I've always enjoyed "A Christmas Carol", but the first half of the story much more than the second half. After reading this, now I know why.

Quote :

"Scrooge Defended By Michael Levin It's Christmas again, time to celebrate the transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge. You know the ritual: boo the curmudgeon initially encountered in Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, then cheer the sweetie pie he becomes in the end. It's too bad no one notices that the curmudgeon had a point—quite a few points, in fact. To appreciate them, it is necessary first to distinguish Scrooge's outlook on life from his disagreeable persona. He is said to have a pointed nose and a harsh voice, but not all hardheaded businessmen are so lamentably endowed, nor are their feckless nephews (remember Fred?) alwavs "ruddy and handsome," and possessed of pretty wives. These touches of the storyteller's art only bias the issue. So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages. No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment? As for that one lump of coal Scrooge allows him, it bears emphasis that Cratchit has not been chained to his chilly desk. If he stays there, he shows by his behavior that he prefers his present wages-plus-comfort package to any other he has found, or supposes himself likely to find. Actions speak louder than grumbling, and the reader can hardly complain about what Cratchit evidently finds satisfactory. More notorious even than his miserly ways are Scrooge's cynical words. "Are there no prisons," he jibes when solicited for charity, "and the Union workhouses?" Terrible, right? Lacking in compassion? Not necessarily. As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort. Scrooge is skeptical that many would prefer death to the workhouse, and he is unmoved by talk of the workhouse's cheerlessness. He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness. The normally taciturn Scrooge lets himself go a bit when Cratchit hints that he would like a paid Christmas holiday. "It's not fair," Scrooge objects, a charge not met by Cratchet's patently irrelevant protest that Christmas comes but once a year. Unfair it is, for Cratchit would doubtless object to a request for a day's uncompensated labor, "and yet," as Scrooge shrewdly points out, "you don't think me ill used when I pay a day's wages for no work." Cratchit has apparently forgotten the golden rule. (Or is it that Scrooge has so much more than Cratchit that the golden rule does not come into play? But Scrooge doesn't think he has that much, and shouldn't he have a say in the matter?) Scrooge's first employer, good old Fezziwig, was a lot freer with a guinea—he throws his employees a Christmas party. What the Ghost of Christmas Past does not explain is how Fezziwig afforded it. Did he attempt to pass the added costs to his customers? Or did young Scrooge pay for it anyway by working for marginally lower wages? The biggest of the Big Lies about Scrooge is the pointlessness of his pursuit of money. "Wealth is of no use to him. He doesn't do any good with it," opines ruddy nephew Fred. Wrong on both counts. Scrooge apparently lends money, and to discover the good he does one need only inquire of the borrowers. Here is a homeowner with a new roof, and there a merchant able to finance a shipment of tea, bringing profit to himself and happiness to tea drinkers, all thanks to Scrooge. Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich. Scrooge is said to hound debtors so relentlessly that—as the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Be is able to show him—an indebted couple rejoices at his demise. The mere delay while their debt is transferred will avert the ruin Scrooge would have imposed. This canard is triply absurd. First, a businessman as keen as Scrooge would prefer to delay payment to protect his investment rather than take possession of possibly useless collateral. (No bank wants developers to fail and leave it the proud possessor of a half-built shopping mall.) Second, the fretful couple knew and agreed to the terms on which Scrooge insisted. By reneging on the deal, they are effectively engaged in theft. Third, most important, and completely overlooked by Ghost and by Dickens, there are hopefuls whose own plans turn on borrowing the money returned to Scrooge from his old accounts. Scrooge can't relend what Caroline and her unnamed husband don't pay up, and he won't make a penny unless he puts the money to use after he gets it back. The hard case, of course, is a payment due from Bob Cratchit, who needs the money for an emergency operation on Tiny Tim. (Here I depart from the text, but Dickens characters are so familiar to us they can be pressed into unfamiliar roles.) If you think it is heartless of Scrooge to demand payment, think of Sickly Sid, who needs an operation even more urgently than Tim does, and whose father is waiting to finance that operation by borrowing the money Cratchit is expected to pay up. Is Tim's life more valuable than Sid's just because we've met him? And how do we explain to Sid's father that his son won't be able to have the operation after all, because Scrooge, as Christmas generosity, is allowing Cratchit to reschedule his debt? Scrooge does not circulate money from altruism, to be sure, but his motives, whatever they are, are congruent with the public good. But what about those motives? Scrooge doesn't seem to get much satisfaction from the services he may inadvertently perform, and that seems to be part of Dickens's point. But who, apart from Dickens, says that Scrooge is not enjoying himself? He spends all his time at his business, likes to count his money, and has no outside interests. At the same time, Scrooge is not given to brooding and shows absolutely no sign of depression or conflict. Whether he wished to or not, Dickens has made Scrooge by far the most intelligent character in his fable, and Dickens credits his creation with having nothing "fancy" about him. So we conclude that, in his undemonstrative way, Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy. There can be no arguing with Dickens's wish to show the spiritual advantages of love. But there was no need to make the object of his lesson an entrepreneur whose ideas and practices benefit his employees, society at large, and himself. Must such a man expect no fairer a fate than to die scorned and alone? Bah, I say. Humbug."

