maybe I'm reading this naively or ignorantly, but the increased spending appears to help until there's some sort of financial crisis or depression (see the dips in the 80s and mid 90s).

also that chart does not mean we should spend less money on the issue

National Review's definitions are tough to interpret from the chart. I may be wrong but "anti-poverty spending" has the sound of a stretchy grab-bag category they kinda-sorta made up to fit an agenda. And of course the chart is mute about wealth distribution

Wage slaves are afraid of becoming poor. The poorer we can make the poor, the more it motivates the worker bees to show up at their stagnant wage jobs and do what their told without complaining.

NOW GET BACK TO WORK YOU SLACKERS!

td11 wrote:also that chart does not mean we should spend less money on the issue

Right, but it is reasonable to question what we're doing without being characterized as pro-poverty.

To slugrsbad's point, poverty levels improve when the economy is improving. Many conservatives argue this very point, that our government's best anti-poverty programs are ones that have nothing to do with addressing poverty. We should have simple, easy to understand safety nets, but then spend the rest of our efforts trying to improve the dynamism of the US economy.

slugsrbad wrote:maybe I'm reading this naively or ignorantly, but the increased spending appears to help until there's some sort of financial crisis or depression (see the dips in the 80s and mid 90s).

The poverty rate tracks the economy, not the amount we spend to fight poverty. One would think that the amount we spend on the safety net would increase in a recession, and decrease in an economic expansion, but that the safety net would stay relatively flat (adjusted for inflation) over time.


Sorry for the aside, I just wanted to highlight why some conservatives are dismissive of our growing anti-poverty spending, without being dismissive of those in poverty.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:also that chart does not mean we should spend less money on the issue

Right, but it is reasonable to question what we're doing without being characterized as pro-poverty.

To slugrsbad's point, poverty levels improve when the economy is improving. Many conservatives argue this very point, that our government's best anti-poverty programs are ones that have nothing to do with addressing poverty. We should have simple, easy to understand safety nets, but then spend the rest of our efforts trying to improve the dynamism of the US economy.

But the issue from the right isn't the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs, is whether there is any social responsibility for dealing with poverty, couched in a vicious William Graham Sumner social darwinian morality of blame. Increasingly, the basic idea from the right is "let them starve, I've got mine" not "we need to do something that's more effective in dealing with poverty". It's similar to reproductive issues. It's not "let's see how we can reduce the number of abortions performed" the right is saying "sluts need to be punished, and if you were raped, well, you probably are a slut anyway."

175k jobs added in Feb, 3.8 million long-term unemployed

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:also that chart does not mean we should spend less money on the issue

Right, but it is reasonable to question what we're doing without being characterized as pro-poverty.

To slugrsbad's point, poverty levels improve when the economy is improving. Many conservatives argue this very point, that our government's best anti-poverty programs are ones that have nothing to do with addressing poverty. We should have simple, easy to understand safety nets, but then spend the rest of our efforts trying to improve the dynamism of the US economy.

But the issue from the right isn't the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs, is whether there is any social responsibility for dealing with poverty, couched in a vicious William Graham Sumner social darwinian morality of blame. Increasingly, the basic idea from the right is "let them starve, I've got mine" not "we need to do something that's more effective in dealing with poverty". It's similar to reproductive issues. It's not "let's see how we can reduce the number of abortions performed" the right is saying "sluts need to be punished, and if you were raped, well, you probably are a slut anyway."

The issue -- for the decreasingly silent majority of conservatives -- is that anti-poverty programs don't reduce poverty! If they don't reduce poverty, then what are we doing with our Great Society?

I'm glad you made the statement above that I bolded, as I think it does a good job demonstrating the perceptions that conservatives have to fight around these types of topics? Far from that statement being a widespread viewpoint that is endemic to the conservative half of the country, I think it is more a reflection of how many liberals have stereotyped conservatives. I saw this around the debates on the healthcare law. Conservatives would say that this law stinks, and liberals would respond that conservatives don't care about uninsured Americans.

