I had recently posted an entry about obesity and how it is attributing to the decline of American society. In the matter of hours, one of my friends reads it, and before I know it, I am engaging in an hour-long conversation regarding the issue. My friend had expressed disappointment in the fact that I just went on a diatribe, rather than discuss ways to solve the issue of obesity. Although my sole intention was to be in rant mode, there was nevertheless truth in that criticism. With that in mind, I give you my analysis on how to solve the problem of obesity. Like with any other issue, we need to identify root causes before discussing potential solutions. Naturally, this is the most sound way of approaching problem-solving from a public policy standpoint.
Obesity, by definition, is the accumulation of excess body fat that is deemed to be unhealthy. It is brought about by eating voluminous amounts of caloric intake (i.e., obese people eat a whole lot of food). This high intake causes health complications and reduced life expectancy. Food consumption is not a new phenomenon; dealing with an excessively large percent of overweight citizens is new.
There are multiple causes that have brought about the "epidemic" of obesity. One is our sedentary lifestyle. Many Americans have worked in a cubicle. However, with the advent of inventions such as the television and the Internet, we are more prone to sitting idly in front of a screen for longer periods of time, thereby giving our bodies more time to accumulate fat. Food prices themselves are causing issues. Big Government has been subsidizing Big Agriculture (e.g., processed foods, meat). Subsidies, by definition, distort the market. Foods such as Twinkies and Big Macs are artificially cheaper, whereas produce and organic products come off as more expensive. This would explain why America is one of the only countries in the world that has poor people who are fat, rather than skin and bones. The third primary cause is ignorance. People don't know what a good diet consists of--they'll just eat whatever is either cheap and/or tasty. People also don't know that a mere thirty minutes of daily, physical activity would further prevent obesity. In terms of solutions, there are two ways of approaching the problem: macrocosmic or microcosmic.
What I mean when I say macrocosmic is the government's role in health care. If people were cognizant of a healthy diet, odds are that they would be practicing it, and health care costs would be at a minimum. Unfortunately, people are so self-indulgent that that short-term result of a good-tasting meal outweighs the longer-term effects. That leaves two options here:
The first option is governmental control of the health care system. Just think about it. You won't have to worry about health care bills. Heck, you won't even have to worry about what's for dinner because the government will have taken care of that for you. If you think that the government telling you what to eat, when to eat, and how much to eat is only in the realm of fiction, think again! The Maoist regime practiced food rationing for Communist China. You know how that ended up? It adversely attributed to the 30+ million that died during the Great Leap Forward. When you have a command economy, lots of people end up dead....I always found that to be an interesting correlation.
The second option would be a trend towards personal responsibility and less government, either of which would begin with the repeal of Obamacare. Two main obstacles towards this goal exist. The first is that since FDR and the New Deal, we have seen a mentality towards dependency on Big Government, something that has not been abated since then. The second is the growing sentiment that the individual feels self-entitled towards everything, which negates any sense of personal responsibility.
I particularly go after Obamacare because if we pool Americans into a one-size-fits-all insurance program, people will say "damn the consequences because Obamacare is my safety net." This decreases disincentive to partake in self-destructive behaviors that diminish longevity. A dismantling of Medicare and Medicaid would also do the trick, since that would decrease government dependency and cut back on about 19% of the federal budget. A huge voting bloc of seniors would prevent that necessity from happening. After all, AARP is the largest interest group in America. In short, a whole lot of political activism and a renewed sense of personal responsibility would be the best way to remedy the macrocosmic ramifications.
Since I don't foresee this happening anytime soon, the microcosmic, i.e., the individual level, is a better place to go, which would require two things: personal responsibility and the willpower to lose weight. Short of fully abstaining from eating, since that would be a ridiculous suggestion, you can apply the Twelve-Step program here. If you are overweight, you accept that you have a problem. You gather the resolve to overcome eating unhealthy foods and create a healthy, balanced diet. You make the time to exercise at least thirty minutes a day. You have to remove any obstacles, such as TV watching or going down the dessert aisle at the supermarket, to accomplish your goal. Not only do you decide to be healthy, you have to do it consistently. Eating a stalk of celery once a month or going to the gym once a week for ten minutes won't cut it. Like someone on the Twelve-Step Program, you need personal commitment to see it through.