12/6/2006 11:01:00 AM

Quote :

"Scrooge doesn't seem to get much satisfaction from the services he may inadvertently perform, and that seems to be part of Dickens's point. But who, apart from Dickens, says that Scrooge is not enjoying himself? He spends all his time at his business, likes to count his money, and has no outside interests."

Quote :

"So we conclude that, in his undemonstrative way, Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy."

does not compute

12/6/2006 11:14:19 AM

Quote :

"At the same time, Scrooge is not given to brooding and shows absolutely no sign of depression or conflict. . Whether he wished to or not, Dickens has made Scrooge by far the most intelligent character in his fable, and Dickens credits his creation with having nothing "fancy" about him. "

You missed the important part in the middle of those two quotes.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2006 11:18:24 AM

Scrooge himself does not portray that he is unhappy, all we have to say he is unhappy is that Dickens tells us so. But this is unlikely, if Scrooge did not enjoy working in his business then he would not do it so, he would stay home and read or go to parties.

Best Buy sells tycoon games where the sole purpose is to enjoy running your own business. It seems very plausible to me that Scrooge is unhappy around people and enjoys the simplicity of business. Who are these Ghosts of Christmas to tell him he would be happier if only he gave up his pleasures in life?

Great article, where did you get it?

12/6/2006 11:18:41 AM

^^so because he isn't depressed, he is happy?

12/6/2006 11:22:34 AM

First of all, you can't assume that Scrooge wouldn't work in his business if he didn't enjoy it. There are plenty of people that work themselves crazy, make plenty of money, but aren't happy.

Second, Dickens is the writer, and its his story. If he says Scrooge is unhappy, than he is unhappy. You can disagree about the probability of such a story taking place in real life, but you can't disagree about something that the author claims to be part of the story.

12/6/2006 12:05:20 PM

Fine.

12/6/2006 12:27:21 PM

ElGimpy, there are real reasons why someone in that situation might be unhappy. Some people work hard to earn money because they enjoy spending it, some people work hard because they enjoy the work, and you are right, some people work hard because they just don't know any better. I guess this third individual is the one Dickens is after, fine enough.

But I still side with the author of this article in principle: other than his own mental illness (being unable to recognize what he really wants in life) he is still doing the best he can to better the lives of everyone in society (even if most of the benefits bypass his immediate acquaintances).

12/6/2006 12:34:40 PM

I think the treatment of Bob Cratchit is rather harsh. I don't think effective birth control was all that readily available in the 19th Century, and if you tell me, "Well he could have chosen not to have sex with his wife," I am probably going to laugh at you.

12/6/2006 12:37:03 PM

Now, I could be mistaken, but I thought BC was already in use at that time. Again, I may be wrong.

12/6/2006 12:41:06 PM

This is something that is clearly written by someone who has no literary knowledge. The narrator in a Christmas Carol is third person reliable. Therefore, by nature of the narrator, he is correct. Therefore we know full well that Scrooge is not happy, because the narrator says so.