Conservatives and liberals view the world differently, obviously. The problem occurs when they are using different rubrics for evaluating laws, because then it becomes difficult to craft compromises. Link A modern conservative and modern liberal have very different lenses for evaluating morality.

First, that people do not rationally choose their ideologies. You do not come into the political arena as a blank slate and then just examine all the moral and consequential arguments for different policies and pick the one that is most “correct.” Instead, you come into the political arena with subconscious, largely unexamined psychological beliefs. Initially for Haidt what he focused on was ideas of “disgust.” Over time that has broadened and he describes five key vectors or values of psychological morality: (1) care/harm, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) sanctity. Haidt finds in his research that self-described “conservatives” tend to value all five vectors of morality (as he defines them). Liberals, by contrast, place a high value on “care” and “fairness” and a lower value on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. On the two values that conservatives and liberals both value (care and fairness) they do not define those terms the same way, although they both value them according to their different definitions.

The second part of Haidt’s argument is that once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.” Instead, people tend to subconsciously sift the information that they take in: you tend to overvalue evidence that supports your predispositions and dismiss evidence that is inconsistent with it. As a result, “evidence” becomes self-justifying.

keep fighting that fight, playa

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/15/you ... mps-dream/

Sure, let's pick a pretty extreme anomaly as our example of how anti-poverty programs work.

TenuredVulture wrote:http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/15/you-wont-believe-this-surfer-living-the-food-stamps-dream/

Sure, let's pick a pretty extreme anomaly as our example of how anti-poverty programs work.

That's a good example of how liberals and conservatives will read an article differently. I read this as a criticism of Obama's decision to roll back some of the welfare reforms that were effective:

Of course, not all able-bodied food stamp recipients are like Jason, with no interest in working, and certainly a tough economy has meant fewer job opportunities.

Yet food stamps should be reformed to encourage work, even if that means preparing for work or simply looking for work.

As a result of the 1996 welfare reform, which instituted work requirements for the largest cash assistance welfare program, welfare rolls declined substantially, dropping by half within about five years. Employment rates among low-income adults also increased, and child poverty plummeted.

However, last summer the Obama Administration announced it would begin issuing waivers to the federal work requirement.

It sounds like you got hung up on the opening paragraphs, and interpreted them as an inexcusable slandering of the program and all participants.

Various waivers have been in place since I was hired 7 years ago.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:also that chart does not mean we should spend less money on the issue

Right, but it is reasonable to question what we're doing without being characterized as pro-poverty.

To slugrsbad's point, poverty levels improve when the economy is improving. Many conservatives argue this very point, that our government's best anti-poverty programs are ones that have nothing to do with addressing poverty. We should have simple, easy to understand safety nets, but then spend the rest of our efforts trying to improve the dynamism of the US economy.

I think you're conflating programs that mostly ameliorate the effects of poverty (which I'm guessing is the stuff in the chart, and which to some extent rises in response to worse conditions--so the causality is exactly reversed) with programs that address the root causes of poverty.

The big revelation over the last 20 years--since welfare reform--is that pushing everyone to work doesn't equate to making them not-poor, given how little bargaining power they have.

Unlike most liberals, I'm pretty much fine with "paternalistic" policies that condition aid on work, for those capable; to me, that's the social contract. But the way the economy is set up now, employment is no guarantee against material want. Low-wage jobs are growing, social insurance programs are under-resourced and recipients (still) stigmatized... the working poor who get assistance (through the EITC, among other means) are denigrated as "takers" by the same people who once paid lip service to Bill Clinton's formulation that those who "work hard and play by the rules shouldn't have to live in poverty."

There are basically two strategies on the table, which we could call "change the game," and "change the players." we could make "bad jobs" better, by raising the minimum wage, expanding benefits, enabling unionization, etc. Conservatives largely hate these ideas because nothing, ever, should get in the way of utterly unlimited profit. But these at least mostly wouldn't add to the tax bill.