Concluding thoughts: Any sincere attempt to change for the better, whether it's losing weight, cutting back on alcohol, or abstaining from gossip, require awareness, measurable goals, commitment to hard work, and consistency. If you can remain steadfast to these foundations, personal change in any facet of life is always an acquirable goal.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Orthodox Community's Perturbing Response to Rubashkin
In Judaism, business ethics are of paramount importance. They are so important that the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) states the following: "In the hour when an individual is brought before the heavenly court for judgment, the person is asked: 'Did you conduct your business affairs honestly?'" Note how the question isn't "Did you keep kosher or Shabbos all the time," but is related with to honest business dealings. The Torah even predicates national survival in Israel based on this foundation of Judaism (Deuteronomy 25:15). It should be safe to say that business ethics play a vital role in Judaism.
Let's keep the notion of Jewish business ethics with the following story in mind. Enter Sholom Rubashkin, a Chasidic Jew who was the former CEO of Agriprocessors, the largest distributor of kosher meat in America. PETA had accused the company of mistreatment of cattle. The company had the largest immigration raid in American history, and 297 the workers were found guilty of fraud, most notably identity theft. Rubashkin was acquitted from the 67 charges of child labor violations. What ultimately put Rubashkin in prison for 27 years, however, was the 86 charges of financial fraud (e.g., bank fraud, money laundering). You can read U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose's statement regading Agriprocessors and the sentencing here.
Knowing the role of honest business dealings in Jewish ethics, you think the Orthodox community would have given Rubashkin an explicit admonishment as commanded by Leviticus 19:17, right? Not so much. It's more like complaining about the excessiveness about the sentence, even though Vos Iz Neias, an Orthodox news site, even conceded that 27 years is on the lower end of the sentencing status in the American jurisprudence system. If anti-Semitism played a role in Rubashkin's trial, they would have given him the maximum of 33 years and 9 months. But again, he was charged on the lower end.
It's not only the lack of rebuke that bothers me about the reaction from the Orthodox community. It's the fact that a music video singing about the "plight" of Rubashkin was created. When I initially saw this, I thought it was satirical, but this was done with sincerity.
A man blatantly commits multiple counts of fraud, and Orthodox Jews get together in a "We Are the World" fashion to stick up for Rubashkin. My favorite verse of the song has to be "Treat your fellow friends like they were you, and then we all find some peace of mind and unity." For those who participated in this project, here is my question to you: shouldn't treating your fellow friends like they were you apply in the cases of business-related fraud, or does "love thy neighbor" only apply to your fellow Jew? I wish prominent figures within the Orthodox community wouldn't portray a fraudster as a tzaddik. It makes it all the more difficult for the rest of the world to seriously view the Jewish people as the "light unto the nations."
Let's keep the notion of Jewish business ethics with the following story in mind. Enter Sholom Rubashkin, a Chasidic Jew who was the former CEO of Agriprocessors, the largest distributor of kosher meat in America. PETA had accused the company of mistreatment of cattle. The company had the largest immigration raid in American history, and 297 the workers were found guilty of fraud, most notably identity theft. Rubashkin was acquitted from the 67 charges of child labor violations. What ultimately put Rubashkin in prison for 27 years, however, was the 86 charges of financial fraud (e.g., bank fraud, money laundering). You can read U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose's statement regading Agriprocessors and the sentencing here.
Knowing the role of honest business dealings in Jewish ethics, you think the Orthodox community would have given Rubashkin an explicit admonishment as commanded by Leviticus 19:17, right? Not so much. It's more like complaining about the excessiveness about the sentence, even though Vos Iz Neias, an Orthodox news site, even conceded that 27 years is on the lower end of the sentencing status in the American jurisprudence system. If anti-Semitism played a role in Rubashkin's trial, they would have given him the maximum of 33 years and 9 months. But again, he was charged on the lower end.
It's not only the lack of rebuke that bothers me about the reaction from the Orthodox community. It's the fact that a music video singing about the "plight" of Rubashkin was created. When I initially saw this, I thought it was satirical, but this was done with sincerity.
