Strip clubs and the changing role of women

I think one thing that is taking place is that our culture is being, for lack of a better word, feminized. What used to be considered the "manly" virtues, strength, agression (properly channeled), competitiveness, individualism, decisiveness, these are all being denigrated. Now kids in school aren't taught that you shouldn't fight, but if you fight, fight fair and don't pick on the weak, or even better defend the weak, even if it means fighting, or that the best way to stop a bully is to confront him, they're taught to whine and run to some authority figure. OK, so that is slightly off topic, back to the point at hand. Strip clubs are one of the few places men can openly look at and flirt with women without worying about lawsuits. It's just nice to be able to act like a guy. Yes, I like beer, I like hot women, I want to have sex with them and will let them know it, and I like it even better when they are naked and trying to make me happy.

As for the changing roles of women, I may be a little off on this, it is still an idea that is forming, but the big message to women for about the past 40 years is that they can "have it all". They should be personally and professionally fulfilled, and if they aren't its because someone is opressing them or standing in their way. Now as far as I know, even back in the 50's nobody was ever telling men anything other than grow up, get a job, learn to compromise and make a happy life as best as you can. Find a good wife, have some kids, support them, and if you're lucky, at the end you'll have a few good years of retirement and the satisfaction of having raised good kids and sent them out into the world ready to contribute.

"Societies may change, human nature does not." - Professor, 2007.

I'm young enough to have only known how we women of today operate. I could never imagine (nor care to) any other way. I'll spare you all my radical feminist views (unless someone pisses me off!), but I definitely agree that there are lots of insecure guys lurking in stripclubs, venting negatively on the hot women. I'm sure it's partly due to resentment in the workplace, but it's probably just as much due to their overall dismal lack of success socially with women. They've been socially rejected by women their whole adult lives, and dissing a hot stripper is a great ego-boost and a nice cheap sort of quick revenge.

Agreed.

I'd have to agree that stripclubs are, and probably have always been a haven for socially marginilized men to act out their power fantasies. But then I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I think one thing that is very new is the idea that people have a socially constructed "gender" as opposed to a very real, explicit, and genetic sex. The idea that men and women are the same, but for social constructs is one of those fashionable academic ideas that, despite any science whatsoever, and all the science to the contrary, will take a long time to die. The problem is that those who belive this have sought to impose a single standard that does not allow for male/female differences. Men and women, boys and girls, have always been socialized in very different manners, usually in ways established over generations that sought to channel sex differences in positive ways, but now we are experimenting in ways never seen before. I'm going to leave it at that for now.

Now, just to go on record, "womens issues" are absolutely legitimate. In the past when there were disperate legal standards for men and women it was absolutely right and proper that they should be changed. I am more ambivalent on recent trends, but will leave it at that for now.

Just to clarify about the bug up my ass on some of these topics, follow this link.

nationaljournal.com

And just for the record, No, National Journal is not a right wing publication, that's National Review.

Yeah, the "feminization" of male roles bugs me, too. Time was, I could stride off to sulk quietly in privacy, have a pipe-ful of tobacco, make some demands on my co-workers in a gruff voice, get things done on time in a professional manner, dress properly for work, own some cufflinks, know how to shave, and I'd get RESPECT for the fact that my emotions weren't getting the better of me. Now, it marks you as "not a member of the happy-go-lucky team-work-oriented emotionally supportive workplace machine!" Smile smile.

The whole world has gone Julie-the-Cruise-Director. Remember her from "The Love Boat"? What I wouldn't give for a good Charles Laughton moment every now and then ...

Please note that this topic isn't about whether you like or dislike the changing roles of women, it's about what impact that has had on strip clubs. And I think it's a very complex topic.

Take one example - changes in the work place. When I was young, most women stayed home, and those who did work outside the home were mostly in white-collar jobs - school teachers, nurses, bank tellers, waitresses, secretaries - typically not very high paying fields. The higher-paying blue collar factory and construction jobs were almost exclusively men. And many of those jobs didn't require much education, so there were a lot of well-paid men of relatively low education out there. They were a prime market for strip clubs (ever notice how many strip clubs there are near large factories?)

All that has changed. Go to any factory floor today and you'll see lots of women in those relatively well-paid jobs. Or go to any office building and see all the women in professional jobs. And look how many women are now lawyers and doctors. More women graduate from college today than men. Working women have clearly benefitted from the opening of higher paying fields to them, especially those with a good education (those factory jobs of today require a lot more education that in the past because of computers and automation.)

But with any major change there are both winners and losers. And who are the losers? Primarily those relatively uneducated men, mostly displaced factory workers, who otherwise would be making a good income but can no longer do so - many such jobs have disappeared because of automation, and of those that remain many are now held by women. But these men aren't the only losers, what about their wives? One of the reasons that there are so many women in the work force today is that many men can no longer support a family, it now often takes 2 incomes - one good income has been replaced by 2 low ones - so many women have been forced to work outside the home. Which in turn has been a factor in our much higher divorce rates. You have to wonder if maybe some of those women have become strippers.

So to summarize, the changing role in women in the work place has had at least two effects on strip clubs: it has eliminated large numbers of potential customers and has probably increased the supply of strippers.

It does seem complex.

I think "equality" of women may have hurt the stripclubs. More women seeing nothing wrong with casual sex or selling sex means that escorting becomes an attractive option. Especially, if stripclub customers are really after sex, first and foremost. Why go through the public display and abuse when you can make more money in less time just doing BJs or FS. Disease fears don't seem to impress most people . . .

