I. Most poor people do not work and the U.S. is more or less a "meritocracy."
Whether the first part of this is strictly true or not depends on how exactly you define "poor." But I think it's hard to look at all the facts and say it's really true in any meaningful sense.
Most low income families in the U.S., or families making less than 200% of the federal poverty guideline (which is not regionally adjusted), do work (where a "family" is a couple or a single parent with at least one child under 18, and a "working family" is a family where each family member 15 and older either has a combined work effort of 39 weeks or more in the prior 12 months OR all family members age 15 and over each has a combined work effort of 26 to 39 weeks in the prior twelve months and one currently unemployed parent looked for work in the prior 4 weeks). 71%, in fact (9,658,195 out of 13,622,425; this means 29% of all U.S. familes are "low income") See http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/xls/WPFP_Conditions_Low-Income_Working_Families.xls Table 1.A.1a. The people who did the study obviously have an agenda (http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/) but they base their data on Census and BLS data. I think that their definitions are reasonable and their figures are legit.
Bear in mind that 200% of the poverty rate was only $38,700 for a family of four in 2005 (the poverty threshold was an unbelievably paltry $19,350 for a family of four - sounds way too low to me). See http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml. 200% of the poverty threshold is not much at all, but it's too much to qualify for Medicaid in Illinois and most other states. See http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?RecNum=3355&SubjectID=47.
On the other hand, a narrow majority of families that make less than 100% of the federal poverty threshold are not "working families" (2,825,230 out of 5,982,095, or 47% do work). See http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/xls/WPFP_Conditions_Low-Income_Working_Families.xls. But in 2004, a majority of all individuals living below the poverty line (37 million people, or about 12.5% of the population) were either children (13.5 million) or working adults (7.8 million people). See http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_672.pdf p. 3 and http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2004.pdf p. 1. And of course all of this is to say nothing of mental illness, crippling drug addiction, other medical disability, the lack of employment opportunities in economically depressed regions, simple faultless unemployability, or a whole host of other really good reasons why a poor person may not be able to work.
As to the second (implicit) part of the claim, I'd like to throw out a few more references to give some broader perspective. The U.S. has the lowest rate of social mobility (as measured by how strongly your parents income determines your own) in the First World. See http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf p. 6 Table 2. We have a very poor UN Human Poverty Index (HPI) rating compare to our peers (17th out of 19 among "highly developed" countries). See http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_table_4.pdf. We have the worst income and wealth inequality in the First World. See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html and http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html. And of course we have the third to lowest tax as a share of GDP percentage of all OECD countries (a close third behind Mexico and South Korea). See http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/41/39494985.pdf p.1. I see these facts as part of a pretty clear story. Others may disagree.
Additional Note: While I'm pointing out things we're not very good at, I might as well round out the set:
1. We have a ridiculously high homicide rate and gun homicide rate.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
Note that these figures are from the late '90's when our crime rates were historically low.2. We have the highest infant mortality rate in the First World.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Note that we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba.3. We have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world (the entire world, that is).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/28/prison.population.ap/
4. We have the highest per capital spending on health care in the world but the 37th ranked health care system in the world.http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf
These figures are for 2000, the last time the rankings we're done. I'm sure we wouldn't be doing any better now.Perhaps it is no coincidence that, in a addition to being a very low tax country, we have extremely low private sector unionization rates.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w3342.pdf?new_window=1 p. 43, Table 2.
The figures are somewhat dated but I'm sure things haven't changed very much.
II. The U.S. is at the point on the "Laffer Curve" where lower tax rates will produce higher government revenues.
In a rare moment of clarity, George Bush Sr. called this theory "voodoo economics." Obviously, at some unbelievably extreme tax rate (say 95%), government revenues would go up if you decreased the tax rate. But we are nowhere near this point. Remember that ~$860 billion in Bush tax cuts (that went disproportionately to the very wealthy, I might add)? They have significantly decreased federal government revenues and increased gross national debt. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png; and http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm. So, no, tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
So, it appears that it IS possible to work full-time for KFC and not become a millionaire. You learn something new everyday.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as compelling as you argument is for possibly relaxing my opinion of poor people as having made a deliberate choice to live in poverty and despair just so they can collect a government check (MY tax dollars, thank you very much!), I am still unconvinced by your rebuttal of the Laffable Curve. However, I am writing this while still awake and it is almost two in the morning, so I will concede the slim possibility that I am incorrect here as well.