A man blatantly commits multiple counts of fraud, and Orthodox Jews get together in a "We Are the World" fashion to stick up for Rubashkin. My favorite verse of the song has to be "Treat your fellow friends like they were you, and then we all find some peace of mind and unity." For those who participated in this project, here is my question to you: shouldn't treating your fellow friends like they were you apply in the cases of business-related fraud, or does "love thy neighbor" only apply to your fellow Jew? I wish prominent figures within the Orthodox community wouldn't portray a fraudster as a tzaddik. It makes it all the more difficult for the rest of the world to seriously view the Jewish people as the "light unto the nations."
Obesity and the Decline of America
I had recently read an article from the centrist think-tank Brookings Institute entitled "The Economic Impact of Obesity." Right when I read the abstract that said that two-thirds of Americans are overweight and one-third are downright obese, it got me thinking about how obesity affects American life.
Before continuing, I would like to clarify a few things. First and foremost is that this is not an attempt for me to say that being overweight makes you inherently immoral. That much should be self-evident, but I needed to re-iterate in the event that anyone misconstrues my intentions. The second is that if we are going to have a serious conversation about this topic, we need to throw out the misconceived notion that obesity is primarily or solely caused by genetics. The fact that the rate of obesity has doubled since the 1970s negates this myth. The primary reason that so many people have become overweight is because of an ignorance of a healthy, balanced diet. Less and less people know what a good diet consists of, and their children learn that from their parents. If you found an actual case of genetically-caused obesity, this would be called an exception, not the norm. Finally, I am not the biggest fan of the Body Mass Index (BMI). It measures your weightiness based on a height to weight ratio. There are some people who are truly big-boned, and there are some exceptionally muscular people that would not be considered fat (FYI, muscle weighs more than fat). However, these exceptions do not cover the prevailing norm, which is that most people are fat because they don't know the first thing about good eating and exercise. That is why I still give the aggregate BMI measurements validity.
I was floored to see some of the economic impacts that obesity has had on America. Just to name a few:
That is why someone like me who, as of date, has a BMI that is under 25 and never has needed to go to the hospital for any overweight-induced conditions, is coming off as belligerent. What is the price of me living a healthy lifestyle and trying to make that lifestyle even healthier? Skyrocketing health care prices! I have to pay for the shmuck who thinks that eating Twinkies and Big Macs everyday is a wonderful thing because "you only live once." If you want to commit self-destructive behavior, that's fine, but please, don't drag me into your mess. But you won't see that happen because Americans have increasingly become dependent on government. Americans have the rising expectation that somebody else will take care of the problem, which throws any notion of personal responsibility out the window.
Let me elaborate on why this problem of obesity will not go away, and that it will probably get worse. Since we live in a shame culture, as opposed to a guilt culture, we have to render ourselves blameless and without fault in order to get through the day. This means that no one will ever take personal responsibility for things that are actually their fault, as it is the case with poor diet and lack of exercise. If Americans go with the view of "I'm fine just the way I am, and I don't need to change the fact that I eat 3,000 calories a day because that would hurt my precious, little self-esteem," then there will never ever be a call for personal change. And why should there be? The government is going to cover the bill anyways. And we all know that the money for that grows on trees, and not from hard-working taxpayers who generate revenue in a market-based economy. If things are going to get better with respects to the economic impact of obesity, each American individual needs to take personal responsibility both for their health and any health-related costs they accrue. But why bother with such a dream? Most Americans are so lethargic and self-indulged that this will be as likely to happen as Obama ceasing from being a socialist that continues to ruin our country on a daily basis.
But again, I would love to see a change where the individual has self-respect, self-reliance, and a sense of personal responsibility. For those who believe that the only realist is an idealist, if you want change, you had best realize the gap between the current situation and the idealized one.
Before continuing, I would like to clarify a few things. First and foremost is that this is not an attempt for me to say that being overweight makes you inherently immoral. That much should be self-evident, but I needed to re-iterate in the event that anyone misconstrues my intentions. The second is that if we are going to have a serious conversation about this topic, we need to throw out the misconceived notion that obesity is primarily or solely caused by genetics. The fact that the rate of obesity has doubled since the 1970s negates this myth. The primary reason that so many people have become overweight is because of an ignorance of a healthy, balanced diet. Less and less people know what a good diet consists of, and their children learn that from their parents. If you found an actual case of genetically-caused obesity, this would be called an exception, not the norm. Finally, I am not the biggest fan of the Body Mass Index (BMI). It measures your weightiness based on a height to weight ratio. There are some people who are truly big-boned, and there are some exceptionally muscular people that would not be considered fat (FYI, muscle weighs more than fat). However, these exceptions do not cover the prevailing norm, which is that most people are fat because they don't know the first thing about good eating and exercise. That is why I still give the aggregate BMI measurements validity.