Some may think a dancer makes more money, but I don't believe that is usually the case and I think the dancer generally works harder.

I'd rather make less money and have equal status out in the real world. Sure, strip clubs might be hurt by the equalization of men and women, but women certainly benefit from it in all other aspects. Unless one's a career stripper, one should be pleased that, at the very least, when she leaves work, she is protected from unwanted harassment.

MIDancer, I'm all in favor of equality for women, I think it's been good for the country as a whole and I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. But don't be fooled into thinking that all women have benefitted, many have been hurt by it. For example, many women who would prefer to stay home and be a housewife are worse off for at least 2 reasons: (1) their husbands, particulary those who aren't college graduates, probably earn less than they otherwise would, so the family income is lower; and (2) the economic cost of staying home has increased significantly. Those factors have forced many women to go to work outside the home who would prefer not to, which often makes it more difficult to raise a family - not only are the women hurt by this, their children may be too. Equality for women hasn't been a win-win situation, there have been losers and they aren't all men.

Jablake has raised the issue that I think has had the greatest impact on strip clubs, namely the sexual revolution. Years ago, unless you had a steady girl friend or wife, the only option most guys had for seeing and playing with naked women was in a strip club. Most young women didn't "put out" then, to use an antiquated term. Now there are lots of other options for guys. You used to be able to do more in a strip club than you could on most dates, now it's probably the reverse. And the dates usually cost less. The strip club has lost it's novelty, especially for young single guys. And I think that has hurt strip clubs perhaps more than anything else. And is a major reason why a lot of guys expect "extras."

But the sexual revolution probably has made it more acceptable for more women to become strippers. So overall I'd say it has increased the supply and decreased the demand.

The revolution also has ahd another effect. Before things changed, most guys treated girls with respect. I don't think that's as common anymore, either inside the club or outside. Some girls probably prefer it that way but many don't. MIDancer, this is exactly what you complained about not long ago - IMO the type of attitude that you encountered is partly a result of the changing role of women in our society. (It also reflects the general decline in civility but that's another issue.)

I think two incomes are required more as a result of inflation (and wages remaining the same), then men having "lost" their jobs to women.

Also, I consider college (or a trade school) to be what high school was like for your generation; in the majority of cases, you have to graduate college to earn a livable wage (I also think college should be heavily subsidized my the government, but that's another topic). In order to earn GOOD wages, you're going to need (again, in the majority of cases) a Master's degree or higher. The pitfalls of living in a Capitalist society are starting to show: the gap between the haves and the have-nots is growing at an exponential rate, and our generation is suffering the consequences. My dad worked through college. That was a possibility in his day; our generation is stuck with taking out huge loans (or, in my case, stripping PART of the tuition bills away and taking out minimal loans).

Furthermore, I think that the attitude I encountered the other night was completely unnacceptable. And while I understand the social implications of his behavior and why such attitudes exist, I don't think it should be EXCUSED (as in, "well, he just hates women because of the changing role of women in society"). That's HIS hang-up, and I think more men need to take responsibility for such.

"The pitfalls of living in a Capitalist society are starting to show: the gap between the haves and the have-nots"

The problem is the alternatives are far worse and we now have the post-WW2 history of entire countries to point to as classic examples. If dependency on others or government is the goal, then yes socialism will help move a country toward that goal, and we've seen that in the socialistic programs that have been implemented in the United States.

As it stands now with Germany and France, they have for years been trying to undo their huge problems with their high unemployment/low production/high cost euro-socialistic states. Once again as this is being written, not surprisingly, the entrenched socialist unions in France are on the streets marching against reforms.

Socialism can sometimes do a great job of equally dividing up all the poverty it creates. In contrast there's never been any society in the history of the world as prosperous as the United States for the last 60 years following WW2 and its primary economic engine has been capitalism.

Its amazing people can keep claiming the wonders of socialism when the failures are so obvious for all to see. China after 70 plus years of a failed communist/socialistic state has finally in the last 15 to 20 plus years implemented various levels of capitalistic styled reforms and is now emerging as a global economic power. India after decades of failure under Hindu-socialism is also an emerging economic power having also implemented various capitalistic styled reforms. Even Russia is now having some success with their reforms

Socialism, which looks great on paper and might even work temporarily in a homogenous and exclusionary and relatively small country like Sweden (which by the way now is also having significant problems) - in practice it manages to demotivate the most productive members of society.

The pilgrims even found this out in Plymouth in 1620 when their attempts at socialism almost led to starvation by the colony, and found instead by letting people keep more of what they earned and produced - all people benefited.

Hi David9999,

Very well said.

"Furthermore, I think that the attitude I encountered the other night was completely unnacceptable." MIDancer, I agree completely. I'm not trying to excuse anyone's bad behavior. My point is that men used to only treat each other that way, they were usually more polite to women. That has changed as the distinctions between men and women have narrowed. In an ideal world we'd all, men and women, treat each with respect. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

And I agree that there are many reasons for the need (or desire) for two incomes where one used to do. But I think opening more opportunities for women is one of them. It's a zero sum game - if women earn more, by definition men earn less. If women get better jobs, by definition fewer good jobs are available for men. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, I'm just pointing out what is. Anytime there's major change there's likely to be a cost associated with that change. And usually the people who pay that cost are different than the people who reap the benefits. In this case I think the people who are paying most of the cost are those men and women, and their children, who don't have enough education to take advantage of the increased opportunities. The people who have benefitted are those women who do.