^yes, BC was in use, but how would you know your child would be born deformed? Furthermore, BC was used by the prostitutes in the streets and the effects of the birth control being used was highly dangerous.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 12:41:41 PM

Agree with most of it as it's pro-capitalism and anti-culture of entitlement. However, whoever wrote this can't say with any degree of certainty that Scrooge is happy and intelligent for making money he doesn't spend at the cost of having friends and family.

12/6/2006 1:04:33 PM

I agree. If the narrator tells us that he flies and pigs come out of his ass, that's the way it happened.

Now, I also agree that given the same situation in actual life, I doubt Scrooge would genuinely be unhappy. But as the story, and fiction goes, Scrooge is an unhappy old man until he changes after his ecnounters with the spirits.

12/6/2006 1:31:15 PM

it always astounds me how very cold and emotionless these ayn randian types can be.

12/6/2006 2:05:00 PM

Can you...explain what the fuck you're talking about?

12/6/2006 2:12:55 PM

Quote :

"Now, I also agree that given the same situation in actual life, I doubt Scrooge would genuinely be unhappy."

That's not true at all. Many sucessful individuals are genuinely unhappy in their private lives.

12/6/2006 2:16:06 PM

eh. actually it's not directly related. but it's in the same category of letting capitalism control all and screw compassion. like we're all robots with only money on the brain.

12/6/2006 2:16:55 PM

So it was just an unrelated rant?

But, in defense of those like me, I will say that compassion is fine and dandy, but it shouldn't overwhelm sound judgment and attention to incentives.

It isn't all about money, but rather all about finding what makes you happy. If that requires money (and I suspect it will require at least some amount) then it shouldn't be all about money, but enough about money to ensure your happiness.

Emotional decisions are often incorrect. Cold, sound judgment is better. Why is that so callous?

12/6/2006 2:19:15 PM

i actually said cold and emotionless. which is exactly what you just said was preferrable.

^and maybe scrooge thought that making those around him happy would make him happier. which seems entirely reasonable.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 2:21:46 PM

Yes, it is preferable. But the way you said "I'm astounded" sounded more like you didn't find it preferable. It didn't seem envious, but condescending.


^Sure, that's possible and plausible.



[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 2:23:16 PM

i don't find it preferable. i can't imagine the coldness many people have in the face of economic efficiency.

"screw poor kids who can't afford a good school. PRIVATE SCHOOLS FOR ALL." etc.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 2:24:27 PM

Actually, Ayn Randians are all about emotion: they find it offensive when one human being forces another human being to do something they do not want to do.

They talk at length about being rational, cult of the mind, maximizing efficiency, whatever. But that is all just rhetoric used to justify their emotional aversion to force.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : force = putting guns to people's heads]

12/6/2006 2:25:51 PM

Well, perhaps the strawman that you've created is far more rare than you pretend.

I can't think of anyone that would express that sentiment, but I know plenty of Randians. I think it would be more probable that someone whose views appear to be as you've expressed have simply not included the unintended consequences of their proposed actions when they formed their views and opinions.

It is equally straw-man for me to say "I don't know how some people can abandon costs in their ideas on policy. Why don't we give everyone a puppy and $1 Million dollars, that will solve all the world's problems."

There are as few people espousing that logical extreme as their view as the statement you've made.

12/6/2006 2:28:25 PM

luckily enough people don't want to be ayn randians for it to make any real difference.

^privatizing all schools is a central tenant of nearly every person i've talked to about these ideas. the government is only for military/protection, etc. i don't buy into that. i think that there is a role of gov't to provide some base standard of living for its citizens. and no, i don't think charities would fill that gap. at least not in a way that i would find acceptable

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 2:28:39 PM

you edited your post, none of it is true anymore.