I think we should be asking whether we think the goal of our society (or any society) should be a perfect meritocracy. This emphasis on social mobility at best obscures what happens to the immobile; at worst, it legimates their place in the hierarchy and all of the ills that entails. Efforts would be better spent at educating everyone up to a certain demanding level so they can participate politically, rather than seeking out the best and brightest from low resource areas to propel them to elitedom while their neighborhoods become poorer.
ReplyDeleteAnd Wingo: I agree that the idea of a "meritocracy" is not the ideal. But the idea plays an important part in the right-wing justification for our monstrous levels of economic inequality. I mention it only to show, as a factual matter, that they are wrong that success if just out there for the taking.
ReplyDeleteTest.
ReplyDeleteThe test was a success.
ReplyDeleteThough there are other subjects that I am more passionate about (such as energy and the environment), Mr. Finley has kindly encouraged me to pose a counter viewpoint to his recent foray into the social evils of our nation. While I am not "right wing" by any stretch of the imagination, I am certainly right of you gents on most issues and will, at least this one time, humor him.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't really find most of the statistics referenced all that surprising. I don't believe laziness correlates to poverty as many further to the right may suggest. I realize that most Americans who are "poor", using whatever reasonable definition you prefer, do in fact work, and in fact face a staunch up hill battle to improve their station. In some cases, the likelihood that they can realistically improve their quality of life may be laughably insignificant. At the same time, I don't think that quality of life is necessarily that bad on average. If you cherry pick, I realize that there are several developed countries wherein the "poor" have a better quality of life than they do here. However, generally speaking, our "working poor" have it better than those of most places. There is not rampant cases of starvation or freezing to death. I don't believe our homeless rates are any greater than in other first world nations. In fact, I have never seen so many homeless people in one city as I have during a summer in Toronto. They fill the parks in hundreds at night. Literally, one could not find an empty bench or table.
My point of contention is with the alternatives you would propose. First, I'll begin by saying that I actually believe our taxes are a little (preface "little") too low. I definitely support a repeal of the "Bush tax cuts" for the wealthy, and would also support an increase in the capital gains tax. For what its worth, I support Obama and hope to get a chance to vote for him in the general election. That said, I would NOT support tax rates on par with most "socialist leaning" European countries - and certainly not for the middle class. Regardless of whether the American Dream is alive or not, I don't want to live in a society that lacks incentive and motivation to improve. Socialism experiments work well in isolated utopias where everyone is motivated simply to improve the "common good", but I am too cynical and have seen too much in my 30+ years to believe that motivation would spread among a larger populace. I have lived in Germany and seen 20% unemployment. Though there is concern about it, the concern is not among the unemployed. Why should they care? Why should they strive to find a job? It really won't cause much change in their lives. Their station in life / quality of life may change, and in fact you may find data that suggests it is more likely to improve than those similarly situated in the US, however that change will not be a product of their own efforts. I prefer a world where, though the chances may be slim and the cards may be stacked against me, it is at least conceivable that my personal input to society will correlate to a direct personal output. A world where I can believe that, if I work harder on an individual level, I can make a difference in my kids lives. Yes Wingo, a meritocracy.
I don't have time to dig up tons of statistics, so I'll resort to myself on the motivation thing. Generally speaking, I'm one of the most motivated sons of bitches you will ever come across. If I put my mind to it, it will get done. Whether it is get in to West Point, get out of the army, climb the corporate ladder, find health care for my special needs kid, break a 5 minute mile, or push my dumb ass into the top 10% of law school, I'll get it done. But WHAT I'm motivated to do depends. Though I don't consider myself a bad person, I'm simply not motivated to altruistically serve my common man. Of course I help people out around me when I can, but social service is not a driver for me. Spending time with my kids is a driver. Eating good food and taking a couple weeks to travel each year is a driver. Having financial security is a driver. And, gents, I don't think I'm all that different than most people in these regards. SO, if I don't think that working, or going to school, or otherwise participating in society are going to move me toward those drivers, I WON'T DO THEM! Note that "learning" is not a driver. Nor is "working". I don't live to work, I work to live as they say. Following the logic, If I have to give 50% or 60% of what I earn back, and as a result of that I am guaranteed to get a couple weeks to travel, enough money to do it, and time with my kids whether I work or not - I'M NOT GOING TO WORK. There is simply no motivation to do it. Multiply my attitude by the rest of the working population and you have economic collapse.