I also agree with David9999. With few exceptions, the best thing government can do for a country's economy is to get out of the way. Virtually all historical evidence shows that to be true.

I've known a lot of people who have worked a full-time job and gone to their local community college without going into debt. My ATF is doing that as we speak. She runs her business, goes to school full time, and is fully self-supporting. Without taking out any loans.

I agree with many of FONDL's theories, but as a contrary benefit strip clubs offer an outlet for men to be playful with young flirty women they are not attached to either personally or professionally, and without that outlet they would be bringing that activity into the workplace with female co-workers and risking sexual harassment lawsuits, etc. In my business we can completely avoid hiring the "sexy secretary" and focus on hiring someone good for the job/company, and encourage the party boys to hit the strip clubs to get their ego boost. So I see a need for this business model, very much like I see a need for the strip clubs to balance off Escort activity. Without strip clubs, escort activity would attract these customers, and more broken marriages/families would be the result.

Chipitin, I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence, I think you could just as easily argue that strip clubs get some customers started on the slippery slope that eventually leads to escorts. But other than that I agree that strip clubs fulfill a need and aren't likely to disappear any time soon.

I just wonder if younger guys are likely to be as atracted to strip clubs as they age as many of us have been, or if their experience with women in general could cause them to find clubs less attractive than we do. I don't know the answer to that question. Which is why I raised this topic in the first place: is the changing role of women in our society, and the changing way that guys view women, a positive or a negative for strip clubs?

Fondl: You did indeed raise a complex subject, IMO, increase in stripclubs has more to do with paradigm shift in sexual mores, than increase of women in the workplace. For sure, its a more competitive, stressful world. One factor not touched upon is that more women in workplace contribute to a certain extent, the widening gap between the classes. I'm referring to the increase in "career couples", whereby both spouses have a good career gig in their own right( military officer, engineer, medicine, law, etc). Add in the necesity to have 2 incomes to afford a "lifestyle" only fuels the competition. In Fondl's former life, an upper class couple wife didn't have to work, or would be part time real estate agent, substitute teacher, etc. So, they would live nice on $100-$125K. (2007 $). Blue collars in Fondl's life might have man in good factory job, and wife being part time register puncher, making $40-$45K income. INCOME GAP= $55K-$85K

Now, upper class couple have both spouses making $100K, HH Income=$200K. Larry & Linda Lunchpail have 2 "good" low skill jobs, household income , say $75K. Now, there's a $125K income gap, essentially a double increase. That's a bigger difference in potential mortgage loan available. Enough stress already, time to go to stripclub!!

So... David9999 is a Capatilist and Fondl's a Libertarian? Okay, this IS going to be a difficult conversation as I AM a socialist.

Pro-globalization, as well.

"I've known a lot of people who have worked a full-time job and gone to their local community college without going into debt. My ATF is doing that as we speak. She runs her business, goes to school full time, and is fully self-supporting. Without taking out any loans."

You can only obtain an Associate's Degree at the community college level, and unless one intends on using that to find a job (good luck with that, as I haven't seen it happen for any of my friends), one will need to transfer to a university. If your ATF is running her own business, it would probably be in her best interest to complete a 4-year degree at a major university, and supplement THAT with an MBA.

MIDancer, that used to be true but many community colleges now offer 4-year degrees. My ATF actually plans to get a Masters degree in nursing, which will require her to transer to a local university. But because of her business success she should be able to do that without going into debt. But my point here is that there are lots of people out there getting college degrees without parental help and without incurring a lot of debt. It isn't easy but lots of people are doing it.

And congratulations on figuring out that I am indeed a Libertarian, how did you know? I believe that our individual freedoms are being lost at an alarming rate as government keeps getting bigger and bigger, and when this country ultimately becomes a second-rate nation like socialist Europe, in whose footsets we are following, loss of personal freedom will be a major reason why.

But to get back to strip clubs, Minnow, I agree that the paradigm shift in sexual mores has had a major impact on strip clubs, I'm just not sure what that impact is. Women in the workplace is just one part of the changing roles of women, and in terms of the impact on strip clubs may be relatively minor compared to changing sexual roles.

And you are absolutely correct that working women are contributing significantly to the gap between rich and poor. Consider two working men, one highly educated the other not, the former earning $100k, the latter 30k. Put both their wives to work and see what happens. The firt guy's wife probably is also highly educated and gets a job earning $80k, the second guy's wife isn't and can only make $20k. The gap between their family incomes has widened dramatically if both women work. Furthermore, because of the lost "opportunity cost" of staying home, the educated guy's wife is much more likely to be in the work force full time. This is a good example of why the income gap is widening in our country.

I wonder, if we are to make the discussion relative to SCs, if there is a data out there that compares income levels of male and female dancers, just like it does in other areas of labor force. Silly? Self-evident? Perhaps. But closer to the topic.

BTW, half of my life I lived in one of those countries mentioned by David, and if you have not, you have no idea ...that's why I am here :)

FONDL: It was an easy guess: "[The] best thing government can do for a country's economy is to get out of the way." I'm sure your a huge Ron Paul fan. I, on the other hand, am a huge Kucinich fan.

I also wouldn't call socialized-Europe "second-rate." I don't have the burning desire that many Americans have to be the biggest, baddest country in the world; rather, I'd like be part of a country whose government actually cares for its people, even if that means sacrificing a few (or many) luxuries.

Professor: One of my closest friends is from Cuba, and he made it clear to me during one of our conversations that pure GREED is what drove him to America. The oppurtunity to make money seems to trump human rights (or my perception of what human rights ought to consist of) in America.

