Movie Comments: 2001 Space Odyssey

    I actually sat and watched the movie from beginning to end this time (not so when I was a 13 year old newspaper boy who came late and left early to make it to football practice in 1969 (or so).  Some things that stuck me this time (45+ years later):
        (1) Thoughtful even if unpopular science like quiet motion of space ships (factual rather than the roar of ships in free fall around a planet in other sci-fi flicks).  The techniques to simulate gravity or compensate for gravity free environments were consistent with reality,  Even in the climatic scene where he enters into open space into a hatch with no little/no atmosphere is well done with great care.
       (2) Visual beauty (alignment of moon, earth and sun shots) etc... musical arrangements make this movie unique.   I actually enjoyed the dark screen with classical music at the end (something not so true when 12).  I understand that this is not popular and forces one to experience auditory and visual beauty without "action.".
     (3) Slow development allows for anticipation about what is coming next...and allows view to enjoy the visual artistry and music.
    (4) In 1968 this film depicts people fixated on computer screens and distantly relating to others and appears to have captured how it has become (somewhat) today.  The only thing missing is the "gaming addictive behavior" so prevalent now (along with urgent sky is falling now syndromes fed by the internet).
    (5) The step by step extension into space is still reflective of how those analyzing such efforts (if humans reaching into space is a goal) still see it.
    (6) there is still some presence of the family (mother and father singing happy birthday) though still a non-emotive response typical of technology focused society
    (7) for those who understand artificial intelligence and large computer interfaced systems this movie seems more plausible now than it did when I was less aware of the implications.
    (8) The movie leaves lot of room for the viewer to "fill in the blanks." A malfunctioning HAL is possible but so is the idea that contact with  "intelligent life" was planned with HAL (another scenario) and the humans were seen as "expendable" and HAL may not have been malfunctioning at all!  Computer first contact with intelligent life make much more sense..think of diseases, plagues, misunderstandings that come with species contact.
    (9) Fast action, impossible physical events and continuously repeated adrenaline pumping scenes appear to be deliberately NOT in this film.  Amazing that it is still around at all.

