Libertarian solutions to poverty: do they make sense?

[Voyager]

@Roderick_Femm

I disagree about internet, unless you are talking about the cable wiring. Even then, there are already competing types of cable that could provide better service if the local government didn’t favor a monopoly for reasons I don’t really understand.

I have a choice of two Internet providers - Comcast through their cable lines and AT&T through phone/fiber lines. I’m not aware of any others who would not be piggybacking on already existing infrastructure. Running fiber when one house per block is going to be paying you - if you are lucky - is not a winning proposition.
There is satellite, which is too expensive and too slow, I think, or universal Wifi which has not caught on despite government support for anyone who has proposed doing it.

[Voyager]

@WillFarnaby

You keep talking about how only rare skills prevent a wage from dropping to subsistence levels, yet the vast majority of workers make double or triple subsistence wages with common, baseline skills such as typing, picking up boxes, or holding stop signs at construction sites. What causes poverty in the US is individual problems like drug abuse, child abuse, poor diet, and poor hygiene. There are huge numbers of people that have jobs that are supposedly terrible when speaking to an elitist statist, but the people lead lives that are actually quite fulfilling if they have a decent head on their shoulders.

Poor diet causes poverty? The decrease in malnutrition thanks to that horrible government food stamp program didn’t happen?

And of course during the recession jobs were plentiful, right? The unemployed were just lazy, right?

Libertarians shouldn’t disparage anyone’s views as fantasy. Your economics make a fairy tale look like hard sf.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@WillFarnaby

You keep talking about how only rare skills prevent a wage from dropping to subsistence levels, yet the vast majority of workers make double or triple subsistence wages with common, baseline skills such as typing, picking up boxes, or holding stop signs at construction sites.

Can McDonalds afford to pay every single person they employ “double or triple subsistence wages”? And yet, those jobs exist, need to be filled, and typically are filled. There are a lot of jobs like that, and while it’s easy to say “these are jobs you start with and move on from”, the reality is very different.

What causes poverty in the US is individual problems like drug abuse, child abuse, poor diet, and poor hygiene.

Then I’m sure you can provide a citation for this. You’re making a massive broad-brush argument without even statistics to back it up.

[DrFidelius]

Note the phrasing.

Subsidence wages literally means the absolute minimum needed to survive. That is not a living wage, nor anything that would allow saving, and few people have the resources or know-how to squeeze every last penny until Lincoln’s eye pops out.

[Ludovic]

@Roderick_Femm

Example: a real libertarian would say that the air does not belong to you, Mr. Industrialist, so you can’t dump your filthy smoke into it. Do I hear anyone saying that, ever? ::crickets::

I’ve seen libertarians say that, but their solution would be individual lawsuits after the fact against the polluting companies, not government regulations. Which doesn’t help you if your child died or the court system is set up so damages are impossible to prove.

[Nava]

@vivalostwages

I’ve read this in more than one place and still don’t see how it could work very well.

http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/poverty-and-welfare/

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

The gist of it seems to be that Libertarians favor getting rid of food stamps, welfare, social security, and related programs, instead encouraging those in need to get help from family, friends, community, churches, and charities.

IOW, go back to the way things were before governments got into the healthcare and safety-networks business. The word that comes to mind is “Dickensian”.

[Czarcasm]

@Ludovic

I’ve seen libertarians say that, but their solution would be individual lawsuits after the fact against the polluting companies, not government regulations. Which doesn’t help you if your child died or the court system is set up so damages are impossible to prove.

Every problem is a nail, and money is their hammer.

[GulfTiger]

@WillFarnaby

What causes poverty in the US is individual problems like drug abuse, child abuse, poor diet, and poor hygiene. There are huge numbers of people that have jobs that are supposedly terrible when speaking to an elitist statist, but the people lead lives that are actually quite fulfilling if they have a decent head on their shoulders.

Personal responsibility plays a huge role.

If everyone would simply follow these 7 simple steps, odds are they will be stable and successful. I’m not saying super rich (the 11%) but solidly middle class.

1. value education, do your work/homework, and graduate from high school

2. avoid criminal behavior and those who are involved in criminal behavior

3. avoid sex until you have a real job after high school

4. get a job in high school. this isn’t for money as much as it is to give you experience in work and a history for future employers

5. get a bank account when you get a job, and before you’re on your own and keep it as full as you can. do not overdraw the bank account. do not use credit.

6. act like a professional in all non-private settings

7. don’t do non-prescribed drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, illegal drugs)

[WillFarnaby]

@SamuelA

Are you aware of even the concept of a ‘natural monopoly’? That’s a situation where the laws of nature mean that there are not realistically going to be more than 1-2 service providers in a given area.

