A rather incredible article appeared on the Dei'ah veDibur site this week entitled Bank of Israel: Entering Workforce Does Not Ensure Escape from Poverty. The article tries to make the case that, for chareidim in Israel, leaving welfare is a bad thing and that families that do leave welfare do not end up better off financially.
The article quotes MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (the Knesset Finance Committee Chairman) who states:
"The country is lying to its citizens. Once again it has been shown that leaving the ranks of welfare recipients and joining the job market does not change the situation and people who work very hard for their living are unable to make ends meet."
He also goes on to say (emphasis mine):
"Emerging from the cycle of poverty requires an ability to get accepted to one of the positions that brings in tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels per month. Going to work solves nothing; that's all nonsense. In the State of Israel, today someone who wants to get out of the cycle of poverty has to network with the elites and the power centers just to get a decent salary that will really enable him to make a respectable living."
In other words, according to Rabbi Gafni, working is worthless. We're all better off just increasing welfare payments to people so that they can sustain themselves. I don't know if his comment that you need "tens and hundreds of thousands of shekels" of shekels per month to get out of poverty is accurate (it sounds high to me), but let's say, for the moment, that he's correct (given chareidi family sizes). Assuming a shekel is worth about a quarter (it's actually a bit more right now), that's the equivalent of saying that you need "twenty five hundreds to twenty five thousands dollars per month" to escape poverty. Of course, jobs paying twenty five grand a month are scarce... I don't have one, nor do the vast majority of people in the U.S. But what Rabbi Gafni is missing (or, IMHO, purposely avoiding) is that people on welfare, when they enter the workforce, generally start by talking entry-level jobs that are meant for unskilled workers. As their skills and experience increase, workers will be able to begin commanding higher salaries. When I started working, I was earning very, very little. However, now that I've been working for quite a few years and have invested in some training and education, I now command a much higher salary. Had I said, twenty years ago, that it doesn't pay to work because I can't get my present salary, I would have been an idiot. Very few people get to start at the top... most of us have to work our way up through the ranks, just like everyone else. That means you "pay your dues" by working for a while at low wages and then, with hard work, experience and a bit of Siyata D'Shmaya (Divine Providence), you will begin to earn better wages.
Of course, all this is predicated on one assumption -- that the person is employable and has job skills that he can bring to the market. Rabbi Gafni makes the following observation concerning the ability to earn a salary (again, emphasis mine):
"The problem is especially acute in the chareidi public. The state does not recognize the years of yeshiva and seminary study as it recognizes the years of study of its secular citizens. As a result both husband and wife who work earn paltry salaries, and are unable to extract the family from the cycle of poverty. On the other hand there are people earning as much as an entire neighborhood."
And here, Rabbi Gafni has the solution to the problem staring him in the face and he willfully chooses to ignore it. The problem, very simply, is education. When people are not educated with any skills (other than being a rebbe/teacher), there is little chance that they will be able to command a "good salary" when they enter the workforce. In order to command a "good salary," a worker has to be able to show that s/he will add at least that much value to the enterprise and have skills that differentiate him/herself from the other people seeking employment. Almost anyone off the street can answer a phone or man a cash register -- and so those jobs pay very little. On the other hand, since not everyone can hold the job of a skilled worker (be it computer programmer, plumber, doctor, etc.), people in those professions earn more.
In the ultimate of ironies, Rabbi Gafni even brings an example of a high earner and, instead of recognizing why the person has a high salary, he engages in petty envy. He states (once more, emphasis mine):
"We considered the possibility of setting up a ministerial committee to discuss the inconceivable wage gaps that exist in this country. We need a far-reaching change and a totally new attitude. There are enormous class gaps in this country that will turn into an existential social problem. The salary the CEO of Bank Mizrachi receives is enough to sustain a whole street in Bnei Brak. These class disparities have led to very difficult situations throughout history in all places, and it is imperative that the government comes to its senses on time."
I don't know who the CEO of Bank Mizrachi is, and I certainly don't know his salary or whether or not it can really sustain a street in Bnei Brak. But I do know this: he probably holds an MBA and/or an advanced degree in finance. He probably didn't walk in off the street on his first day of work and say "I want to be the CEO." He probably spent years working at less prestigious jobs, building up his experience. He probably put in a lot of hours over the years and earned the respect of his peers in the banking industry. He probably spent quite a bit of time networking professionally. In other words, the CEO of Bank Mizrachi earns a large salary because he has worked himself up to that point, not because it was magically given to him.
Rabbi Gafni looks at the CEO of Bank Mizrachi and purposely ignores the very reason for his success. Instead of crediting his education, skill and hard work, he says that you have to "network with the elites and the power centers" to get a decent job. As if anyone could get a CEO job (or any job that requires skills) just simply by knowing an "elite" or someone in a "power center." He purposely (IMHO) ignores the importance of education and job skills and says that it's better to simply sit back, give up on any chance for developing job skills and get a welfare check from the government.
I find it utterly ironic that Rabbi Gafni is complaining about poverty in the chareidi community when it's attitudes like his that are the chief reason for it. When school systems are purposely designed NOT to teach any job skills and the society is set up to actively discourage getting an education that will lead to such skills, there can be little doubt that the outcome will be continued poverty. In short, Rabbi Gafni is like someone who ensures that there are no firefighters and then complains when his house burns down and no one was there to put out the fire.
The Wolf
Friday, April 09, 2010
Friday, April 02, 2010
Photo: Sunset Over The Hudson
I took this shot last night as the sun was going down over New Jersey. I took it by Pier 42 (that's the crumbling pier in the picture) in Hudson River Park.
Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 18mm, f/5, 1/200 sec, circular polarizing filter.
As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.
The Wolf
To see all my photo posts, click here.
Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 18mm, f/5, 1/200 sec, circular polarizing filter.
As always, comments, critiques and criticisms are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.
The Wolf
To see all my photo posts, click here.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
How To End Some Torah/Science Disputes
During the meal at the second seder, the topic of discussion turned to astronomy. When the subject of the planets came up (specifically regarding the decision to "demote" Pluto), my fourteen year old niece, who tends toward the fundamentalist side, announced that the Torah says that there are only seven planets. When I mentioned to her that there were, in fact, more than seven planets, she simply repeated her assertion with a "that's-what-the-Torah-says-and-that's-that" tone.