The Government and the Family

    The unfortunate news is that big government-business aggressively pursue policies that discourage family formation, hamper families that do exist and encourage those who are making poor choices to obtain assistance from a distant and uncaring government.  These are not policies intentionally aimed at harming families and many actually think they are helping the struggling "poor families".   Some facts indicate that the policies of federal aid to families do fail to preserve the family and in a bizarre outcome the data has for 50 years consistently shown that the government aid is associated with the weakening and eradication of family ties.  The results stand in stark factual contrast to the stated intentions.
    The FACTS are a stunning.  Over 50 years ago the 1965 confidential "Moynihan Report" labeled "For Official Use Only" was given to President Johnson.  The report detailed the FACTS about how government programs assisting the poor were associated with the break up of families (and all the associated problems).  Even though that report was assembled based on valid information by a prominent member of the democratic party it was  rejected on grounds that it was "racist" in depicting that the impact was particularly evident on "negro families".  Since that time it has been well established that government assistance, like a poison pill, has been associated with degraded families of every race and creed.  The reports and predictions in that report (of accelerating decline of the family with more such assistance) have come true.   Similar findings have been repeatedly replicated in followup studies through the years.  
     The conclusion of the report's democratic author was that full employment could maintain or even reverse the decline of the family and suggested that employment (a new goal of the government)  would be better than "transfer payments" in bringing justice and equity.   This goal was ignored and never implemented as a policy.  Instead 50 years of increasing persistent welfare spending we have three times the rate of single family homes as we did in 1965 (with the associated problems of violence and crime).  The goal of full employment was NEVER pursued BUT government efforts to "help" the family have been relentlessly pursued by using multiple forms of welfare assistance.  The response of 1965 was  "more money to help the family" and increasing amounts of money was provided for the next 50 years.  Meanwhile the suggested support policy for the family, which was "full employment" (rather than "handouts"), has nurtured the highest labor non-participation rates in history.
      A tale repeatedly for over 2000 years is called the "prodigal son" (Luke 15:11-32).  In that story a son takes the wealth he would have inherited from his father and lives a life that squanders the entire sum.  Finding himself in a job he did not like, being paid less than he wanted and knowing that life was better at home (where his family continued to live prudently) the son decided to return home and REFORM his life.  The son thought he would even be willing to WORK for his father as a servant.  Today the government would step in and make sure that the son did not have to go home and allow him to continue a life with an imprudence.  The son blaming others for his plight, would continue a life unreformed and the government would step in to provide him with cell phone, rent assistance and/or EBT cash.  There would be no return to the family and no reform of his life.  Unfortunately there is still a personal outcome not addressed by the son accepting the poison pill rather than reform.
     What suppresses full employment and could therefore hurt the family? The single overwhelmingly largest employer in the nation is small businesses.  Small businesses are growing (as a portion of the entire labor pool) in spite of oppression according to Government Labor Statistics).  Large businesses are busy taking capital overseas to protect it from seizure in the US.  Small businesses have no choice but to remain.   Government is experienced by owners of small businesses as imposing heavy, complicated tax structures with a tax enforcement agency that can arbitrarily seize property (without civil recourse or neutral review).  The oppression of small companies can also be experienced with OSHA and EPA government agencies who own small businesses and can be due to political affiliation that is "out of office".  The "Affordable Care Act", as an for example,  places monetary and regulatory burdens on the small companies and start ups while huge companies (like Walmart - a huge donor to political races) get waivers.  Meanwhile large companies protect capital from seizure by keeping much of the capital out of the country (something the small company based in the US can not due) including large political donors like GE and APPLE.
     Eventually the goose that lays the golden eggs will be trapped, choked and consumed.  The idea that people can work, own and run their own business can be extinguished by regulation, taxes, policy and force of law. 
     
     What if we have a dysfunctional government run by a big government party NEEDS a dependent class to be elected?  That dysfunctional government would be tempted to create policies (if you had faith in big government-business) that weaken the family while claiming to care about the family.  The government could unintentionally destroy opportunities for employment that supports families.  Political parties could harm families with support for individuals who need much more than material assistance.  It may be that big government do not need or want strong families.  It is possible that government, in seeking dependency and legitimacy, seeks increased dependency.

Universal Health Care in a Pluralistic Society?

