http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/06/news/economy/postal-service-cuts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Great. Does anyone give a shit about the USPS? They could probably cut residential mail service to 2x/week and not have a significant negative impact. The reason they're hemorrhaging money is that no one uses the service. The internet and superior private package deliverers are killing the post office.

I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here, but I bet you could cut the number of urban post offices in half and it wouldn't matter much. Rural offices are a little more of a necessity, but you could drastically reduce the hours of service and people would cope just fine.

2/6/2013 11:24:19 AM

Most of what is delivered to me by USPS is junk mail. I wonder if the subsidized mail service actually allows junk mail to be sent more cheaply than it would in the absence of that subsidized service?

2/6/2013 11:30:52 AM

The postal service could operate as usual if congress hadn't manufactured the services current monetary crisis. They are basically requiring the USPS to fund the FULL liabilities of its pension system for the next 75 years - all within a 10 year time frame. Oh yeah and congress controls stamp prices and what services the postal service can offer, so even if they wanted to sock that much money away they couldn't.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ^the post office hasn't received a significant amount of tax dollars since the 80s]

2/6/2013 11:34:30 AM

Yeah, I get maybe 10-20 meaningful items in the mail yearly. Birthday cards, Xmas cards, and the occasional government bill (property tax, car registration, etc.). Outside of that it's all shit I don't need. I realize this isn't the case for everyone, but I bet it's the case for a hell of a lot of people. When you can pay just about any bill online or on the phone, when email is free and internet access ubiquitous, and when parcel delivery is a competitive business the USPS just doesn't have much left to do.

They need to consider price increases and/or serious limitations on frequency of service, shutting down a lot of offices, and gutting their staff. It's a very limited use service in today's world.

^That is a not insignificant portion of the problem, but they should be required to fully fund all current employee pensions, and there should be some requirement for future pension guarantee. I don't take much issue with the pension thing, 75 years might be a bit unreasonable, but an 18 year old employee working now could very well live to be 93+. The bigger problem is that they won't raise rates, which is just stupid as hell.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM. Reason : asdfsa]

2/6/2013 11:36:09 AM

^you need to consider our aging population, i'm guessing a significant portion check their email less than once a week and have relied on the mail service their entire lives.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with funding future pensions, its just the requirement to fund it for 75 years and do it only in a 10 year time frame. Literally no other pension/retirement system in the world has that kind of obligation. Most I'm guessing only look at the next 25 years or less (for good reason). The Postal Service just wasn't able to sock away the required 5 BILLION dollars a year and still maintain itself. All congress would have to do is require them to fund 75 years over a 20 year time period and I bet they could have made it with no cuts in delivery.

2/6/2013 11:48:15 AM

Quote :

"The reason they're hemorrhaging money is that no one uses the service."

no

see:

Quote :

" They are basically requiring the USPS to fund the FULL liabilities of its pension system for the next 75 years - all within a 10 year time frame."

$5 billion a year for 10 years is an unreasonable burden, and unreasonable time frame. I personally believe the pension model is outdated, and they should be moving to a 401k type of retirement model, but that's a different discussion. Pension funding should occur ahead of time, but rather than a 10 year balloon, it should be an ongoing activity.

While first class mail has declined, revenues from package shipments have increased (though not enough to offset the decline in first class mail). Anecdotally, I still find USPS to be cheaper for shipping small to medium size/weight packages, while larger/heavier packages are more economical through UPS/Fedex

2/6/2013 12:05:56 PM

That seems unlikely since they're ran a 16 billion dollar shortfall last year alone. The pension requirement hurt, a lot. It's far from their only problem, and IMO it's not even their biggest problem.

And yes, I realize that a portion of our population is not computer savvy and still utilize the postal service for most correspondence, but it's a constantly shrinking population, and even they don't need daily mail service.

2/6/2013 12:06:41 PM

I'm looking for something written more recently, but I think Bob may have hit the nail on the head:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-usa-postal-loss-idUSBRE8AE18Q20121115

Quote :

"Much of the Postal Service's loss in 2012 came from two defaults on a total of more than $11 billion in payments that Congress had directed USPS to pay into a fund for future retiree health benefits."

