Progressive Equal Pay and Capuchin Monkeys

“Most people are pretty happy with what they’ve got until they see what the other guy has got.” – Alfred E. Neumann, Mad Magazine

Photo: Wikipedia

An article about “equal pay,” which appeared on my screen recently, caught my eye. The article was entitled, “What Happens When Two Monkeys are Paid Unequally for the Same Work?” The embedded video was clipped from a TED talk by Frans de Waal, primatologist, ethologist, and professor of primate behavior at Emory University, who talked about the “fairness study” as it involved the pillars of morality, reciprocity and empathy. His study was done with Capuchin monkeys who appeared to “reject unequal pay.” http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next?g=3

The outcome of the monkey video embedded bears no resemblance to the economics of remuneration but, to the untrained mind, it seems to validate the snowflakes’ mantra that we should all receive equal pay because it is our human right. These days, in the progressive philosophy, all welfare and the results of human activity are a human right bestowed upon us by the generous and omnipotent government that receives its money and generosity from thin air and money trees.

If two Capuchin monkeys were given cucumbers, they were perfectly happy. If one monkey was given grapes, the results were different. Using new monkeys who have not done the task before, the results were comical. 

The two monkeys paid the human with a rock first and then received the treat, either cucumber or grapes. The monkey on the left got cucumbers and the monkey on the right received grapes. The first piece of cucumber was fine, the monkey ate it, however, after she saw the monkey on the right receiving grapes, a better tasting treat, the first monkey rejected the next slice of cucumber and threw it in apparent displeasure back to the human running the experiment. Each time the monkey received cucumber, she was agitated, banged and rattled the glass enclosure and threw the cucumber back. As the presenter said, this is the “Wall Street” protest on display, the audience erupted in laughter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoK48QGL8

This may seem like a convenient lesson of Economics 101 and why all Capuchin monkeys should be paid equally for the price of a rock, however, it is more a lesson on malicious Envy, a deadly sin.

Keynesian economics, taught in our colleges and universities, tells us that “The United States has rather more income inequality than most other industrialized countries,” and “The distribution of income in the United States has grown substantially more unequal since about 1980.” (Economics Principles and Policy, William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder, tenth edition, p. 450)

First of all, we are not Capuchin monkeys. Secondly, food is not income, nor pay, unless we live in a primitive society and use food as commodity money.

Thirdly, progressives recite the politically correct talking points that agitate and enrage them, demanding equal pay, an economic impossibility. They have failed to learn in school the real causes of income inequality.

1.      Differences in ability (Some of us can do math faster, some are better wordsmiths, some program computers more accurately, some run faster, some can play an instrument, and some are born with poor health due to genetic mutations or have different IQs.)

2.      Differences in intensity of work (Some like or are able to work longer hours without making mistakes)

3.      Risk taking (Entrepreneurs gamble sometimes all they have and win, other times they lose and start all over again with the same energy and curiosity)

4.      Compensating wage differentials (Some people work the night shift or work very dangerous jobs that other people are not willing to take; consequently they must be paid more as an incentive to work.)

5.      Schooling and other types of training (Those who go to college and receive a degree with an employable skill are going to receive higher pay upon graduation; those who choose to end their learning with a high school diploma or a worthless college degree with no possibility of employment at the end of four years, will experience an income differential that they will not like but it was based on a voluntary decision.)

6.      Work experience (Research has proven that workers with more experience earn higher wages.)

7.      Inherited wealth (Children of wealth can go to more expensive schools and can finance businesses and thus potential success; there is no guarantee that inherited wealth will make one successful but, in most cases, it is quite beneficial; Chelsea Clinton received a very high salary on her first job even though she had no experience whatsoever in the field, it was based strictly on nepotism.)

8.      Luck (Chance and luck play important part in income inequality. Someone develops an idea that makes him/her a multi-millionaire. At the same time, thousands others toil for years on great ideas that never take off.)

When it comes to unequal pay due to economic discrimination, Americans find this intolerable. Economic discrimination, according to Economics 101, happens when equal factors of production receive different payments for equal contributions to output. This sounds great in theory but in practice, how do you measure, each and every time that two factors of production are equivalent; it is always a subjective determination, not a precise and objective one.

You may spend eight hours a day at your desk but your productivity may be half of someone else’s because you spent part of the time day dreaming, surfing, taking breaks, talking to your co-workers, playing computer games, and not turning your assigned report on time. Should you get paid the same as another person who completed twice as much work as you in eight hours? In the case of assembly line production, it is easier to measure productivity based on the number of widgets you produce.