I didn't press the point any further that evening, but as I thought about it the next day, I realized that my niece was both right and wrong. The problem, very simply, is that she and I were not using the same definition of the word "planet."
Allow me to give some historical background.
When the ancients studied the skies at night, they made some observations about the positions of the stars. They noticed that as the sky rotates overhead during the night (remember, they didn't know that it was the earth that was rotating), the stars in the sky moved, but kept their positions relative to each other. In addition, they kept their positions during the year as well -- a particular star could be counted on to disappear below the horizon at a certain time of the year and reappear at the same position (relative to the other stars) at a later point during the year.
However, there were seven heavenly bodies, they noted, that did not keep their positions. These planets "wandered" among the other stars -- sometimes moving forward against the other stars, sometimes regressing backwards (and sometimes displaying both behaviors at different times). These seven wanderers became the "planets," from the Greek word for wanderer. The seven bodies that displayed these properties were the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
Of course, as time went on, we gained a better understanding of the heavens than the ancients had. Copernicus showed that most of the "planets" actually revolved around the sun, not around the Earth. The sun was eventually identified as a star, one of the billions of stars in our galaxy. The word "planet" now no longer referred to the wanderers of the heavens, but to heavenly bodies (of significant size) that orbit the sun. In addition, with better optics than the ancients had at their disposal, we even discovered that most of the planets in our solar system had moons of their own. Better telescopes and observations have allowed us to find Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Sedna and other minor ("dwarf") planets. And, of course, within the last fifteen years, we've gained the ability to detect planets orbiting other stars and have, to date, discovered 442 of them.
So, what is the true believer to do? If one believes that the Torah says that there are seven planets, and one wants to remain "Torah true," how does one reconcile the astronomy of the last few hundred years with the words of Chazal? Does one say that astronomy is a sham and that the data is faked? Does one say that the pictures NASA released from the Pioneer and Voyager missions are fakes? Does one say that the astronomers know the truth, but are simply faking it to suppress God's truth?
Well, you could take that approach -- although I think it's really very silly. The simple answer is also the best answer -- that when Chazal (or the Rishonim) talk about planets, they are referring to points of light that "wander" against the background sky. Using that definition, they are correct -- there are only seven* planets. But one has to recognize that the definition of the word "planet" has changed over the years and that when we discuss planets today, we are using a different definition of the term. As a result, it is also correct to say that there are well more than seven planets.
I often wonder how many Torah/science arguments could be avoided if we simply recognize that the meanings of words, including planet, species, bird, animal, star and even science among many others have had their definitions change over the years. Of course, not all Torah/science arguments would end -- but a fair number of them could be put to rest.
The Wolf
* Yes, I know Uranus is sometimes visible with the naked eye which would make eight planets -- but it's so infrequent and it's orbital period so long that it was probably just not noticed by the ancients. And, of course, this also excludes comets.
I didn't press the point any further that evening, but as I thought about it the next day, I realized that my niece was both right and wrong. The problem, very simply, is that she and I were not using the same definition of the word "planet."
Allow me to give some historical background.
When the ancients studied the skies at night, they made some observations about the positions of the stars. They noticed that as the sky rotates overhead during the night (remember, they didn't know that it was the earth that was rotating), the stars in the sky moved, but kept their positions relative to each other. In addition, they kept their positions during the year as well -- a particular star could be counted on to disappear below the horizon at a certain time of the year and reappear at the same position (relative to the other stars) at a later point during the year.
However, there were seven heavenly bodies, they noted, that did not keep their positions. These planets "wandered" among the other stars -- sometimes moving forward against the other stars, sometimes regressing backwards (and sometimes displaying both behaviors at different times). These seven wanderers became the "planets," from the Greek word for wanderer. The seven bodies that displayed these properties were the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
Of course, as time went on, we gained a better understanding of the heavens than the ancients had. Copernicus showed that most of the "planets" actually revolved around the sun, not around the Earth. The sun was eventually identified as a star, one of the billions of stars in our galaxy. The word "planet" now no longer referred to the wanderers of the heavens, but to heavenly bodies (of significant size) that orbit the sun. In addition, with better optics than the ancients had at their disposal, we even discovered that most of the planets in our solar system had moons of their own. Better telescopes and observations have allowed us to find Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Sedna and other minor ("dwarf") planets. And, of course, within the last fifteen years, we've gained the ability to detect planets orbiting other stars and have, to date, discovered 442 of them.
So, what is the true believer to do? If one believes that the Torah says that there are seven planets, and one wants to remain "Torah true," how does one reconcile the astronomy of the last few hundred years with the words of Chazal? Does one say that astronomy is a sham and that the data is faked? Does one say that the pictures NASA released from the Pioneer and Voyager missions are fakes? Does one say that the astronomers know the truth, but are simply faking it to suppress God's truth?
Well, you could take that approach -- although I think it's really very silly. The simple answer is also the best answer -- that when Chazal (or the Rishonim) talk about planets, they are referring to points of light that "wander" against the background sky. Using that definition, they are correct -- there are only seven* planets. But one has to recognize that the definition of the word "planet" has changed over the years and that when we discuss planets today, we are using a different definition of the term. As a result, it is also correct to say that there are well more than seven planets.
I often wonder how many Torah/science arguments could be avoided if we simply recognize that the meanings of words, including planet, species, bird, animal, star and even science among many others have had their definitions change over the years. Of course, not all Torah/science arguments would end -- but a fair number of them could be put to rest.
The Wolf
* Yes, I know Uranus is sometimes visible with the naked eye which would make eight planets -- but it's so infrequent and it's orbital period so long that it was probably just not noticed by the ancients. And, of course, this also excludes comets.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Just Say No
An interesting letter appears in this week's Yated. A writer from Lakewood writes to complain how every time a cousin or someone else makes a simcha in Brooklyn, that the Lakewood residents are expected to travel the two to three hours (and incur the costs) that it takes to get to Brooklyn.
Dear Editor,
Since when did Lakewood become one of the five boroughs of New York City?
“Huh?” you want to ask me. “Who said it is?