Quote :

"The Postal Service said total mail volume tumbled to 159.9 billion pieces in 2012, a 5 percent dip from 168.3 billion pieces a year ago. While email has eaten away at mail volumes, online shopping has proved a boon for the package business as the Postal Service delivers items ordered from e-Bay Inc, Amazon.com Inc and others. The agency said package revenue rose by $926 million, or 8.7 percent, during the year."

2/6/2013 12:55:14 PM

So, how much is the lost revenue from the decrease in mail? If it's all at $.46 per piece (I know, probably not a very good assumption) that's still about a $4 billion dollar decrease.

2/6/2013 1:16:22 PM

Quote :

"I personally believe the pension model is outdated, and they should be moving to a 401k type of retirement model, but that's a different discussion. "

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1929233,00.html

2/6/2013 1:49:55 PM

the whole point of that article is to prop the notion of the pension, which is completely and utterly unsustainable.

401ks aren't the be-all end all, but it's the best available instrument for a joint employer/employee retirement plan.

The reality is that companies that still offer a pension are going to be companies that go bankrupt before most of their workers can collect.

2/6/2013 2:20:33 PM

Why do people suddenly think they're entitled to retire in the last century? It makes absolutely no sense that you work for 40 years and then live comfortably without working for another 40 years. This is something that used to be reserved for very wealthy people. Social security and pensions came about, now people think everyone should be able to retire. That'd be great if the programs could actually stay solvent.

If pensions "work" or are "sustainable", then it should be possible for workers to pay for them on their own. And, if that's the case, then it would be better for those workers to simply be paid the wages in the here and now so they can determine how the savings are stored and what risks, if any, those savings are subjected to. That is certainly better than having to trust a company or a government to not piss away your pension money.

2/6/2013 2:46:50 PM

So just to throw some numbers into the mix:

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/10k-reports/fy2012.pdf

From the period of FY2008 - FY2012, Postal's revenue has dropped from $74.9B to $65.2B. As noted, the drop was driven by a decline in first class, standard and periodical mail (~$11B). Packages and international mail helped offset the decline by ~$1.5B.

In terms of operating costs, Postal has shed about 150,000 employees during that period for a total savings of about $5B. Postal's total expenses in FY12 were ~$81B, a deficit of ~$16B.

However, I would note that of this $16B deficit, $14B is from retiree health benefits ($11B of which is from the Congressional mandate, pg. 32 shows a good breakdown of normal expenses versus the additional burdens). Note that the $14B is in addition to another $6B a year to current employees' retirement plans. So again, most of what is destroying Postal's books at this point are their retiree benefits.

2/6/2013 2:56:38 PM

Quote :

"Why do people suddenly think they're entitled to retire in the last century? "

Human dignity? If you want to live by the "everyone works til you die unless you're rich" way, go right ahead. Have fun changing people's ideas based on your 20-something beliefs about the world and how everyone's just entitled and lazy.

Lots of self-satisfied, bullletproof 20-somethings who know the world ITT.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM. Reason : z]

2/6/2013 3:19:01 PM

Quote :

"Human dignity? If you want to live by the "everyone works til you die unless you're rich" way, go right ahead. Have fun changing people's ideas based on your 20-something beliefs about the world and how everyone's just entitled and lazy. Lots of self-satisfied, bullletproof 20-somethings who know the world ITT."

"Human dignity" isn't an answer. You're appealing to what you think should be, not making an argument. The tirade about naivety, well...that's your M.O., isn't it?

2/6/2013 3:35:39 PM

Just get rid of the USPS system altogether. It's too hard to monitor people's communications when they use snail mail. Much easier to just read their e-mails without consent.

2/6/2013 4:34:38 PM

Did the Business helping their worker retirement plan/pension/whatever come about due to tax policy? Does matching and moving some of your wages to those types of accounts reduce the business's taxes somehow?

I know there are some CFOs on here that can fill us in.

Quote :

"Why do people suddenly think they're entitled to retire in the last century? It makes absolutely no sense that you work for 40 years and then live comfortably without working for another 40 years. This is something that used to be reserved for very wealthy people."

If you look at how the productivity of the average worker has skyrocketed over the last century it really makes sense IMO. The average person generates as much wealth as a middling wealthy person at the beginning of the century, even when adjusted for inflation.