     Some might think that in a country of immigrants with widely variant values that the government can coerce everyone (forcibly if needed) into a "one size fits all" health care system.  How unfortunate because this assumption is most certainly not true and government programs will never make it so (though it may pretend to in order to tax workers and enrich cronies).  There is no agreement and will likely never be agreement on what constitutes "health care." Disparate opinions about what constitutes genuine health care are not, due to deeply held convictions, resolvable (even if the big government faithful might think so does not make it so).  An example can be found in the need some have for a "sex change operation" which is deemed an approved "health care" for tax supported plans but "proton therapy for brain cancer" is not approved "health care" (real examples).  Even in a small country with a rather homogeneous population there may be agreement (there is not even such agreement in Switzerland where the wealthy go to private sources for health care - universal is for those who can not or do not want to pay for the private available care) but in larger countries where people with similar values may pool funds the universal approach is not only inefficient it is, in fact, unworkable.  The wealthy (you can be assured) will opt out as they do in every country that offers "universal care".  Only those who wish to pool with others having similar values will be "mandated" and "coerced" into government dictated care programs.
     The United States is opting for the "slow choking" of values oriented pooled people who share expenses through insurance (like the "Little Sisters of the Poor" etc.).  Lobbyists who wrote the bill that was admittedly not read by the lawmakers who passed the bill (passed the midnight before the arrival of a "no vote" from Massachusetts) celebrated the "accomplishment".  The lobbyist goal was to provide larger pools of payees to insurance companies and so expand market penetration to increase corporate income and that goal was fulfilled.  The wealthy remained unaffected (and need no insurance).  The insurance companies were delighted with the new "mandatory purchases" required by law (if only car companies could have mandated purchases or broccoli growers too!)  The big government party was happy with increased dependency.  The resourceful and hardworking people who pooled resources with others having similar values are suffering the most.  It only makes sense to those who believe in the big government-business that imposing a healthcare system for all would help establish a permanent big government party that will "promise" ever increasing benefits (even if not true).  The bonus is that the twin head to government, large insurance companies (in this case) are delighted to provide donations to the big government party to help them maintain positions of power. This makes both heads of the coercive "health care system" happy.
     Health Insurance is a highly charged topic because personal decisions and the highest of stakes (life itself) are at the core of the debate. A definition of "health care" is difficult (if not impossible) to define in common with others who may have different values, beliefs and principles in our pluralistic society.  Given the many differences in understanding and the widely variant private behavior this is a subject with strong emotional attachment.  Life altering events can be totally unpredictable (like being hit by a meteor on the way to work) or the consequence of some long term habit that eventually robs a person of an ability to breath (like smoking).  Many life ending events are a mixture of both chance and behavior that leads to a variety of outcomes which confound our sense of fairness and justice.  In the end it is personal behavior and spiritual formation that influence how we face this issue of  "health insurance" and there is no topic that could be more personal or controversial.
     Some see "Health Insurance" is a financial product that pays for medical costs when our ability to live as fully as we wish is diminished.  A diminished life may mean less than unlimited access to contraception, abortion of the unborn, sterilization, breast enhancement, sex change, sexually arousing drugs, removal of "skin flicks", teeth straightening or the need for cartilage repair due to an sport injury.  "Health Insurance" can be seen by others as resources reserved only for the purpose of extending or saving life.  The very definition of "health care" is a personal issue founded upon widely differing views of our human condition.  It is hardly surprising that a national consensus is difficult with such widely disparate views of what "Health Insurance" should do.  The lack of common vision about the definition of health care is especially true in a country that has a collection of persons from a wide variety of backgrounds, understandings and vision for living.
     Chance plays a role in life that can be unsettling for those who prefer order, predictability and a humane sense of justice.  Examples of how chance can work are innumerable and perplexing.  One (true) example is one of the richest persons in the world with virtually unlimited financial resources met an untimely death despite the best care money could buy.  In another example (also true) a child that has had cancer removed by surgery and is then scheduled for chemo-therapy by the best medical advice available.  The parents decline the therapy despite the dire warnings of the medical experts.  That child still survives, fully functional, thirty years later.  Greater resources can and often seem to extend the lives of unfortunate victims (or even save them) but the resources may also fail and the irony is that sometimes the resources may hasten the end of life as well.  Chance is difficult to deal with because it reveals in stark terms how insufficient our medical science is and how fragile our life is.  Can a board of informed, educated and detached experts make better decisions about medical expenditures than individuals (or families) using resources personally available to those facing the end of life?  Who can truly know the "right" decision?  It is hard to fathom that pooled funds can satisfy the expansive variety of opinions people face with the end of  life event arrives (as it always does).  Chance in the case of health care is not predictable at the individual level where the values most personally dictate individual response.
    The person who eats a healthy diet and remains physically active is much more likely, according to aggregate data, to live the fullest possible life.  Despite the well known links of lung cancer to smoking, alcohol to liver damage,  fatty foods to heart problems, sedentary life to physical incapacity people choose freely to smoke, drink alcohol, eat fatty foods and fail to exercise regularly.  Others refrain from pleasures of smoking, drinking alcohol, eating deserts and spend hours each week trying to remain physically capable rather than enjoying multiple forms of entertainment.  Should the person who has sacrificed and done without the pleasures that others have enjoyed pay the same premiums as the person who living with the pleasures of smoke, drink, delightful dessert or couch entertainment?  Does a personal sense of responsibility, self discipline and sacrifice also play a role in the cost of "Health Care"?  Is it the job of the government to make sure that the person who lives healthy pay the same price for health care as the person who elects not to live healthy?
      The spiritual formation required to rationally deal with our health and frailty is paramount and trumps both chance or discipline. If a person fears the final moment of a finite life then no amount of resources can go untapped to save them from eternal extinction.  All concern for the financial condition of those left behind can mean little or nothing compared to the preservation of self at all costs.  The devout and religious person who sees earthly life as a transient experience thinks of the comfort of those who remain (emotional and financial). The person dedicated to more than an earthly life knows that facing death with dignity can assist those who are closest and knows that opportunities can be provided with resources not used to extraordinarily extend life.  A nurse shared (true story) a discomfort she had when a patient, after visiting with family, elected to have enhanced oxygen supply removed causing a quickened death.  That nurse then realized that the person, of sincere faith, was ready for the end of earthly dwelling.  In the Christian faith trials can be viewed as privilege (James 1:2-12) and life can end with the comforting fact that "Happy the man who stands firm when trials come. He has proved himself and will win the prize of life."