Well, I’ll tell you who said it is. It seems, based on current custom, that for every event - wedding, bar mitzvah, bris, sheva brachos, etc. - held in Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York for that matter, those who live in Lakewood - young couples and older families as well - are expected to commute. I find that ridiculous.
Who decided that people should be traveling for at least 2-1/2 hours to attend every simcha of every cousin?
Besides for the shlep, how about the impossibility of getting a babysitter? Does anyone know how hard it is to find a babysitter?
And of course, the babysitter will take good money for her services, which she deserves.
Add the cost of gas and tolls, and basically, you have young couples, who live on shoestring budgets in the fi rst place, shlepping to New York at a cost of at least $65-70, to say mazel tov to their disinterested uncle and aunt at their cousin’s wedding, and barely get to eat a cold piece of halfbaked chicken if they even make it for the main course.
I am sorry, but this is not normal.
I know a yungerman who he has limited income. He is smart and careful about how he spends his money, and he and his wife get by okay, boruch Hashem. Recently, however, he told me that he had to travel in to New York for three simchos of cousins, at a cost - all in one month - of a total of over $300, which he cannot afford. (He learns in a paying night kollel and had to give up the money he receives as well.) And for what?
“At one simcha,” he told me, “the baal simcha (his relative) barely gave me the time of day as I wished him mazel tov. I imagine he realized who I am, but I wondered why I even came. But the reason why I traveled,” he said, “was because if we wouldn’t come, my parents, and especially grandparents, would be upset.
It has to stop. Couples who have young children, or even older children, cannot be expected to travel in to New York - or anywhere else that requires multiple hours of driving - for every simcha. It is not fair to the young couples, and it can potentially affect their wellbeing and their shalom bayis, not to mention their finances.
I would add that, similarly, those living in Brooklyn or anywhere else should likewise not be expected to travel for over an hour to Lakewood or any other place for a simcha of a non-immediate relative.
It is time we bring back sanity into our lives and put a stop to the unreasonable expectations and demands that we have allowed to become part of our culture.
Sincerely,
Y. Gordon
Here's my response:
Dear Y,
Thank you for your letter. I can certainly understand why you would be upset. Traveling a long distance to go to a simcha can be an arduous and sometimes expensive proposition. And, in this day and age when everyone's watching the purse strings, I definitely understand why you would be upset at having to shell out major money for what might turn out to be a mediocre night at best.
But there was one thing about your letter that left me a bit confused. Is there a police force in Lakewood that forces you go to affairs in Brooklyn and other far away places? I don't mean to be facetious, but I'm wondering why you simply cannot just say no.
I know that I love to go to family affairs. I go just about every opportunity that I can. But I also know that there are times that I simply cannot go. Sometimes it interferes with my work or school schedules. Other times it is just costs too much (financially) to go. And sometimes, it's just not practical -- maybe it's a work night and I know that I'm not going to be up to four hours of round-trip travel time. When this happens, I send the ba'alei simcha my heartiest mazal tov and tell them that while I would love to attend, I have to give my deepest regrets that I simply cannot make it.
Believe it or not, people can and will understand if you cannot make it to a particular simcha for one of the above reasons. People understand that sometimes costs cannot be borne (whether they be financial or logistical costs). And, truth to tell, if the ba'alei simcha are stubborn enough not to understand, then perhaps it's their attitude that needs to be adjusted. If they are selfish enough to "guilt-trip" you into spending money, time or effort that you cannot afford, then perhaps you might want to reconsider how much you want to associate with them. Personally, I would prefer to spend my time with people who are more empathic to my needs and abilities, rather than be so self-centered to demand that everyone attend to them whether they have the means to do so or not.
You write that the yungerman in your town goes to please his parents and grandparents. I can certainly understand that. But even parents and grandparents can be made to understand the fact that you simply don't have the funds or the ability to travel to every family simcha. They may not be happy about the situation, but they can understand.
There is one additional point I would like to address in your letter. You write about going to a wedding "to say mazel tov to their disinterested uncle and aunt at their cousin’s wedding, and barely get to eat a cold piece of halfbaked chicken if they even make it for the main course."
Personally, when I go to a simcha, I don't care if I get a half-baked piece of chicken or not. When I attend a family member's or friend's simcha, my main goal in going is to be m'sameach (make happy) the participants. (I also have a secondary goal, as an amateur shutterbug, of taking as many family pictures as possible -- but that's just my personal mishugass.) I also understand that at a large affair with many people, the ba'al simcha may not have more than a few seconds to give me a quick "Mazal Tov, I'm so glad you could come." In short, I've learned that the wedding or bar mitzvah or whatever is not about me -- it's about the ba'alei simcha. Would it be nice if they could spend a whole ten minutes with me? Sure -- but when there are over fifty guests, it just becomes impractical, if not impossible.
In short, I don't go to a simcha with the idea of "what am I going to get out of the simcha?" My goal is "how can I contribute to the simcha?" If I get nothing out of it (or even just a half-baked piece of chicken and only two seconds with the ba'alei simcha) so be it.
The Wolf
Dear Editor,
Since when did Lakewood become one of the five boroughs of New York City?
“Huh?” you want to ask me. “Who said it is?
Well, I’ll tell you who said it is. It seems, based on current custom, that for every event - wedding, bar mitzvah, bris, sheva brachos, etc. - held in Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York for that matter, those who live in Lakewood - young couples and older families as well - are expected to commute. I find that ridiculous.
Who decided that people should be traveling for at least 2-1/2 hours to attend every simcha of every cousin?
Besides for the shlep, how about the impossibility of getting a babysitter? Does anyone know how hard it is to find a babysitter?
And of course, the babysitter will take good money for her services, which she deserves.
Add the cost of gas and tolls, and basically, you have young couples, who live on shoestring budgets in the fi rst place, shlepping to New York at a cost of at least $65-70, to say mazel tov to their disinterested uncle and aunt at their cousin’s wedding, and barely get to eat a cold piece of halfbaked chicken if they even make it for the main course.
I am sorry, but this is not normal.
I know a yungerman who he has limited income. He is smart and careful about how he spends his money, and he and his wife get by okay, boruch Hashem. Recently, however, he told me that he had to travel in to New York for three simchos of cousins, at a cost - all in one month - of a total of over $300, which he cannot afford. (He learns in a paying night kollel and had to give up the money he receives as well.) And for what?
