Walter E. Williams: Some things I wonder about

Townhall.com ^ | December 31, 2003 | Walter E. Williams

[xsysmgr]

Early in our marriage, 40-some years ago, Mrs. Williams would return from shopping complaining about the unreasonable prices. Having aired her complaints, she'd then ask me to unload her car laden with purchases. After the unloading, I'd ask her: "I thought you said the prices were unreasonable. Why did you buy them? Are you unreasonable? Only an unreasonable person would pay unreasonable prices." The discussion always headed downhill after such an observation. But let's look at prices.

I don't know about you, but I always try to get the lowest prices for what I buy and the highest prices for what I sell, and that includes my labor services. Is such a practice immoral? Nobody is forced to sell me anything at my preferred price, nor are they forced to buy from me at my preferred price. If we indeed transact, the only thing a third party could conclude is that we both saw ourselves as being better off than our next best alternative, or why would we have voluntarily transacted?

You say: "OK, Williams, you're right. But where are you going? How many times have we heard the accusation that a corporation moved overseas to take advantage of lower-priced labor or hired cheaper-priced Indians with HB-1 visas to replace higher-priced American high-tech workers? You'd think that a desire for lower prices is somehow immoral. Why should a preference for low prices be OK for you and me, and not so for CEOs?

Another thing I wonder about are those life insurance company advertisements where they offer reduced rates for nonsmokers. Here are the facts. According to an article in Social Science & Medicine in 1991 titled, "Life expectancies of cigarette smokers and non-smokers in the United States," the life expectancy difference between never-smokers and current smokers is about seven years at ages 25-29, and three years at age 75 and older. Thus, it makes actuarial sense for life insurance companies to charge smokers higher premiums.

According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals.

Here's my question: How come life insurance companies don't advertise lower life insurance premiums for heterosexuals? After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be charged with lifestyle discrimination. But isn't it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren't.

I also wonder about judges. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago changed its manuals. I wonder why. Anyone so stupid as to leave the driver's seat is probably also too stupid to read a manual.

[smiley]

Love that Walter! Wish they would have had college professors like this during the 1960's anti-American protest rallies. Could listen to Walter all day everyday!

[nj_pilot]

Walter shouldn't believe everything he reads on the internet. The Merv Grazinski story is an myth that has been around for a while (see http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp for an interesting article on these "outrageous lawsuits.."

[Possenti]

Williams hits another home run.

[billorites]

"I thought you said the prices were unreasonable. Why did you buy them? Are you unreasonable? Only an unreasonable person would pay unreasonable prices."

I love Walter too, but if I said that to my wife...

I'd get hot tongue and cold shoulder.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Walter blew it on the Winnebago story. It is an urban myth, a false story tacked onto the "Stella Awards."

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

[Quilla]

I think Williams says many things about his frugality in jest. Recently, while subbing for Rush, he mentioned a gift he was buying his wife for Christmas - I believe it was a cell phone battery. Talk about hot tongue and cold shoulder....

[Capriole]

I love Dr. Williams. His wife is a fortunate woman, and he is a fortunate man. Snopes notwithstanding.

[robertpaulsen]

True. But how many thousands of these types of cases are settled out of court in order to minimize cost or prevent negative publicity?

Those we don't hear about.

[PatriotCJC]

Dr. Williams, Dr. Sowell, Justice Thomas PING!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rummyfan]

Bump for later.

[MattinNJ]

how many thousands of these types of cases are settled out of court in order to minimize cost or prevent negative publicity?

You have no idea. I'm an insurance defense lawyer. You would be amazed at the amount of B.S lawsuits that hit my desk every day.For eaxample, I recently went to an arbitration where the plaintiff was bitten by a bat at an adventure park. I didn't get a chance to read the file until an hour before the arb. Stupid me, I assumed that there was some sort of "South American Fruit Bat exhibit" and the bat got out and went after this guy. I actually was sympathetic. No. This was a random bat attack. Apparently, there are some bats in that county and one must have gotten disoriented. There is no possible way that the park could have foreseen or prevented this attack. The ins. co. wanted me to pay him 6 grand for nuisance value. I absolutely refused. I'm yelling at the adjuster and the guy's lawyer "What if he had gotten hit in the head with a meteorite-how much would that be worth?". Eventually the adjuster called my boss who called me and told me to make the deal. I gave in, but man was I annoyed.