2/6/2013 4:43:39 PM

Quote :

"Why do people suddenly think they're entitled to retire in the last century? It makes absolutely no sense that you work for 40 years and then live comfortably without working for another 40 years. This is something that used to be reserved for very wealthy people. "

Because why should we to allow a small ruling elite to hold 90% of the wealth, while most of the country suffers? To me, that makes absolutely no sense. Even if they DID work harder for it (which most of them didn't), it's selfish as fuck to say "well I worked for this, so it's mine now, enjoy shining my shoes until you're 100". If kids don't share, we force them to. Same principle. Fuck em.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 4:44:54 PM

Quote :

"If you look at how the productivity of the average worker has skyrocketed over the last century it really makes sense IMO. The average person generates as much wealth as a middling wealthy person at the beginning of the century, even when adjusted for inflation."

Great, then this increased productivity and higher real wages will allow more savings, which means that people are more likely to be able to retire. No need to burden anyone with company or state managed retirement plans.

We are encouraging people to save through policy, right? We aren't operating on the principle that consumption is the most important factor, and consumption should be encouraged at all costs...oh, right.

Quote :

"Because why should we to allow a small ruling elite to hold 90% of the wealth, while most of the country suffers? To me, that makes absolutely no sense. Even if they DID work harder for it (which most of them didn't), it's selfish as fuck to say "well I worked for this, so it's mine now, enjoy shining my shoes until you're 100". If kids don't share, we force them to. Same principle. Fuck em."

And this is what's wrong with society. We teach children that it's wrong to hit, steal, and be violent...and then we hit them, steal from them, use violence against them, and show them that it's okay to use violence against others to get what we want. We now have a world full of adults that have never recovered from childhood trauma; this plays out very predictably in the political realm.

In any case, if it's selfish to keep what you earn, how is it not selfish to take what others earn? There's really no solid moral foundation to be formed from this principle. If it's okay to take from people that have more than you, then we're stuck in a perpetual cycle where stealing is okay as long as someone else has something you want.

2/6/2013 5:36:57 PM

^^seeing as you once called having kids "selfish", too, i don't really view you as an authority on the matter. it's not selfish to want to keep what you've earned.

and destroyer is absolutely correct. peoples' expectations about retirement and how long they should have to work have become entirely unrealistic, even to the point of blindly continuing systems and policies that add up to being doomed to failure.

the wealthy have become scapegoats and punching bags in the eyes of liberals. got a problem? blame somebody with more than you.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 5:38:07 PM

Quote :

"^^seeing as you once called having kids "selfish", too, i don't really view you as an authority on the matter. "

let's not take things out of context

Quote :

"it's not selfish to want to keep what you've earned."

Two men find themselves stranded in the wilderness. They each go foraging for food in the woods. The first man comes back with enough food for 10 people to eat. The second man comes back with half of what he needs. Would you agree that the first man would be selfish to keep all of the food for himself?

The only difference between yours and my philosophy is that I think that logic extends a lot further than you do.

Quote :

"In any case, if it's selfish to keep what you earn, how is it not selfish to take what others earn? There's really no solid moral foundation to be formed from this principle."

I don't think it's selfish to keep what you earn. I think it's selfish to keep so much that others suffer from your hoarding.

Quote :

"If it's okay to take from people that have more than you, then we're stuck in a perpetual cycle where stealing is okay as long as someone else has something you want."

Stealing is not always wrong. You know as well as I do that moral rules aren't absolute.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 7:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 7:09:17 PM

USPS is severely handcuffed by the federal government. There's no way they can compete with the major carriers and expect to turn a profit, especially since they already subsidize their deliveries. It's cheaper for FedEx to take a package to a delivery center and then slap some postage on it so USPS can carry it the rest of the way. And that's only one reason why they are fucked. Time to stop pretending like these guys will ever turn a profit again.

I still think its important that we keep the infrastructure though since they deliver to every address. So maybe the commercial carriers can pay an extra tax to keep it afloat since they benefit the most from it.

Also, 46 cents doesn't even begin to cover the cost of having someone deliver a letter across the country.

2/6/2013 7:36:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it's selfish to keep what you earn. I think it's selfish to keep so much that others suffer from your hoarding."

