I’m having a Facebook debate with someone right now. He’s strongly libertarian, and he claims that the past 50 years prove that governmental programs which spend money to help increasing social mobility (ie, on things like education, job training; anything which aims to help poor people or their children cease to be poor) never work.
Now, I’m entirely willing to accede that they can be complicated, and maybe sometimes they don’t work, and maybe sometimes aren’t worth the money spent, yada yada yada. Presumably there have been plenty that have failed. But it seems like a strong claim to say that they NEVER work.
But… I’m definitely not an expert on the topic. So, I’m asking what the best example is of a program which has been well studied and can be relatively clearly said to “work”, where the results justify the money spent.
Anyone have any good suggestions?
Considering years ago you had elderly living in squalor or working almost till they dropped whereas now they can get at least some income has clearly been a benefit for society.
Whether a given program is “successful” is hard to define, especially in the context of libertarian vs welfare state debates.
For one thing, you need to consider the range of possible or likely alternatives. And for another (related), you need to consider the various direct and indirect costs of the program.
[E.g. for SS, you need to consider the ROI for the average contributor, versus alternatives, not just whether a lot of old guys are getting checks. And so on for other considerations and other programs.]
If you leave those out, then virtually all programs are “successful”.
And there are lots of complaints about the program (more so in urban areas than rural areas): it has lead to suburban sprawl; divides neighborhoods, causes environmental problems…
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Medicare. Single payer, low overhead, and insuring those whose insurance would be absurdly expensive without it.
I’ve been on it for a year, and all the money I put into it while working was well worth it.
While I agree about problems in urban areas, when I was a kid I drove with my parents from New York to Washington pre-interstate. It took forever, and I suspect we polluted a lot more sitting at traffic lights and in urban sprawl than someone does driving at a steady pace on a highway.
It would be nice to imagine that we’d have better public transport without Interstates, but I doubt it.
the portion of my absent fathers retirement I get every month instead of ssi means I get to eat and not camp in the desert … makes up for the slop I got fed when he didn’t pay support as a kid
Social security is a good policy but I’ve heard several libertarian complaints about it.
They feel people could get a higher rate of return investing in the private market.
They feel self disciplined people wouldn’t need mandatory social security, they could save on their own (the fact that less than 5% of people save enough for retirement without social security doesn’t seem to bother them).
As far as ideas that can be made to libertarians, I’d say medicare is a good one.
Medicare costs less than private insurance and has higher ratings from patients. Better consumer ratings for less cost.
Rural electrification is another. The private market had no incentive to get electricity to rural areas, so the government stepped in and incentivized the spread of electricity to rural areas.
What about situations where the free market is a failure at solving the problem?
Health insurance for the elderly or poor? Health insurance companies have no incentive to cover them, so medicaid and medicare were created.
Rural electrification. Private companies have no incentive to cover this, so the state steps in.
Universal primary and secondary school. Not everyone can afford the tuition and fees (which may run 10k a year per student) for primary and secondary school in a totally private system.