Here's a real question for you too - if other countries have it all figured out and the US is so bad, why is everyone trying to come live here instead of go live elsewhere? (I say this at the risk of sounding off what is a traditional right wing line, but it isn't a bad question.)
The other point I'll make - and I intend to be short - is that I am disgusted with the politics involved and the way that our Federal government spends money. When I think of the things government does that is useful to the common man, most of them fall within the realm of state government. State's provide security and police, roads, most infrastructure, schools, etc., etc. Yes, this money comes in large part from federal grants, but that's not the point. If it is the state's that need the money and provide the services, give them the tax in the first place. In my world perfect world, federal taxes would come down and be used mostly to provide a national defense. State taxes would go up as state's saw fit in order to provide the services that state's saw fit to provide. Let the state's experiment with right wing and left wing theories. Let Alabama cut it's state tax to zero in hopes of encouraging business development and see how many business show up despite the collapsing infrastructure that would result. Let California crank its tax rate up to provide a ton of social services and see how many business stay despite the hit they'll take because their employees want those services and the infrastructure is sound. But stop taking my money at the federal level and spending it on bullshit that doesn't do anything for 95% of America and mostly just serves to re-elect corrupt politicians. Maybe Canada can effectively and efficiently spend 55% of all the money their citizens make. We can't do it with 25%.
OK, I'm done for now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you took the time to respond. It was getting way too friendly on here. You are a Great Man.
ReplyDeleteWell you put quite a lot out there. I'll try to respond as concisely as possible.
1. "Our 'working poor' have it better than those of most places."
Sure they do. But the comparison shouldn't be between us and Colombia or Sierra Leone. It should be between us and counties that are comparably wealthy. I cite a bunch of such comparisons, and we fare very poorly in all of them. Also, every one of those comparisons compares us to a broad spectrum of other countries. In other words, I don't think the comparisons are at all "cherry picked." On the contrary.
And I have no idea about homelessness in Toronto but I wouldn't put too much stock in anecdotal observations. Canada fares way better than we do in every measure I can think of when it comes to the state of their lower income population. Once again, I would refer you back to the statistics I referenced above.
2. Socialism is "Utopian"
Some forms are. Not the form I envision. You should read my "40 Theses." I'm sure they have their flaws, but they are not utopian at all. Besides, the European countries that you refer to do have tax rates above 50% and they're not doing too badly in the great scheme of things ("if it's so bad there why are immigrants flocking there, etc. etc.").
3. There would be an "economic collapse" if we increased taxes as high as we suggest.
First of all, I never said people would work for the "common good." I definitely advocate allowing highly productive employees to keep part of the fruits of their productivity. As I say elsewhere on my blog, I would be willing to tolerate a, say, 5:1 ratio of richest to poorest individual. That's radically lower than the ratio now, but being able to buy 5 times as much as a "slacker" sounds like plenty of motivation to me. Think about it: that's literally five times as many Little Debbie cakes or Playstation 3 games.
I understand that you are a highly motivated individual, and that you don't think you would work as hard if it didn't pay. But as you suggested to me yesterday, we have to step back from what we think our own reaction would be when we analyze this. Motivation is a complicated beast; it is not just a simple matter of how much money you get. Status, self-respect, and professional prestige come into play as well. But whatever it is that motivates us, the simple fact of the matter is that tax rates as a share of GDP do not have any tangible, discernible effects on economic growth rates. See
See "Taxing Ourselves: A Citizen's Guide to the Debate over Taxes" by Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija, pp. 119-120. Nor do marginal tax rates have any significant effect on labor supply (almost none on male hours worked, some but not a huge effect on female hours worked). Id., p. 125. And it bears remembering that the U.S. experienced its golden days of economic growth when the top marginal income tax bracket was over 70%.