I was floored to see some of the economic impacts that obesity has had on America. Just to name a few:
- Those who are obese (i.e., with a BMI of 30 or higher) have 50% higher health care costs than the healthy-weight group, and the overweight (i.e., with a BMI between 25 and 30) have costs 20% higher.
- If we got rid of obesity, we would be able to cut Medicare spending by 8.5% an Medicaid by 11.8%.
- Obese workers were 194% more likely to use time off due to weight-related issues. This total lost productive time is estimated to be at $11.7 billion a year.
- Because we have to make seats bigger in transportation and have to use more gasoline to transport heavier people, it is estimated that the cost in this sector is an extra $2.7 billion a year.
- It was also found that obesity can even impact factors such as self-esteem, intelligence, GPA, and probability of getting married. In short, it cuts off the growth of human capital.
That is why someone like me who, as of date, has a BMI that is under 25 and never has needed to go to the hospital for any overweight-induced conditions, is coming off as belligerent. What is the price of me living a healthy lifestyle and trying to make that lifestyle even healthier? Skyrocketing health care prices! I have to pay for the shmuck who thinks that eating Twinkies and Big Macs everyday is a wonderful thing because "you only live once." If you want to commit self-destructive behavior, that's fine, but please, don't drag me into your mess. But you won't see that happen because Americans have increasingly become dependent on government. Americans have the rising expectation that somebody else will take care of the problem, which throws any notion of personal responsibility out the window.
Let me elaborate on why this problem of obesity will not go away, and that it will probably get worse. Since we live in a shame culture, as opposed to a guilt culture, we have to render ourselves blameless and without fault in order to get through the day. This means that no one will ever take personal responsibility for things that are actually their fault, as it is the case with poor diet and lack of exercise. If Americans go with the view of "I'm fine just the way I am, and I don't need to change the fact that I eat 3,000 calories a day because that would hurt my precious, little self-esteem," then there will never ever be a call for personal change. And why should there be? The government is going to cover the bill anyways. And we all know that the money for that grows on trees, and not from hard-working taxpayers who generate revenue in a market-based economy. If things are going to get better with respects to the economic impact of obesity, each American individual needs to take personal responsibility both for their health and any health-related costs they accrue. But why bother with such a dream? Most Americans are so lethargic and self-indulged that this will be as likely to happen as Obama ceasing from being a socialist that continues to ruin our country on a daily basis.
But again, I would love to see a change where the individual has self-respect, self-reliance, and a sense of personal responsibility. For those who believe that the only realist is an idealist, if you want change, you had best realize the gap between the current situation and the idealized one.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Parsha Noach: Enter Omnivore, Stage Left
In last week's Torah portion, G-d gives us the ideal of the vegetarian diet in commandment form: "Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food (Genesis 1:29)." Famous rabbis such as Nachmanides, Maimonides, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Joseph Albo all agree with this reading of Genesis 1:29. Genesis 2:16 and 3:18 continue to support this ideal. It is only when we reach the pre-Flood era when we run into problems.
Yesterday, I had postulated that the Flood had been brought about by people's proclivity towards theft. I would now like to offer a different insight:
This time, I am going to put the emphasis on בָּשָׂר (flesh). The word בָּשָׂר literally refers to meat. During this period, man was so uncivilized that he would tear the limb of a live animal, which is why one of the Seven Noachide laws, laws which both Jews and non-Jews are supposed to obey, is a prohibition thereof (Genesis 9:4, Sanhedrin 58a).
As a seemingly concessionary measure, G-d grants us the permission to consume meat: "Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all (Genesis 9:3)." Although this seems like a slam dunk for meat-eaters, it might be prudent to take a look at the surrounding verses before celebrating.
Yes, we are given the license to eat meat, but as Rabbi Samson Hirsch points out in his commentary on this verse, the dynamic between animal and man has changed where a rift was caused in the previously benign relationship between the two. The verse immediately after is also telling because in Genesis 9:4, there already is a limitation on whatwe can do with meat consumption: no eating of the animal's blood.