Then why aren't you donating most of your wages to third world workers? A single American paycheck would be a fortune to them.

Quote :

"Stealing is not always wrong. You know as well as I do that moral rules aren't absolute."

What are some situations where it's okay to steal (defined as "to take the property of another wrongfully")? Most people come up with some ridiculous hypothetical like, "a father has to steal the medicine from the pharmacy to save his son, and the pharmacist won't sell it for anything less than 50,000 dollars". I can get into why stealing still isn't a moral action in those (fantastical) scenarios if necessary.

I actually argue that moral rules are absolute, otherwise they aren't useful. This is basically the golden rule. You don't want people to take things from you wrongfully ("stealing"). If you do want someone to take something from you, it's no longer stealing, it's just a voluntary exchange. If two people are in a room and they both want to have sex, they aren't raping each other. "Rape" means that one person doesn't consent.

2/6/2013 7:58:10 PM

Quote :

"Then why aren't you donating most of your wages to third world workers? A single American paycheck would be a fortune to them."

Because I'm selfish, and because we are psychologically programmed to be desensitized to events happening outside our social circle.

Quote :

"Most people come up with some ridiculous hypothetical like, "a father has to steal the medicine from the pharmacy to save his son, and the pharmacist won't sell it for anything less than 50,000 dollars". I can get into why stealing still isn't a moral action in those (fantastical) scenarios if necessary."

I can think of plenty that aren't as crazy, but let's just go with that one.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 8:20:49 PM

Quote :

"Great, then this increased productivity and higher real wages will allow more savings, which means that people are more likely to be able to retire."

You made it sound like a majority of people probably weren't wealthy enough to retire, which is incorrect.

Quote :

"We are encouraging people to save through policy, right?"

I actually have no idea, I was speculating it might have to do with tax policy and was hoping someone that actually knew what they were talking about would fill us all in.

Quote :

"No need to burden anyone with company or state managed retirement plans."

well you could vote with your feet and find a new job, or negotiate with your employer, get up with like minded people and bargain collectively . . . . perhaps?

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM. Reason : contract yourself out - you'll get higher wages and no retirement plan]

2/6/2013 8:36:31 PM

As some people have already said, the postal service is out of date since everything is going to paying online. I agree that they need to cut the number of days they deliver in at least 90% of the nation. Most of us could probably survive with the mail only coming 2, or 3 days a week. Outside of a few things from the government, the rest is just junk mail. It's no big deal to me if my birthday card with money in it takes an extra day to get to me.

2/6/2013 8:52:35 PM

Quote :

"I actually argue that moral rules are absolute, otherwise they aren't useful."

And I can argue that the entire concept of "property" and "ownership" are bullshit constructs designed by those with power to maintain their privileged status, which is a morally bankrupt way to preserve purely selfish aims....so maybe we shouldn't be so cavalier about going down the philosophical rabbit hole.

Give all your possessions to the poor, I always say.

2/6/2013 8:55:01 PM

Ok, so after a few minutes of googling I'm not finding anything that indicates government provides incentives for 401K type retirement accounts that an everyday company might offer.

This article suggests that the only subsidy is deferred taxes, and thats not really a subsidy at all.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/28/how-on-earth-is-a-401k-a-government-subs
and you know reason hates its subsidies


I'm left to think that companies started offering investment plans because the labor market required them to do so to remain competitive.

2/6/2013 9:23:50 PM

^ There are some government regulations that open the company 401k to the peons, but I wouldn't call it a subsidy. Basically as I understand it, the corporate officers in the company and the top wage earners (usually one in the same) can't get the special tax benefits that a 401k provides unless some percentage of the company's regular employees are also enrolled in the plan.

2/6/2013 9:32:54 PM

Quote :

"Because I'm selfish, and because we are psychologically programmed to be desensitized to events happening outside our social circle."

So you're applying one standard to the rich (they're selfish and hoard resources, therefore we should take resources from them), but another standard to yourself (I'm selfish and I hoard resources, but it's because of evolution/genetics/whatever)? You fully understand that a Chinese factory worker could morally justify killing or incapacitating you and taking all of your possessions based on this same reasoning, right?

Quote :

"I can think of plenty that aren't as crazy, but let's just go with that one."

