Ian Pilfre lives a comfortable life, entrenched in the world of the American upper-middle class, due to a prestigious position he holds at a Pennsylvania engineering firm. Imperium, a subdivision of this firm focusing on military research and development, draws its funding mainly from the Federal and State governments. However, staunch political pressure has resulted in a dramatic overhaul of funding levels causing Imperium to significantly curtail its operations. As a result, Ian faced the choice of either demotion or termination. He wisely chose to the former, but now Ian has several important decisions to make in his life.
Ian still earns a considerable salary which allows him to comfortably provide for his family. His family will not have to deal with the horror losing their house, going hungry, or falling into debt. All is not perfect though for the family. Throughout the years, Ian’s lofty salary had made them accustomed to certain amenities which now seem unsustainable. Being an amateur art collector, Ian has several fountain sculptors on his property which he likes to keep running continuously. Ian’s wife Eve has grown accustomed to lavish jewelry and other gifts that allow her to brag to her coworkers. His children have been spoiled with elaborate vacations to theme parks and tropical locations throughout the year.
Ian sits at a crossroad. How should he react? His income no longer warrants these expenses. However, it is difficult to tell his loved ones that they will no longer be able to continue living in this manner. Further, he fears this could place unnecessary strain on his relationship with his wife due to pernicious fights which have been occuring. He sees three possible solutions to his dilemma. He could bite the bullet and go through with the necessary lifestyle changes. This is the least preferable of his options. This will be his last resort.
His more insidious and preferred scheme is to raise revenue through two complementary means. He will first begin to take a small amount of money from the pockets of those in his community. The people in his geographical area live comfortably and will not miss the tiny amount he requires from all of them. He understands that this may not cover all of his expenses and that the method on a large scale will be infeasible. The remainder of his funds will be acquired by taking out loans in his neighbors names. Again, the loans will be small when divvied up among his community so they need not worry about the cost. He feels he is justified. After all, when he has these amenities it allows him to work harder and more efficiently. He kids and wife will be happier. Since his business contributes to all of society by providing defense, everyone will benefit since they’re only paying for something that enriches everyone.
Finally, as a middle ground, Ian could lobby to have Imperium increase the costs of its products to raise the additional revenue. He realizes that this will not be doable to cover all of his lost income since the shareholders of Imperium are hesitant to pass costs on to its customers and wary of the long-term decrease in demand that could occur from such policies.
Ultimately, Ian successfully combines the second and third options to continue his lifestyle. What should we make of this? Specifically, is this moral and is this the method which optimizes utility?
Local community colleges face this choice. A majority of them have chosen the same path as Ian. One’s overall opinion of the need for funding public education does not necessarily factor into this discussion. Waste abounds in these institutions. Professional development budgets are absurdly high and offer little besides bragging rights for professors and opportunities to take college paid vacations. Utilities run constantly for aesthetic purposes. Events are organized with little educational value that target only small groups of people. Professors and administrators apply for new toys on the taxpayers’ dime which contribute nil to the education of students.
Instead of making the tough decision to take away these unnecessary niceties from faculty, schools have opted to raise tuition and lobby for more funds. The former is of questionable morality to me given the circumstances. At the very least, it describes poor business that stands antithetical to the philosophical mission of a community college. Rather than trimming useless and frankly despicable practices, community colleges force marginal consumers to opt to not seek an education. The latter practice is criminal. Regardless of your views of taxation (be it present or future), taking ever greater sums of money, in times of economic turmoil, under the false justification of providing cheap education is unjustifiable. Education is not at risk here. Only the egos and fancies of spoiled professors and administrators face extinction.