   The expansion of the federal government into the most personal decisions families and individuals make is more in line with modern totalitarian prone societies.  A good treatment of the history of administrative law under kings and in our newer democracy is treated very well in

  http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2014_09_Imprimis.pdf 

Full Employment and Wealth

      The average worker in a country with no minimum wage, according to common assumption, should have lower wages because the "floor" of the national pay scale is non-existent.  These workers would then be ruthlessly exploited and oppressed by the rich people and evil companies that would prey on them and exploit them.  The expectation of the would be that workers would refuse to work (high unemployment or non-participation) and those that did work would be paid lower average wages.  According to these common assumptions a country with no minimum wage would have depressed wages and higher non-participation and unemployment.  
       Is anyone surprised by the FACT that a country with NO GOVERNMENT MANDATED MINIMUM WAGE has the highest employment rate in the world AND also pays much higher than average salaries?  Switzerland (a nation with no minimum wage) has full employment AND pays a higher average wage than most other developed countries!   Such FACTS contradict the expectations of those who believe in a society that needs big government to best help workers. 
      Why, in fact, is the "big government is best" assumption opposite of reality?  Could it be that "No government dictated minimum wage" encourages employers to hire workers into entry level positions earlier?  The experience gained by a worker early in a career would result in the production of more goods and services over a lifetime.  Could it possibly be that the relationship between with employer and employee is actually clarified with no government mandated minimum wage?  The employee would be grateful to the employer for the pay they get and the employee would want to help the company succeed!  The employer would want to retain the experience and skills developed and increase pay accordingly.  The clear and better relationship could mean a better wage.  The employer would work to nurture a mutual relationship and so provide better wages rather than one mediated by a distant coercive institution (big government) that draws the loyalty of that worker away from the employer.   When there is no government "thug" to change the nature of the mutually beneficial relationship great things can and DO happen!  The higher wages would be the result of such a society along with greater participation and lower unemployment.  Higher wages would then bring more wealth!   The cycle would continue.
     The assumption that minimum wage law increases average wages springs from a lack of knowledge about the principles which drive economic life.  The keystone of wealth is a contributing and productive people.  The more people who are contributing talents and energies to the pool of goods and services then the wealthier everyone in that society is.  This greater pool of wealth can then be distributed (via individual transactions) with ever increasing generosity because there are more goods and services to exchange!
    Full employment is the secret to higher wages and greater wealth for every society in every type of government.  When the unemployment rate is low nothing could be better for the worker!  That worker can choose who to work for and how much they are willing to accept.  Switzerland, for example, has a greater pool of goods and services even though it overwhelmingly rejected a "minimum wage law" (which reveals an underlying attitude that rejects government coerced mandates).  This greater pool of goods and services takes years to build and flow. People develop skills from the many years of experience working in an economy that encourages participation from the earliest possible start of an entry level worker.  The United States is growing more starkly in contrast to type of economy that encourages full employment and greater national wealth.  The policies of our big government party will likely grow unemployment for years to come.
    The focus on full employment is one important key to having high wages and wealth.  The facts clearly display this.  Recent tax increases, imposed wages, regulation and government coercion clearly provide evidence that non-participation in the labor force increases and human potential is suppressed (causing an "ever widening gap" between the  rich and poor".)