I'd like to be part of a country whose government actually leaves its people alone, even if that means sacrificing a few (or some) luxuries. :) And, even if it means some people enjoy "excessive" wealth or there is discrimination against people for "stupid" reasons e.g. racial, gender, disability, age, national origin, etc. Not worried at all about someone who has a lot more than me as long as they're will to leave me the hell alone--that is hardly ever the case. Usually there is the demand for more police or more laws or more spending. Not worried at all about discrimination as long as you're free to build a better mouse trap.

Having said all that I lean in favor of a communist (socialist) America. Perhaps then the country wouldn't start so many wars against foreign countries. At the very least socialism should make it a much poorer nation, which isn't necessarily bad. For example, some people have their panties in a bunch due to "illegal" immigration. Make the country poor enough then problem solved. :)

MIDancer, would you call your best tipping customers greedy for they have money? Would you call yourself greedy for not taking minimum wage job?

I had lunch years ago with a lady from the Soviet Union. She told me her co-workers were making fun of her because she was a hardcore communist and yet she was living in America. She didn't see any contradiction at all. In her mind America had destroyed a paradise so why stay in the ruins? Of course, that didn't explain why she chose America to flee to. She explained she wanted to see first hand what her enemy was like. She was very impressed by the wealth, but didn't think the tradeoffs were worth it. She believed in a communist America. At the time I never thought in million years that I would agree with her, but after a few Bush presidencies. :)

One huge advantage of living in Miami is that I get to meet people from all over the world. I would have thought choosing to come to America they would be pro-America overwhelmingly. For different reasons that just isn't the case. Yes, a minority that I've met are just wildly in love with America and her people. There is a dancer at The Trap (not bad looking and is 100% in-love with America) from Argentina and she was telling me you can't appreciate America unless you travel to other countries. Well, yes I've heard the same thing from people who have travelled to other countries, but I've also heard the exact opposite from native born Americans. I asked one lady then why in the world are you here if you hate America? She says visiting children and grandchildren, but I wish they would move to a nicer country. A man from the Dominican Republic hates America, but is here for the money. Sorta like a young hooker that hates fucking old farts, but is willing to subject herself to it for the money.

In Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, I think he made an excellent arguments in favor of capitalism and also libertarianism.

One point that really bothered me especially since I believe Friedman to be an elite thinker was answer to the question why does fiat money have "value"? He stated it is because people think it has value. Whoa, big time! What a truly pathetic answer to an important question and I don't think it was by accident. :( I don't know if it was intellectual dishonesty against his readers or he didn't want to see that fiat money embraces both force and fraud. The very two evils that he rails against in his unbridled or almost unbridled support of the free markets.

Anyway, I loved his book so much that I bought more than one copy. :)

MIDancer, I think the main difference between your views and mine is that you see free markets and caring for people as mutually exclusive concepts while I see free markets as the most effective way of helping the most people. I think it was you who made a comment elsewhere that it isn't fair to compare the poor in this country with the poor in many other countries because the poor elsewhere are so much worse off. Don't you wonder how that came to be? It wasn't always so. Free markets - or in your words greed - is what made it happen. The reason the poor elsewhere are so terribly poor is largely because their government-controlled economic systems don't work, very few people benefit from them. For example, in most African countries where large numbers of people are starving, it isn't because of a lack of available food, it's because of a lack of infrastructure, there's no way to get the food to the starving people, most of the food grown in those countries spoils before it ever gets to market. A free market system would solve that problem much more effectively than government has been able to do. You also disparage our gap between rich and poor. And yet that gap is much larger in countries where there isn't a democracy. Greed plays just as big a role in socialist and communist countries, it's just that fewer people benefit from it.

My two favorite political quotes are: "The best government is that which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson; and "A rising tide lifts all boats" - John F. Kennedy. What's interesting is that both men were the leading liberals of their day. I know that these quotes are now consideredd to be trite by some. And yet they remain as true today as they were when first spoken.

I think the lack of understanding of basic economics in this country is appalling. IMO if more people understood economics fundamentals, we'd make much better political decisions.

Hi Fondl,

Excellent points! :)

You know they did the Chilean experiment where the free market nut jobs ala Friendman (the Chicago Boys) et al were allowed to run the show. At the time experts were predicting collapse because of course government experts knew more and were fairer blah blah blah.

When the exact opposite occurred and free markets again proved their worth it didn't seem to make a dimes worth of difference. And, I can sort of understand the thinking. Poverty isn't as bad when you don't have some assholes lording it over you.

Like the blubber butt that was complaining about the lack of a free market. Yes, there was a demand for her even at expensive clubs. Problem was she wasn't being allowed to participate in the free market. The best solution isn't to force the clubs to allow fatties to work, but to allow more freedom, which in America is a negative value, i.e. let anyone open a club without all the government filth i.e. corrupt law enforcement, discriminatory zoning, isolation of clubs from one another, etc. etc. etc. There ain't no free market and as such it isn't unreasonable to think steal the pie instead of earn the pie. :)

Put me in the communist or socialist category--100% over this system. American is currently wealthy enough to take care of basic needs without all the evils caused by the disparity of wealth. Assholes want to tax my property to the point of losing my home because they're rich assholes, then the solution is to elminate the rich! Screw the rich and their idiotic wars and their wimpering for this special law or that special law. I'd much rather the government invest in education, health, transportation, the environment, etc. etc. etc. The rich need to be legislatively eliminated! :)

If my goal of a communist America isn't reached that is ok, also. At my age it really doesn't make much difference. Capitalism--fine. Communism--fine. But, if I had a say between the current system or communism, then communism wins hands down! :)

Unless you were going to clubs before the sexual revolution and women's movement any thing said here is pure speculation. I wasn't so I'm not really going to speculate about how things are different in strip clubs now as opposed to 40 years ago... I go to clubs, I like women, I spend money on the ones I like. It doesn't get much more complicated than that for me....