As we ponder this week's Torah portion and having this insight in mind, let me present two questions to you:
1) As you read Torah and read the Jewish dietary laws throughout history, why is it that just about every single dietary law has to do with meat consumption? Is it possible that G-d, in His infinite wisdom, gave us these nuanced laws so that we would be detered from eating meat?
2) If eating meat is such a mitzvah, like many of my traditional-minded Jewish friends opine, where is the special blessing for meat? In terms of the hierarchy, meat falls under "Shehakol," which is the lowest blessing on the proverbial totem pole. Only grains, fruits, and vegetables have special blessings, whereas everything else is covered by Shehakol.
Some food for thought this weekend.......
שבת שלום!
Yesterday, I had postulated that the Flood had been brought about by people's proclivity towards theft. I would now like to offer a different insight:
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה: כִּי-הִשְׁחִית כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֶת-דַּרְכּוֹ, עַל-הָאָרֶץ.
And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. -Genesis 6:12
This time, I am going to put the emphasis on בָּשָׂר (flesh). The word בָּשָׂר literally refers to meat. During this period, man was so uncivilized that he would tear the limb of a live animal, which is why one of the Seven Noachide laws, laws which both Jews and non-Jews are supposed to obey, is a prohibition thereof (Genesis 9:4, Sanhedrin 58a).
As a seemingly concessionary measure, G-d grants us the permission to consume meat: "Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all (Genesis 9:3)." Although this seems like a slam dunk for meat-eaters, it might be prudent to take a look at the surrounding verses before celebrating.
וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם, יִהְיֶה, עַל כָּל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם; בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם, בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ.
"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teems, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. " -Genesis 9:2
Yes, we are given the license to eat meat, but as Rabbi Samson Hirsch points out in his commentary on this verse, the dynamic between animal and man has changed where a rift was caused in the previously benign relationship between the two. The verse immediately after is also telling because in Genesis 9:4, there already is a limitation on whatwe can do with meat consumption: no eating of the animal's blood.
As we ponder this week's Torah portion and having this insight in mind, let me present two questions to you:
1) As you read Torah and read the Jewish dietary laws throughout history, why is it that just about every single dietary law has to do with meat consumption? Is it possible that G-d, in His infinite wisdom, gave us these nuanced laws so that we would be detered from eating meat?
2) If eating meat is such a mitzvah, like many of my traditional-minded Jewish friends opine, where is the special blessing for meat? In terms of the hierarchy, meat falls under "Shehakol," which is the lowest blessing on the proverbial totem pole. Only grains, fruits, and vegetables have special blessings, whereas everything else is covered by Shehakol.
Some food for thought this weekend.......
שבת שלום!
Stimulus Checks Sent to the Dead.....That's Special
If you need another look at the stupidity of Obama's stimulus, look no further than the Social Security Administration. 89,000 stimulus checks of $250 sent by the SSA were sent to dead people! This won't "stimulate" the dead towards coming back to life, and it certainly won't stimulate the economy. Approximately $22.3 million in mistaken payments. The SSA can't handle stimulus checks, and we are supposed to trust them with our retirement funds? Better yet, we're trusting a government with this level of ineptness to run our health care. Our lives are literally in there hands. Feel reassured yet? I know I don't.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Parsha Noach: It's Not Just a Hotel Towel
The following scenario has become typical of travel in America. You stay in a hotel during your vacation. Vacation time is just about over, you're packing, and you can't help but take a hotel towel or a bar of soap. "After all, it's just a measly little towel. Nobody is going to miss it, right? After all, those hotel owners make a ridiculous profit. Between the mini-bar and the pay-per-view TV, they rip us working folk off all too much. Honestly, is that missing towel really going to put a dent in the hotel chain's revenue?"
This sort of rationalization has become so commonplace that many view the act in an innocuous manner. Is taking a hotel towel really stealing? And what does this have to do with this week's Torah portion?
It sounds intriguing, but the connection between hotel towels and Noah is not quite there. What sort of corruption are we talking about here? The text is vague as to exactly what sealed humanity's fate. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 108a), Rabbi Yochanan said that Noah's generation did themselves in when they were guilty of stealing.
