I don’t think anyone’s claiming that people did whatever they did solely by themselves, but I think there’s definitely a perception that there’s “the community” and then everyone who happens to live nearby, but aren’t part of it.
Generally speaking, a lot of the outrage for social programs like you describe among conservative people (not necessarily the talking heads) isn’t about their very existence, but the fact that they disproportionately benefit a demographic that is seen as holding values that are antithetical to what the conservative people hold.
Generally speaking, the conservative people hold a lot of stock in hard work, thrift, responsibility, sacrifice and the like. It’s absolutely abhorrent to them to see people not punished for breaking the law, or people who are irresponsible or who make stupid decisions such as having more children when they’re already on welfare. Providing social services to these people is seen as rewarding them for their bad behavior and/or perpetuating that bad behavior. That’s why, in my experience and observations, the conservative types are not willing to go in for social programs like that.
So, since there is no point in winning the race, why train for it? Why even run it? Your proposal would sap any incentive from anyone wanting to succeed. Why would my co-worker want to work hard and do well if he gets paid the same as me who calls out sick three days a week and shows up drunk the other two?
Liberal: One for whom the ultimate outrage is someone dying in the street for lack of basic necessities.
Conservative: One for whom the ultimate outrage is someone receiving government benefits who doesn’t deserve them.
Obviously, with any social program, you’re going to have to choose which outrage will be more prevalent. If you make it difficult to receive government assistance, then that many more people will die; that many more people will be sick; that many more people will be miserable. If you make it easy, then that many more people will be living off the system and sponging off the God-fearin’, hard-workin’ American taxpayer.
I, personally, am willing to support dem freeloadin’ bums if that means that no one dies of starvation or freezes to death. Last winter where I live, three homeless men froze to death during an unusual cold snap. There were shelters available but they were several miles away. I would gladly have seized and sold somebody’s Lexus to provide apartments for all of the homeless people, had I had the power. And yes, I would have forfeited some of my income to help make it so. No one in this rich country should starve or freeze to death. Even if they make foolish choices. Even if they’re lazy. Even if they’re not Republicans.
Indeed. Why make it a “race,” where one succeeds only at the expense (failure) of others? Why make society a zero-sum game? Why have winners and losers?
The problem of incentive is much ballyhooed, and I used to believe, myself, that it was the ultimate non-starter for redistributive arguments. As I matured, though, I realized that the majority of people produce for the sake of producing; to create or to serve; to give their lives meaning. Material reward is only one component of the purpose of work. Many people would still be doctors if (as in the Soviet Union pre-collapse, to give one example) they were paid no more than janitors and had low social standing. Most teachers are ludicrously underpaid–yet, many people choose to teach. We aren’t all rats competing with each other to see who gets the food pellet.
As to your hypothetical co-worker: if he is truly conscientious and hardworking, why should he give a damn about his goof-off colleague? Why should he work any less hard just because his colleague doesn’t work hard?
We spend about $9000 a year on health care, not $5000. European nations spend closer to $5000, but our spending is a lot higher.
Also since per capita GDP works out to about 50k a person, 19% of GDP is only $9500. So by the calculations you were talking about that is $4500 for living expenses, then $5000 for health care.
The average SS payments are about 14k a year. People aren’t going to give that up for $4500 a year in subsidies.
Then you have education spending, which is about 8-10% of GDP a year. Education is as much a need as food, shelter, clothes and medical care.
A basic standard of living (not including education and health care) is probably closer to 10k a person per year. Add in our overpriced health system, and public education and you are talking closer to 23k a year in spending (4k for education, 9k for health care, 10k for personal expenses). That works out to close to 50% of GDP.
In 50+ years it could be economically feasible, but not right now. I think nations are probably working towards this system. Most have universal health care and universal education. Most have programs for people who can’t afford food, shelter and clothes.
Then again, for people who can already afford those things giving them a subsidy would seem wasteful. But we don’t feel that way about public education. Other nations don’t feel that way about UHC. So who knows.
I am of course completely down with the OP’s vision, as I am one who has on several occasions started threads like this. The most recent one was based on the notion that we were approaching being in a post-scarcity society, where the labor of most human beings would not be needed to supply the food, clothing, housing, gadgets we all need/demand, but are produced/will be produced by highly automated factories and farms.
The option is to let people starve or take care of them despite their lack of social utility. I opted for taking care of people, something very much like what the OP proposes, and giving them all plenty of opportunity to make money by creating new things, new ideas, starting new businesses, making things happen.
Our conservatives HATED it of course. For them, it is not enough that they should succeed: others must fail. It is as simple as that.
There’s actually a psychological background to this type of thinking. Several recent studies have shown (NO, I’M NOT GONNA CITE) that people think of wealth in relative rather than absolute terms–we measure what we have not by its intrinsic value, but by how it compares with that which our neighbors have. In light of this, it makes perfect sense that wealthy conservatives LOATHE the idea of any redistributive system, since such a system reduces their pleasure by narrowing the gap between rich and poor.
