# Income Inequality and the Work Ethic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579 "2014-02-05T15:57:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/81 "2014-02-10T20:13:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s a bad thing for 2 reasons. 1) because in aggregate there are fewer people working to support the population… Good lord, that sounds like… Socialism!!! Why don’t people support themselves? > [@](#): > > , which means that either the people who do work have to work harder, or their standard of living declines, and 2) because it frequently creates a poverty trap, or cycle of poverty, for those who chose to work less. That’s the free market in action. If working doesn’t provide enough incentive without threatening them with inadequate health care, I guess it just didn’t need doing. > [@](#): > > What this is really about is changing the work/reward ratio, and thus changing the incentive to work for those affected. Yes, and if the coercion of withholding adequate healthcare is looming over their heads, they can be compelled to to work for less, under worse conditions. I can see how it is better for investors; for workers, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/82 "2014-02-10T20:48:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Yes, it changes it from a compelling incentive into a reasonable incentive. Thought you were all about individual responsibility and freedom of choice? Yet you do not trust the individual to make the reasonable choice, but tremble in fear the he will choose to tip himself into a poverty trap. Why is that, pray? How do you know that I’m “all about individual responsibility and freedom of choice”? I mean, it’s not like I’m opposed to either of those things – in fact I think they’re pretty worthy goals – but I don’t want to be defending every caricature you come up with. As a general rule, the government should try to avoid limiting individual responsibility and freedom of choice. But at the same time, the government should also consider whether government laws or policies create perverse incentives for people. For example, I don’t think the government should outlaw high cholesterol foods in order to force people to live healthier lifestyles. But if tax policy was skewed such that it actively encouraged people to eat high cholesterol foods rather than healthier alternatives, that would be something to consider. > [@](#): > > If you cannot quit without putting a family member at grave risk, what incentive has the employer to treat you with respect as to your worth? Are benevolence and gentle warmth central characteristics of the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it…)? That would possibly be true in certain circumstances. But in general, employers set policy based on the employee population as a whole. Many of these people have the option of working for other employers who also provide health coverage, so this would not be a factor. What’s interesting in this regard is that one aspect of the CBO’s discussion was the suggestion – in a discussion of employee productivity that the ACA might contribute negatively due to increased turnover. > [@CBO Report (page 123)](#): > > Some employers, however, might invest less in their workers—by reducing training, for example—if the turnover of employees increased because their health > insurance was no longer tied so closely to their jobs. Ultimately this is not reflected in their assessment (too speculative and counterbalanced by other factors). > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That’s the free market in action. If working doesn’t provide enough incentive without threatening them with inadequate health care, I guess it just didn’t need doing. No it’s not the free market in action. Absent government intervention, working would provide enough incentive. The government is skewing things by removing that incentive. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/83 "2014-02-10T21:41:42Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No it’s not the free market in action. Absent government intervention, working would provide enough incentive. The government is skewing things by removing that incentive. So you believe it is appropriate for health insurance to be coupled to employment? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/84 "2014-02-10T21:45:28Z")
All else being equal, I would rather that health insurance not be linked to employment. If these are delinked, that is a positive attribute. However, I also think lessening the incentive to work is a negative, and this is also worthy of consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/85 "2014-02-10T21:53:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > All else being equal, I would rather that health insurance not be linked to employment. If these are delinked, that is a positive attribute. > > However, I also think lessening the incentive to work is a negative, and this is also worthy of consideration. But shouldn’t the incentive to work be based on the value of the salary and benefits, not on their availability? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/86 "2014-02-10T21:56:18Z")
That’s correct. According to the CBO report, one impact of the ACA is to lower the value of the salary and benefits in various ways, and thus decrease the incentive to work. That’s pretty much the point of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/87 "2014-02-10T21:58:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > According to the CBO report, one impact of the ACA is to lower the value of the salary and benefits in various ways… I must have missed that part. How does the ACA reduce salary/wages? ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/88 "2014-02-10T22:01:11Z")