The second direction would be to render more people able to compete in the game under the current rules. Employment and earning power now is largely driven by educational attainment and skills. If you have a college degree, you're probably going to enjoy steady work. If you have that plus a marketable skill--a professional degree, chops as a coder or chef, whatever--you're probably going to enjoy a high standard of living.

So we could make major investments in human capital to help folks make their own way in the labor market. This pretty much is my view of how to do this while shoring up dynamic capitalism: it aligns to our values, and the ROI as far as tax revenues, decreased spending on corrections and social assistance and the rest is quite robust. But it does require more in the way of taxes, even before you get to the flaws in those systems of human capital formation (teachers unions, standards, et al).

The point is that you can't just say "we're spending more on anti-poverty but people are still poor so the stuff doesn't work and there's no point." or the Paul Ryan version, which is "there's something wrong with the poor," which quickly gets to social Darwinism and a pat justification of the current order.

I actually don't have a real problem with maintaining a basic existence for someone who wants to spend his days surfing and playing in a band. I don't even care if he smokes weed.

Lot of good stuff in your post, but I'll focus on this one sentence that ties back to the original discussion:

we could make "bad jobs" better, by raising the minimum wage, expanding benefits, enabling unionization, etc.

IMO, we shouldn't do things that make our companies less competitive and less apt to hire. Companies don't want to operate in France because of the restrictions on labor, and thecrapthey need to deal with.

Regarding the ability of unions to ameliorate poverty ... I eagerly await to see how quickly de Blasio ruins the NYC schools ecosystem and worsens the schooling options for poor students.

TenuredVulture wrote:I actually don't have a real problem with maintaining a basic existence for someone who wants to spend his days surfing and playing in a band. I don't even care if he smokes weed.

That's not a direct quote from Hobbes, is it?

(That's the progressive version of the social contract, summed up!)

Werthless wrote:Lot of good stuff in your post, but I'll focus on this one sentence that ties back to the original discussion:

we could make "bad jobs" better, by raising the minimum wage, expanding benefits, enabling unionization, etc.

IMO, we shouldn't do things that make our companies less competitive and less apt to hire. Companies don't want to operate in France because of the restrictions on labor, and thecrapthey need to deal with.

Ok, though there's probably some middle ground between that and a situation in which we're headed back toward the labor relations of the early industrial age. And research on minimum wage increases is pretty conclusive that the net effects are positive, and to the "dignity" point I think most of us would agree that a working poor mom shouldn't have to choose between losing her job because she's sick, and going in to the detriment of both her own health and those of her colleagues...

Maybe to your point about liberals and conservatives, your "we shouldn't do things that make our companies less competitive" might be my "conservatives hate these ideas because nothing should get in the way of unlimited profit." If you're comfortable with a set of economic rules that facilitate large (and growing) numbers of working poor people, you can't entirely blame the poor for their circumstance.

Werthless wrote:Regarding the ability of unions to ameliorate poverty ... I eagerly await to see how quickly de Blasio ruins the NYC schools ecosystem and worsens the schooling options for poor students.

My strong desire to maintain at least a wafer-thin veil of deniability regarding my opinions on the new mayor and his regime (people I have to deal with, whose actions obviously resonate deafeningly in my field) precludes me from responding in detail... suffice it to say I agree with you on the point you're making about education in NYC. But I also think it's a wild stretch to note the excessive power of a public sector union to deform a set of policy choices, and conclude from that fact that private unions have no potential role to play in improving the life conditions of low-income workers. Think construction trades and hotel workers rather than teachers.

It's pretty clear that the decline of unions is pretty much the cause of the decline of relative purchasing power of the middle class. I suppose you could argue that unions overplayed their hand, and their fate is in part a consequence of that.

From the 'If W had done this' files