Of course people are going to work somewhat less (probably not that much less, but a little less - see above) if we significantly raise the top income tax brackets. But a.) what work we do may be more productive if we use the taxes to finance research, technological development, and generally accessible education, and b.) we work way too much now anyway. Look, for instance, at lawyers in big firms. They work long hours in exchange for gobs of money. As a result, they have some of the highest rates of alcoholism, drug use, depression, and suicide of any profession. If under my system they work 35 hours a week instead of 60, I'm fine with that. Similarly, if a few more mothers are going to drop out of the labor force to take care of their kids, I'm fine with that too.
4. "Here's a real question for you too - if other countries have it all figured out and the US is so bad, why is everyone trying to come live here instead of go live elsewhere?"
Come on man. Of course this is bad question. People are coming here from POOR COUNTRIES. We are a rich country. My point is that we are a failure compared to other rich countries. Once again, of course we are almost all better off than peasants in Central America. That is totally beside the point.
And by the way, like I said above, lots of people are trying to immigrate to Europe as well.
...
Finally, I totally disagree that state governments are more efficient than the Federal government. But that’s another debate.
I would like to point out, however, that you can't just let Alabama set its tax rate to 0% to lure in business without hurting other states. If Alabama drastically cuts taxes, than Mississippi and Georgia will have to cut their taxes to if they want to remain competitive in the ongoing struggle to attract mobile business, even if they don't really want to. You know, the whole "race to the bottom" argument. We see it all the time.
And sure, the government does waste a lot of money. They should stop doing that. I don't think this is a utopian aspiration. We should focus on ways to make sure that it wastes less money rather than give up on the whole business of government altogether.
I'm just happy to be considered a gent.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing to consider is that some people are already being "taxed" at rates equal to or higher than Europe when you factor in health care costs and the extra costs of services that would otherwise be covered under higher taxes.
ReplyDeleteMaryAnn and I experience a taste of this. We live in unicorporated Urbana, so we have to pay a non-resident fee for every service we want to be a part of (public library, dog park, etc.) If we lived in the city limits, all that would be included in our taxes.
Likewise, when you factor in most people's health care costs, higher education costs an the like, one could easily get their money's worth in taxes.
The point is that other entities are "taking" "your money" anyway. It might be better to do it in a way that doesn't leave anyone behind.
I apologize for not making his point as stongly as I robably could have. I'm not feeling very well and don't have the energy to do it justice.
Someone feel free to carry the ball, though.
Oh, and why can't I ever read the frigging word verification. I'm beginnning to think I'm part-web spider trawling the internet for my next Nigerian royalty scam victims.
First off, I am nothing without my anecdotal observations!
ReplyDeleteI mean that only partially in jest by the way. You all know that in today's information age, one can find statistics to support nearly any viewpoint. For instance, I'm sure someone out there is busy putting data together that suggests the Earth is actually getting colder and not warmer, etc. I'm not saying statistics aren't useful, or that I even doubt any of yours. I'm just saying that in today's world, where everyone throws opposing statistics at each other, I'm quite happy trusting in what I see with my own two eyes. They have served me pretty well.
I'd like to bite on the state race to bottom thing, but don't have time.
Instead, I'll just go with this. If I have to choose between who will best spend my money to improve things in my life, I'm not betting on our present Congress. I believe in, and appreciate the need for taxation to provide for social goods that people would not otherwise provide for due to self interest. For instance, someone with no interest in having children cannot be trusted to support a school system out of the kindness of his own heart.
If this was a congress full of people that had their heart and minds in the right place and acted as the founder's invisioned, to serve the American people first and foremost, then they would be better placed to spend my money for the greater good than me.
That is not what we have today. At best, Congress is full of career politicians more worried about staying in their seat than in doing what they were sent there to do. At worst, it is full of white collar criminals, guilty of taking bribes, fraud, and primarily interested in getting themselves rich. I don't have to look far to find statistics to prove that. You all know the examples. It's disgusting. The truth is, there are very few heroes left in politics, on either side of the aisle. I wouldn't trust most of these people not to steal my beer when I went to take a leak. Why should I expect them to right the wrongs of this nation if we give them the means to do so?
Given the option of a just and wise Congress, legitimately and primarily serving the needs of the country, I would suggest giving them the money to do so.
Given the option we have, I would suggest keeping the money and relying on philantropy to fill in the gaps where it can.