“At one simcha,” he told me, “the baal simcha (his relative) barely gave me the time of day as I wished him mazel tov. I imagine he realized who I am, but I wondered why I even came. But the reason why I traveled,” he said, “was because if we wouldn’t come, my parents, and especially grandparents, would be upset.
It has to stop. Couples who have young children, or even older children, cannot be expected to travel in to New York - or anywhere else that requires multiple hours of driving - for every simcha. It is not fair to the young couples, and it can potentially affect their wellbeing and their shalom bayis, not to mention their finances.
I would add that, similarly, those living in Brooklyn or anywhere else should likewise not be expected to travel for over an hour to Lakewood or any other place for a simcha of a non-immediate relative.
It is time we bring back sanity into our lives and put a stop to the unreasonable expectations and demands that we have allowed to become part of our culture.
Sincerely,
Y. Gordon
Here's my response:
Dear Y,
Thank you for your letter. I can certainly understand why you would be upset. Traveling a long distance to go to a simcha can be an arduous and sometimes expensive proposition. And, in this day and age when everyone's watching the purse strings, I definitely understand why you would be upset at having to shell out major money for what might turn out to be a mediocre night at best.
But there was one thing about your letter that left me a bit confused. Is there a police force in Lakewood that forces you go to affairs in Brooklyn and other far away places? I don't mean to be facetious, but I'm wondering why you simply cannot just say no.
I know that I love to go to family affairs. I go just about every opportunity that I can. But I also know that there are times that I simply cannot go. Sometimes it interferes with my work or school schedules. Other times it is just costs too much (financially) to go. And sometimes, it's just not practical -- maybe it's a work night and I know that I'm not going to be up to four hours of round-trip travel time. When this happens, I send the ba'alei simcha my heartiest mazal tov and tell them that while I would love to attend, I have to give my deepest regrets that I simply cannot make it.
Believe it or not, people can and will understand if you cannot make it to a particular simcha for one of the above reasons. People understand that sometimes costs cannot be borne (whether they be financial or logistical costs). And, truth to tell, if the ba'alei simcha are stubborn enough not to understand, then perhaps it's their attitude that needs to be adjusted. If they are selfish enough to "guilt-trip" you into spending money, time or effort that you cannot afford, then perhaps you might want to reconsider how much you want to associate with them. Personally, I would prefer to spend my time with people who are more empathic to my needs and abilities, rather than be so self-centered to demand that everyone attend to them whether they have the means to do so or not.
You write that the yungerman in your town goes to please his parents and grandparents. I can certainly understand that. But even parents and grandparents can be made to understand the fact that you simply don't have the funds or the ability to travel to every family simcha. They may not be happy about the situation, but they can understand.
There is one additional point I would like to address in your letter. You write about going to a wedding "to say mazel tov to their disinterested uncle and aunt at their cousin’s wedding, and barely get to eat a cold piece of halfbaked chicken if they even make it for the main course."
Personally, when I go to a simcha, I don't care if I get a half-baked piece of chicken or not. When I attend a family member's or friend's simcha, my main goal in going is to be m'sameach (make happy) the participants. (I also have a secondary goal, as an amateur shutterbug, of taking as many family pictures as possible -- but that's just my personal mishugass.) I also understand that at a large affair with many people, the ba'al simcha may not have more than a few seconds to give me a quick "Mazal Tov, I'm so glad you could come." In short, I've learned that the wedding or bar mitzvah or whatever is not about me -- it's about the ba'alei simcha. Would it be nice if they could spend a whole ten minutes with me? Sure -- but when there are over fifty guests, it just becomes impractical, if not impossible.
In short, I don't go to a simcha with the idea of "what am I going to get out of the simcha?" My goal is "how can I contribute to the simcha?" If I get nothing out of it (or even just a half-baked piece of chicken and only two seconds with the ba'alei simcha) so be it.
The Wolf
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Logic Lesson Of The Day: The False Analogy
Every so often, when you argue with people, you run across one or another logical fallacy. Some logical fallacies, such as the ad hominem attack, are fairly easy to spot. Others may be more difficult.
One type of fallacy that you see often is the false analogy (or weak analogy). This happens when a person tries to make his/her point by comparing one case to another where there is often an important difference in the two cases.
I ran across this today in a report on Matzav.com. A few months ago, a number of female employees filed suit against B&H photo, claiming discrimination because women were barred from certain sales jobs. The story was revived yesterday when three more female employees joined the suit.
I want to stress that I have no idea if the suit has merit or not. I don't work at B&H, nor do I visit there too often.
As you might expect, when a story such as this comes up, there are those who think that it's wrong that B&H can be sued for gender discrimination. They usually make a point about how it's a private business and that they should be able to hire/fire whomever they like.
One poster on Matzav, who goes by the screen name "hesh" made the following point (emphasis mine):
This lawsuit is outragous! What total nonsense! B&H photo is a private company. What if a man would try to get a job in a shaitel store, dress shop, etc… What about a lady teaching 9th grade gemorah class? Use a bissel sechial. This is total MESIRA!
Putting aside his initial outbursts, the point he's trying to make is this: Firms should be allowed to hire/fire whom they want. If the government interferes with that (via laws against discrimination) then they could force a sheitel store to hire a male employee which, in the frum world, would completely destroy the business (as the married women will not shop there).
In other words, Hesh is making an analogy between B&H and a sheitel store (and a dress shop and a boys' yeshiva).
However, the analogy isn't a good one. In fact, it's a pretty bad one. The reason why it's a bad analogy is because there is an important difference between the cases he brings and B&H.
Hesh is probably correct in his statement that forcing a sheitel shop to hire a man would be incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, it would ruin the business as women would not shop at the store anymore. The same can be said for a dress store. Likewise, in many segments of the frum community, the parents would pull their sons out of school if a woman taught gemara.
However, the same cannot be said about B&H. B&H's business will not be harmed by the presence of female salespeople. The vast majority of the people who shop at B&H care about the price, selection, warranty and the company's great reputation as a photographic equipment store. They don't care about the gender of the person behind the counter.
And that's all the difference. The stores in the examples that Hesh provides have a legitimate business need for a specific gender employee. B&H does not have a specific business need for male-only salespeople. And that's why the analogy fails for Hesh's argument.