Privatisation and Public Funding are different issues. Privatisation merely discusses who controls the schools: politicians or private owners. We can privatise the entire school system and attendance will still be free.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/6/2006 2:30:14 PM

^heh. well i still kept the part that you responded to before.

and we're not going to agree on this. sorry to confuse funding and control. i was referring to funding. anyhow some sort of voucher is and always will be just a discount on good schools for the rich -- which gives poor kids even less of a chance of getting a good education. but they will get to choose which bargain basement school their kid can go to.

12/6/2006 2:41:14 PM

How many happy sane people have visions of ghosts taking them on field trips through time and space?

12/6/2006 3:21:19 PM

Quote :

"it's in the same category of letting capitalism control all and screw compassion."

Is forcing someone to give his/her earnings to others better?

12/6/2006 3:25:08 PM

to a degree -- yes.

12/6/2006 3:25:50 PM

Kris, I see what you mean. I haven't read the book in a long time, though. Is there any indication that he was dreaming it rather than it actually happening? I mean, did it say in the end that it was all a vision?

12/6/2006 3:28:40 PM

^^Well I hope to a degree that you find out the consequences of such a system.

12/6/2006 4:07:13 PM

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : n/m]

12/6/2006 4:08:25 PM

Quote :

"Is there any indication that he was dreaming it rather than it actually happening? I mean, did it say in the end that it was all a vision?"

It could have been either, but I think even with dreams like that, you might have some problems.

12/6/2006 4:09:36 PM

What's so strange about that? Last night I dreamed that I was Batman and someone was trying to blow me up.

12/6/2006 4:15:50 PM

Quote :

"anyhow some sort of voucher is and always will be just a discount on good schools for the rich"

Not as I understand it. Currently Wake County is spending $7,239 per student per year to educate everyone in public schools, which is more than many private schools charge. A quick google search found the "Cary Christian School (K-12)" which charges $5,000 per student per year.
http://www.rodgerkoopman.com/stats.html
http://www.carychristianschool.org/admissions/tuition/

You are right that privatization would create substantial savings by eliminating the administrative overhead, the only issue is what happens to these savings. One course of action is for vouchers to fall in value, returning that money to the tax payer. Of course, another option is to keep vouchers and thus prices high and spend the money on ever more extravagant educations. If $5,000 of private education is not enough for you, imagine what they can teach for $7,000!

12/6/2006 4:19:03 PM

Quote :

"The hard case, of course, is a payment due from Bob Cratchit, who needs the money for an emergency operation on Tiny Tim. (Here I depart from the text, but Dickens characters are so familiar to us they can be pressed into unfamiliar roles.) If you think it is heartless of Scrooge to demand payment, think of Sickly Sid, who needs an operation even more urgently than Tim does, and whose father is waiting to finance that operation by borrowing the money Cratchit is expected to pay up. Is Tim's life more valuable than Sid's just because we've met him? And how do we explain to Sid's father that his son won't be able to have the operation after all, because Scrooge, as Christmas generosity, is allowing Cratchit to reschedule his debt? Scrooge does not circulate money from altruism, to be sure, but his motives, whatever they are, are congruent with the public good. "

This is a false dilemma. It's unlikely Sickly Sid's operation would be dependent on Cratchit paying up. If this were the case, it would show that Scrooge is a terrible business man. From a business perspective, it's Scrooges right to demand payment or he'll levy penalties, but the right thing to do will be to accept late payment, but go ahead and pay Sickly Sid's loan anyway.

12/6/2006 5:03:00 PM

this has probably been pointed out but

Quote :

"But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight."

I really don't think there was a safe, reliable, and affordable method of birth control in the 1800s other than abstinence. Maybe somebody should've told the Cratchits about "rhythm method"

12/6/2006 5:10:40 PM

Quote :

"From a business perspective, it's Scrooges right to demand payment or he'll levy penalties, but the right thing to do will be to accept late payment, but go ahead and pay Sickly Sid's loan anyway."

Hmm, with what money? I suspect Scrooge did not have a printing press in the basement to counterfit money, and not being a bank with deposits on demand he probably kept all his money either loaned out or in bonds. So, this delima is quite real: he has no money to loan to Sid without getting more money, either by selling assets (cashing a bond) or getting paid back.