You would think that the existence of destitute persons wouldn’t provide pleasure to the rich, but there is evidently a certain joy in seeing the wretch in filthy clothing begging on the street; it makes the rich person feel good about his lot, that he is not in the wretch’s position. Schadenfreude is still alive and well in the human psyche; if public hangings were brought back, tens of thousands would attend.
Your use of the e-word makes me want to puke. Why should someone’s birth entitle them to my time, effort, and resources?
Do you realize that 2-4 weeks is 6% of the economy, or $750 billion? Your post is a simple proof that when given money, people stop working. Why? Because work sucks, but we do it to stay alive, not because it makes us happy.
See Frylock’s post. You’re spouting a liberal fiction.
You’re not counting the GDP shrinkage when all the layabouts start laying about. The OP thinks the prosperity fairy brings wealth, but it just ain’t so.
It’s not a race against each other; it’s a race away from the thing chasing us all, the invisible spectre of Death. It takes effort to run away from Famine and Pestilence, but you want to pay people for not doing that.
Instead of a race, think of it as a rowboat that we’re all in. We’re trying to outrun the encroaching storm. And you stand up, look around, and go “Looks like we’re going waaay faster than the storm. Why don’t we let some people stop rowing?” Do you see the problem with that?
Because working hard is not fun and it’s more fun to goof off. You seem to think that people enjoy work. Not sure why you think paychecks exist, then. See Frylock’s post- if you give people money, they quit working. It’s a fact, not a guess.
Yes, except for the part about being locked behind bars with no civil liberties or freedom of movement and having to be constantly on alert for someone committing an act of violence against you, it sounds exactly like prison.
The notion that people would be issued “clothing vouchers” makes me want to puke.
Money is fungible. If you want to clothe naked people, why not just hand them some money and let them choose what they want to do with it? Suppose they spent your money on booze instead of clothing. So what? That just means they’d rather have booze than new clothes. Did they make the wrong decision? Sez you.
And anyway, they can just trade their clothing vouchers to their neighbor for cash if they want to buy booze. A clothing voucher is the stupidest idea I’ve heard this week.
Fact is, nowadays clothing is dirt cheap, if all you demand of clothing is something to keep the rain off and cover your dangly bits. Go down to the Goodwill and you can walk away with a shopping cart full of clothes for $20. They might be worn, they might be unfashionable, they might be ugly, but so what?
Have you ever seen a homeless guy so destitute he didn’t have clothes? This isn’t the 1930s where you might pawn your overcoat to buy a loaf of bread and a flophouse garret. Nowadays there isn’t a pawnshop in the country that would pay you a nickel for your overcoat. Clothes are cheap. Food is cheap.
The notion that you need to give your poor citizens specific vouchers for every consumer good is just silly. What if you get your ratios wrong? What if someone would rather spend more on housing and less on clothing? Why not just give them some sort of universal voucher that they could trade for whatever good or service they desire? Luckily we’ve already invented this magical universal voucher. You probably haven’t heard of it, it’s pretty obscure.
You’re just arguing the details of the plan to see that all have acess to clothing, housing, food, electricity and the Internet. You have no problem with the plan itself I take it? I personally have little interest in HOW the plan is managed, though I tend toward the plan the increases human freedom and potential. Whatever works, really.
And there’s also the fact that you have the option of working or creating stuff to get more stuff and live a different lifestyle if you so desire, which Shodan and George Will apparently missed. This is just the ground floor, people.
Because there have been enough such studies, over a long enough period, that the phenomenon of “relative wealth” as it impacts human happiness is common knowledge, and if anyone wants to verify it, the research tools are available easily enough.
You might know, if you read other threads here, that I (in disagreement with most of the denizens of this board) consider “citations” pointless since it’s possible to support almost ANY assertion with carefully selected information.
Naming names would be gauche. Read some posts, make your own determinations. Here’s a recent thread on a similar topic, not started by me, but in which I participated. A lot of interesting parallels with this thread.
No, of course not, I think we should stick to debating the flaws of capitalism. I’m not talking work ethic as what motivates people, but human ego, a much more demanding and cruel taskmaster than any mere ethics. People want to be top dog, or at least, a higher-upper dog than other dogs. No matter where you put the floor, i.e., the social safety net that defines the bottomost rungs of poverty in your society, people will start building upper levels. The only difference is, the people on the bottom will not starve, nor will their chidren, they will have medical care, and a decent place to live. And the real tragedy is, people don’t see this, they don’t understand it, although every last institution and aspect of our social organizations are defined by hierarchical organizations. They don’t want to see it, because those suffering poor people are so precious to them. A truly sad state of affairs.