There is also an interesting Midrash (Braishit Rabbah 30) regarding one of the words used, חָמָס. In the Midrash, חָמָס is defined as stealing less than a פרוטה, which was not punishable back in those times. This would be analogous to somebody stealing a penny. A small, insignificant amount, right? Even if it is infintensantly small, the Midrash has something to say about this. During Noah's generation, there would be a man who had a box of beans to sell. When someone came along, they stole less than the worth of a פרוטה. However, when enough people walked by, the man was left without any beans, and he couldn't prosecute anybody because the monetary worth of the theft was so minute that he couldn't recuperate from his loss.
There is truth to the phrase "character is what a man does when no one is looking [except G-d]." This seemingly harmless behavior led to a slippery slope of that behavior seeping into the public. It is no coincidence that G-d points out in Genesis 6:11 that this corruption was לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (before Him), meaning that it was out in public.
Many rabbis have interpreted the fall of humanity during this time period to be attributed to theft, and it should be self-evident as to why. In reality, it's much more than a hotel towel. It's a statement about character. Whether it's a towel or a $100 bill, you are the taking of the property of another without the owner's consent. Stealing is still stealing. Justifying the theft of the towel has the grave potential of being able to justify the theft of stealing that $100 bill with the same ease.
G-d made it clear with the covenant in the form of a rainbow (Genesis 9:13) that He will never flood the Earth again in such a matter. However, we need to be mindful to conduct ourselves in such a matter so we can avoid the spiritual decline that humanity experienced pre-Flood.
שבת שלום!
This sort of rationalization has become so commonplace that many view the act in an innocuous manner. Is taking a hotel towel really stealing? And what does this have to do with this week's Torah portion?
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים לְנֹחַ, קֵץ כָּל-בָּשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי--כִּי-מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס, מִפְּנֵיהֶם; וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ.
"And G-d said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with corruption." -Genesis 6:13
It sounds intriguing, but the connection between hotel towels and Noah is not quite there. What sort of corruption are we talking about here? The text is vague as to exactly what sealed humanity's fate. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 108a), Rabbi Yochanan said that Noah's generation did themselves in when they were guilty of stealing.
There is also an interesting Midrash (Braishit Rabbah 30) regarding one of the words used, חָמָס. In the Midrash, חָמָס is defined as stealing less than a פרוטה, which was not punishable back in those times. This would be analogous to somebody stealing a penny. A small, insignificant amount, right? Even if it is infintensantly small, the Midrash has something to say about this. During Noah's generation, there would be a man who had a box of beans to sell. When someone came along, they stole less than the worth of a פרוטה. However, when enough people walked by, the man was left without any beans, and he couldn't prosecute anybody because the monetary worth of the theft was so minute that he couldn't recuperate from his loss.
There is truth to the phrase "character is what a man does when no one is looking [except G-d]." This seemingly harmless behavior led to a slippery slope of that behavior seeping into the public. It is no coincidence that G-d points out in Genesis 6:11 that this corruption was לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (before Him), meaning that it was out in public.
Many rabbis have interpreted the fall of humanity during this time period to be attributed to theft, and it should be self-evident as to why. In reality, it's much more than a hotel towel. It's a statement about character. Whether it's a towel or a $100 bill, you are the taking of the property of another without the owner's consent. Stealing is still stealing. Justifying the theft of the towel has the grave potential of being able to justify the theft of stealing that $100 bill with the same ease.
G-d made it clear with the covenant in the form of a rainbow (Genesis 9:13) that He will never flood the Earth again in such a matter. However, we need to be mindful to conduct ourselves in such a matter so we can avoid the spiritual decline that humanity experienced pre-Flood.
שבת שלום!
Sunday, October 3, 2010
High-Skill vs. Low-Skill Labor: Would a Utopian Immigration Policy Work?
Like with many political issues in America, they rarely, if ever, are clear-cut and unambiguous. Our immigration policy is no exception to this rule. Most Americans can clearly realize that our immigration process is a broken one, but I think we don’t have a clue as to how to mitigate it.
The Hamilton Project, which is part of the Brookings Institution, recently drew up a study entitled “Ten Economic Facts About Immigration,” which attempted to “lay out the facts” for a constructive debate on the issue. I found a few flaws with the study, first and foremost being that immigrants are not a financial drain on the American government. I already touched upon this myth a few months back. The attempt to show that American living standards have improved is weak since the increase is negligible compared to the billions lost every year to immigration. Finally, I took issue with the attempt to make a causative relation between increase in immigration enforcement funding and number of unauthorized immigrants. The increase are not in any way related to one another. America has had anything but a superior immigration enforcement policy, so using wasteful spending as an indicator of ineffectiveness is misleading. Plus, the decline in unauthorized immigrants has more to do with a failing American economy than anything.
