A question about the US's place in the world

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
"Farscry" wrote:

Raise the wage of people making shirts, and you then have to face a choice: raise the price of selling those shirts to consumers, or reduce the dividends paid to (mostly already wealthy) stockholders

Farscry, that ''obscene'' profit that you refer to is what allows companies to grow and employ more people. Those ''obscene'' dividends are responsible for wealth creation for the 60% of the American population that owns equities, the vast majority of whom are not ''wealthy''.

I say this again, not trying to be insulting, but you have absolutely no idea how economics and monetary policy work.

No insult taken, because you are absolutely right, JMJ.

When I go off on these idealistic rants (because I acknowledge that''s exactly what they are), I''m not basing my thoughts and views on the way things work right now or even based on our knowledge of economics and monetary policy, I''m basing my thoughts on the way that things should work in a civilization that''s community-minded and enlightened. A civilization that''s moved beyond a petty need for ""winners"" and ""losers.""

I''m not talking about winners and losers in games, sports, or things like that. I''m talking about the attitude that people who ""lose"" are somehow less deserving of having a decent life just because of circumstance that dictated where they were born, or what genetic soup they got stuck with.

"Robear" wrote:

Oh, and sorry I mixed up you and ALG. I should not have been so flip about it, it really is a problem for me. I''ll try to be more careful.

Robear

Ah, don''t feel too bad, you aren''t the only person to ever do that. Heck, I''ve mixed people up several times myself, too. As long as you own up to it (which you did) I wouldn''t worry about it.

When I go off on these idealistic rants (because I acknowledge that''s exactly what they are), I''m not basing my thoughts and views on the way things work right now or even based on our knowledge of economics and monetary policy, I''m basing my thoughts on the way that things should work in a civilization that''s community-minded and enlightened. A civilization that''s moved beyond a petty need for ""winners"" and ""losers.""

But see, the problem with that is that your idea of what ''should be'' will never happen. So by ignoring the reality that people are affected by little things like, I don''t know, what country they were born in or natural ability, that world view actually makes it harder for real improvement to occur.

In the America of days gone by, society and the elite once held the poor to the same standards of behavior that it set for itself. Moral character end effort were paramount for receiving aid. If you worked and struggled, yet were overcome with adversity, there was no shortage of helping hands. The idle and dissolute were shunned.

Over time, the opinion of the left came to see the cause of poverty to reside not in the individual character and behavior, but instead in vast and impersonal social and economic forces - similar to your own views. In response, need has become the sole criterion of aid, with moral character all but irrelevant.

Free trade and economic growth has the ability to raise the standard of living for everyone in the world. It is not an overnight occurance. Infrastructure and cultural change to make these improvments self-sustaining takes time and hard work, as well as sacrifice by the participlants. Good intentions and wishful thinking cannot create shortcuts where none exist.

The idle and dissolute were shunned.

How does society ensure that only the idle and dissolute are shunned? If poverty is the result of individual character and behavior, is it not right to conclude that ""the poor"" are thus morally weaker and inferior to the rest of us?

How do we prevent that attitude from simply swinging the pendulum all the way back to the idea that being poor precludes good character at all?

In the America of days gone by, society and the elite once held the poor to the same standards of behavior that it set for itself. Moral character end effort were paramount for receiving aid. If you worked and struggled, yet were overcome with adversity, there was no shortage of helping hands.

This sounds more like early 19th century Virginia than, say, 1880''s New York City. Isn''t a lack of any needs-based services just as bad as a lack of a morals-based approach?

Robear

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

In the America of days gone by, society and the elite once held the poor to the same standards of behavior that it set for itself. Moral character end effort were paramount for receiving aid. If you worked and struggled, yet were overcome with adversity, there was no shortage of helping hands. The idle and dissolute were shunned.

I think the turning point that brought us away from the America you are referring to here was the industrial revolution. Prior to that, communities truly lived up to the word ""community."" Everyone had a role, and it was imperative that all people worked not only for their own needs, but that they helped each other out in every way they could. Life was tough (and unpleasant in many ways), and even tougher if you tried to go it completely alone.

The onset of the industrial revolution changed much of our work structure to a far more impersonal one, leaving behind the old ways and leading business leaders to care far more about the ""bottom line."" Like Robear said, just look at the late 1800''s and the way the poor (yes, even the morally upstanding and hardworking poor) were treated.

I''d argue that even today, in our modern society, the bottom line is still held to a higher level of importance than humanitarian needs. I agree with the conservative viewpoint that it shouldn''t simply be need that determines who gets help, but that people should make a determined effort to help themselves as well. But I have seen (first-hand) many examples of those people who are honestly trying their best and still getting stepped on by everyone above them, leaving them to flounder in need.

Effort doesn''t necessarily equate reward right now. I believe that should change.

We have the capacity for a far better way of life than that of the founders of our nation. In some ways (particularly in material wealth) we have certainly bettered ourselves. But in others (notably sense of brotherhood and unity) we have a long way to go yet.