Alright. If it were morally acceptable to steal medicine when deemed to be necessary by the thief, it would signal to any people aiming to produce medicine that they shouldn't expect to make any money off of it and that society would condone the theft. This would significantly reduce the incentive to create medicine. Over time, that medicine would either not be produced, or it would be in such great shortage that the people who needed it would not be able to get it.

When we're trying to determine if a moral rule is valid, we should really ask, "What would happen if all people accepted this as a moral rule?" So, what would happen to society if all people accepted that it was okay to steal medicine or health care related goods? Even if we're ignoring the moral justification and decide to go the utilitarian route, would society be better of if this was acceptable behavior?

Quote :

"I actually have no idea, I was speculating it might have to do with tax policy and was hoping someone that actually knew what they were talking about would fill us all in. "

The answer is no. Monetary and economic policy in the United States in the last decade has encouraged spending, debt, and consumption rather than savings.

Quote :

"And I can argue that the entire concept of "property" and "ownership" are bullshit constructs designed by those with power to maintain their privileged status, which is a morally bankrupt way to preserve purely selfish aims....so maybe we shouldn't be so cavalier about going down the philosophical rabbit hole."

Great. There is no property, no one owns anything. It's no problem if I cut out one of your kidneys and keep it in my fridge. Just in case, you know? Don't be selfish, I might need that kidney one day. Also, my car has been acting up, so I'm going to need yours. To each according to his need, bro!

Relevant 4chan:



(Hint: you're one of the hipster cunts)

2/6/2013 9:38:24 PM

Great. Property and ownership are real.

I own the sun. Fuck you, you can't have it. It's mine. Stop using it.

2/6/2013 9:48:31 PM

Look, man. You wanna start a conversation about "morality," then you better be willing to back up your position that "property" and "ownership" are real things worth protecting.

That was the whole point of my original response. If you want to talk about abstracts like "morality" and claim that they are "absolute," then you better be willing to defend your stance on private property. Both constructs are built on a spurious foundation. "Morality" is quite possibly the most vague conceit of all time. And it could EASILY be argued that the construct of ownership was invented to protect the haves from the have-nots.

"I have so much shit, more than I'll possibly ever need, while others are starving. How can I protect all my stuff? I know! I'll tell them that taking from me is morally 'wrong!' Nevermind how I went about getting all of this, though. Finders keepers, yo!"

So if you wanna go down this philosophical road, you better have a damn good understanding of what the shit your talking about. Simply calling me a cunt ain't gonna cut it. That's some rookie, first-day, Mickey Mouse shit. I'm not about to let you off the hook that easily.

You wanna talk about morality, then let's talk about morality exhaustively. Defend your position.




[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2013 9:54:05 PM

Quote :

"So you're applying one standard to the rich (they're selfish and hoard resources, therefore we should take resources from them), but another standard to yourself (I'm selfish and I hoard resources, but it's because of evolution/genetics/whatever)?"

Nope, not at all. I'm saying that people often choose to be selfish when you give them a choice. In certain instances, it's necessary and just to remove that choice.

Quote :

"Alright. If it were morally acceptable to steal medicine when deemed to be necessary by the thief, it would signal to any people aiming to produce medicine that they shouldn't expect to make any money off of it and that society would condone the theft. This would significantly reduce the incentive to create medicine. Over time, that medicine would either not be produced, or it would be in such great shortage that the people who needed it would not be able to get it. When we're trying to determine if a moral rule is valid, we should really ask, "What would happen if all people accepted this as a moral rule?" So, what would happen to society if all people accepted that it was okay to steal medicine or health care related goods? Even if we're ignoring the moral justification and decide to go the utilitarian route, would society be better of if this was acceptable behavior?"

You're combining societal morals with individual morals. We've collectively decided that stealing is against the law because if it wasn't, people would take advantage of it and the system would collapse. This does not mean that the individual act is immoral. It just means that people need to believe Stealing, capital S, is immoral, for the system to function. Most people do not have internalized moral systems, and need guidance from society to determine what is right and wrong (when it would be proper to steal the medicine, and when it would be improper). (See Kohlberg's Moral Stages: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm)

Things similar to the medicine scenario happen all the time, and yet here we are.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 10:23 PM. Reason : done editing]

2/6/2013 10:19:17 PM

Quote :

"Great. Property and ownership are real. I own the sun. Fuck you, you can't have it. It's mine. Stop using it."