Examples :

roads, power, sewage, internet, railroads, and to an extent, hospital care.

In these cases, if the government didn’t regulate or provide the services themselves, capitalism would fail to provide service at a fair price.

Most so-called public utilities have been granted governmental franchise monopolies because they are thought to be “natural monopolies.” Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a “natural” monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market.

Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs.

It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to “justify” franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.

The Myth of Natural Monopoly | Mises Institute

[WillFarnaby]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Can McDonalds afford to pay every single person they employ “double or triple subsistence wages”? And yet, those jobs exist, need to be filled, and typically are filled. There are a lot of jobs like that, and while it’s easy to say “these are jobs you start with and move on from”, the reality is very different.

Then I’m sure you can provide a citation for this. You’re making a massive broad-brush argument without even statistics to back it up.

The minimum wage is already much higher than the subsistence wage. The poster claimed that unequal power between employers and workers, except in few cases, causes wages to be driven down. If that was true, more than 2%, or whatever, of workers would be making minimum wage. It is a theory that is necessary for statists to be anti-capitalist, therefore they trot it out all the time with no evidence.

I know many folks who are able to live a comfortable life, and still afford luxuries like internet access, cable, daily moderate drug habits, plenty of time off, etc. Low income only means persistent poverty in the US if you still hold on to many individual behavioral problems.

The truly needy suffer even more under a statist regime because production is hampered by government and the excesses are soaked up by taxation. In a statist system, resources are allocated according to political power. The truly needy have none.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@WillFarnaby

The poster claimed that unequal power between employers and workers, except in few cases, causes wages to be driven down. If that was true, more than 2%, or whatever, of workers would be making minimum wage. It is a theory that is necessary for statists to be anti-capitalist, therefore they trot it out all the time with no evidence.

I’m going to assume for the moment that the thing that has no evidence is the “wages driven down” part, and… well, it’s complicated. Wages are notoriously sticky, after all, and an actual wage reduction is something that basically doesn’t happen. You might replace older workers with newer workers who get paid less, but you’ll rarely just drop someone’s pay long-term. That said, the former concept is pretty well-established at this point, and the theory makes pretty good sense.

I know many folks who are able to live a comfortable life, and still afford luxuries like internet access, cable, daily moderate drug habits, plenty of time off, etc. Low income only means persistent poverty in the US if you still hold on to many individual behavioral problems.

Now add medical bills, college debt, or any number of other problems one might face in life to those people. See how they cope. That’s part of what it means to be poor - there’s little if any room for error.

[WillFarnaby]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I’m going to assume for the moment that the thing that has no evidence is the “wages driven down” part, and… well, it’s complicated. Wages are notoriously sticky, after all, and an actual wage reduction is something that basically doesn’t happen. You might replace older workers with newer workers who get paid less, but you’ll rarely just drop someone’s pay long-term. That said, the former concept is pretty well-established at this point, and the theory makes pretty good sense.

Now add medical bills, college debt, or any number of other problems one might face in life to those people. See how they cope. That’s part of what it means to be poor - there’s little if any room for error.

College debt is a behavioral problem.

Medical bills for most are also behavioral problems. If they were integrated into productive society, they would be insured for non-behavioral issues.

[WillFarnaby]

@Nava

IOW, go back to the way things were before governments got into the healthcare and safety-networks business. The word that comes to mind is “Dickensian”.

Yes society was much poorer before government dominated these functions.

We could compare free markets in 19th century England to unfree markets elsewhere in that period. That would not be something you want to do.

[WillFarnaby]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

See how they cope. That’s part of what it means to be poor - there’s little if any room for error.

It is much easier to move from poor to comfortable than statist elites understand. Their entire life’s experience does not allow them to witness the constant churn between these two classes.

It is very difficult to remain rich on the other hand, absent government intervention. Consumers are fickle, and once they have turned their back on one avenue entrepreneurs have used to get rich, many rich are left quite humbled economically by the process. This is also something I have witnessed as well. Liberal elites do not witness this churn either because they are connected to the government and academy, where there is stability for decades at a time.

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

It is much easier to move from poor to comfortable than statist elites understand. Their entire life’s experience does not allow them to witness the constant churn between these two classes.

It is very difficult to remain rich on the other hand, absent government intervention. Consumers are fickle, and once they have turned their back on one avenue entrepreneurs have used to get rich, many rich are left quite humbled economically by the process. This is also something I have witnessed as well. Liberal elites do not witness this churn either because they are connected to the government and academy, where there is stability for decades at a time.