In most cases, I don't know my customers well-enough to determine whether or not their greedy. I know what I do is part of a long-term survival plan; unfortunately, this country doesn't give you much of a choice. Minimum wage is hardly a livable one, and too many people have grown very accustomed to their unnecessary comforts. For example, I've tried time and time again to start a commune of sorts: 1 house, 4 bedrooms, 10+ people; eveyone pitches in for food, NECESARRY utilities (I've lived without a television and cable for a couple years now), etc. But virtually no one wants to do it.

Yoda, that's a valid point. If you mean the late 1960s, yes I was going to clubs before than. But the sexual revolution and women's movement weren't one-time events, they've been ongoing processes and the changes they produced are still evloving. For example, the role of women in our society and the way that men and women relate to each other today is quite different than it was 20 years ago, and I believe it will be different 20 years from now. I'm sure that the experience of being a teenager, especially a female one, has changed and is continuing to do so, and some of those girls will become strippers. Sorry if you find this kind of subject boring but I enjoy speculating on such things. Maybe because for many years following and interpreting social changes was a major part of my job.

MIDancer: It's all in how you market your idea. Place an ad in your local paper mentioning "ten strangers picked to live together in one house ... working together and getting real", title your ad "Real World [insert city name]". You'll have people from all over sending you audition videos in an attempt to be chose to live in your house!

(uhh... that reference might be lost to you since you said that you've lived without a television for a couple of years. It's a reference to the MTV series craze called 'Real World'.)

Doug S: I remember the Real World. And while you're certainly be facetious, I don't want to live with 10 strangers. I've brought up the idea a several times with my friends (who are always bitching and moaning about the cost of living), and they'd always look at me like I'm insane.

*being

FONDL: I don't think African countries are a good example, seeing as they are notoriously corrupt. I mean, come on, President Mbeki of South Africa held the stance that AZT, rather than HIV, causes AIDS until circa 2000.

FONDL: Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was boring. What I said was that I wouldn't speculate on the differences. I simply prefer not to complicate what motivates me to have a good time, or not, in a strip club. There are all kinds of differences in the women, and men, of today vs. thirty of forty years ago but I don't honestly think the motivations for women dancing naked or men enjoying the experience are all that different. Of course, again, prior to about 1975 or so I couldn't speak from first hand experience.

MIDancer, people who express views like yours often make two common assumptions with which I strongly disagree: (1) They equate caring with support for more government spending on programs to support the less fortunate. My problem is that I don't think many of our social programs are working, and throwing more money at them won't help anyone. I'd like to see the less fortunate have better lives too, but I don't think giving more money to the Federal governmewnt is the best way to do it. Preference for a different approach doens't make one any less caring. (2) They also think that business and the private sector have a monopoly on greed and low ethics. My experience with government and the non-profit world strongly suggest otherwise. Greed is part of human nature, most people want to improve their own standing regardless of where they live or work, and more never seems to be enough. Greed and dishonesty is every bit as common in government and the nonprofit world as in the business world. Maybe more so.

One problem with greed is that it's impossible to define, it means different things to different people. My dictionary defines it as "excessive desire for food or wealth." But what's excessive to one person is essential to another. We all have a view of how one ought to live, but our views are all different. Personally I'm glad that I live in a country where no one else can tell me how to live. If greed is the price for that freedom, I'm willing to tolerate it.

I might agree that greed and dishonesty is as prevelant in the government as it is in business, but MY experience in nonprofit has clearly been different than yours, because I saw quite a few people working long hours for virtually no pay just so they could help the less fortunate.

"If greed is the price for that freedom, I'm willing to tolerate it."

You seem to associate your freedom with how you are allowed to spend your money. I don't. I'd rather see the tax-man take half or more in order to FREE people from the fear of not being able to make end's meet. I don't think people should have to worry about their basic human needs, which I consider to be the following: shelter, food, clothes, transportation, child-care, health insurance and education.

Sorry MIDancer, my fault, I should have been more specific, I was referring to a totally different kind of nonprofit. DC is full of thousands of nonprofit organization whose people are well paid (especially those at the top) and that work like this - they identify some "problem" then lobby government for money to study it, then find that it is much more serious than anyone thought, then based on this "study" they lobby for more money to study it further and more money to help solve the problem and on and on it goes. Funny but these "studies" always conclude that the problem is really serious, maybe because the people doing the study have a huge vested financial interest in the outcome? But because they're done by a nonprofit, the media never question the study. And of course these nonprofits donate heavily to election campaigns, so government is more tha happy to help play the game. If evil business did this (some try) they'd be vilified and rightly so.

I was a senior executive for such an organization (one of the major environmental groups) late in my career. After retiring from 30 years in the business community I thought it would be fun to do some good. Little did I know, the ethics were much lower than anything I ever encountered in business. But that's politics, it's all about money and power. Which is why I think the best government is that which governs least.

I greatly admire the type of nonprofit organization that you refer to and greatly admire the volunteers who work with them (and I'm not surprised that you're one of them.) In my opinion that's how social problems should be addressed. Such organizations are much more capable of making a difference than government will ever be because they're local and can understand the problem, which government from afar can never do. Plus they care about the people they're trying to help, where government is all about money and politics. And in case you're wondering, yes I put my money and my time where my mouth is, I've been doing volunteer work for many years and I contribute to those organizations which I think do a good job.