In spite of these methodological flaws, the study makes one extremely valid point which merits further explanation, which is that there are two types of immigrants: low-skilled and high-skilled. Looking at the impacts of each sector independently helps sharpen our focus of our immigration issues.
The Hamilton Project gives a breakdown of the level of education between U.S. born and foreign born. Thirty percent who are foreign born have less than a high school degree, which is approximately four times the amount of those who are U.S. born. When you take high school education foreign born Americans into account, it totals to fifty-five percent of foreign born Americans with a high school education or less. What I would like to dub as “Tier One” is what most Americans focus on when discussing the immigration debate.
However, there is a more infrequently discussed “Tier Two,” which consists of highly-skilled immigrants. Approximately eighteen percent of those who are foreign born have Bachelor’s degrees, and about nine percent have Master’s Degrees. What is most intriguing is that the rate which foreign born citizens have PhD’s versus their U.S. born counterparts is almost double.
Being cognizant of these two tiers is exceptionally important because in general terms, level of education is a primary indicator of intelligence and potential contributions that an individual can make to society. You won’t catch me saying this too often, especially in light of their single-payer healthcare, but I think in this instance, we should emulate Canada’s policies. The skill composition of Canada’s immigrants is much more desirable because they are more selective in their immigration policies.
There are certain exigent circumstances, such as with refugee cases, in which Americans should open its doors to the “poor and the hungry.” However, I think in terms of to whom we grant citizenship, America should raise its standards of qualifications. An immigrant coming to this country should either have a good education or a skill (e.g., computer science) that would be productive for society. We technically cannot eliminate unskilled labor because there is still a demand for such labor. However, it certainly should be kept to a minimum. As the study shows, immigrants are thirty percent more likely to start businesses and four times more likely to be granted patents. Unskilled labor workers neither have the competency to start a business nor have the intellect to create a patent that will contribute to American ingenuity, which means that a disproportionately high amount of American progress comes from highly-skilled, foreign born citizens.
Therefore, what I propose is two-fold. One is to minimize our acceptance of unskilled labor because L-rd only knows we have enough of that in this country! Most of the costs related to immigrants are either tied up in welfare, entitlement programs, health care, incarceration, and education, costs that the poorer immigrants primarily, if not solely, trigger. By drafting up a more selective immigration process, we can cut back costs in these respective sectors of the government. The second is to provide incentives not only for highly-skilled foreign labor to come to the country to acquire an American education, but also to stay in this country to continue being productive members of society.
In case you couldn't tell from the tone of this article, I am not a big fan of stupid people. As a matter of fact, I cannot stand stupidity. Education is one of the primary factors that determines success. An educated society with individuals that have good heads on their shoulders would eliminate a lot of the world's problems since the world's problems either stem from ignorance or stupidity.
The main issue with trying to implement this on a sincere level is that it is too utopian. I can make anything sound nice.....in theory. Communism, for example, sounds very nice in theory. When you put it in practice, however, it has become a very different beast. The reason why it has never worked is because in order to use any property whatsoever, you need the permission of the entire commune (i.e., the nation). Because this is not feasible, communism has always led to a one-party nation that attempts to control everything and commits more egregious acts than it had ever intended.
This immigration policy would be no different. Again, I would love a world filled with competency. The issue is that our country is rampant with incompetency. Look no further than Congress. These inept people would be the ones to actually try to implement these new laws. Much like Communism, this utopian notion would backfire into some systematic, government-based form of active eugenics. It would end up to be something like Nazi Germany. This is because when you have a utopian ideal, it never takes the imperfections of man into consideration, which is why utopias have historically never worked. I would still suggest that America better emulates Canada's immigration policy, but hope that if it actually took educated immigrants into consideration when drafting immigration policy, that America does not lose its sense of morality in the process.