The Wolf
One type of fallacy that you see often is the false analogy (or weak analogy). This happens when a person tries to make his/her point by comparing one case to another where there is often an important difference in the two cases.
I ran across this today in a report on Matzav.com. A few months ago, a number of female employees filed suit against B&H photo, claiming discrimination because women were barred from certain sales jobs. The story was revived yesterday when three more female employees joined the suit.
I want to stress that I have no idea if the suit has merit or not. I don't work at B&H, nor do I visit there too often.
As you might expect, when a story such as this comes up, there are those who think that it's wrong that B&H can be sued for gender discrimination. They usually make a point about how it's a private business and that they should be able to hire/fire whomever they like.
One poster on Matzav, who goes by the screen name "hesh" made the following point (emphasis mine):
This lawsuit is outragous! What total nonsense! B&H photo is a private company. What if a man would try to get a job in a shaitel store, dress shop, etc… What about a lady teaching 9th grade gemorah class? Use a bissel sechial. This is total MESIRA!
Putting aside his initial outbursts, the point he's trying to make is this: Firms should be allowed to hire/fire whom they want. If the government interferes with that (via laws against discrimination) then they could force a sheitel store to hire a male employee which, in the frum world, would completely destroy the business (as the married women will not shop there).
In other words, Hesh is making an analogy between B&H and a sheitel store (and a dress shop and a boys' yeshiva).
However, the analogy isn't a good one. In fact, it's a pretty bad one. The reason why it's a bad analogy is because there is an important difference between the cases he brings and B&H.
Hesh is probably correct in his statement that forcing a sheitel shop to hire a man would be incorrect. As I pointed out earlier, it would ruin the business as women would not shop at the store anymore. The same can be said for a dress store. Likewise, in many segments of the frum community, the parents would pull their sons out of school if a woman taught gemara.
However, the same cannot be said about B&H. B&H's business will not be harmed by the presence of female salespeople. The vast majority of the people who shop at B&H care about the price, selection, warranty and the company's great reputation as a photographic equipment store. They don't care about the gender of the person behind the counter.
And that's all the difference. The stores in the examples that Hesh provides have a legitimate business need for a specific gender employee. B&H does not have a specific business need for male-only salespeople. And that's why the analogy fails for Hesh's argument.
The Wolf
Monday, March 22, 2010
My Goodness... I Didn't Expect That.
I've got to say, when I asked for opinions, I certainly didn't expect that. All I was really looking for was a simple "yes, they're justified in asking" or "no, they're over the line." I certainly wasn't looking to cover how charity recipients ought to spending their free time/money.
For the record, I hate closing off debate on a matter. I happen to love a good debate and will be more than happy to argue almost any issue, provided it's done in a civil and polite manner. Apparently, for some people, that wasn't possible. The fact that people who know me in real life felt the need to intervene also factored into my decision to close off comments.
For the record, I don't owe anyone on this site an explanation on my finances and personal situation -- the specific question I asked does not require me to justify asking for a tuition break. Nonetheless, I would like to make a few points.
Firstly, as most people are well aware (and as was made amply clear in the comments to the previous post) a full-tuition payer pays not only the tuition for his/her kid/s, but also helps to subsidize the cost of someone else. If one asks for a break down to the true cost of educating one's child, they are not "taking charity;" they are merely asking to be excused from *giving* to that particular charity. Not nice? Maybe -- but it's still not actually taking charity money.
That being said, I don't know what the true cost of educating my kid is. Neither, for that matter, do I think that anyone outside of the financial office of a school. Is my request beyond that point? To be fair, I don't know -- but if it is, it's probably not much beyond that.
For those that suggested that I don't have a right to go to school, allow me to tell you a little story.
About ten years ago, I was working in customer service. At that time, I was a young father of three earning less than $25,000 a year. Realizing that I needed to change my financial life (because very few families of five can get by on less than $25K a year), I took a year and spent about $3,000 to enroll in a certificate program in computer programming. Yes, I was receiving tuition breaks at the time (as you can imagine with that salary), but I chose to make the investment in my future. Thanks to that investment, not only do I have a much better salary now, but I have been able to pay more to my kids' schools. Yes, I suppose you could make the case that I should have given the money to the schools, but as it turns out, the schools have benefited far more than the $3,000 I spent.
As for my belongings, I will make the following two comments:
The megillah does belong to me. I won it in a Chinese Auction about fifteen years ago. I get extensive use out of it. I don't think that the money I spent on the auction fifteen years ago has any relevance to the here and now.
The camera *was* purchased by me a few years ago. Yes, it was a luxury, but a rather rare one. I'm willing to accept some criticism from those who say I shouldn't have bought it -- but not from those who say that I shouldn't spend time with it now that I have it.
Those people who would begrudge me the time I spend shooting pictures, all I can really say is "get a life." I don't have to justify to you (or anyone else) if I spend a few minutes doing something I enjoy. The fact of the matter is that we all need diversions -- for me, it happens to be photography. Everyone needs to have some enjoyment in life and everyone is entitled (within reason) to pursue his/her hobbies. I don't think the few minutes or so that I spend shooting pictures is harming anyone. If you disagree, then so be it - but I don't have to justify it to you.
I thank all those who stood up in my defense. I also thank those participated in a civil manner - even if they were critical of me. For those who chose to attack, well, I suppose there's nothing I can say that will make you happy anyway.
I'm not going to allow comments on this post either. If you want to discuss the original issue or this post, feel free to email me. I can't promise I'll respond to everyone (I am fairly busy), but if you're willing to discuss things civilly, I'll try to respond.
The Wolf
For the record, I hate closing off debate on a matter. I happen to love a good debate and will be more than happy to argue almost any issue, provided it's done in a civil and polite manner. Apparently, for some people, that wasn't possible. The fact that people who know me in real life felt the need to intervene also factored into my decision to close off comments.
For the record, I don't owe anyone on this site an explanation on my finances and personal situation -- the specific question I asked does not require me to justify asking for a tuition break. Nonetheless, I would like to make a few points.
Firstly, as most people are well aware (and as was made amply clear in the comments to the previous post) a full-tuition payer pays not only the tuition for his/her kid/s, but also helps to subsidize the cost of someone else. If one asks for a break down to the true cost of educating one's child, they are not "taking charity;" they are merely asking to be excused from *giving* to that particular charity. Not nice? Maybe -- but it's still not actually taking charity money.
