we are capable of voluntary, reasoned action, we must establish and be held accountable to standards of conduct. Among these standards is that each should reap the benefits or consequences of his or her own actions. The individual is solely responsible for his or her own success or failure in the world, although the ends (or merit) must not be the only means by which we evaluate the rightness of the individual. That person’s motives and means play an equal part in determining what is their just due (or desert). The marriage and balancing of the two principles is not a simple task, but a necessary one.

References

Pojman, L. (1999). Merit: Why do we Value it? In Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol 30 No 1 (pp 83 – 102). Blackwell Publishers