Even Keynesian economists agree that “equality is bought at a price” and that there are better ways to promote equality by seeking policies that do the least possible harm to incentives and efficiency in the economy. They prefer redistribution of income to fight poverty. “Neither complete laissez faire nor complete equality would normally be society’s optimal choice.”

Centralized planning economics has experimented with equal incomes for most professions, and failed miserably in every communist country it was tried, with disastrous effects. People became even lazier than they are by nature, hid and slept part of the day instead of working, pretended to work because they knew the commies pretended to pay them, justified stealing from work to supplement income, and developed a black market in order to survive.

Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, a social critic and a psychologist, wrote a book, The Bell Curve, which became rather controversial due to the claims made on the distribution of IQ tests on a bell curve. Most people clustered in the middle, with fewer at both ends.

As Baumol and Blinder said, “No one doubts that intelligence contributes to economic success, nor that genetics has some bearing on intelligence.” But some argue that environmental factors are more important than genetics in determining intelligence and that “true” intelligence is different from test-measured intelligence. I might add common sense, which is not so common anymore, to the list of economic success. Cognitive ability is certainly not the main ingredient in economic success. Why else would a ball player and some actors make so much money? They have a unique skill or talent that most people don’t have.

To sum it up simply, we are not Capuchin monkeys, envy is a sin, and, in my humble experience, progressive equal pay at all levels is a utopian communist promise that cannot be fulfilled; it is just equal misery for all.

 

 

 

 

 

The Insidious Globalist Control

The State of the Union address, however disingenuous, contained two interesting seeds of truth. I had mentioned them in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” The two seeds of truth are universal child care and equal pay for women, contained in Section III, Chapter 24:3.

(d) Programmes to promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women and girl
children at home and outside through the establishment of more and affordable
nurseries and kindergartens by Governments, local authorities, employers and
other relevant organizations and the sharing of household tasks by men and women
on an equal basis, and to promote the provision of environmentally sound
technologies which have been designed, developed and improved in consultation
with women, accessible and clean water, an efficient fuel supply and adequate
sanitation facilities;
(f) Programmes to support and strengthen equal employment opportunities and
equitable remuneration for women in the formal and informal sectors with
adequate economic, political and social support systems and services, including
child care, particularly day-care facilities and parental leave, and equal
access to credit, land and other natural resources;

The excerpt is found in Agenda 21, signed in 1992 by 178 countries; the document describes in 40 chapters the eventual regulation of every aspect of human behavior and economic activity once Agenda 21 is completely implemented around the globe, making the United Nations and its global governance cabal the ultimate authority.

The two directives may be necessary in third world countries and nations ruled by totalitarian regimes that discriminate and abuse women, but are definitely not necessary in developed countries where women and children are protected by laws and the government’s welfare system.

It is not necessary to have further government intrusion in child care and equal pay for women. The government already controls Head Start, k-12 education, with not so stellar results in many states, while liberal professors complete the socialist indoctrination at the university level. We already have laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on gender.

Just how much control do we need or want, and how much are the global governors willing to inject into the various societies around the planet?

Jack Doyle revealed that a new health service program in the U.K. called Everyone Counts will force general practitioners to disclose confidential records to NHS (National Health Service) involving weight, cholesterol, BMI (body mass index), family health history, pulse rate, alcohol consumption, and smoking status. The biggest data grab so far, the invasion of privacy will become permanent even though officials have insisted that it will be deleted after analysis. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html)

Once Obamacare is fully implemented in the U.S., previous confidential data between patient and doctor will become part of the government’s data base to be used as they see fit.

But the control does not stop here. When we shop in grocery stores, our buying habits have been compiled and sold to the Department of Agriculture and other third parties. The data can be stored and synchronized with the new health care cards issued by the health care exchanges of Obamacare.

How far of a stretch will it be to have special food purchase cards that must be used anytime groceries are purchased? Could such cards prevent you from buying alcohol or certain fattening foods, based on your specific health care information? If you don’t comply, you may have to consult a doctor in order to change your eating, drinking, smoking, or whatever unhealthy habits you may have.

The New York City government is already meddling in the people’s sodium intake and the size of beverages purchased. Portion size and food offerings have already been changed in schools across the country and in some restaurants. That is not to say that we should not be eating healthy food and drinking in moderation, however, why should the government be the nanny that dictates what we eat or drink?

If you think the idea far-fetched, consider this. The World Economic Forum 2013 in Davos, Switzerland, recognized obesity as a danger to human health and discussed how to deal with or tax those who are obese.

