The Trick of Truth

 Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

I remember the first time I swore in a witness.  I was a young, young lawyer, and I was a notary, so I was able to swear folks in.  I was waiting at Judge J. Harper Meredith’s office. He saw me and told me to swear in the people in his office.  He did it to give me a tiny bit of experience, and maybe an anecdote to tell forty-some years later.

 

The whole truth:  That’s a problem with public discourse.  It always has been.  Maybe my impression that it’s sharply on the rise is because we are living in it now.

 

But I don’t think so – It’s worse.

 

Public discourse never contains "the whole truth."    Even when it's true, the whole truth doesn't live there.  To tell any of the good, valid points on the other side detracts from your argument. 

 

And leaves you open for valid criticism of your views because you are not subject to the "What they didn't tell you was . . ."

 

We have lived for 2-1/2 months with voter ID, mail-in ballots, absentee voting and early voting.  Have you ever seen a discussion of any of these issues which presented "the whole truth?"

 

I didn't think so.  So we stumble along, growing louder and louder with our arguments.  We DISCUSS nothing.

 

Let's go over some issues and tell, as much as we can in a little blog post, "the whole truth."

 

THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE:

 

No one can exist with a 40 hours job at the current $7.25 hourly wage.  You cannot feed yourself, have a private place to sleep, clothe yourself and find transportation on $7.25.  It will bring people out of poverty.  It will stimulate the community - People with have more money to spend at the grocery store and the shoe repair shop.  In fact, local Chambers of Commerce say that a dollar of wages will add $7 to the economic activity of the area.  It will loosen the public purse by getting people off public assistance.  $15 an hour will disproportionally affect women minorities positively.

 

These are all pretty good reasons.  They are valid.

 

Oh, I know which readers are getting mad.  Let me make everyone else mad.

 

A problem arguing against $15 is that an argument anti- is much more involved.  Equally valid, but hard-to-follow.

 

Some businesses will lay off workers who currently earn $10 or less an hour.  The businesses will lay off minimal-skilled workers, who are the people $15 an hour is supposed to help.  It will also reduce take-home wages because, at some point, cutting hours, the minimum wage worker will result in less money coming in.  (Minimal-skilled workers are mostly young, women, minorities, and seniors.)  Long-term, lay-offs reduce on-the-job training, which will cut that worker's future wage.  Minimum wage work teaches some skills - use of equipment and cash-registers, and the simple lesson that it pays to get to work on time.  $15 will hit the $16 - 20 an hour particularly hard.  They will work harder and be able to buy less groceries.  $15 will result in higher prices for everyone.  It's PEOPLE who pay for everything.  Groceries are sold at low mark-up.  The owners want to - and are entitled to - make a certain amount.  The $!.99 loaf of bread just went up to $2.09.  It's not makers of luxury goods who will suffer, it's mom & pop business customers.  Walmart customers.  Every customer.

 

Tentative lessons to be drawn:

 

Most minimum wage workers will be better off.  How much is subject to dispute.

 

Minimum wage workers will not be as better-off as much as the Pro-15 people say.  Some workers will be worse off and some workers will be laid off.  How much and how many is subject to dispute.

 

GREEN NEW DEAL:

 

The scientific community has decided that the planet is warming steadily.  We are seeing some effects.  A major player is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it is raised by burning fossil fuels.  Some people disagree, they are entitled to, and they are wrong.

 

Arguments Pro:  The warm air stimulates hurricanes and odd climate shifts.  Polar ice will melt and the ocean level will be raised significantly.  If the methane currently in solid from far down in the oceans melts, that will add a sudden boost to the greenhouse gases.  Areas of the earth currently livable like the Australian Outback will become unbearable.   There is a point when the climate change becomes unstoppable, but we don't know where that is.  Everybody uses "existential" inappropriately.  With this one, it's used correctly.

 

Proponents make valid arguments.

 

Arguments Anit-:  We cannot suddenly stop burning fossil fuels or the world economy will collapse.  Really.  No kidding.  If we do it partially, the economy as it applies to low wage workers will collapse.  We cannot even successfully quit using fossil fuels unless we are willing to live without steel and nylon and a host of other products drawn from fossil fuels as feedstocks.   We will - we have - suddenly put many workers out of work, and they do not have transferrable skills.  (Transferrable skills are those you learn in one job but you can transfer to other work.  If you are a coal miner and lose your job, you've learned very little which makes you attractive to employers.)

 

It applies to voting.  It applies to guns - Pass Beto O'Rourke's dream bill.  Some people next year will be alive when they would not absent the bill.  And some extra people will be dead.  Both sides have points.

 

Apparently, we are not ready to have fair discussions or anything vaguely resembling unity, other than "believe it my way or else" unity.

 

And you wonder why I term myself a member of the Bull Moose Party.

 

Mizpah!