That being said, I don't know what the true cost of educating my kid is. Neither, for that matter, do I think that anyone outside of the financial office of a school. Is my request beyond that point? To be fair, I don't know -- but if it is, it's probably not much beyond that.
For those that suggested that I don't have a right to go to school, allow me to tell you a little story.
About ten years ago, I was working in customer service. At that time, I was a young father of three earning less than $25,000 a year. Realizing that I needed to change my financial life (because very few families of five can get by on less than $25K a year), I took a year and spent about $3,000 to enroll in a certificate program in computer programming. Yes, I was receiving tuition breaks at the time (as you can imagine with that salary), but I chose to make the investment in my future. Thanks to that investment, not only do I have a much better salary now, but I have been able to pay more to my kids' schools. Yes, I suppose you could make the case that I should have given the money to the schools, but as it turns out, the schools have benefited far more than the $3,000 I spent.
As for my belongings, I will make the following two comments:
The megillah does belong to me. I won it in a Chinese Auction about fifteen years ago. I get extensive use out of it. I don't think that the money I spent on the auction fifteen years ago has any relevance to the here and now.
The camera *was* purchased by me a few years ago. Yes, it was a luxury, but a rather rare one. I'm willing to accept some criticism from those who say I shouldn't have bought it -- but not from those who say that I shouldn't spend time with it now that I have it.
Those people who would begrudge me the time I spend shooting pictures, all I can really say is "get a life." I don't have to justify to you (or anyone else) if I spend a few minutes doing something I enjoy. The fact of the matter is that we all need diversions -- for me, it happens to be photography. Everyone needs to have some enjoyment in life and everyone is entitled (within reason) to pursue his/her hobbies. I don't think the few minutes or so that I spend shooting pictures is harming anyone. If you disagree, then so be it - but I don't have to justify it to you.
I thank all those who stood up in my defense. I also thank those participated in a civil manner - even if they were critical of me. For those who chose to attack, well, I suppose there's nothing I can say that will make you happy anyway.
I'm not going to allow comments on this post either. If you want to discuss the original issue or this post, feel free to email me. I can't promise I'll respond to everyone (I am fairly busy), but if you're willing to discuss things civilly, I'll try to respond.
The Wolf
Friday, March 19, 2010
Yeshiva Tuition Aid Applications -- Your Opinion Requested
I'm curious to know what my readership thinks. Perhaps I'm in the wrong on this matter.
I have a son enrolled in a yeshiva. Due to various misunderstandings and error on both my part and the yeshiva's part, we did not fill out the financial aid forms for this year. As a result, we're paying full tuition for one kid. Fine -- it's difficult, but we'll somehow get by. I'm not going to hold the school responsible because we didn't fill out the forms.
However, there was one particular part of the application that really bugged me and I was hoping for my readership's feedback.
One of the things that the school requested was copies of all our bank statement/credit card statements/etc. for the previous two or three months. This is something that no other school (in my experience) has asked for when evaluating financial need.
No school, except this one, has asked for actual statements from accounts. Truth to tell, I find this highly invasive. I don't think it's their business which grocery store I shop at, which doctors I see, and, for the little discretionary spending that I do, where I do it. I feel violated even at the thought of them going through my statements and saying "Hmmm... he spent $10 at Barnes & Noble," or "He didn't *really* need to buy that $15 bouquet at the florist," or "Hey, what's this $10 charge at Hallmark?"
I have no problem providing them with totals and aggregates of our spending (including the amount of discretionary spending) by category, but I just can't help but feel that requesting the details of our individual transactions is both intrusive and invasive -- especially since no other school has ever asked this of us.
What do you think? Am I being bent out of shape over this? Is their request reasonable and I'm just being defensive? Or is it truly over the line and overly invasive?
The Wolf
I have a son enrolled in a yeshiva. Due to various misunderstandings and error on both my part and the yeshiva's part, we did not fill out the financial aid forms for this year. As a result, we're paying full tuition for one kid. Fine -- it's difficult, but we'll somehow get by. I'm not going to hold the school responsible because we didn't fill out the forms.
However, there was one particular part of the application that really bugged me and I was hoping for my readership's feedback.
One of the things that the school requested was copies of all our bank statement/credit card statements/etc. for the previous two or three months. This is something that no other school (in my experience) has asked for when evaluating financial need.
- Other schools have asked for some or all of the following:
- Tax return
- Balances in various accounts [checking/savings/IRA/401(k)/credit card/mortgage, etc.]
- Rough breakdown of expenses
- Info on property/cars owned
- Questions about camps/summer expenses
No school, except this one, has asked for actual statements from accounts. Truth to tell, I find this highly invasive. I don't think it's their business which grocery store I shop at, which doctors I see, and, for the little discretionary spending that I do, where I do it. I feel violated even at the thought of them going through my statements and saying "Hmmm... he spent $10 at Barnes & Noble," or "He didn't *really* need to buy that $15 bouquet at the florist," or "Hey, what's this $10 charge at Hallmark?"
I have no problem providing them with totals and aggregates of our spending (including the amount of discretionary spending) by category, but I just can't help but feel that requesting the details of our individual transactions is both intrusive and invasive -- especially since no other school has ever asked this of us.
What do you think? Am I being bent out of shape over this? Is their request reasonable and I'm just being defensive? Or is it truly over the line and overly invasive?
The Wolf
Thursday, March 18, 2010
You Canna Change The Laws of Physics... er, Economics.
An interesting article appeared on Yeshiva World News today concerning the problem of prospective grooms asking for excessive amounts of money to marry. Many of the young men in Israel who are learning in yeshivos are demanding that their prospective fathers-in-law to buy them an apartment before they will agree to a marriage.
This, of course, leads to some problems. Why? Let's tick off the reasons:
1. Most chareidi families in Israel (which is the segment of the population that we're talking about here) have large families. Since, on average, half of those children are daughters, most families are looking at buying at least three apartments (if not more) for their prospective sons-in-law.
