|
Over the past four years plus his policies have essentially
decimated the middle class. While it is true since the feds have
dumped a ton of newly printed money into the stock market, the rich
have indeed gotten richer. Those who have individual retirement
accounts have seen their portfolios engorged by the effects of the
feds' money tsunami into the market. Those on the lower end of
the socioeconomic scale, however, who have no investments nor the
types of jobs that partially contribute to IRA accounts, are feeling
the effects of their inflated money buying fewer things. This is the
condition the president seems to like to point out to the nation's
citizens, that somehow, there is an inequity between those who have
money, jobs and resources as compared with those who have no jobs,
money or resources. The major thrust of the president's solutions
center around increasing taxes, spending more on social programs,
providing "bailouts" for those he deems are in trouble, increasing
wages to a much higher "minimum" wage and of course, increasing the
amount of time unemployment insurance pays out benefits. The flip
side of that coin seems to be the actual practice of that type of
economy that can be studied in many countries in Western Europe,
where indefinite unemployment benefits have stretched to years,
higher minimum wages are paid for entry-level positions, and social
programs have pushed economies closer to bankruptcy or government
insolvency. Just for fun, let's try to use some of the tried-and-true learning principles on the
president's ideas to end the problem
of income inequality.
Most everyone has heard of behavior modification. If not, then
many people have at least heard of the Pavlovian dog that salivates
at the sound of a bell. This classical form of conditioning operates
almost innately in our own lives. We have been "conditioned" to
respond to certain environmental stimuli at the moment our senses
perceive them. On a cold, brisk fall day, after working hard all
day, we stop by the grocery store to pick up something for dinner.
The butcher shop has cleverly cooked up a giant pot of chili that
wafts the aroma throughout the store. We walk through the front door, immediately our mouth waters as we pick up the aroma,
and the bet
the butcher made with himself wins. As we pass the meat counter, we
pick up a package of homemade chili to take home for supper. That is
a learning principle. We have behaved in a way through a classical
sense of responding to a certain set of environmental stimuli that
propelled us to the meat market, allowed us to "choose" a certain
food for our next meal that had not been even considered prior to
arriving at the store. Another scientist, by the name of B.F.
Skinner, later took the other side of that learning principle and
focused his research on the responses to that behavior rather than
the stimulus to that behavior. In the educational world it has been
taught as "operant conditioning." In operant conditioning researched
thoroughly by B.F. Skinner, who was called the "Father of
Behaviorism," a major component in that theory and learning
methodology is that, anything that is reinforced after it occurs is
usually strengthened and tends to be repeated. The more it is
reinforced positively, the stronger it becomes. This is so ingrained
in learning theory that teachers all over the world rely on it in
their teaching. Conversely, anything that occurs without contingent
reinforcement has a tendency to weaken in strength and ultimately
disappear. This is sometimes referred to as extinction. So, if a
child does appropriate things and is reinforced with positive
reinforcement, those appropriate things tend to strengthen and the
parent sees more of them. On the other hand, if behaviors like
tantrums are ignored and not followed by reinforcement, the tantrum
behavior tends to weaken and ultimately disappear.
[to top of second column] |
Going back to our unsuspecting shopper in the grocery store, we
have seen the effects of classical conditioning through the choice
of chili for supper. Now, the wise and well-educated store owner
uses another learning theory related to operant conditioning to
further enhance and strengthen his "repeat" business. It is a mild
punisher to be told the "bottom line" cost of the groceries just
purchased. In normal circumstances that may act as a "punisher" and
thereby cause the shopper to reduce the amount of shopping at that
store. However, through operant conditioning with reinforcement,
the cashier, with a broad smile, announces you have "saved" $10.40
on your shopping for the day. Additionally, you are rewarded for
shopping there by receiving an entire list of "coupons" printed on
the back of the register tape that will give you "cents off" for
your next purchase. Additionally, you may even receive some "savings
stamps" you can use toward obtaining some item you wanted. Finally,
a cute, energetic, young teenager will cheerfully help you out to
your car with your purchases and pleasantly say, "Thank you, and
hurry back to (this store)." You have just been classically
conditioned and reinforced (operant) for your choices and behaviors
that will have you revisiting that store many times. If this
principle is so ingrained in the learning paradigm, and people
respond to it in the natural environment, what is the rationale for
extending the practice of paying people for as many as two years a
salary for not having a job? A person making minimum wage of $7.25
working 40 hours would receive a gross paycheck of $290 a week. At
the same time a person who is unemployed, drawing a gross of $400 a
week, the payment for not working is $10 per hour.
Isn't the same principle in effect? If each week a person is paid
almost $400 for not having a job, or $290 a week for working 40
hours, what would be the motivation for getting a job after the
person has been paid each week for two years? Isn't that process
exactly the opposite of learning theory? Just asking. Don't
misunderstand what I am saying. I want everyone to have a job; I
want everyone who needs and wants to work to have a salary high enough
to support themselves and their family. I just don't understand the
logic of the government politicians who are insisting we pay someone
more money per week for not working for as many as two years, with a
higher non-working salary than those people who are working 40 hours
per week for $110 less than those who are not working. It makes
sense only in the fact it is a job-killer rather than a job-motivator. Perhaps someone can explain the dynamics of this and how
it works contrary to learning theory, and yet still makes sense.
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article. |