And finally to answer your question, I think (as did our Founding Fathers) that the opportunity to benefit from the results of one's own labors is one of our most precious freedoms. I don't think money should be forcibly extracted from those who toil to earn it unless there is an overwhelming public need to do so. I wouldn't mind government taking half of working people's income (as they now do) if it would help those in need. But they clearly haven't been able to do so. Give me a government program that would accomplish that goal and I will gladly support it. But given the ineffectiveness of today's approaches, no thanks. Let people keep their money so they have more to donate to the volunteer organizations.

Ah yes, the right to keep the fruits of our own labors.

I have found (much to my disappointment) that I don't keep very much of it. I don't really begrudge our taxation level here in the USA (though I'm no expert, as I understand it, we're taxed less than most developed nations, and we do spend more on military than most of them, too).

What gets me isn't the government intrusion. It's the "system" intrusion on my paycheck. I haven't ever really had a job that paid for itself. The costs of maintaining a car (yeah, right, public transit will get you there on time, riiiiight), keeping up a wardrobe, paying for mandatory business trips that are presented as "optional," further certification programs that the workplace expects but won't pay for, getting a high-falutin' education in the first plac,e so's I can get one of these jobs -- it all adds up to a negative net for me.

Often here at the boards I say, "I don't want to work, I just want the income," but I don't really mean that. People rightly should castigate me for such a lazy attitude. I DO like doing things that are productive; I DO like having a "real" reason to get out of the house, other than just piddling about at the local Starbucks. I value productivity, I value doing good things for mankind. I just can't AFFORD the kind of productivity that's "expected" of me. It costs too much.

One of the things I've promised myself is, that after I get another advanced degree, I'm never again going to have a job that requires me to have a second job to pay for the first job. I don't mean, that the income has to be high enough that I don't have to moonlight -- some things that I do (choir, acting) aren't highly profitable. But I do mean, that if there are job requirements, that the job itself cover them. Period. No more of this "mandatory optional" business expense crap.

Of course, that doesn't have much to do with the changing roles of WOMEN ... but it does point out what SOCIETY is changing towards. Now'days, an "average" middle class professional position is NOT guaranteed to pay the bills in a generic sort of "living wage" kind of way. I've experienced working 70 hours a week in positions where 100s of applicants competed for the job which I got, and the descriptions of which require a second degree above and beyond a college BA simply as the first hurdle, and yet couldn't even cover rent on the basis of that employment. That wasn't going to be happening in 1950, this "impoverished professionally successful" phenomenon. Women as well as men get into this conundrum, though I think women in general are more free of social pressure to be "impressive" (CEO) and can instead choose to do jobs that they "like" (gymnastics coach, etc.) even if those jobs aren't highly status-oriented, and won't feels as much brunt of undesirability as a man will. A guy who works throwing pots because "he values it" isn't going to get the money, or the chicks, that a guy who works as a lawyer (even though he hates it) is going to get; a chick is going to get a date and probably a "supported" life regardless of the "impressiveness" of her job.

"... we're taxed less than most developed nations ..." If only that were true. BG, if you look at all taxes, not just federal income taxes but all the various kinds of taxes from all government bodies (we're pretty unique in having all these different levels of government), we're one of the most heavily taxed nations in the world. But most people don't realize that because our taxes are so fragmented and we've been told that our tax burden is low, which is total BS. IMO if most working people realized how much they pay in taxes and how little they get in return, compared to other countries with similarly high tax burdens, we'd have a revolt on our hands. Which is why governments keep it hidden by fragmenting it.

My tax burden has declined because I don't work or spend much anymore, but I feel sorry for people who do. High taxes are why you and so manhy other people have trouble supporting yourself. The thing that upsets me the most about it is that our fastest growing type of taxes are the regressive ones like sales and excise taxes - they fall most heavily on low income people. I think it's crimianl the way taxes are extracted from low and moderate income people so that politicians can give it to their friends who return some of it for their re-election campaigns. And both parties play the game.

I've seen graphs were they show that women lag behind men in terms of drugs use but they eventually catch up. Let us not forget the big role that drugs play in stripping.

I can believe that we're "fragmentally taxed." In Mississippi they tax food and shelter, for example, even though there's a very high rate of poverty (high poverty SHOULD imply fewer rather than more regressive taxes). I'd like to know what our tax burden relative to Germany or France is -- or Holland. Those places seem to be great deals. You get all these government services for a low bill, and you get to do what you love for a living rather than having to be a corporate whore. Or at least, that's what it looks like from the outside. Wouldn't it be cool if our government enabled a positive lifestyle, too?

FONDL- I disagree with your assertion that greed & dishonesty is just as, even more prevalent in govt. than private business. I think you may be confusing "empire building" with "greed". Corporate CEO's are compensated 400 times what lowest paid employee makes, at most, highest GS level, (or JCS chair vs E1) maybe 10-15 times what lowest level employee makes. Quite a difference there, don't you think?

Minnow, I guess it depends on what you mean by greed. Corporate exectuives get paid directly, whereas most of an elected official's compensation is indirect - eg. power, prestige, perks and the ability to direct huge amounts of money to friends. And often once they leave office, those same friends then hire them at huge salaries. I don't see that as being any less greedy or honest than how the corporate world operates.