12/6/2006 9:01:45 PM

Quote :

"Currently Wake County is spending $7,239 per student per year to educate everyone in public schools, which is more than many private schools charge. A quick google search found the "Cary Christian School (K-12)" which charges $5,000 per student per year. "

As more children take vouchers for private schools, doesn't that $7,239 figure go up? I would imagine that the more kids you have to educate the cheaper you can provide for all of them. For instance, if little Timmy chooses a voucher, the taxpayer cost for his individual education is $2,239 less, but the cost of education for everyone else would go up slightly. Multiply that slight increase across the remaining students and I doubt the savings are significant, if not outright negated.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 9:50 PM. Reason : A better solution is to simply trim the fat from the public school budget.]

12/6/2006 9:49:35 PM

^ If that were possible they would have done it.

Of course, one might argue if vouchers were possible they would have done it, but I digress.

Overall you are conceivably right. However, it would only be temporary: after enough time has passed you should have no students what-so-ever in public school. If you want to do it quickly then one summer, immediately after classes let out, sell (or give away) all the existing schools to private owners, and grant every student a voucher to attend whatever school they can. Presumably there is enough capacity to handle all the students, there was before privatization. Only now the schools have owners with an interest in making a profit, and new schools will open up around town seeking voucher money.

Now: finding private buyers for old decrepit public schools might be impossible. My favorite solution involves giving the schools (buildings/books/all) to the teachers which will run them like voting cooperatives. They will set their own standards, hire principles (possibly from their own ranks), set their own pay, and contract out for janitorial and security services. These cooperatives will then compete openly with the existing private schools and any school developers that come through.

And since we suspect $7,000 is way too much to pay for education, in a few years there will be substantial over-capacity in the school market, providing ample school choice and fierce competition for quality, since price competition is illegal.

Of course, it could be tweaked to make it legal for schools to refund the difference to parents (tuition is $6000, voucher is $7000, parent gets a $1000 cash refund). But this will lead to price competition which might be unhealthy as the market is just getting started. But it will be impossible to prevent forever, schools will start offering refunds in kind or other compensation in leu of lower prices, but at least we can limit it. Education is too important for people to not over-pay.

Then again, not all regions spend as much on education as Wake County does (new york pays over $11k per student, but rural areas spend as little as $5k). In these counties there may not be enough public money available to spawn a strong school market. When this happens you can take advantage of income disparities: make the size of the voucher determined by the parental income. If you are rich then you do not get a voucher. If you earn $80k a year then your voucher is only worth $2k, if you earn $20k a year then your voucher is worth the full $7k. I see no reason why this progressive voucher system should not be implimented everywhere.

12/6/2006 10:43:36 PM

ha, that's a little ambitious.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 11:19 PM. Reason : but I like thinking big]

12/6/2006 11:19:32 PM

Quote :

"Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster. But what did Scrooge care! It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance. "

A pity Dickens didn't do a follow-up on Scrooge's life after he became Christmas-happy. Was he able to remain both a tough businessman and a patron saint to altruism?

For instance, let's assume that the new Scrooge refused to let any of his defaulting lendees go to the workhouse. Once word got around that there weren't any consequences to defaulting on a Scrooge-loan, he would have been inundated with high credit risk people looking for a loan (especially at Christmas!).

And assuming that it would've been too callous to turn all these people away, he would keep making bad loans. He would also continue to pay medical expenses for Cratchit and other unfortunates, as well as just giving money away to the "needy"... until he went broke and had to go to the workhouse himself.

So is Ayn Rand right? Is altruism a form of suicide?

12/6/2006 11:55:12 PM

^there are plenty of very successful altruistic business owners

Quote :

"Currently Wake County is spending $7,239 per student per year to educate everyone in public schools"

Do you have evidence for that figure?

12/7/2006 12:42:41 AM

^You can name plenty of purely altruistic business people?

I contend that true altruism doesn't actually exist. But I'm sure you can find successful business people that are more compassionate than others, that is true. I doubt you'll find one's that lack all selfishness though.