I can give $1000 to United Way, or I can give $1000 to the government. The government will spend $450 on a defense contract that will be cancelled next week because someone didn't get paid off in the Defense Department, but the money will already be spent and the accountability is so poor given their budget that no one knows where it went nor will bother to ask for it back. They will throw $250 toward Medicare. They will put $100 in a social security account, from which they will borrow it to offset the budget deficit so things look better on paper than they really are. $85 will go to a homeland security project designed at wire-tapping my home phone. $40 will go to bailing out sub-prime loan shark lending outfits so they can move on to the next scam debt free. $20 will be given to FEMA, which FEMA will allocate toward buying thousands of mobile homes that will be left to sit empty and rot far from where they are needed. Realizing they only have $55 left to spend on infrastructure, education, energy, technology development, and social programs, they will borrow another few hundred, thereby decreasing the value of the dollars that I still have and causing my cost of living to increase via inflation.
I think you guys get the point. I would feel much better giving a complete stranger the money and figuring it went to a good use than giving it to today's congress.
"At best, Congress is full of career politicians more worried about staying in their seat than in doing what they were sent there to do. At worst, it is full of white collar criminals, guilty of taking bribes, fraud, and primarily interested in getting themselves rich."
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree but this is also true of state governments. They're filled with local criminals who hope to be national national criminals when they grow up. This certainly doesn't make them any more efficient at money spending. Plus, we've
yet to discuss the arbitrary or antiquated state boundaries.
In summation, I have nothing much to add to point # whatever of the 40+ sum odd point thesis. You know, the anti-state point. That is good shit.
Mike, you are a man of great Stature and Standing. I attack your comment with the utmost Adulation. I would elect you the Lord of Men.
ReplyDeleteRe: “Lies, damn lies, and statistics, etc.” I love statistics. Obviously, I rely on them heavily to make my point. My view is that you can’t just rely on some general, amorphous skepticism of statistics to reject a statistics-based argument. You have to say exactly what’s misleading about the data as presented. I personally don’t see anything misleading about any of these statistical comparisons. But if you do, please let me know.
Similarly, you say, “I'm quite happy trusting in what I see with my own two eyes.” This conviction assumes that you can see the whole picture from your vantage point (for instance, just by walking down Yonge St. in Toronto). It would take seven entire lifetimes to fully understand a complicated, general phenomenon like poverty through personal observation. You would have to exhaustively interview people house by house, alley by alley, in every city in every country you want to compare to get a legitimate idea of how many people are poor and what that poverty looks like. Statistics allow us to get beyond the limitations of our individual observation capacity and see the bigger picture.
If you ever get a chance, you should see the debate between statistics enthusiasts vs. statistics skeptics in baseball. The debate is well fleshed out in that context and touches on all the same issues involved here. See www.firejoemorgan.com.
…
Re: Corruption in federal politics. Corruption is obviously a significant problem in politics – at federal, state, and local levels (Former Illinois Gov. Ryan, anyone? The Daley Dynasty?). Per CBabcockNightmare, I see no reason why politicians at the federal level are any more corrupt than politicians at other levels. My largely unsubstantiated impression is that the transparency and accountability gets a little better as you move up the chain. At least they have a GAO looking over them.
Another thing. When you’re talking about taking money out of the private sector and putting it into the public sector through taxation, it’s useful to compare the levels of corruption in the private sector to corruption in the public sector. We know now all too well about corruption among corporate executives. “Rank-and-file” shareholders, if there is such a thing, obviously are about as powerless to regulate the conduct of executives as voters are to regulate the conduct of politicians. And do you really think it’s any different with mutual funds that get kickbacks from corporations or insurance brokers who get kickbacks from insurance companies or mortgage lenders who get kickbacks from title insurance are any different? Taxation takes money from the corrupt private sector and gives it to the corrupt public sector. My guess is it roughly balances out in the end.
For what it’s worth, I think the corruption mantra is overblown. Do you really think the corruption of Congress makes the U.S. military not worth having? That it somehow undoes the poverty reduction that Social Security has accomplished? That it makes counter-terrorism efforts a waste of time? I think these examples show that “more government” can be worth the cost even if politicians are somewhat corrupt. And from a comparative perspective, rich countries that tax and spend more tend to perform far better than we do in terms of poverty, inequality, and social mobility. So by deduction governments must be doing something worthwhile.