[robertpaulsen]

I couldn't do your job more than one day. I would have bitten the guy myself (and the adjuster and his scum-sucking lawyer).

[smiley]

...tort reform....tort reform.......

[Protagoras]

There is a economics lesson there which would bring an instant flame war upon him if he uttered it as a freeper. He would be called a traitor for even suggesting that it might be OK to pay someone less than another if that person was from another country.

It seems that many freepers think Americans deserve more money than other people and anyone who trades with anyone else from another country should be prevented from doing so at gunpoint if necessary.

[CobaltBlue]

I am a litigator who wishes that it was possible to get rich - or maybe just pay the overhead - with frivolous lawsuits, but it ain't so.

Here's a synopsis of a real lawsuit that took place in the courthouse just across the street from my office.

A family out in Manassas had new windows and screens put into their townhome. Shortly thereafter, as mama left to go to work, daddy let the little 2 year old child stand on a piece of furniture and look out the window to wave bye-by to mama. The child put his hands on the screen, and the screen popped out, and the child tumbled two stories and became paralyzed for life.

The pins that held in the screens, unbeknownst to them, were too short to hold the screens in. The foreman of the assembly line testified at trial that he had warned the owners many times that the pins were too short to hold the screens in, but they wouldn't listen to him.

The judge tried to get the parties to settle but the defendant refused. The judge, a very seasoned trial judge, no bleeding heart but a very fearsome man, denied the defendant's motions to dismiss and to strike the evidence and for partial summary judgment. The jury awarded millions, the highest jury award in Virginia at that time.

On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed, on the grounds that window screens are intended to keep bugs out, not keep kids in. The old seasoned trial judge had misapplied the law, they ruled.

Whoda thunk it?

[Political Junkie Too]

How many times have we heard the accusation that a corporation moved overseas to take advantage of lower-priced labor or hired cheaper-priced Indians with HB-1 visas to replace higher-priced American high-tech workers? You'd think that a desire for lower prices is somehow immoral. Why should a preference for low prices be OK for you and me, and not so for CEOs?

Do we know for certain that this is resulting in lower prices, or are the prices remaining the same and the profits are increasing? Is it just showing up as shareholder return? or reinvestment back into the company? Or is it to reduce the long-term salary burden on pension plans and benefits?

How much of the labor savings by off-shoring are actually showing up as retail price reductions?

-PJ

[robertpaulsen]

I feel for the family, but have to agree. At some point, whether it's a 2-year-old, 6-year-old, etc., the screen's gonna give, even with longer pins.

"Window screens are made to pop out for fire safety reasons, and do not serve as abarrier to prevent children from falling out of windows." (Christoffel KK. How can we prevent children from falling out of windows. Presentation at the APH conference, Chicago, Illinois, January 23, 1985.)

[PoorMuttly]

About the crash: I am AMAZED that this happened to an educated American.

The police in Long Island, New York, still tell the story of a wealthy Arab fellow during the oil shortage, who bought himself a fully-equipped luxury van, and decided to show it off to his friends in the city. He got on the Expressway, pointed West, and proceeded to go into the back to make himself a drink, and perhaps watch t.v.

Well..the road curved, and he went off into the trees.

He was fine...but nobody was held responsible for not knowing that cruise control and AUTOMATIC PILOT are two different things. That this is/was a judge is horrendous. I should think that his absurdly ignorant behavior would destroy the rest of his credibility, too.

Winnebago was wrong in giving him a penny...and should have used him as a marketing tool for commercials..."we make a great product, but it doesn't fly, cross the Atlantic on a tank of gas...don't be stupid in our vehicles."

[PoorMuttly]

..and I humbly, loudly state again...:


WALTER E. WILLIAMS for PRESIDENT !