12/7/2006 7:16:59 AM

Kris, if you scroll up a little I provided the link in the first post I used that figure. I'm not attesting to its accuracy, it was just the first thing to pop up in a google search.

12/7/2006 8:57:29 AM

Quote :

" Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. "

He must have changed professions. A money lender with a heart of gold is a recipe for disaster.

Bob Cratchit gives us a good example of the folly of the minimum wage. In defending Scrooge, Butler Shaffer writes...

Quote :

"One of the offenses with which my client has been charged was that he had not paid Bob Cratchett a large enough salary. Cratchett has worked for an allegedly substandard level of pay – whatever that may mean – for my client for many years. Why? Why did he not quit? Why didn’t he go to work for some other employer – perhaps one of the politically-correct businessmen who periodically show up at Scrooge’s office to solicit and browbeat charitable contributions from my client? Put yourself in Cratchett’s position: imagine yourself to have been the "victim" of years of under-appreciated and underpaid work, head of a large family – one of whose members suffered from a life-threatening ailment – what would you have done? Would you have simply sat around in a kind of "Super Lotto" stupor, hoping that great fortune would befall you through some act of dumb luck? Certainly, in the early days of the industrial revolution wherein Dickens wrote, when new businesses were starting up all over the place in a great burst of economic creativity, there must have been all sorts of opportunities available for a competent bookkeeper. Great fortunes were made by those who rose up out of abject poverty – such men as Andrew Carnegie come to mind, a young boy who went from seeing his father begging in the streets for work, to become the richest man of his era. At no time in history had there been a greater opportunity for self-betterment than during the industrial revolution, where demonstrated merit helped to destroy the state-conferred privileges of feudalism. To anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics, two things should be clear: [1] if, as has been alleged, my client is a tight-fisted, selfish man, he surely would not have paid Bob Cratchett a shilling more than his marginal productivity was worth to Scrooge’s firm, and [2] if Bob Cratchett was being woefully underpaid by my client, there must have been all kinds of alternative employment available to this man at higher salaries. If Cratchett cannot find more remunerative work, and if my client is paying him the maximum that he is marginally worth to his business, then Cratchett must be worth precisely what my client is paying him! Economic values are subjective, with prices for goods or services rising or falling on the basis of the combined preferences of market participants. It is this interplay of marketplace forces – which Dickens neither understands nor favors – coupled with Cratchett’s passive, sluggish disposition when it comes to improving his marketable skills or opportunities, that accounts for Cratchett’s condition in life. My client should no more be expected to pay Cratchett more than his marketable skills merit than would Dickens have paid his stationer a higher than market price for his pen, ink, and paper, simply because the retailer "needed" more money! Dickens’ ignorance of basic economics would, if acted upon by Scrooge, have produced adverse consequences for Cratchett himself. Had Ebeneezer paid Cratchett a higher salary for his work, he [Scrooge] would very likely have been able to attract a larger number of job applicants from which he could have selected employees whose enhanced marginal productivity might have earned Scrooge even greater profits. At such a point, terminating Cratchett’s employment would have been an economically rational act by Scrooge. As matters now stand, Scrooge’s employment policies have left him with the kind of groveling, ergophobic, humanoid sponge we have come to know as Bob Cratchett; a man we are expected to take into our hearts as expressions of some warped sense of the "Christmas spirit." Being an astute businessmen, Ebeneezer Scrooge was well aware of the marketplace maxim that "you get what you pay for." Unaccustomed as Commissar Dickens is to the informal processes of the marketplace, we would not expect him to tell us anything about competitive alternatives for Cratchett’s services. Perhaps there are employers out there prepared to pay him a higher wage than he is receiving from my client. If this is so, then we must ask ourselves: did Bob Cratchett simply lack the ambition to seek higher paying employment? It would appear so. At no time do we see this man exhibiting any interest in trying to better his and his family’s lot. Not even when the aforementioned businessmen arrive for their annual shakedown of my client, does Cratchett so much as suggest to them: "gentlemen, I have a son who is afflicted with a life-threatening condition, and if you would be so inclined to look upon him as one of the objects of your charitable purposes, I would be greatly appreciative." He can’t rise from his self-pitying position long enough to even speak up for Tiny Tim at a time when any responsible and loving parent would have jumped at the opportunity to plead his son’s case. If Cratchett is such an unfocused sluggard that he is unable to generate the slightest motivation to speak up on behalf of his son when provided with the opportunity to do so, why should my client have visited upon him the moral opprobrium of a community of readers who presume that he should be more greatly motivated on behalf of Tiny Tim than was Tim’s own father?"