And this doesn’t apply to you, but I’ve had it up to here with conservatives, who, after all have dictated the general course of economic policy since 1980, continue to complain about the “damn government.” You guys have run it for years! If it’s corrupt and ineffective, it’s your guys’ fault (see FEMA during Katrina and the whole Halliburton non-bid contract debacle). The whole business allows Republicans (who, despite their contempt for government, chose to pursue a career in politics) to prove their own ideology by doing a shitty job.
…
Finally, re: Replacing government action with private charity. You are a good guy. You will voluntarily fulfill your obligation to be socially responsible. But this cannot be said of everyone who has (or will have) money.
A few further problems with this. First, working middle class people give a higher percentage of their incomes to charity than the super-wealthy (remember Kaplan’s chart last year?). I strongly endorse the principle that the rich should contribute a higher percentage of their incomes than those who are not rich. Apparently this doesn’t happen through voluntary donations. So, if we want to make the rich pay a higher percentage of their incomes, we have to do it coercively through taxation. Second, a voluntary donation system lets people decide whatever zany organization they want to give their money to instead of letting the democratic process determine our social spending priorities. So the old widow who gives away her outsized fortune to a little non-profit poetry journal or an abortion protester group lets her take money that we could use to address vital policy questions and waste it on nonsense.
Finally, charitable organizations can be corrupt too. Remember when the United Way paid its chief executive a zillion dollars and had to fire him for corruption in the ‘90’s? Corruption is everywhere.
So I guess the upshot is, if the choice is between corrupt federal government, corrupt state and local government, corrupt business, or corrupt charity, I'll usually take the feds.
I don't think corruption is necessarily as rampant at a local level as it is at Federal. I will grant you that Federal is more visible and gets more media attention, but that doesn't seem to act as much of a deterrent does it? I think it comes down to the "democratic process" you mention. My vote on the national stage is largely irrelevant. Not only am I a small fish in a monstrous ocean, our antiquated and now rediculous electoral system doesn't even necessarily award the popular choice the office. (i.e. Bush v. Gore).
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, my vote is significant on local matters. I do have a voice and can make a difference. Thus, I'd argue there is more accountability at the local level. It's personal. You live with your constituents. You feel the effects of your decision making. The bigger the level of government, (i.e. the Daley's in Chicago) the more likely the corruption. Sure, there is a lot of state corruption as well. But there isn't much local I am aware of - at least in downstate Illinois. Maybe the media just doesn't pick it up. Or maybe these are just civil servants that honestly do their job.
You are certainly right that the electoral college is stupid. That's why I advocate eliminating states.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point about being closer to your constituents, I just don't think it really results in less corruption on the ground. I must confess I really have no idea about local politics in downstate Illinois, but back where I'm from (Washington Township in South Jersey), local politics were extremely corrupt. A former mayor (Luongo) spent time in federal prison and a major portion of the police force was busted a few years ago for drug dealing. Of course Philly city government is corrupt as hell too. So who knows. Without more to go on (i.e., dreaded statistics), I guess I have my impression and you have yours.
And all of this is just about corruption. It doesn't address the "race to the bottom" argument.
The debate you guys have going doesn't do much for my feelings of self-worth as a man of rock-hard tenets.
ReplyDeleteI find myself nodding in agreement as I read each post and its subsequent rebuttal.
After 3.5 years in France and 2 years in Germany, I (albeit anecdotally) share usmaillini's (albeit anecdotal) views on the general lack of motivation among the unemployed.
It's particularly shocking as a middle-class American to hear someone my age and class say "why should I get a job, I'm doing just fine without?"
But screw those kids. They're the exception. Although American self-made men will decry Europe's supposed lack of productivity and entrpreneurial spirit, overachievers here do get more output from their input. And shit, EADS got that mid-air refueling contract.
It's a problem of invididual attitude not inherent to the social welfare system. A comprehensive social safety net can exist in a culture that still produces people with a drive to get off their asses.
One footnote, I am one of the thousands of Americans that Finley mentioned, who are flocking to Europe in search of a better life.
So if nothing else, I'm the proof. Family and country conditioned me to dislike inactivity and financial dependency. Now in Germany, I will in the near future qualify for all the rights and protections of a German citizen, but that's not going to stop me from pursuing my career and striving to have it better tomorrow than I do today.
