Monkeyboy wrote: There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. The only thing we all need to figure out is how do we want those people to live. What do we want their lives to be like?

We want their lives to be fulfilled. We want them capable of self sufficiency. Living on handouts is no way to thrive. Expecting people to need handouts means you think very little of their abilities, motivation, or both.

As a society, we need to do a better job of matching human capital to market needs. No magic bullets - but we can't get there on the Robin Hood path. It ignores the long term.

Can we agree that people deserve to eat, even if they don't have good employment skills?

Handout

Only if they don't do drugs!

The poor need to suffer or they'll never learn to be self sufficient.

Draconian punishments always work.

If they're working, they're not working hard enough, imo

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
- JK Galbraith

TomatoPie wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote: There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. The only thing we all need to figure out is how do we want those people to live. What do we want their lives to be like?

We want their lives to be fulfilled. We want them capable of self sufficiency. Living on handouts is no way to thrive. Expecting people to need handouts means you think very little of their abilities, motivation, or both.

As a society, we need to do a better job of matching human capital to market needs. No magic bullets - but we can't get there on the Robin Hood path. It ignores the long term.

I have to believe you're capable of engaging arguments that aren't straw men (handouts, confiscation), and recognize on some level how the very things you condemn with respect to the poor, or policy around the poor, are often used by "the prosperous" 1 percent types you seem to admire, just under different names (tax abatements, subsidies, eminent domain) and mostly because they get to make the rules (doc's point, sort of). Is it just that you're always pressed for time?

(And while it's been pointed out here before, on the subject of "the prosperous," I think it's worth stating again that there's a difference between Bill Gates and Bill Gross. Actually, this is true both coming and going, so to speak; no idea whether or not it's a coincidence that those who made their crazy fortunes by actually creating something of value tend to be larger-hearted about its disposition.)

Let's try it this way: I suspect you and I are in basic agreement about welfare reform. There is not, and there should not be, an open-ended, unconditional entitlement to assistance if the applicant is physically and circumstantially capable of fending for her/himself. The fundamentals of the Clinton-era policy change brought our laws more closely into line with the social contract as most of us understand it.

But where we possibly differ is that you might actually believe, as so many Republicans seem to, that poverty is primarily a problem of morals or work ethic, caused mostly by deficiency of character or, at worst, a poor upbringing. I think it's primarily a problem of skills, educational attainment, work experience and networks--the failure is mostly of institutions. You can be the world's greatest go-getter but if you can't read, haven't held a legit job and have no references, your career prospects are poor. The point for implementation of the policy is that rather than holding out public assistance as a sort of reward for compliance, you want to use it to help recipients add skills and amass work experience--building human and social capital.

So my whole take on the safety net is that it's not there for "rewarding idleness"; its main purpose, for those who can work, is (or should be) to try to make things such that they won't need further help, barring extraordinary circumstances; in other words, to make them more like "us" in circumstances, as I believe they are in character. And in that pursuit, I'm quite willing to spend a decent chunk of money up front (maybe funded by social impact bonds or some mechanism other than straight from the public till). Even if it means a few less dollars for those who have too much to count.

Fwiw, I agree that able bodied people should have to make an effort to find a job. I actually think we should give them jobs in infrastructure development (bridges, roads, planting fruit trees, etc). They'd learn a trade while doing something useful and they could be given time to look for other jobs.

Monkeyboy wrote:Fwiw, I agree that able bodied people should have to make an effort to find a job. I actually think we should give them jobs in infrastructure development (bridges, roads, planting fruit trees, etc). They'd learn a trade while doing something useful and they could be given time to look for other jobs.

This makes a lot of sense and it happens sometimes (and people like me advocate for it to happen a lot), though it's not as easy as you might think, for two reasons. One, pretty much all those jobs are at least semi-skilled, involving expensive equipment and such, so you can't just put them right to work; and two, they're mostly unionized, and those guys don't always love the idea of bringing in a bunch more apprentices and potential journeymen to fill up the hiring hall. But sometimes you can get commitments to move long-term unemployed, public assistance recipients etc into pre-apprenticeship training programs.

Nothing's ever easy, I guess.

I do think we should be planting fruit and nut trees and perennials in all the vacant lots and wasted space -- food, beautification, good for the environment, etc, etc. You'd need to test for lead, etc, but then why not do something productive with those spaces. I guess some landscapers might be unionized, though I'm not sure I've ever heard of a landscaper union. I see your point about construction jobs though.