Fifty global risks were assessed by 1,000 omniscient experts from industry, government and academia, who were “polled on how they expect 50 global risks to play out over the next ten years. The results were compiled into an analysis of three major risk areas, Testing Economic and Environmental Resilience, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, and the Dangers of Hubris on Human Health.” The Davos report also included a chapter on “X Factors,” concerns identified by experts with unknown consequences. Although these consequences are not known, it did not stop experts from speculating and scaring low information humans into preventive compliance. (http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-risks)

Our consumption of meds may be affected as international efforts are underway to curtail use of antibiotics through government regulatory control. Global monitoring of antibiotic-resistant bacteria spread is recommended. “Significant reduction in antibiotic use can be achieved in human medicine.”

Davos experts recommended the use of public-private partnerships, partnerships promoted by U.N. Agenda 21, to incentivize the development of new antibiotics. Knowledge must be shared freely between academia, private companies, and government regulators.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation developed the “open-lab” research concept in which patented monopolies and secrecy would no longer exist if innovation is to be achieved. This flies in the face of capitalist beliefs that ideas, entrepreneurship, and individual hard work are rewarded. Instead, the Foundation advocates that ideas and research should be given away from inception for the public good. It is easier to promote such generosity when you already have amassed so many billions, you cannot possibly spend them in a lifetime. 

Davos conference also reported that humans do not understand the risks from satellites. Disruptions can be catastrophic in telephone service, financial markets, Internet, banking, data centers, energy delivery via Smart Grid, TV industry, weather predictions, emergency rescue, peacekeeping, and military operations. The risks are identified as the three main “black swan” events:

-          Satellites targeted in a conflict between states

-          Strong geomagnetic storms

-          Collisions with space debris

The solution offered by the experts is more control – the “critical space-based infrastructure” (satellites et al) must be managed sustainably – sustainability is bedrock mantra of U.N. Agenda 21 control.

The top five global risks by likelihood identified by Davos experts were:

-          Severe income disparity

-          Chronic fiscal imbalances

-          Rising greenhouse gas emissions

-          Water supply crises

-          Mismanagement of population ageing

The top five global risks by impact identified by Davos experts were:

-          Major systemic financial failure

-          Water supply crises

-          Chronic fiscal imbalances

-          Food shortage crises

-          Diffusion of weapons of mass destruction (p. 10)

The most interesting part of the Davos report is the chapter on “X Factors” developed with the editors of Nature, the leading science journal, which analyzes five “emerging game-changers:”

(p. 12)

-          Runaway climate change (postulating that we have possibly passed the point of no return, causing the planet’s atmosphere to go into the “inhospitable state” (I know global warming/climate change has been debunked voluminously by science, it appears that it does not matter to these people’s agenda)

-          Significant cognitive enhancement (if athletes take drugs to enhance their abilities, why not in daily life and particularly in “neural enhancement of combat troops”)

-          Rogue deployment of geo-engineering (technology that manipulates the climate is acceptable as long as a state or private individuals do not use it unilaterally)

-          Costs of living longer (prolonging life through palliative care is expensive and “could be a struggle;” the report does not propose the alternative but it is easy to read between the lines)

-          Discovery of alien life (proof of life in the universe might profoundly affect the human belief system psychologically)

Another interesting section of the Davos report deals with Digital Wildfire in a Hyperconnected World - Benefits and Risks of the Social Media as part of the Internet. Three examples illustrated a response from a disgruntled customer incident, a defamation of character incident, and “an affront to religious sensitivities” story.

“The existence on YouTube of a video entitled “Innocence of Muslims”, uploaded by a private individual in the United States, sparked riots across the Middle East. These riots are estimated to have claimed more than 50 lives.” (http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-12)

Although it has been documented that the riots in the Middle East were not sparked by a video, the Davos report included this fallacy.

The experts seem to have misgivings about the fact that millions of individuals have the freedom to broadcast widely across the globe when prior to the Internet age only a handful of elite organizations had the capacity to broadcast extensively, and this “reality has challenging implications.”

The Davos report also mentions the concepts of “Astroturfing”, Satire, “Trolling,” and Attribution Difficulties. Nancy Pelosi did use the term “astroturfing” when referring to the Tea Party rallies.

Because the report considers social media as one of the greatest risks, a “global digital ethos” is recommended in light of the fact that governments are debating how “existing laws which limit freedom of speech, for reasons such as incitement of violence or panic, might also be applied to online activities.” The globalist experts are not worried that the freedom of speech would be curtailed, they are worried how it would be enforced and who would be trusted to enforce it. Additionally, low education users are “much less knowledgeable than editors of traditional media outlets about laws relating to issues such as libel and defamation,” posing further problems.

It will be a very sad day when the Internet will be controlled to the point that all information will come from the alphabet soup networks that are now a self-appointed propaganda arm of the perennial presidential campaign. In a hyper connected world, the globalists want to shape the information culture to their desired designs, and to govern the digital media.