   What if we have a dysfunctional government run NEEDS a dependent class to be elected?  That dysfunctional government would be tempted to create policies (if you had faith in big government-business) that weaken individual contribution and increase the need for government.  This would secure the loyalty of the individual to the government.
     The very reason for interest in minimum wage is votes.  Now that health care is taking ever greater proportions of the economy, high unemployment (hidden by "non-participation") and inflationary behavior of prices (hidden by changing the weighting of calculations) the electoral consequences appear to be dire for the big government party.  What will the big government do?  That same party that had a super-majority in the Senate, complete control of the House of Representatives and a president for two years and NEVER acted on minimum wage.  They knew (and it is well known) that raising the minimum wage would result in further slow down, less opportunity for entry level participants and less younger entry level workers.  While in control they did what they knew had to be done.  They left the minimum wage alone and did nothing!

      So now things change and the big government party needs to win an election!  So now that they are NOT in control they DEMAND that minimum wage be raised!  It is a win-win for the big government party that wants to get votes.  If the small government types deny the minimum wage they can scream "Vote us in to help make wages "fair" (whatever "fair" means!) and stop those greedy evil money grabbing smaller government types!  If the minimum wage law passes unemployment goes up and the impoverished class increase in size.  Now one can blame the same small government types, those evil companies and the greedy rich people.  This duplicitous technique is well known among demagogues and proponents of big government.  In fact duplicity is the key to winning elections and it has the added benefit of enlarging the impoverished dependent class who will vote for you.  Any one remember "You can keep your policy?" (I couldn't!)
     The problem, of course, is that selective prosecution, duplicity (making promises you know will not be true), demonizing and cronyism work.  The big government-business party knows that.  They are just getting ready to win again.

       The fabulous video clip below actually touches on the unintentional impact of "minimum wage".  The person addresses the unintended effect when he talks about "There are no jobs!  The minimum wage is for what?!"  His exasperation is as clear as mine in the segment.  We are locking out so many healthy, productive and good people who could prove themselves if given a chance at a wage "so low" that any business person would want to give them a chance!

Read more questions addressed below:
  The Government is never big enough.  Make it bigger!
  Does our big government truly help families?
  Perpetuating Poverty with the Wrong Solution
  Is our big government a wonderful healthcare provider?
  Why does healthcare matter to those who want freedom?
  Does forcing employers to pay a certain minimum wage help?
  How a government truly can enrich everyone! 

Minimum Wage War?

     Well intended efforts to help the downtrodden, reduce government dependence, mitigate poverty and bring us a more perfect world have what seems to be an obvious solution:   Raise the minimum wage!   The simple view is that an increase in minimum wage encourages those seeking employment, assists those who are earning too little and therefore will raise average income among the least rewarded of all employees (the low skilled entry level worker).  The downtrodden then believe their lot has been improved by using government to force evil companies and greedy rich people to pay a higher wage.  Such are the webs of those who have an unquestioning faith in in big government-business as a savior of human kind.  If only it were true.

     There is comfort in such solutions because emotion rules the argument rather than reason. The emotionally driven argument counts intentions more than results.  It also assumes that anyone who thinks differently must have "wrong" intentions.  When the poor end up worse off there will always be, of course, the  "evil companies" and "greedy rich people" here to blame again.   Totalitarian governments have found blaming to always be easier than reasoning and takes much less time as well (Orwell hit on this point in his famous work).  Why examine what actually happens when we can all agree quickly who the evil doers are?  Even if these "evil intentions" are falsely assigned we can still all agree they are evil!