I agree that most CEO's are grossly overpaid. I also think rock stars, actors, and pro athletes, many of whom make far more than most corporate executives do, are too. Does that make them greedy too?

Here's the problem I have with this whole concern about greed. What if I came up with some new legal idea for making tons of money. Does that make me greedy if I do it? Suppose I then turn around and start a charity with the money that helps other people, am I still greedy? Isn't what you do with the money just as important as how much you earn or how you earn it? Seems to me that lots of really wealthy people try pretty hard to help others.

The thing I don't like about "current forms of greed" (define as you would think I mean it, not in some nit-picky way that misses the point of the conversation) is that often what's good for the big share-holders is bad for the employees or the company. So, it's possible to have a "thriving economy" in which large rafts of people are deliberately disemployed and livelihoods are taken away in the name of "profit." In an arrangement like that, we have the problem of failing to distribute wealth equitably, and then all the attendant ills that precipitate from that.

Not that EVERY choice in favor of the employee is necessarily a good choice; just that, currently, it's rather in vogue to destroy an organization in the name of selling shares.

w-pedia (greed) "desire to acquire wealth or possesions beyond the needs of the individual, especially when this accumulation denies others....."

Okay, myself and others have more than 800 sq ft of living space, drive a bigger car than 7yo Honda Civic, eat more than 1500 calories/day, have enough $$ left over for SC visits, am posting on computer thats beyond basic model, guess that makes me greedy. (I'm not the biggest fish in the pond)

True, govt. employees aren't compensated monetarily as much as corporate ceo's, thus highlighting "power and influence" form of compensation. Yet, corporate CEO's also exercise "perk" & power card- paid country club memberships, corporate jet travel, stock options, etc. Oh, yes, they serve on multiple boards ("gob" club), thus perpetuating influence amoung a small group of people. Lets not forget lobbyists & PAC$$ to get legislation enacted "favorable" to them.(and promising post govt. jobs to aforementioned bureaucrats)

Now, for your last paragraph: Yes, I think its swell that Bill Gates is donating $1B to charity. But, lets not forget that he still has over $50B net worth. (I'm not calling Bill Gates greedy). Does anybody NEED to have $50B?? Couldn't he do "well" on $25B, putting the other $25B on price breaks on Microsoft Windows, etc for individuals, and corporations? I don't know the median Jan. temperature for Nome,AK, but I think myself (and others) are capable of recognizing an ice age or heat wave when they see it. There are far more arrogant/egregious SOB's that are worth far less than Bill Gates.

On a final note, I think how one gets their money matters. If a particular CEO cuts employee health benefits, or terminates a pension plan, then gets awarded a seven figure bonus for keeping costs" under control", thats being rewarded for depriving others of something. Is it better to give $1M to charity, or to compensate 1000 employees more fairly, so that less people have to use charitable resources in the 1st place ( and get 1000 more little contributions, too)?

True, govt. employees aren't monetarily compensated

Shit, I've missed a lot. However, I'm going on vacation, Thanksgiving, and don't really feel like writing 5,000 words on everything I've seen posted. Now some might say, well why take 5,000 words?, why not post a quick rebuttal? I will say once again, and appologize once again, I take people seriously and their arguments seriously until they give me reason to do otherwise, so rather than a glib paragraph I feel compelled to address substantive points seriously, and with a certain respect.

By God there is so much red meat here I can hardly constrain myself, but for the fact that I refuse to dash off something in 15 minutes (out of the aforementioned respect) and that I really don't have a few hours to devote to an answer, well, I digress, but a few questions or observations.

Too many people see the economy as a zero sum game, is there any evidence whatsoever to support the supposition that a capitalist/market economy is zero sum?

So, people think corporate heads are paid too much. Compared to what? Again the zero sum. Some think that somehow a corporate salary should be evenly distributed. So, let's say there is an unparalleled heart surgeon. Should his fee be determined by what the people who mop his brow and hand him instruments make?

As for the role of women, sadly I think a lot of what we are seeing is a backlash and a lot of how strippers and other "sex workers" are treated reflects a desire to see them degraded. An ugly idea, I agree.

Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm going to spend a joyous week with the family, and will reply at length in the future.

AN, I've been wondering when you would show up on this topic, this seems like your thing. I look forward to your comments. Enjoy your holiday.

Minnow and Book Guy, please note AN's comments about it not being a zero-sum game, because that really gets to the heart of the matter. You guys are both assuming that if you significantly cut the income of the people at the very top, everyone else will get more. That simply isn't true, in fact many people would get less. One example - Bill Gates got his money because he started a company whose stock value multiplied many times over. Not only did he get wealthy but many of his employees did too. If that stock hadn't risen the way it did, he'd be less wealthy but so would a lot of other people. Including the retired people whose mutual funds bought some of those shares.

People like Bill Gates who start companies that do extremely well are why our economy keeps growing. Without companies like that we'd have a stagnant economy and high unemployment. The Bill Gates's of this world are the people who create the jobs.

Where did I say Bill Gates was greedy? Where did I say that all corporate salaries should be "evenly distributed"?

