"Between a Rock and a Hard Place"

We often find ourselves in situations in which we have to make difficult choices where not only the outcome is uncertain but our principles may need to be compromised. Looking at these options from the outside, especially one dimensionally, the correct choice may seem obvious especially in the context of a different familial, cultural and religious perspective and even there the situation becomes more gray as one looks deeper.

I saw a movie a few years ago where the hero, played by Ben Kingsley, took a sick son to a hospital and because of the lack insurance, the administrator did not admit him and a doctor and nurse would not look at him but told them to go to a different hospital where uninsured people would be tended to. On the way to the hospital the son died. Ben’s character went home, got a gun, returned to the hospital and shot the secretary, nurse and doctor. He surrendered to the police and was assigned a lawyer who wants him to plead insanity. He refused. During a consultation the lawyer said, “it is hard to do the right thing”. To this Ben’s character replied, “it is hard to see what the right thing is but once we see it, its hard not to do it.”

With people falling on hard times during this recession there has been criticism of the long term unemployed in that they would rather collect unemployment than get a lesser paying job. On the surface this looks like a reasonable criticism but let me paint a scenario where it may not be so obvious. Let’s say a man with a wife and two small kids loses a job. He collects $500 per week in unemployment benefits and is out looking for work and finds a jobs at $400 per week. He has a difficult choice to make and the degree of difficulty will depend on a whole range of cultural issues. From a shallow perspective of someone who comes from a culture where honor is a strong attribute, the choice is obvious. Get a job.

One can look at this differently. Doing the honorable thing and retaining ones dignity is a selfish act. It satisfies the individual’s ego and personal needs at the expense of the well-being of the family. The family is better off with $500 per week than with $400. The man is between a rock and a hard place. He has a social obligation to provide the best care he can for his children and on the other hand he wants to retain his dignity and there is no way he can do both. (Of course there are arguments that will say he can get several jobs but if there are no jobs where will he get them) or he can steal. Nevertheless the choices are difficult. Ironically, maybe the move in Congress to not further extend unemployment payments would eliminate the choice and possible make it easier on the man but certainly not on the children.

Above I alluded to the cultural influence on the perception of honor.
A good extreme example of this is the legendary war between the Hatfields and McCoys in the Ozarks nearly one hundred years ago. The feud started over ownership of a hog with a member of one family killing a member of the other. Honor dictated that the killing be avenged. The feud continued for more than a decade anding with the deaths of 10 people. All in the name of honor.
This feud prompted a study about honor and the cultures influencing it. Both the Hatfields and McCoys were of Scots-Irish ancestry where honor has a very high priority so within that culture their behavior was not totally irrational. The study further indicated that in the rural South honor has a stronger position than in the urban North. To prove this point they tested young men by exposing them to personal insults and measuring the points at which they were ready to fight. In the news these days one also hears about “honor” killings of women in backward predominantly Islamic counties. The women by some action reviled by tradition have tainted the family name, dishonoring the family and to regain their dignity the family kills the woman. This is generally attributed to Islam but as the acts of the Hatfields and McCoys were not driven by religion but by culture so is the case of those “honor” killings.

Another example of a difficult decision was used in a lecture on Islam presented by Professor John Swanson of the American University of Cairo. The context was a discussion on the cutting off of the hand of a person convicted of theft. The professor pointed out that severing a hand was an infrequent occurrence and gave an example of how a case might evolve.
A farmer’s well runs dry and he cannot irrigate his field and his family is starting to starve. He asks a neighbor for permission to use some of his water but the neighbor refuses. The man is between a rock and a hard place. The Qur-an prohibits theft but also requires that a man care for his family. The farmer can’t meet both requirements and has to make a hard choice. He needs to brake one or the other law. So he steals water in the night, is caught and brought in front of a Sharia court. If the jurist is wise and experienced he would understand the dilemma and set the man free, fine the neighbor because he has an obligation to help his needy neighbor which he did not and furthermore the court would chastise the local government because it also to care for its needy.