     One could look to a nation with the lowest unemployment rate in the world just to see what minimum wage law might exist and compare it to the minimum wage law of our country.   A nation with the consistently (year over year) lowest unemployment rate in the world (between 1.8% to 3% over the last 5 years) also is a nation with no minimum wage law!  In fact a minimum wage law put  to referendum in May of 2014 was overwhelmingly rejected by 76% of the voters in that country.  Could this mean that there is a large underpaid working class of impoverished persons in this country?  In fact the answer to this question is "no".  Instead, surprisingly, we find that the country of Switzerland is among the richest in the world with one of the highest average incomes and lowest of poverty rates.  Facts like these fails to resonate with the emotional argument so it must (and surely will) be dismissed for all sorts of creative reasons.  Worst of all it could mean the government (like ours) makes things worse for the poor despite the intentions and that truly flies in the face of the big government-business faith!
     One might look at the impact of the minimum wage on the workforce in our nation and for the patterns found between states (there are different minimum wages from state to state).  What proportion of workers actually make the minimum wage and would be impacted?  If we pass a law that mandates a higher minimum wage what impact does it have when comparing states?  According to U.S. Labor Bureau statistics those making minimum wage are less than 5% of the working population and most of these positions employ teenagers and entry level workers.  In states raising the pay of these workers by force of law (according to the U.S. Labor Bureau statistics from 1990-2013) there were sustained increases in teenage unemployment and less entry level positions to those seeking first time employment.  The people meant to be helped are shut out of any employment at all.  The long term impact of shutting the door on these entry level workers could be contributing to the growing non-participation rate by able bodied individuals who have given up on work altogether (and are not even counted as unemployed by the government).    So forcibly raising minimum wage (by law in different states) reduces lifetime earnings of workers and denies entry level positions to those who desperately desire them.  None of this reality matters to those who believe that "laws always help" because, even if predictable as an outcome, those who consider themselves as trying to "help" will blame the people and companies who decide in marginal situations "not to hire" as "greedy and wrong" (even if those blaming appear not to be hiring themselves.)
     Finally there is the relationship between the employer and the employee that is altered.  The employee earning minimum wage has an allegiance to the government that he thinks is providing the minimum wage and is grateful to the government for "saving him from lower wages" (even if it is the employing firm who is actually supplying the wage!)   If the worker were more focused on being grateful and working hard for the company then greater company earnings could result.  The worker efforts and positive attitude would help the bottom line of the company and the future of that worker.  When a government steps in to dictate compensation the loyalty and effort which might be mutually experienced by company and employee is lost.  The government is like a "thug" in your "corner" helping you get the most you can for yourself.  This reliance on your "thug friend" substitutes for working to make your company more successful so that you can be a part of the success.  The relationship of mutual caring is now lost.  The mere presence of the thug empowers a negative attitude and hinders the possible advancement of that employee (in both attitude and compensation).

       There are some who intuitively realize the principles at work (as depicted in the video below).  They recognize that economic activity is, in fact, actually suppressed by big government.  Who benefits from the suppression of economic activity?  The poor do not benefit form such suppression.  Laws passed may be meant to help but they fail to do so time and time and time again.  In the tradition of Frederick Douglass this video clip appears to show some of the awakened (and make an important point about minimum wage):

\

     One huge benefit to the minimum wage worker would most certainly be to allow and ease the starting one's own business.  If individuals could start a business as easily as getting a job there would be an increase and upward pressure on wages (because these workers are not available for hire!)  Unfortunately the burden of regulations, laws, codes and complicated tax structures penalize AND deter the formation of small businesses.  The small businesses have no lobbyists or built in political clout that protects them.