2. Most of these families are barely squeaking by financially. Most chareidi families have lots of kids and spend years paying for private education for those kids, In addition, since secular learning is, for the most part, verboten, many of the ones who are employed are earning wages that are typically found in the unskilled labor market. Yes, there are some who are making it financially -- but those are the exceptions, not the norm.
3. They have educated their daughters that the only "acceptable" choice for a husband is someone who is going to sit and learn for an indefinite time into their marriage. Anything else is substandard and not befitting for a Jewish girl. This message is pounded into their heads by their teachers from the time they are old enough to even think of marriage.
As anyone who has studied a basic economics course knows, there are the concepts known as supply and demand. When there is excess supply and/or little demand for any particular item, the price of the item falls. Likewise, when supply is scarce and/or demand is high, the price of the item will rise. What has happened, very simply, is that over the last thirty years or so, we've increased the demand of a learning groom to the point where, once free market forces take effect, there is a rise in general prices -- not only on the best learners, but even those of lesser capability. As a result, even boys who aren't the best learners are demanding the purchase of an apartment. Lord alone knows what the true best learners* are asking for.
RavEliyashiv Kanievsky recently addressed the matter. As the YWN report says:
Rav Chaim Shlita used the opportunity to discuss the trend with young chasanim requesting an apartment before wedding arrangements are even finalized, the weekly BaKehilla reports. The Rav explained that he receives telephone calls from mothers of young girls, explaining they want an apartment and as a result, there cannot be a shidduch since they simply cannot accommodate.
“It has crossed acceptable boundaries. Today, every bachur who learns four or five years believes he has attained a level of worth higher than his father-in-law and therefore, he is entitled to an apartment. We must fight this trend. A fast day must be declared to stop this epidemic”.
The Rav called on roshei yeshiva to combat this trend and to use their influence with talmidim to begin turning this around. He added that at most, one may request half of the cost of an apartment from each side, but that is the limit.
It's good that RavEliyashiv Kanievsky is bringing attention to this situation. But a fast is not going to solve the problem. Nor will imposing a price cap of half an apartment. As most people know, price caps generally do not work -- especially in environments where there is no enforcement mechanism. I don't believe that grooms will continue to ask for less. On the contrary, they will continue to ask for more -- until they reach the point where demand is going to fall because not enough people will be able to afford the price. I believe we may be approaching that point very soon. At some point, the fathers are going to rebel and not pay -- if not from anger then from the sheer inability to pay. When that happens, the market will collapse.
Ultimately, it may take Adam Smith's invisible hand to undo the distortions in the dowry market that chareidi society has created over the last thirty years.
The Wolf
* Of course, one could make the argument that the true best learners might also be the best ba'al midos and know what their prospective in-laws can afford. But that's another story for another time.
This, of course, leads to some problems. Why? Let's tick off the reasons:
1. Most chareidi families in Israel (which is the segment of the population that we're talking about here) have large families. Since, on average, half of those children are daughters, most families are looking at buying at least three apartments (if not more) for their prospective sons-in-law.
2. Most of these families are barely squeaking by financially. Most chareidi families have lots of kids and spend years paying for private education for those kids, In addition, since secular learning is, for the most part, verboten, many of the ones who are employed are earning wages that are typically found in the unskilled labor market. Yes, there are some who are making it financially -- but those are the exceptions, not the norm.
3. They have educated their daughters that the only "acceptable" choice for a husband is someone who is going to sit and learn for an indefinite time into their marriage. Anything else is substandard and not befitting for a Jewish girl. This message is pounded into their heads by their teachers from the time they are old enough to even think of marriage.
As anyone who has studied a basic economics course knows, there are the concepts known as supply and demand. When there is excess supply and/or little demand for any particular item, the price of the item falls. Likewise, when supply is scarce and/or demand is high, the price of the item will rise. What has happened, very simply, is that over the last thirty years or so, we've increased the demand of a learning groom to the point where, once free market forces take effect, there is a rise in general prices -- not only on the best learners, but even those of lesser capability. As a result, even boys who aren't the best learners are demanding the purchase of an apartment. Lord alone knows what the true best learners* are asking for.
Rav
Rav Chaim Shlita used the opportunity to discuss the trend with young chasanim requesting an apartment before wedding arrangements are even finalized, the weekly BaKehilla reports. The Rav explained that he receives telephone calls from mothers of young girls, explaining they want an apartment and as a result, there cannot be a shidduch since they simply cannot accommodate.
“It has crossed acceptable boundaries. Today, every bachur who learns four or five years believes he has attained a level of worth higher than his father-in-law and therefore, he is entitled to an apartment. We must fight this trend. A fast day must be declared to stop this epidemic”.
The Rav called on roshei yeshiva to combat this trend and to use their influence with talmidim to begin turning this around. He added that at most, one may request half of the cost of an apartment from each side, but that is the limit.
It's good that Rav
Ultimately, it may take Adam Smith's invisible hand to undo the distortions in the dowry market that chareidi society has created over the last thirty years.
The Wolf
* Of course, one could make the argument that the true best learners might also be the best ba'al midos and know what their prospective in-laws can afford. But that's another story for another time.
Pesach Hotels, Yet Again...
The annual discussion of whether or not it is proper to go to a hotel for Pesach has once again reared its head -- this time in the YWN coffeeroom.
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Eeees and I don't go away and, truthfully, cannot picture it. For us, Pesach has always meant staying at home (or with friends or family). Even if we had the money to go away we probably wouldn't.
But that's just us. For others, going away for Pesach is "their thing," and I just don't see anything wrong with it. Every year I hear all sorts of arguments against the practice, but I have yet to find one that makes any sense. Two years ago, Dayan Shalom Friedman suggested that it's wrong to go away because you won't clean your house. I posted about that at the time and showed how that argument was totally without merit.
Another popular argument that arises is that the money could be better put to use in charity. As one commentator in the thread suggested:
With so many people out of work, and people needing to take from Tomche Shabbos to put food on the table, wouldn't it be tremendous if every person took the thousands of dollars they spend on a hotel and gave it to tzedakos that need it desperately?
Perhaps, perhaps not. However, there are two problems with this suggestion:
1. I think it's a bit galling to tell people what to do with their money. The commentator has no idea how much tzedaka the people who go to hotels give. Perhaps they've already met their obligations regarding tzedaka? Who is he to tell them that they have no right to spend some money on self-enjoyment?