I think this was one reason people got so excited about sustainability/green jobs. And some really interesting things did happen around training programs. But demand has to be there one way or the other, or it's not possible to gainfully employ all those building efficiency inspectors and solar panel installers.

I believe in freedom, and in part, that means that you should be able to choose to spend your days searching for the perfect wave and still have 3 squares and place to sleep (and clothes and healthcare). If that means some people will take advantage by doing nothing, that's a risk I'm willing to take. But why should people be forced by necessity to dumb pointless shit all day? Working at a job because you have to is slavery.

The endless summer

dajafi wrote: I suspect you and I are in basic agreement about welfare reform. There is not, and there should not be, an open-ended, unconditional entitlement to assistance if the applicant is physically and circumstantially capable of fending for her/himself. The fundamentals of the Clinton-era policy change brought our laws more closely into line with the social contract as most of us understand it.

We agree completely on this, yes.

dajafi wrote: But where we possibly differ is that you might actually believe, as so many Republicans seem to, that poverty is primarily a problem of morals or work ethic, caused mostly by deficiency of character or, at worst, a poor upbringing. I think it's primarily a problem of skills, educational attainment, work experience and networks--the failure is mostly of institutions.

Many of my adult friends believe that - "I work hard, and F you if you don't."

Did I feel that way for the first several years after my conversion? (raised a Kennedy Democrat, moved to the R around the time that Reagan fired the air traffic controllers). Yes I did. What bugged me then (and still does, but in a different, larger, and more useful context) is the expectation of entitlement.

Today, I feel that I understand that we're all independent actors, mostly responding to the sticks and carrots that life presents us. My newly adopted dog poops in the house. I don't fault him for this - he never had the training.

That's the long way of saying that I agree with you -- the failure is societal and institutional. It plays out in failure of individuals and families - tragically - but it does no good to label them as lazy, immoral, stupid, etc.

dajafi wrote: You can be the world's greatest go-getter but if you can't read, haven't held a legit job and have no references, your career prospects are poor. The point for implementation of the policy is that rather than holding out public assistance as a sort of reward for compliance, you want to use it to help recipients add skills and amass work experience--building human and social capital.

So my whole take on the safety net is that it's not there for "rewarding idleness"; its main purpose, for those who can work, is (or should be) to try to make things such that they won't need further help, barring extraordinary circumstances; in other words, to make them more like "us" in circumstances, as I believe they are in character. And in that pursuit, I'm quite willing to spend a decent chunk of money up front (maybe funded by social impact bonds or some mechanism other than straight from the public till). Even if it means a few less dollars for those who have too much to count.

I'm with you on this. Your argument is 4, 721% better than the simplistic nonsense proferred by the otherwise sensible Rattner. ALL of society would be served if the "Haves" coughed up a bit more shekels in a way that enables the have-nots to become productive and self-sufficient.

As a society, we've taken some noble "good swings" at that but not much has succeeded. I love th earned income tax credit, and I'd gladly be taxed to expand that concept. The problem with too much of current redistribution is that it serves as a paralyzing disincentive to move beyond subsidy.

Instead of passing laws to force employers to pay more than market prices for labor, why not collectively pump up the wages of the working poor?

Society is always going to have those incapable of caring for themselves - and we need to provide that care for the sick, the disabled, the elderly.

We're always going to have (but we should reduce the number) people willing and able to contribute, but whose skills are so marginal that their income cannot buy a comfortable life. We need those people - doing the crappy jobs - and a collective subsidy is not a bad thing.

My whole objection - which almost no one in this thread has been willing to grasp - is that you can't fix societal problems by simple transfers of wealth.

Glad you posted - it raises the level of discourse.

executive immigration order is going to cause violence apparently

My whole objection - which almost no one in this thread has been willing to grasp - is that you can't fix societal problems by simple transfers of wealth.

get off your high horse. you are nowhere near as smart as you are making yourself out to be, and putting others down is getting old. your econ 101 bullshit is tired and lazy. you are talking past people and creating strawmen. there's no reason to even respond to your posts anymore.

Jim Webb is running for president

Webb/Warren, make it happen

pacino wrote:get off your high horse.

The view is great from up here. I'm saving you a seat. You ride side saddle, correct?