Thursday, April 10, 2014


FLG has written before that the ultimate goal of the Left is a misunderstood form of Aristotelian leisure.  This ultimate goal, which  FLG believes most don't even fully understand themselves, manifests something like this:

there not only shouldn't be constraints on human desires, but the only constraints are economic and the present state technology. Both of these are theoretically rectifiable. It lends to the idea that the eventual and proper state of human life is one with no constraints on human desire. Therefore, any constraint is by definition an obstacle to be overcome. 

FLG found this interview with a White House economist fascinating because it so illustrates my point:
I agree that the 77 cents on the dollar is not all due to discrimination. No one is trying to say that it is. But you have to point to some number in order for people to understand the facts. And what it represents is the fact that women on average are put in situations every day that for a variety of reasons mean they earn less. Much of what we need to do to close that gap is to change the constraints that women face. And there are things we haven’t tried.

The pay gap isn't the best case for FLG.  The issue arises more when people on the left view the adverse consequences of bad decisions made by an individual eventually become, not the adverse consequences of a series of bad decisions, but rather unfair constraints in a some future decision.  Since FLG has trouble thinking of children as a bad decision, so it's harder for him to point to that as a major issue in this type of analysis.  But nevertheless, the decision to have children comes with a variety of long-term consequences, which are unavoidable and also fall differently, potentially disproportionately, on each parent.

FLG certain that we can't fundamentally change the adverse consequences of having children, and is deeply skeptical that the government should try to ameliorate certain of the second order effects.

1 comment:

Melissa said...

If a gap exists along gender lines then it can not just be chalked up as the result of "bad decisions" made by "individuals" have you considered that it isn't so much making bad decisions as it is making the only decisions that you have? it's not choosing the same option that is the problem it's the choosing between the only options you have.

Let's point to the children because they are a major problem.

Having children should not be a major pitfall in the life of a women and that's the whole point, the pitfalls women face today are far from "unavoidable". Raising children without a doubt falls disproportionately on women but why should it? why is the poor father who never see's his kids a deadbeat but the CEO who never sees his kids is a role model?

Some would say "77 cents to every dollar" is biology, I fail to see that, we've made progress in other ways, it's an upward battle and it still is, equal pay for equal work benefits women it benefits men who are their partners and the men who are their children, egalitarianism between the sexes benefits everyone.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.