I am well aware of how technology can improve productivity, and ultimately quality of life. However, I do think that corporate CEO salaries are way out of whack, when someone makes 400x lowest paid worker. Compared to what AN? Well, Japanese have made large inroads on our automotive market share, THEIR Ceos make 10-20x their lowest paid worker. During many of Tuscl posters lifetimes, we've seen development of A-bomb, the jet airplane shrinking continents, putting a man on the moon, building interstate hwy system,(which, in some areas is behind power curve in upkeep) 1st artificial heart, etc, etc. Many of these pre-internet developments occured during a period when CEO's made 40x(or less) lowest paid worker- I haven't seen anyone make a serious case that such a state of affairs hampered development of product, much less society as a whole. Again, lets not forget our military who does their duty- top Admirals & Generals make at most, 15x what lowliest E1 makes. I understand that equivalent civilian jobs pay 2-3x what military specialty pays, but you can't convince me that avg. corporate CEO is worth 26 times more than JCS chief.

In closing, I don't have an infinite amt. of time to post, much less construct/define a perfect conformal model of a zero-sum game, or a capitalistic system. US society isn't a perfect example of EITHER model, suffice to say, both forces are at work. I've seen too many cases of ceos screwing employees out of $$, and being awarded huge bonuses for doing so. May not completely account for gross disparity, but is certainly a contributing factor.

"Yes, I think its swell that Bill Gates is donating $1B to charity. But, lets not forget that he still has over $50B net worth. (I'm not calling Bill Gates greedy). Does anybody NEED to have $50B?? Couldn't he do "well" on $25B, putting the other $25B on price breaks on Microsoft Windows, etc for individuals, and corporations?" Minnow, despite your disclaimer, that certainly sounds like you think he's greedy. If not I don't understand your point at all.

FONDL: agreed on the zero-sum issue. I wasn't really suggesting that Mr. Gates had anything to do with my argument, IIRC. I wanted "sanity" in my own life, rather than having to work 2 full-time jobs merely to get a living wage, and this despite having "done all the right things" according to teachers, parents, guidance counselors, early job mentors, etc.. I never "made the typical mistakes" and now I look 'round at folks who gleefully err right left and center, and they're making twice or six times what I do because they "fit in" better. The gleefulness is more important in the American workplace than ABILITY. That's what I was talking about.

OK, maybe I'm jumping the gun but I've got a few minutes alone with my laptop, so let me add a few points. The libertarian in me screams every time I hear that "well who NEEDS 50 billion dollars". Exactly why is it up to someone else to decide what anyone needs? I mean this is basic economics, but Bill Gates has 50 billion because people line up to buy what he offers. So it's supposed to be up to someone else to decide that those millions of people willingly handing over hundreds of dollars each to Bill are all wrong, and some wiser person should jump in and decide what Bill really "needs", as opposed to what people have wilingly given him in return for something that didn't exist till he invented it.

Then there is the old saw about CEO salaries. OK, exactly who is holding a gun to the board of directors heads making them offer those salaries? The top CEO's get those salaries because someone thinks they are worth it. One quick example I like to cite is Jack Welsh. When he became CEO of GE the company was worth 14 billion. When he left, with a "scandalous" retirement package of $8 million a year, the company was worth an extra $400 billion. This was not coincidence, he was responsible for changing that company and making it grow. So, he retires with an annual take of 0.002% of the value he added to the company. Now most high paid CEOs make their "obscene" salaries by stock options, meaning they only make money if the company grows. I have some personal experience with this, sadly not me. One relative got in early on a successful web business that everyone knows. He was a very talented programmer and took a salary of $80,000, a fraction of what he could make in salary anywhere else. The rest was stock options. After three years he retired, because his health was shot from the hours and stress, but he retired with enough stock to take three years off and live comfortably. He still has enough money to pick when and where he wants to work, but for three years all he did, literally, was work. So, should someone decide he doesn't need all the money he earned?

Now one final point, someone mentioned that we all seem to equate freedom with money. Yes, because it is the means of freedom. If you depend on someone else to feed, clothe and care for you, how free are you? MIDancer mentioned that poor people weren't free because they are always worried about how to feed themselves or pay the rent. OK, how free are Cubans? The government gives them all an education and health care, unless they do something silly like voicing an opinion. Then not only don't they get food, a place to live, or medical care provided, they can't buy it. Any government that can provide for all your needs can also withhold them, unless you have the means, and the right to procure them for yourself. Welfare, socialized medicine, social security and food stamps aren't freedom, they're feed for human sheep. I'll add more later, but there are already cases in England and New Zealand where people are being denied government health care because they engage in unhealthy habits and lifestyles. So, let the government in, let them provide for all your needs, but don't be surprised when they all the sudden decide that if they're paying for your health care you aren't allowed to skydive, or smoke, or drink, or eat butter, or criticize the government.

Damn, I meant to work in a joke about being fleeced with the sheep line. Oh well.

OK, just a few more quick thoughts. We can discuss in more depth later, but everyone talks about how great the 50's and 60's were economically. One working parent could afford that house in the suburbs and the car. Now we could compare that with what is considered bare necessity for a middle class family now, but I've been into that. So what changed? Three things (IMHO). In 1965, after having stringent control for nearly 40 years we basically allowed unrestricted immigration. Whereas in the past we only allowed (for the most part) people who we thought had more than a strong back to offer (we had all the strong backs we needed), but now we seem to give preference to people with no skills whatsoever. In addition, in the 1970's women started entering the workforce in large numbers. Women had always worked, usually only until they had their first child, but now women were seeing work as a sort of self validation, a duty. Then there was the hyperinflation of the late 70's. So, we're suddenly surprised that opening the doors to cheap labor and nearly doubling the size of the labor force has meant that a single blue collar wage earner can't provide an upper middle class lifestyle? Now juxtapose that. Can a single earner provide the 3 bedroom rancher and the car, and feed and clothe the wife and two kids, like in the 1950's? Damn right, but now he's considered poor.