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 10:56:45 AM

Quote :

"if, as has been alleged, my client is a tight-fisted, selfish man, he surely would not have paid Bob Cratchett a shilling more than his marginal productivity was worth to Scrooge’s firm"

This is true, he wouldn't have paid more than that. He also wouldn't have paid any more than was absolutely necessary to keep Cratchett around. Just because he's willing to pay up to the marginal productivity doesn't mean he will pay it if he can help it. I think that's more Dickens' point -- that Cratchett is getting paid less than he deserves, not less than he needs.

And I think that article really overstates the job opportunities available to a man in 19th Century London. It's not like Bob would've had good chances walking out on his job with Scrooge all by his own; hence unions. Like the pet store employees union I tried to agitate for before it was squashed.

Quote :

"For instance, let's assume that the new Scrooge refused to let any of his defaulting lendees go to the workhouse. Once word got around that there weren't any consequences to defaulting on a Scrooge-loan, he would have been inundated with high credit risk people looking for a loan"

But I don't see any evidence in the story that he really changed his business model all that much. He gave Bob a raise, closed down for Christmas (makes sense, no point paying Bob on a day when you're not going to be doing any business, you're just throwing money away there) and let him have some more damn coal for the heater. Now arguably Bob was worth the raise and not letting Bob freeze his ass off probably increased his productivity.

12/7/2006 12:02:10 PM

Quote :

"This is true, he wouldn't have paid more than that. He also wouldn't have paid any more than was absolutely necessary to keep Cratchett around. Just because he's willing to pay up to the marginal productivity doesn't mean he will pay it if he can help it. I think that's more Dickens' point -- that Cratchett is getting paid less than he deserves, not less than he needs."

It could be argued then that the fault lies still with Cratchett who has undervalued his own labor. Assuming that Scrooge was paying less than his maximum limit, Cratchett merely had to threaten to leave and his pay would have increased else wise Scrooge would be a fool. Interestingly enough, if you value yourself high enough, you will often get what you really do deserve, but you have to ask. As you point out, the employer isn't going to pay more than they need to in order to keep you around. And it doesn't take much, just a firm statement that you feel you are much more valuble than you are being paid, and an ultimatum of more pay or you leave. It of course helps to have a backup plan if you don't get your increased pay (in which case you were being paid what you are worth) but it does work.

Case in point a co-worker of mine recently recieved nearly a $1 an hour raise after 6 months by using the above method. When his performance review came around, they told him they liked him and offered him a $.20 raise. He told them he thought he was worth much more than that, and asked for a better raise or he wouldn't be staying around long. While he didn't get his full asking price, he certainly got more than $.20. And it's worth noting we work for a rather large corporation that would have no trouble finding a body to fill his position, but certainly would have trouble finding a true replacement.

If Crachett were truely worth more, he should have been able to get a raise, but he needs to use his power as an employee.

12/7/2006 6:05:30 PM

Quote :

"You can name plenty of purely altruistic business people?"

That's a strawman, I never said "purely altruistic". But I'm sure you know how much Gates and Buffet and the like donate.

Quote :

"Kris, if you scroll up a little I provided the link in the first post I used that figure. I'm not attesting to its accuracy, it was just the first thing to pop up in a google search."

Considering it's the crux of your arguement, you might want to make sure you have a completely accurate statistic.

12/7/2006 8:24:23 PM

I didn't really care that much. I assume the figure is reasonable, if it is not then the adversarial system will tell me. In other words, someone that thinks public spending is less than that amount will do their own google search showing it to be $10 per student or something.

12/7/2006 8:55:00 PM