2. The commentator is worried about people out of work, but he doesn't seem to realize that by closing down the Pesach hotel industry, a lot of people will be thrown out of work. I'm fairly certain that this provides a nice chunk of the annual salary for a number of people.
3. Why stop at Pesach hotels? Why not tell people to buy the cheapest esrog they can find for Succos and put the rest towards Tomche Shabbos? Does he take his kids on a trip on Chol HaMoed? Perhaps he should cancel the trip and explain to his kids that others need the money more. Does he buy flowers for his wife on Shabbos? Perhaps he can do with a single stem (or none at all) and give the rest to tzedaka? Who *really* needs music and flowers by a wedding? A wedding can be perfectly, 100% kosher according to all opinions without them. Perhaps that should be given to tzedaka too? And on and on it goes. In other words, if you're going to tell people they can't spend money on X because it can be put to better use in charity, then why not carry it to its logical conclusion and simply say that everyone must turn over every discretionary penny they have. Of course that's not what the commentator meant, but why not apply his principle there as well?
Of course, the more I think about it, the more I come to realize that perhaps going away to a hotel for Pesach *is* the authentic Jewish thing to do. After all, in the times of the Beis Mikdash, you went away for Pesach *every* year (unless you lived in Yerushalayim).
The Wolf
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Eeees and I don't go away and, truthfully, cannot picture it. For us, Pesach has always meant staying at home (or with friends or family). Even if we had the money to go away we probably wouldn't.
But that's just us. For others, going away for Pesach is "their thing," and I just don't see anything wrong with it. Every year I hear all sorts of arguments against the practice, but I have yet to find one that makes any sense. Two years ago, Dayan Shalom Friedman suggested that it's wrong to go away because you won't clean your house. I posted about that at the time and showed how that argument was totally without merit.
Another popular argument that arises is that the money could be better put to use in charity. As one commentator in the thread suggested:
With so many people out of work, and people needing to take from Tomche Shabbos to put food on the table, wouldn't it be tremendous if every person took the thousands of dollars they spend on a hotel and gave it to tzedakos that need it desperately?
Perhaps, perhaps not. However, there are two problems with this suggestion:
1. I think it's a bit galling to tell people what to do with their money. The commentator has no idea how much tzedaka the people who go to hotels give. Perhaps they've already met their obligations regarding tzedaka? Who is he to tell them that they have no right to spend some money on self-enjoyment?
2. The commentator is worried about people out of work, but he doesn't seem to realize that by closing down the Pesach hotel industry, a lot of people will be thrown out of work. I'm fairly certain that this provides a nice chunk of the annual salary for a number of people.
3. Why stop at Pesach hotels? Why not tell people to buy the cheapest esrog they can find for Succos and put the rest towards Tomche Shabbos? Does he take his kids on a trip on Chol HaMoed? Perhaps he should cancel the trip and explain to his kids that others need the money more. Does he buy flowers for his wife on Shabbos? Perhaps he can do with a single stem (or none at all) and give the rest to tzedaka? Who *really* needs music and flowers by a wedding? A wedding can be perfectly, 100% kosher according to all opinions without them. Perhaps that should be given to tzedaka too? And on and on it goes. In other words, if you're going to tell people they can't spend money on X because it can be put to better use in charity, then why not carry it to its logical conclusion and simply say that everyone must turn over every discretionary penny they have. Of course that's not what the commentator meant, but why not apply his principle there as well?
Of course, the more I think about it, the more I come to realize that perhaps going away to a hotel for Pesach *is* the authentic Jewish thing to do. After all, in the times of the Beis Mikdash, you went away for Pesach *every* year (unless you lived in Yerushalayim).
The Wolf
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Who's Worse?
There was a violent confrontation at the Kotel (Western Wall) today. The Women of the Wall, a women's group that prays there on Rosh Chodesh, complete with talleisim and tefillin, were preparing to daven when two people began throwing chairs at them.
Fortunately, no one was hurt. Police arrested two people for the violence.
I really don't want to get into the whole controversy regarding the Women of the Wall. I don't know enough about the motivations of the women or of those that oppose them -- not to mention the possible halachic issues to form an opinion on the matter.
What I do find very funny, however, is people's reaction to it. Consider this comment on YWN:
Except for putting on tefillin on Rosh Chodesh, do they observe any other of the 613 commandments of the Torah? Do they keep kosher? What about Shabbat? When did they stop driving to the beach on Shabbat and Chagim? Do they cover their hair with a kipah and on Shabbat do they wear a shtreimel?
Pretty strong insinuation, no? Because they want to daven with talleisim and tefillin by the Kotel, they obviously don't keep any other mitzvos.
And yet, can you imagine the same person saying the same thing about people who steal, defraud or molest children? Would he say the same thing about Kolko any of the other criminals that (sadly) would be welcome in most minyanim?
Kind of makes you wonder -- do they really think that a group of women davening with tallesim and tefillin are worse than child molesters?
The Wolf
UPDATE (12:00 PM): Of course, my comment to this effect on the YWN article didn't make it past the editors.
The Wolf
Fortunately, no one was hurt. Police arrested two people for the violence.
I really don't want to get into the whole controversy regarding the Women of the Wall. I don't know enough about the motivations of the women or of those that oppose them -- not to mention the possible halachic issues to form an opinion on the matter.
What I do find very funny, however, is people's reaction to it. Consider this comment on YWN:
Except for putting on tefillin on Rosh Chodesh, do they observe any other of the 613 commandments of the Torah? Do they keep kosher? What about Shabbat? When did they stop driving to the beach on Shabbat and Chagim? Do they cover their hair with a kipah and on Shabbat do they wear a shtreimel?
Pretty strong insinuation, no? Because they want to daven with talleisim and tefillin by the Kotel, they obviously don't keep any other mitzvos.
And yet, can you imagine the same person saying the same thing about people who steal, defraud or molest children? Would he say the same thing about Kolko any of the other criminals that (sadly) would be welcome in most minyanim?
Kind of makes you wonder -- do they really think that a group of women davening with tallesim and tefillin are worse than child molesters?
The Wolf
UPDATE (12:00 PM): Of course, my comment to this effect on the YWN article didn't make it past the editors.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)