The Hamilton Project, which is part of the Brookings Institution, recently drew up a study entitled “Ten Economic Facts About Immigration,” which attempted to “lay out the facts” for a constructive debate on the issue. I found a few flaws with the study, first and foremost being that immigrants are not a financial drain on the American government. I already touched upon this myth a few months back. The attempt to show that American living standards have improved is weak since the increase is negligible compared to the billions lost every year to immigration. Finally, I took issue with the attempt to make a causative relation between increase in immigration enforcement funding and number of unauthorized immigrants. The increase are not in any way related to one another. America has had anything but a superior immigration enforcement policy, so using wasteful spending as an indicator of ineffectiveness is misleading. Plus, the decline in unauthorized immigrants has more to do with a failing American economy than anything.
In spite of these methodological flaws, the study makes one extremely valid point which merits further explanation, which is that there are two types of immigrants: low-skilled and high-skilled. Looking at the impacts of each sector independently helps sharpen our focus of our immigration issues.
The Hamilton Project gives a breakdown of the level of education between U.S. born and foreign born. Thirty percent who are foreign born have less than a high school degree, which is approximately four times the amount of those who are U.S. born. When you take high school education foreign born Americans into account, it totals to fifty-five percent of foreign born Americans with a high school education or less. What I would like to dub as “Tier One” is what most Americans focus on when discussing the immigration debate.
However, there is a more infrequently discussed “Tier Two,” which consists of highly-skilled immigrants. Approximately eighteen percent of those who are foreign born have Bachelor’s degrees, and about nine percent have Master’s Degrees. What is most intriguing is that the rate which foreign born citizens have PhD’s versus their U.S. born counterparts is almost double.
Being cognizant of these two tiers is exceptionally important because in general terms, level of education is a primary indicator of intelligence and potential contributions that an individual can make to society. You won’t catch me saying this too often, especially in light of their single-payer healthcare, but I think in this instance, we should emulate Canada’s policies. The skill composition of Canada’s immigrants is much more desirable because they are more selective in their immigration policies.
There are certain exigent circumstances, such as with refugee cases, in which Americans should open its doors to the “poor and the hungry.” However, I think in terms of to whom we grant citizenship, America should raise its standards of qualifications. An immigrant coming to this country should either have a good education or a skill (e.g., computer science) that would be productive for society. We technically cannot eliminate unskilled labor because there is still a demand for such labor. However, it certainly should be kept to a minimum. As the study shows, immigrants are thirty percent more likely to start businesses and four times more likely to be granted patents. Unskilled labor workers neither have the competency to start a business nor have the intellect to create a patent that will contribute to American ingenuity, which means that a disproportionately high amount of American progress comes from highly-skilled, foreign born citizens.
Therefore, what I propose is two-fold. One is to minimize our acceptance of unskilled labor because L-rd only knows we have enough of that in this country! Most of the costs related to immigrants are either tied up in welfare, entitlement programs, health care, incarceration, and education, costs that the poorer immigrants primarily, if not solely, trigger. By drafting up a more selective immigration process, we can cut back costs in these respective sectors of the government. The second is to provide incentives not only for highly-skilled foreign labor to come to the country to acquire an American education, but also to stay in this country to continue being productive members of society.
In case you couldn't tell from the tone of this article, I am not a big fan of stupid people. As a matter of fact, I cannot stand stupidity. Education is one of the primary factors that determines success. An educated society with individuals that have good heads on their shoulders would eliminate a lot of the world's problems since the world's problems either stem from ignorance or stupidity.
The main issue with trying to implement this on a sincere level is that it is too utopian. I can make anything sound nice.....in theory. Communism, for example, sounds very nice in theory. When you put it in practice, however, it has become a very different beast. The reason why it has never worked is because in order to use any property whatsoever, you need the permission of the entire commune (i.e., the nation). Because this is not feasible, communism has always led to a one-party nation that attempts to control everything and commits more egregious acts than it had ever intended.
This immigration policy would be no different. Again, I would love a world filled with competency. The issue is that our country is rampant with incompetency. Look no further than Congress. These inept people would be the ones to actually try to implement these new laws. Much like Communism, this utopian notion would backfire into some systematic, government-based form of active eugenics. It would end up to be something like Nazi Germany. This is because when you have a utopian ideal, it never takes the imperfections of man into consideration, which is why utopias have historically never worked. I would still suggest that America better emulates Canada's immigration policy, but hope that if it actually took educated immigrants into consideration when drafting immigration policy, that America does not lose its sense of morality in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)