*edit* credited the quote from JMJ

I have a response to both you and Robear, Fars...but I''ll have to post it when the wife goes to bed. But, for both of your edification, my descripton of ''America in days gone by'' was as late as the 1950''s.

Back with more later.

I''m eagerly awaiting your update.

How does society ensure that only the idle and dissolute are shunned?

By paying attention. To give you an example, starting in 1913, the New York Times ran an article before Christmas each year for the ''Hundred Neediest Cases''. Each year, the Times would interview the largest charities in New York and find the 100 people or families most deserving of assistance. They easily found out which of those that relied on charity were deserving and genuinely worthwhile, as opposed to those that made a career out of poverty.

In other words, you pay attention, as opposed to blindly handing out checks.

If poverty is the result of individual character and behavior, is it not right to conclude that ""the poor"" are thus morally weaker and inferior to the rest of us?

Not true. As many people have pointed out, there are those that try their hardest and get knocked down by life. Those that make good choices, but are victims of circumstance. For those, we should always make the effort to lift them up. Unfortunately, the liberal solution is that of blanket programs which are easily exploitable. The idea that it is better for 100 people to be on welfare undeservedly rather than have one innocent child go hungry.

Using the ''Hundred Neediest Cases'' as an example again, Adolph Ochs opened the initial article with the admonition, ""Because the Christmas spirit is strong in you, do not give to the professional beggars on the street, unworthy, all of them, and often criminals.""

Giving money away indiscriminately, as in through blanket programs, only encourages pauperism.

This sounds more like early 19th century Virginia than, say, 1880''s New York City. Isn''t a lack of any needs-based services just as bad as a lack of a morals-based approach?
I think the turning point that brought us away from the America you are referring to here was the industrial revolution

No, actually, the turning point was the 1960''s. No one thinks that people in need shouldn''t be helped. Only that one of the criteria for determining need should be an honest effort to get out of that need as quickly as possible.

In 1889''s The Gospel of Wealth, Andrew Carnegie (a self-made millionaire) argued that the growing difference between the fortune of the industrialist and the income of the laborer is the inevitable result of the most beneficial economic system in history. His belief, held by most of the wealthy of his day, was that the rich held their fortunes in trust for the advancement of the common good, and should give most of their money away during their lifetimes, using the same acumen that allowed the growth of that fortune to begin with. This philosophy of ''scientific philanthropy'' targeted those that would help themselves and created institutions through which those who made an effort could improve themselves both economically and socially. The ""slothful, the drunken, and the unworthy"" were outside this scheme: ""One man or woman who succeeds in living comfortably by begging is more dangerous to society, and a greater obstacle to the progress of humanity, than a score of wordy Socialists.""

In those days, charity was in the hands of private citizens, and when people are directly responsible for the distribution of their charity it tends to find its way into the hands of the most worthy.

Effort doesn''t necessarily equate reward right now. I believe that should change.

Effort is one part of the equation. Productive effort is a better way of saying that. And for the most part, that is true today. Income is earned, not given. And income is earned in direct proportion to the value of your contribution.

In those days, charity was in the hands of private citizens, and when people are directly responsible for the distribution of their charity it tends to find its way into the hands of the most worthy.

You make some very good points, but I''m skeptical of statements like the above. For example, I find it hard to believe that the 100 Most Worthy recipients in 1913 were black, say, or Irish. (Perhaps it''s another ethnic group that was ""not worthy"" at the time, you get the idea."" I do agree that actual effort to get out of the situation should be required, but I would argue (as George Soros does) that government is better suited to apply the remedy equally than private motivations, be they religious or economic in origin, since government can at least nominally be proofed against bias.

There is little profit motive in lifting a working family out of poverty, as the cost of their labor is cheapest then, but they are still surviving. I still worry that the judgement some pushed at the time of the inferiority of the poor would become an excuse to abuse them, and ignore them. ""They had their chance"".

It''s interesting that the quote you cited from Carnegie describes a grifter, not someone who simply works and lives in grinding poverty without the benefits of protections from unemployment, unions, etc, as was common at the time. The ""Welfare Queen"" is dead, and has been for nearly a decade. That does not happen anymore, with Federal funds anyway. But we are growing a class of people who are living in a workfare environment, and then taking away ""entitlements"", like child daycare so single parents can work; children''s health programs; transportation credits. This does not seem like it''s helping people who make the effort.

I can pay for daycare with my salary; I can get transportation credits from my employer, to use public transit. My son has access to insurance through my employer. And yet others, because of their acceptance of low-paying jobs to get off of welfare, are denied these by their employers - and the state fails to step in, since these are welfare entitlements, and they encourage abuse of the system (or cost too much, or whatever).

That''s what bothers me. What does this teach them? Follow the rules and get screwed. That''s not the lesson we want to teach. There is a role for government in providing services for those moving off of welfare and into low-paying jobs.

Robear

but I would argue (as George Soros does) that government is better suited to apply the remedy equally than private motivations, be they religious or economic in origin, since government can at least nominally be proofed against bias.