You can own the sun like you can own land. The sun and the land were there before you were born, before humans even evolved. If you take the land and grow crops, yes, you own that; you brought about resources that would not have come into existence if it were not for you. If you build a solar panel that converts sunlight into energy, you own and can sell that energy. You took a natural resource and turned into something useful that would not have come into being if it were not for your actions.

Property is a construct. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. If I steal your shit, do you get mad or feel that you've been wronged? If so, why?

Quote :

"Nope, not at all. I'm saying that people often choose to be selfish when you give them a choice. In certain instances, it's necessary and just to remove that choice."

Okay. I'm not understanding how we objectively determine when it's okay to "remove choice" (i.e. commit acts of violence against innocent people or threaten to commit violence). Why, exactly, wouldn't the Chinese factory worker be justified in stealing from you? You are 100x or 1000x richer than they are. From their perspective, you (or virtually any other American) have more than you will ever need.

Quote :

"You're combining societal morals with individual morals. We've collectively decided that stealing is against the law because if it wasn't, people would take advantage of it and the system would collapse. Most people do not have internalized moral systems, and need guidance from society to determine what is right and wrong (when it would be proper to steal the medicine, and when it would be improper). (See Kohlberg's Moral Stages: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm) This does not mean that the individual act is immoral. It just means that people need to believe Stealing, capital S, is immoral, for the system to function. "

There are no "societal morals" as far as I'm concerned. Individuals intuitively understand the golden rule, they simply are willing to ignore it in the same way that those around them have ignored it their entire lives. If people need moral guidance, then family and community should provide that. Note that "society" is distinct from "government". We certainly should not be expecting this guidance to be coming from the state, which is quite clearly not concerned with morality.

Your argument is logically indefensible. If a moral rule is valid for an individual, that moral rule cannot possibly become invalid when considering actions of the group. The reverse is also true.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2013 10:21:11 PM

^And yet, farmers in South America get displaced from their land all the fucking time simply because they do not own the note declaring their ownership, despite having worked that land for generations. And by the very principles you endorse, you would find nothing morally reprehensible about that.

I really doubt that you work the land of your apartment or house. If someone comes in and starts turning that land and farming crops, I doubt you'd just up and leave because, "hey, they earned it."

Nah, you'd bend your logic to fit your own desires. At least other people can admit the motivations that drive their behavior. You never do, though. You speak in "moral absolutes," which is simultaneously naive and arrogant.


The circumstances of theft are ALWAYS up for interpretation, and it almost always favors those with power over those without.

The bank can foreclose on a million people, and people like you will defend the action because the tenants were "irresponsible," even though the act of forcibly removing someone from their home literally makes people homeless and is morally questionable, especially when done on a grand scale. Yet you defend it, because of the shitty loophole you've allowed to exist in your mind about what constitutes "ownership."

2/6/2013 10:29:59 PM

Quote :

"^And yet, farmers in South America get displaced from their land all the fucking time simply because they do not own the note declaring their ownership, despite having worked that land for generations. And by the very principles you endorse, you would find nothing morally reprehensible about that."

I have a problem with that.

Quote :

"I really doubt that you work the land of your apartment or house. If someone comes in and starts turning that land and farming crops, I doubt you'd just up and leave because, "hey, they earned it.""

I don't own my apartment. This is clearly defined in my agreement with the landlord. I do own my wages. I own the things I buy with my wages unless the agreement says that I may only use those things for a limited time. If someone bought the building where my apartment is and the new owners said I had to move out, I'd certainly be annoyed, but I wouldn't view it in the same way as having my property stolen.

Quote :

"The bank can foreclose on a million people, and people like you will defend the action because the tenants were "irresponsible," even though the act of forcibly removing someone from their home literally makes people homeless and is morally questionable, especially when done on a grand scale. Yet you defend it, because of the shitty loophole you've allowed to exist in your mind about what constitutes "ownership.""