     

        The problem with a government mandate justified by intention has two wrong folds.  First is the wrong idea that those who want a higher "minimum wage" naturally define those who "truly" care (while those who disagree "truly do not care"?)   The fact that data does provide evidence that minimum wage laws can reduce opportunities and increase suffering for the poorest and most vulnerable (unskilled workers) is exactly the opposite of intended consequences.   The tragic result caused by imposed increases in minimum wage is  unskilled unemployment increase, government dependence increase, average income decline and the poorest of all workers (the unskilled youthful employee) is hurt over a lifetime by a delayed entry into the workforce.  
       The young worker is also strategically wounded by an adversarial relationship with the employer, tactically crippled with increased unemployment now (forcing dependence on government) and then must carry long periods of unemployment on the life long resume.   Those who wanted the easy "solution" of forcibly increasing the minimum wage will fall back on "we meant to help the downtrodden" and "the one's causing the decrease opportunities are the  greedy rich and the evil companies."  The paradox, of course, is that the greedy rich people are the one's who employ the workers and PAY them.  A government that claims to be giving the worker a minimum wage is merely a thug forcing the employer to pay the wage and this is not lost on the worker.   So the conscience is salved by "intent" even if the results guarantee another round of blame and decline in opportunity rather than a much needed round of opportunity and enrichment.
      If only we could get past the intentions.



     

Teaching and Injustice? Envy? Jealousy?

   

     In the picture above we have a taller and more physically fit son holding a Science , Engineering, Technology and Mathematics (STEM) Bachelors Degree.

     The older gentleman has doctorate the behavioral sciences, 34 years of teaching experience, a presidential award, numerous state level awards, 17 years of supervisory experience and many students who have won regional, state and nationally at science fairs and academic competitions.

     The son has an electrical and optical engineering degree at the Bachelor level and has never had a full time position in industry.

     Who is worth more in a free market?  Some have already guessed!

      Now we face the facts.

      The starting salary of the young man is four times greater (adjusted for inflation) than the starting salary of the elder when he became a first year teacher.  In fact the salary of a 34 year experienced teacher with a doctorate in the nearby Public School System will make less than this young man with a STEM degree having NO experience at all.

      Should the elderly teacher be upset and angry?  Should he scream about the injustice?  Should he harbor envy and jealousy concerning the disparate pay scales?

      What if teaching is a chosen vocation? What if teaching is a calling and offers a personal fulfillment that no other career offers personally?  What if teaching is the personal calling planted in the heart?  Then suddenly all the sacrifices of his family are put into context.  The teacher's family lived with less material goods but he did have a "fulfilling" vocation (even if his family lacked some resources.)  The elderly gentleman was lucky enough that the children had a great mother (so he did not do everything wrong!)

      Finally it must be said that the free market is truly the place to hash all the issues out relating to the value of labor.  The elderly gentleman has had time and experiences during the summer that those working full time all year could never pull off.  He and his family have lived in the wilderness, hiked peaks, descended into valleys and driven the nation shore to shore. The teacher also had an opportunity to interact with a wide variety of people every day over many years and has been enriched because of this.  The pay and the salary do not measure the personal satisfaction found when a person is responding to the call in his heart.  Teachers must have such a call or they do not persist in the career long.  

      

       You can be assured that the elderly father is happy for his son and only wishes him even better for the future.  The son is serving the needs of society and based on the salary provided by the company there is great need for his skills.  The free market serves all by selecting the right people for the job.  Pay, of course, is only one factor and the personal calling to teach may be another.  Any alternative to the free market would be a hideous mess.  Imagine a government bureaucrat or pompous academic dictating salaries based on who knows what including the party affiliation of the worker?  Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? Why not trust the invisible hand of the market?

      No tantrums, no envy, no jealousy but plenty of congratulations to the young man! There is genuine joy for another's good fortune.

      The old man is happy and he is happy for his son too!  

Read more questions addressed below:
  The Government is never big enough.  Make it bigger!
  Does our big government truly help families?
  Perpetuating Poverty with the Wrong Solution
  Is our big government a wonderful healthcare provider?
  Why does healthcare matter to those who want freedom?
  Does forcing employers to pay a certain minimum wage help?
  How a government truly can enrich everyone!