> [@Desert\_Dumpster](#): > > I seriously doubt that we’ll see a spike in unemployment as those trillions of people who are only holding jobs for the medical benefits are seduced into the abyss of idleness by the siren song of Obamacare, thus becoming yet another burden on the back of the hardworking, God-fearing American taxpayer blah blah blah. > > This may sound heretical to the right-wingers, but the vast majority of people work because they want to. People want to be productive. If a person has a medical condition that costs money to treat, that doesn’t mean that he’ll quit his job if we offer him free medical care. You obviously don’t spend much time around trailer parks, subsidized housing apartments and unemployment offices. And, no, I’m not being facetious. Even well up the economic ladder, the CBO report correctly illustrates why working overtime to earn that next $5,000 doesn’t look all that appealing if it means your ACA subsidy gets cut or eliminated next year. I knew there would be left-wing spin here, but I’m not buying the argument that encouraging people to work less, or to not work at all, is a positive for society. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/89 "2014-02-10T22:03:02Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I must have missed that part. How does the ACA reduce salary/wages? It reduces net salary because more of people’s salary increases are absorbed by taxes and lower subsidies (the latter being the bigger factor). I’ve quoted extensive excerpts from the CBO report on this topic in this thread, most recently in post #78. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/90 "2014-02-10T22:05:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I must have missed that part. How does the ACA reduce salary/wages? You took out a few words. The ACA reduces _the value of_ salary/wages by increasing the net cost of health insurance as one’s income rises. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/91 "2014-02-10T23:02:15Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > You obviously don’t spend much time around trailer parks, subsidized housing apartments and unemployment offices. And, no, I’m not being facetious. Even well up the economic ladder, the CBO report correctly illustrates why working overtime to earn that next $5,000 doesn’t look all that appealing if it means your ACA subsidy gets cut or eliminated next year. I knew there would be left-wing spin here, but I’m not buying the argument that encouraging people to work less, or to not work at all, is a positive for society. The problem with that view is that as time goes on, to accomplish the same amount of work we need less people. Automation is eating up your man hours. Why hire ten people when one person can automate nine of those people away? The thing that always comes up as a retort is “Yeah, but we’ll find something for them to do.” Well the problem is that we have millions of people just surviving while the new paradigm takes shape. So once there’s opportunity, you’ll have a backlog of people to hire. The wave of the last set of people that got laid off, plus the new and shiny whippersnappers. We simply do not need all of those unemployed people to be working, right now. And unless something comes along that will require vast amounts of either unskilled or skilled labor, we probably won’t fill the gap anytime soon. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/92 "2014-02-10T23:16:30Z")
And whatever shall we do with all these useless people? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/93 "2014-02-10T23:39:26Z")
Why is encouraging people to work overtime when doing so is proven in studies to be an overall efficiency loss a positive for society? Why is having people cut into their personal lives, spending less time with their family, raising children, deteriorating their health, etc, considered to be a positive for society? When we already have people who cannot find work at all, why is encouraging others to take up even more work than usual in especially inefficient ways considered a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/94 "2014-02-11T01:02:13Z")
Would it surprise anyone to learn this just the latest talking point handed down from the right-wing puppet masters? [The GOP Thinks Obamacare Is Making You Lazy](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/09/gop-obamacare-lazy_n_4755497.html?ir=Politics) > [@](#): > > “I think any law you pass that discourages people from working can’t be a good idea,” Blunt said. “Why would we wanna do that? How does that allow people to prepare for the time when they don’t work?” > > … > > “The best face you can probably put on that is that people who don’t wanna work don’t have to work,” Blunt continued. “Surely that’s not what we wanna encourage.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/95 "2014-02-11T01:17:07Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Another question I would like answered is, who has the stronger work ethic: someone who works 60 hours a week at two jobs for $8.00 an hour, or someone who works 60 hours a week in corporate management for $200,000 a year? If Obamacare subsidies give the poor worker the choice to work less and spend more time with his family, does that mean he lacks a work ethic? Unknowable. You’re conflating the _need to work_ with _work ethic_. Either person might be doing just enough to keep his job. Either one might be over-delivering due to some “work ethic”. Not to say their might not be a relationship between the two, but they are two different things. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/96 "2014-02-11T01:38:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unknowable. You’re conflating the _need to work_ with _work ethic_. Either person might be doing just enough to keep his job. Either one might be over-delivering due to some “work ethic”. Not to say their might not be a relationship between the two, but they are two different things. What is your definition of “work ethic”? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/97 "2014-02-11T03:49:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If you cannot quit without putting a family member at grave risk, what incentive has the employer to treat you with respect as to your worth? Are benevolence and gentle warmth central characteristics of the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it…)? > > Compelled employment is slavery with a paycheck. Its is an improvement in that whippings are not prevalent, you cannot actually be sold, and one does get paid. Not good enough. There’s a big difference between being compelled to work and being compelled to work for an employer in particular. What I’m objecting to is a law that makes people feel less compelled to work since they can expect taxpayers to cover part of their living expenses. Which in the actual world as we know it means that those who do wish to work are compelled to work more than they otherwise would so that others can work less than they otherwise would. And again, when lower income people have an incentive to lower their income further, or at least not grow it, because of a law you support, it’s time to quit complaining about inequality. Set priorities, and stick by them. By passing ACA, liberals essentially prioritized providing health care over income inequality. Which is fine, but stand by that choice and be happy about it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/98 "2014-02-11T07:31:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Unknowable. You’re conflating the _need to work_ with _work ethic_. Either person might be doing just enough to keep his job. Either one might be over-delivering due to some “work ethic”. Not to say their might not be a relationship between the two, but they are two different things. Who do you think needs more of a work ethic to go to work every day - the guy in an air conditioned office and a comfy chair who goes to lots of meetings or a guy out in the sun on a roof. I’m the first guy, and lots of people work a lot harder in the physical sense than I do. And I get paid a lot more than they do. There are reasons for that, but my work ethic isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2014, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/99 "2014-02-11T07:34:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s a big difference between being compelled to work and being compelled to work for an employer in particular. What I’m objecting to is a law that makes people feel less compelled to work since they can expect taxpayers to cover part of their living expenses. Which in the actual world as we know it means that those who do wish to work are compelled to work more than they otherwise would so that others can work less than they otherwise would. > > And again, when lower income people have an incentive to lower their income further, or at least not grow it, because of a law you support, it’s time to quit complaining about inequality. Set priorities, and stick by them. By passing ACA, liberals essentially prioritized providing health care over income inequality. Which is fine, but stand by that choice and be happy about it. Income inequality is about opportunity, not choice. If all those on the bottom got there because they chose not to work at high paying jobs or long hours, I bet there wouldn’t be a lot of sympathy. I’m with **Karrius** - while there are people not working who want to work, why do we want to pressure people to work who don’t want to work and can afford not to work. Getting more people off unemployment would benefit government budgets quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579/100 "2014-02-17T14:40:19Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Thanks for the details on that. If those numbers are correct for that program, then it’s clearly a disincentive to work. This issue happened to come up just yesterday, in a conversation with a friend of mine who is on these various programs. He said his effective marginal “tax” rate is 70% - and that’s without paying any income taxes at all (or at least he didn’t mention any). He says in addition to his rental subsidies being anything above 30% of income, his food stamps also work the same way, meaning that as his income increases his combined take from these two programs decreases by 60% of the increase. In addition, both he and his wife are self-employed, and pay a 10% employer withholding tax on their own income, making it 70% of his income. The ACA income subsidies didn’t come up and I didn’t raise the issue as I have no doubt he is on JerseyCare (the NJ version of Medicaid). [The context of our discussion was not any sort of political ideology, but rather a practical one, regarding whether there’s a way for his wife to structure some compensation as non-income such that it would not reduce their take from social programs. He felt there was a dearth of guidance available in such areas because there were very few people on these programs who were both scrupulous about keeping to the letter of the law while also scheming to take advantage of any available loopholes. To which I would add that this is also the results of the income bracket - there are very few lawyers/accountants/financial planners who are going to spend any time coming up with strategems for maximizing social assistance, in the way they might spend the time coming up with tax planning ideas for wealthier clientelle.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/income-inequality-and-the-work-ethic/680579.md?page=6)