Middle-aged sufferers of alcoholism and depression, marginalized immigrants, and lethargic anti-globalization punks notwithstanding, there are tens of millions of ambitious professional French and Germans driving around in BMWs and obsessed with working harder in order to buy an even bigger one. They themselves at one point lived off the system. As a result, a lot of them are okay with paying a huge percentage of their income to the state.
AH! I shudder to hear people refer to "the socialist experiment" when talking about socialistic-leaning European nations. The premise that Europe's adoption of a slightly more egalitarian redistribution of wealth and prioritization of quality of life and public healthcare and schooling was carried out under laboratory conditions, in a variable-free vacuum, is so nonsensical, it borders on campaign talking point.
Germany was seized by fascists bent on self-destructive purge, 3/4 of it was then destroyed by war, and it's major cities and civlian populations fire-bombed into concrete powder and bonemeal. Subsequently it was divided by foreign occupiers, some of whom installed their own oppressive dictatorial regimes, and its citizens lived under constant menace from American and/or Soviet battle tanks and tactical nukes. It was only just pasted back together 17 years ago. To top that off, German youth of the last sixty years have had it drilled into their minds that they're terrible humans because of what happened in 1933-1945, even though they weren't alive yet. That can't do much for encouraging productivity.
One could of course go on, or make a similar case about France. But my point is, it's hard to consider any nation a contamination-free beaker for trying out a new form of society.
The number of Johns Hopkins professors on whose automobiles I would have liked to defecate for having punctuated lectures with "history teaches us that X doesn't work" is astronomical.
History teaches us very little, except that we shouldn't try to use history alone as a basis for shaping policy.
An example that tugs even more at my heartstrings is me and blond girls. I've only dated two blond girls in my life, and neither time did it work out too well, but I'm not sure that's scientific evidence that considering blonds as potential mates is ill-advised.
After all, man were there variables present. One of the girls was in a sorority for Christ's sake, and she hung out with a bunch of field hockey players, and one time Finley and I went to one of the sorority dances. I barely takled to my date, and instead Finley and I got really drunk in the bathroom because it was so awful. Downstairs people were grinding their groins together in the guise of dancing, and half the guys there were frat boys (not gents) whom we'd regularly pelted with water balloons on campus, and they recognized us even though we would always wear plastic dog masks during our attacks. And the sad part is, when the cleaning lady came to the bathroom to tell us the party was over and that everyone had taken the last chartered bus home, we went downstairs and my favorite red Maryland sweatshirt was missing.
I never found it.
Anyways, I heard from the girl a few months ago, and she lives in LA and is getting married to this kid I met in Pittsburgh once. That was a bit stupid, too. We rode the cable car to the top of a mountain overlooking Pittsburg. In the distance we could see a World War Two-era submarine anchored in the river as an exhibit at the Carnegie Science Center. And here was this kid, now her fiancé, who majored in comedy writing, trying to convince me that the crew on that tiny sub was 500 men. That really pissed me off.
Moving on, it strikes me as natural but deceiving to trust one's local or state government more than the federal government.
For one, it's closer to home, where your parents live, whom you'd surely trust with your tax dollars. And it's where all those nostalgic scenes of childhood innocence took place.
But that's obviously sentimental naive hogwash.
A more compelling reason is the unending reports of general shamelessness coming out of Washington. Whether it's run-of-the-mill pork riders and lavish Capitol Hill galas, or corruption scandals and sexually-abused pages, we're not given much reason to trust the Feds with our money.
But as someone already mentioned it has more to do with the heightened visibility of Washington.
So here's where I really drag the debate down to the freshmen level:
Isn't it all because of THE MEDIA?
On top of national news' focus on Washington, it strikes me that local and state media outlets--as well as politicians--have an interest in portraying Washington as the slimy hive of corruption in comparison with our hometown values. It's a convenient scapegoat so that they can continue to pocket casino bribes and bang local beauty queens.
So here's some foreshadowing with regards to my upcoming post:
Visibility, transparency, and public engagement has to be jacked up to the max in The States.
In order to make government/socialism work in the US the way it works (better) in Europe, we need an independent media who has a vested interest in exposing corruption and getting at "the truth," instead of symbiotic administration bedfellows hesitant to rock the boat.
Usmaillini, sometimes the humour on here is a bit abstract, so one can never be too sure--you're a vet? If so, I'd be interested in your take on the previous posts regarding changes to the US military. Maybe you've already posted...