Why would a bank foreclose on a home unless the tenants aren't paying their mortgage? If the tenants aren't paying their mortgage, how is the bank going to stay solvent? Do you think the banking industry should be charity? If you had to choose between a bank that gave out loans to anyone and didn't care if the borrowers paid or not and a bank that was very careful about who they loaned money to, which one would you go with? If not the latter, I think everyone can agree that you're completely detached from reality and your posts no longer warrant a reply.

It's tough to get through to those with a collectivist mindset. If you view society as a collection of overlapping groups without any real concern for the mechanics behind all of it and individual decisions, then there isn't a way to come to an agreement.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 10:46 PM. Reason : ]

2/6/2013 10:43:37 PM

Quote :

"There are no "societal morals" as far as I'm concerned. Individuals intuitively understand the golden rule, they simply are willing to ignore it in the same way that those around them have ignored it their entire lives. If people need moral guidance, then family and community should provide that. Note that "society" is distinct from "government". We certainly should not be expecting this guidance to be coming from the state, which is quite clearly not concerned with morality. Your argument is logically indefensible. If a moral rule is valid for an individual, that moral rule cannot possibly become invalid when considering actions of the group. The reverse is also true. "

You misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. My point was that the populace at large is often incapable of acting, because of confusion of what is or isn't moral/just, or because they lack empathy, or for of some other reason. Because of this, we have developed (evolved?) hard and fast social "guidelines" to dictate our behavior as a whole. You can't broadcast individual (or maybe universal is a better word) morals to the general population because they are sometimes flat out incapable of processing them on a functional level.

That's about all I got, my brain hurts. We will just have to disagree on this.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2013 10:50:30 PM

Way to completely ignore the crux of my post.

YOU'RE the one who started arguing about moral absolutes. Not me. If you want to talk about morality, then you don't get to spin the argument into an economic debate about profit motive. If you're not prepared to defend your position in the abstract, then you really are in no position to declare me as someone not worth responding to. You don't get to make a bold claim such as "morality is absolute" then simply walk away. You gotta defend that shit.

Quote :

"I have a problem with that."

No you don't. In your very last paragraph, you grant banks the exact same moral leeway that you pretend to be against as it pertains to farmers in South America. The fundamental practice of displacing someone because of some financial contract declaring ownership is the same. The details are different, obviously, but the practice of displacing the poor for the benefit of wealthy is the same, and worthy of moral inspection. It's a pity that you don't want to be a part of that though, yet you feel confident enough to have such a strong opinion on the matter in spite of yourself.

2/6/2013 10:53:58 PM

One more point actually. In undergraduate engineering, we are taught simplified versions of equation systems, because it's difficult to understand the more complex ones. They work, to a point, but they aren't entirely correct.

Societal morals are simplified versions of universal morals.

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:02 PM. Reason : This is a wonderful thread about the Postal Service ]

2/6/2013 10:54:00 PM

Conclusion: Stop fucking using "morality" as a basis of your argument if you're not willing to critically examine what morality entails. Otherwise you're just going to reduce yourself to namecalling and hissyfitting.

What you really need to be doing is asking yourself if your definition of morality is really as static as you seem to think it is (hint: It isn't)

2/6/2013 10:57:30 PM

Quote :

"No you don't. In your very last paragraph, you grant banks the exact same moral leeway that you pretend to be against as it pertains to farmers in South America."

Bullshit. He's gonna eviscerate this. What you are essentially saying is that people don't need to keep their word or follow through on promises. You're smarter than that.

2/6/2013 11:01:16 PM

Huh? I asked him if he would give up his land if someone came in and was able to farm it, as that was his excuse to the idea of ownership of land. He intentionally ignored that.

My question essentially boiled down to this: Is it morally acceptable to kick someone off their land because they did not fulfill a contract? Is upholding a contract morally more prudent than giving someone shelter?

The whole point of the exercise is to show that morality IS, and always HAS BEEN relative. And that those who wield power can and usually do bend morality to fit their aims.

If all you got out of it was a comparison of indigenous farmers to working poor Americans, then you've completely missed the point.



[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:11 PM. Reason : relative - not relevant]

2/6/2013 11:07:18 PM

Quote :

"My question essentially boiled down to this: Is it morally acceptable to kick someone off their land because they did not fulfill a contract?"

If the contract says that is an option, then YES. If you don't like that contract, then don't sign it!