I’m always amazed by your omniscience when it comes to reading the minds of people you hate. For others, hating a giant group of people might warp one’s perceptions, but somehow Will Farnaby has gained the incredible power to know exactly what those he hates believe, without things like bias and subjectivity that affect most humans.

One day maybe I’ll be as amazing and brilliant as you, and truly see the light about how terrible and evil my lifestyle, career, and philosophy are. But until then, I’m sure you’ll do your best to enlighten the great masses of the stupid, ignorant, and evil about how stupid, ignorant, and evil they (we?) are.

[Voyager]

@WillFarnaby

It is much easier to move from poor to comfortable than statist elites understand. Their entire life’s experience does not allow them to witness the constant churn between these two classes.

It is very difficult to remain rich on the other hand, absent government intervention. Consumers are fickle, and once they have turned their back on one avenue entrepreneurs have used to get rich, many rich are left quite humbled economically by the process. This is also something I have witnessed as well. Liberal elites do not witness this churn either because they are connected to the government and academy, where there is stability for decades at a time.

You don’t know anything about the poor, but you don’t know anything about the rich either. Care to give a cite about the massive number of rich people falling out of being rich? You might explain how the increase in income inequality, and the continued accumulation of wealth by the top 0.1% supports your statement.

Entrepreneurs aren’t rich when they start - they are rich once their company does an IPO. And many don’t put their money in the game. (Those who can’t, such as small business owners, are never rich.) If they happen to keep all their money in company stock, then they might get poorer (unlikely) but any decent financial advisor would tell them to diversify.
The stock of the company I used to work for tanked after the bubble, but our founder/CEO stayed a billionaire.
Of course there are a few actors and sports figures who throw their money away, but that is rare. Once you have a good bit of money, enough so that the slings and arrows of outrageous repairs don’t matter much, it is easy to keep a good bit of money.

[Voyager]

@WillFarnaby

College debt is a behavioral problem.

Well, I suppose going to college is a behavior. Perhaps not having parents rich enough to pay for you is also. As is having the audacity to want to eat while in college.

Medical bills for most are also behavioral problems. If they were integrated into productive society, they would be insured for non-behavioral issues.

Cancer is behavioral?
Are those who can’t get 40 an hour week jobs with benefits not integrated into society? Oh I’m sure you will tell us they are just lazy, and they are working two or three jobs just for fun.

[SamuelA]

@WillFarnaby

College debt is a behavioral problem.

Medical bills for most are also behavioral problems. If they were integrated into productive society, they would be insured for non-behavioral issues.

Another eensy weensy flaw of your theory is that you’re comparing a society, where there is a minimum wage, state funded colleges, and there were strong labor unions, with your unregulated utopia.

Go tell us about how the people of Somalia are “integrated into productive society” and how all their problems are just “behavioral issues”.

The problem with your theory fundamentally is that the best places to live on earth, unless you believe the UN human development index is somehow not a valid source, all happen to be socialist. The USA is less socialist…and less good of a place to live. Weirdly, the countries that are pure capitalism with no real legal protection of workers…name one you’d want to live in.

Also, weirdly, the U.S. has had lower taxes over the last 30 years, and less labor unions and legal protections for them. There’s been a lot of other deregulation.

And for some reason…the wage of the average worker has stayed flat over the last 30 years, yet the average worker produces twice as much as they did 30 years ago. So if the government isn’t taking this surplus in taxes, and the **workers **aren’t getting it, where is this extra value going?

You can’t claim that government regulation is causing loss of function, because despite those regs, productivity is double.

You can’t claim it’s taxes. So what is it?

[eschereal]

@WillFarnaby

… an elitist statist …

@WillFarnaby

… the statists …

@WillFarnaby

… statists … a statist system …

@WillFarnaby

… statist elites …

We do tend to respond better to thoughtful discussion than to dogmatism. No one uses “statist”; it undermines your argument by making it appear to be built upon false dichotomies.

[Voyager]

@eschereal

We do tend to respond better to thoughtful discussion than to dogmatism. No one uses “statist”; it undermines your argument by making it appear to be built upon false dichotomies.

The word did get used by the intellectual far right (a dying breed) as kind of a curse on anyone not wanting full libertarianism. It was used by those just smart enough to know that socialist wouldn’t work, and tried to imply anyone on the left wanted the government to run anything. Kind of a big lie. I haven’t heard it used in years, but I’ve removed myself from the fever swamps of the right, so it might be current for all I know.

Just shows the intellectual bankruptcy of his arguments.