Except that there is no evidence that government is any less biased than the private sector. And this is worse, since people in government claim to be without bias - meaning they can do whatever harm they want and have people talk about how they are acting from ""noble goals.""

When comparing government ""servants"" to private industry ""profiteers"", replace the word ""money"" with ""power"" in any sentence decrying their motivations, and you will come closest to the truth.

And yet others, because of their acceptance of low-paying jobs to get off of welfare, are denied these by their employers

They are also denied vacation homes, luxury SUVs, food, clothing, and flying cars. It is not the employers responsibility to provide any of these things, it is the individual''s - especially when the employers and all of his other employees pay into government systems at gunpoint to provide food, clothing, and healthcare for the truly needy.

If an individual doesn''t have the skills to get a higher-paying job, whose fault is that? Society has already paid for a minimum of twelve years of schooling for that person, and will co-sign a loan for college at a ridiculously low interest rate. Education in this country is available to whatever level a person wants, effectively for free. If you have not taken advantage of this, at some point it stops being my problem.

If you are working minimum wage and your employer doesn''t provide healthcare, work a second job - or get married, which is better. Lots of people do both of these. Also, the vast majority of minimum wage earners are under 25 or over 65 - people who can afford to get by on little income, or have no need of employer-provided healthcare or day care, anyway.

JMJ is right. Government has stopped being a safety net and is now expected to be a deus ex machina for those looking to have someone else pay their way. Most people in low wage situations manage to get by just fine, and every person that makes it work, puts lie to the idea that we need to redefine policy to accomodate imaginary scenarios of the well-meaning.

I do agree that actual effort to get out of the situation should be required

Which it currently isn''t.

government is better suited to apply the remedy equally than private motivations

70 cents of every dollar given away by the government is consumed by bureaucracy, as opposed to 20 cents for the average private charity.

There is little profit motive in lifting a working family out of poverty, as the cost of their labor is cheapest then, but they are still surviving. I still worry that the judgement some pushed at the time of the inferiority of the poor would become an excuse to abuse them, and ignore them. ""They had their chance"".

The responsibility of lifting the family out of poverty resides with the family, not with society or the employer. There are innumerable methods for doing this. The problem lies in the fact that all of them are hard and getting a welfare or disability check is easy.

It''s interesting that the quote you cited from Carnegie describes a grifter, not someone who simply works and lives in grinding poverty without the benefits of protections from unemployment, unions, etc, as was common at the time.

No, Carnegie''s quote referred to anyone that lives life as a parasite on society, as opposed to a contributor to it.

The ""Welfare Queen"" is dead, and has been for nearly a decade. That does not happen anymore, with Federal funds anyway.

Again, not true. In 1996, the Welfare Reform Act eliminated drug and alcohol addiction as a per se qualifier for disability. About 60% of the former claimants have been reclassified for payments under a different disability.

The government welfare programs increase dependency. You stated before that you agreed a condition for aid should be an effort by the recipient to get off the dole. Well, less than 1 in 500 recipients of welfare or disability returns to work. Also, given that these government programs replace a large percentage of the wages of a low wage earner, they provide a serious disincentive against working at all.

We don''t talk about responsibility anymore. No one says, ""You''ve made decisions which are responsible for your condition."" By awarding benefits for self-destructive behavior, we create incentives for societal failure.

The other thing that you fail to grasp is that social service spending makes things worse in other ways. First, it sucks capital out of the private economy that could have been used to create jobs (the only real way of ending poverty). Also, the increased regulatory pressures and costs associated with these programs causes the flight of business from the worst areas, removing even more jobs. Also, the impact of welfare has a terrible impact on families. The two-parent family is all but extinct in some neighborhoods, rendered superfluous by welfare''s subsidy of illegitimacy. These factors add up to cause more social problems, which continues the vicious circle and further erodes any incentive for personal responsibility.

But we are growing a class of people who are living in a workfare environment, and then taking away ""entitlements"", like child daycare so single parents can work; children''s health programs; transportation credits. This does not seem like it''s helping people who make the effort.
That''s what bothers me. What does this teach them? Follow the rules and get screwed. That''s not the lesson we want to teach. There is a role for government in providing services for those moving off of welfare and into low-paying jobs.

I have already derailed this topic sufficiently, so I won''t really dive in too much. Suffice to say that I think this is a naive position. Wonderfully idealistic, but naive. The message that social service programs convey is the direct opposite of what the people who use these programs need. Rewarding dysfunctional behavior and subordinating the well-being of children to a dubious ideology is foolish. Families, and community support for families, create sound individuals by imposing discipline and moral values on children. These children grow up and repeat the cycle and contribute to society, as opposed to drain from it. Even if a government program could do this, our programs don''t - our programs believe that imposing values is an anathmea, and avoid trying to judge the ''life-style choices'' of the program clients.

I''ll stop.

Well beyond what I know about the topic. Good points. And I appreciate the use of the term ""idealistic"" to modify ""naive"". I''m both sometimes, but I do prefer the former.

Robear