In business, a person highly valued is the “no nonsense” person capable of making “hard” decisions. These hard decisions seldom affect them but can be catastrophic for those subordinate to them. They are decisions to terminate employment, freeze salaries, reduce benefits, change vendors etc. These decisions seldom, if ever, affect the well-being of the individual manager or their families but always someone else. The ability to make “hard” decisions is almost a prerequisite for a job in top management. In fact the decisions may or may not be hard at all depending on the background and character of the individual making them. If they see their staff not as fellow humans but just as resources to advance their agendas, the decision is not hard at all and there is no sleep lost. If, on the other hand, the humanity of the subordinates and the pain they will suffer is recognized, these decisions are indeed very hard. My guess is that those who have climbed the ladder to the highest positions in very large organization, because they have not crumbled from the weight of these decisions, must view people just as another resource.


I realize that the above may be oversimplifications but the point is that we often are faced with choices that are difficult. How difficult a given choice may be depends a lot on our individual backgrounds and environment. Often even we ourselves do not fully understand the underlying conflicts driven by believes, circumstances and cultures. These are the choices that cause sleepless nights and give us indigestion if not more serious health problems. The greater difficulty is seeing what the “right” thing to do is and the stress comes from facing two paths neither of which is a “right” one.

“Poor Can’t Create Jobs”

I just finished watching “Spitzer & Parker”, a daily political talk show on CNN. (The Spitzer part is Elliot Spitzer the infamous former Governor of NY). A guest on the show was Mary Matalin a Republican spokesperson and strategist. They were discussing the pending extension of the so-called Bush tax cut and Mary hit one of my open nerve endings. One of the things I find most annoying is the notion that the wealthy are the “job creators” and as such should be appreciated and coddled. Mary added salt to my open wound by saying, and I quote, “nobody ever got a job from a poor person”. I counted to ten and rushed to the computer before I cooled off too much. (I spent the weekend in a hospital with a touch of pneumonia and either because of the infection or the antibiotics I get a bit irritable and emotional. I will blame my outburst on this.)

Today I was at Walmart and saw many shoppers very few of whom looking like anything but “poor people”. I wonder how many jobs there would be if all of them went away. If jobs would go away if they are not there, does that mean that they created the jobs? By shopping there they are creating jobs and if more have money to spend there they create more jobs. The “job creators” could pump as much money into Walmart as they want, but without the people in the store shopping there would be no people working. I imagine among the crowd of shoppers were even some individuals collecting unemployment or even on welfare. Does that mean that people on welfare can create jobs? Hmmm. I drove by McDonald’s and didn’t see many BMWs and Mercedes, or even one Cadillac, for that matter, parked in the lot. I wonder if “poor people” are also creating jobs there?

The whole debate about the tax increase on income over $250,000 which would occur if the “Bush” cuts are not extended, from the conservative side, is argued that increasing taxes on incomes over $250,000 will slow the recovery. In my opinion, they really don’t believe that. The right truly feels that the success of the country is attributable to the people in power and they should be rewarded, as they were by Republicans, with a tax cut during the Bush administration and not “penalized” as they would be if the tax cut is allowed to expire.

I wanted to test my logic so I did a little quick arithmetic:
Let’s say an individual or enterprise has earnings of say $500,000, for example. And this represents 5% gain or profit. (That is not unreasonable given the current circumstances.) For this they needed to have an enterprise revenues or investments of $10,000,000. The 3% increase would not apply to the first $250,000 and at 3% on the remaining $250,000 would result in an increase of $7,500. Mind you, that’s $7,500 on $10,000,000. If they have no deductions, the taxes at 39%, on $500,000 will be $195,000 and that $7,500 would be in the noise and certainly in the noise when compared to the $10,000,000.
I cannot believe that it is an amount that would alter anyone’s investment decision. Even if it did, with their Republican champions screaming about how bad the increase would be for the economy and the Country, would they, if not as good patriots but as good businessmen stick with the original investment and not let the tiny amount drive the Country further into debt, prolong the recession, and if their champions are right, injure them financially?