Quote :

" Is upholding a contract morally more prudent than giving someone shelter?"

Is it your contention that the bank's job is to give someone shelter? Because I beg to disagree. Not only that, but these are two very different things. Both are morally great things. But they aren't mutually exclusive, and in this situation, they are barely even related, if at all. Furthermore, one might even suggest that by offering financing through that evil evil contract that you love to hate, they ARE helping to give people shelter. Would the banks be able to continue to do so if people didn't have to honor their end of the bargain?

2/6/2013 11:14:54 PM

Quote :

"You can't broadcast individual (or maybe universal is a better word) morals to the general population because they are sometimes flat out incapable of processing them on a functional level."

If that's true, then we're flat out fucked as a species.

Quote :

"Way to completely ignore the crux of my post. YOU'RE the one who started arguing about moral absolutes. Not me. If you want to talk about morality, then you don't get to spin the argument into an economic debate about profit motive. If you're not prepared to defend your position in the abstract, then you really are in no position to declare me as someone not worth responding to. You don't get to make a bold claim such as "morality is absolute" then simply walk away. You gotta defend that shit. "

I have defended it. You're not providing an argument for me to respond to. The moral absolute that I've put forth is that in order for a moral rule to be valid, it must apply universally (that is, to all individuals with the capacity to reason).

-If stealing is moral, then you won't mind having your own things stolen, but if you don't mind having something stolen, it's not stealing. No one wants to be stolen from.
-If rape is moral, then you should be okay with getting raped, but if you're okay with it, it's no longer rape, it's just sex.
-If assault is moral, then you'll have no problem being assaulted, but if you have no problem with it then it's not assault, it's a consensual fight

The scenario with the farmer and his farmland and the banks and their borrowers aren't comparable. The farmer worked the land and was living on it; unless the land was in use and the farmer took control of the land, it could be said that he owns it. A developer that takes the land and forces the farmer to move off simply stole the land. The developer could have negotiated with the farmer, but they didn't.

The borrower never owned the home that was foreclosed on. The bank owned it from the beginning, and the tenant agreed to make payments, usually also agreeing to some interest rate for the life of the loan. The bank, using money that other customers trusted them with, has an ethical responsibility to be a good steward of this money (let's pretend we don't live in a central bank system where money creation involves a series of keystrokes).

2/6/2013 11:20:19 PM

^^I hope you realize that by typing all of that out, you're demonstrating that different people have different ideas as to what constitutes "morality." And that at times, we give our morals different weight, especially when some of them are in conflict with one another.


That's the whole point. Morality is plastic, and always open for debate

Hence my earlier post:

Quote :

"maybe we shouldn't be so cavalier about going down the philosophical rabbit hole."

[Edited on February 6, 2013 at 11:35 PM. Reason : burro]

2/6/2013 11:20:24 PM

So, basically, he eviscerates what little argument you had, and you'll just ignore it

2/6/2013 11:22:56 PM

Quote :

" A developer that takes the land and forces the farmer to move off simply stole the land"

You have no idea what you're talking about, then. Because the entire construct of "owning land" is a Western idea. That's how Europeans were able to "purchase" Manhatten for pennies. And that's why I brought up the South American indigenous farmer. They worked the land for generations, but once that land got parceled and itemized, it was open for purchase to outsiders. That's exactly the situation that would put your morals in conflict with one another. Is it moral to kick someone off the land that you legally purchased, even if they were there before the land was ever for sale?

It's not as cut-and-dry as you would need it to be in order to satisfy your Libertarian interpretation of absolute morality.

2/6/2013 11:27:18 PM

He would likely argue that it was not legally purchased in the first place, so the remainder of your scenario is invalid. What you are implicitly suggesting is that the land was "owned" by the people living there for thousands of years. Thus, any actual sale of the land should involve them. If it didn't, then the purchase wasn't proper, so no, the "purchaser" couldn't and shouldn't be able to kick the farmer off.

2/6/2013 11:30:14 PM

^says the guy who thinks Palestinians have no right to their homes.

2/6/2013 11:32:40 PM

I've said no such thing. Nice attempt at tu quoque, but you've got to at last get my position correct.

2/6/2013 11:35:41 PM