Is "hard work" a virtue?

[Mr Spinkles]

Republicans are whining about the unexpectedly-high cost of the new health plan, $1 trillion.....it may well be expensive, it may well not be worth it, but we're talking about the basic health of our own citizens here, what could be more important than that? We can afford $0.8 trillion EVERY YEAR for the Dept. of Defense but we can't afford $1 trillion, just this once, to improve the health of our citizens indefinitely and lower costs in the long-term? I don't know if the health care plan is good or bad, too expensive or worth it...the only thing I am absolutely certain of is Republicans, and conservatives in general, can't be taken seriously on this issue.

 

[Magic Man]

Not to finance social programs that clearly don't work or are largely wasteful.

What does that have to do with them being coercive, though? You said that taxes are coercive, and that coercion was against freedom, in other words "bad". So, you're saying that some coercion is OK, then, as long as it's not to finance social programs that clearly don't work?

Now, this is a good example of a strawman. Do you really think anyone thinks we should collect taxes and put the money towards programs that are largely wasteful or just don't work? Really? Or is it more likely that people think that taxes should be collected to be used for programs that do work and aren't wasteful?

As an example, type "medicare fraud" into google news and look at the hits from just the last few weeks. And this represents only a small fraction of the blatant fraud that's out there, at least 60 billion a year, which itself is only a tiny fraction of the soft fraud - procedures and tests that are not only unnecessary, but often harmful. From 1966 to 1980 the cost doubled every 4 years and continues to skyrocket. Not only because of the aging population and increased health care costs, but because people continually figure out how to game the system and that it's easy for public employees to spend other people's money. Medicare is, for all intents and purposes, a "blank check" operation that audits less than 5% of it's costs. I personally know a man from riding motorcycles who made 25 million in 7 years in the home health industry, where nurses go out to have a cup of tea with elderly ladies who have well managed high blood pressure. That's just one guy. Keep in mind that medicare is not a new program that we're trying to work the bugs out. It is an entrenched social program that has resisted reform multiple times. But, you know, I'm sure the next great scheme will work out fine. That we can get it right... eventually.

Jackytar

Right, so the system has some flaws, so we should just get rid of it. Tell me, when your car gets a flat tire, do you leave it on the side of the road, and just go buy a new one?

 

[Sunstone]

...the only thing I am absolutely certain of is Republicans, and conservatives in general, can't be taken seriously on this issue.

Although 72% of the American people want some kind of public option for health care, the health care industry is pumping 1.4 million dollars per day into lobbying against a public option for health care. On this issue, it's the American health care industry against the American people.

 

[Magic Man]

Although 72% of the American people want some kind of public option for health care, the health care industry is pumping 1.4 million dollars per day into lobbying against a public option for health care. On this issue, it's the American health care industry against the American people.

Exactly. It's like trying to get rid of oil companies. At some point, there's a breaking point where no matter how much money they throw at it, they can't cover up the immense problems they cause, but they have enough money to push that breaking point way into the future.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One thing that occurs to me is that an "entitlement" becomes a "right", to some extent, as resources increase.

So for example, if we were an ancient tribe and food was scarce, people would just have to fend for themselves. I can't be expected to give up my food to feed others when I am having a hard time feeding myself.

But as resources improve, the situation changes. It's not unreasonable to ask people to give up their dream of owning TWO cars, settling for just the one, in order to make sure no one goes hungry. This is a mild form of redistributing wealth which no remotely compassionate person disagrees with.

Given the vast potential resources of modern society, I think it's legitimate to expand food to things like shelter, health care, education, and suchlike. Precisely how much wealth should be redistributed before it becomes unfair is tough to say.....

It's interesting to read Thomas Paine's criterion in his essay 'Agrarian Justice'. His criterion for redistributing wealth is basically this: first, he observes that what is called civilized society results in classes of people who are much happier and wealthier, and some who are much more miserable than the people who make up so-called 'primitive' nomads living off the land, in complete freedom, in man's "natural" state. The advanced technologies of Britain during the industrial revolution did not prevent a mass of workers from leading disgusting, miserable lives far worse than the lives of Native Americans, say. Britain was extremely wealthy yet many British were impoverished. (One might say analogous things about iPhones and SUV's with eleven cupholders today....)

Anyway, Paine's criterion for the redistribution of wealth for the poor, then, is it should be just enough to ensure that conditions for everyone in a 'civil' society are no worse than what people would have if they abolished civil society and lived as primitives in their natural state. Makes sense to me.

I think we can extend Paine's reasoning to reach a more general criterion.

One might say that as society's change and evolve over time, they become more "civil" if you like (more technology, more organization) and acquire more wealth and resources. The broad criterion for distributing wealth for the poor would then be this: Wealth should be distributed enough so that conditions for everyone are no worse than what they would be if they reverted to a *less* civil, less wealthy society.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way, clearly Glenn Beck and certain "libertarians" who worship Thomas Paine never read his essay 'Agrarian Justice', in which he proposes a 10% tax on estates to be used for a fund to give every of-age citizen a sum of money for getting started in life.

 

[Magic Man]

That's exactly the point. The problem is when you bring up "distribution of wealth", it conjures up a strawman for capitalists. They use the term to mean full communism, whereas socialists use it to mean exactly what you said, Spinkles. It's just about making sure everyone has the basics, which are food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education. Beyond that, if one person lives in a 650 square-foot house while another lives in a 4,500 square-foot one, that's perfectly fine.

No one is trying to say that the guy making $5 million a year should all of a sudden make the same amount as the kid working at McDonald's. We can all agree that some disparity is good, even to the point of some people owning four homes, two boats, 8 cars and an island while other have one small house and one car. As long as everyone has what they need, no problem.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's exactly the point. The problem is when you bring up "distribution of wealth", it conjures up a strawman for capitalists. They use the term to mean full communism, whereas socialists use it to mean exactly what you said, Spinkles. It's just about making sure everyone has the basics, which are food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education. Beyond that, if one person lives in a 650 square-foot house while another lives in a 4,500 square-foot one, that's perfectly fine.

One confounding problem is that the wealthier people in the U.S., I think, are just not aware of how bad conditions are in the poor parts of the country. A lot (not all) of them don't understand what it's like to work hard, be responsible, and still not make much progress. They think the only way to be poor is to be lazy and irresponsible, because for them and everyone around them, it's true.

 

[Alceste]

Well considered posts, Spinkles and mball. I actually dislike the term "redistribution" of wealth for that very reason (the "straw man for capitalists"). It does the left no good to refer to progressive tax rates as the "redistribution of wealth", because doing so affirms the bold capitalist presumption that private ownership is the original condition of our collective wealth. I.e. some private individual owns the wealth to start with, and we simply want to take it away and give it to somebody less fortunate.

This is not the perception of socialists though: as we see it, collective stewardship is the original condition of a nation's wealth, and private individuals are dipping their hands into the cookie jar with varying degrees of avarice to accumulate personal wealth. Socialists wish only that enough of our collective wealth remains in the pool to ensure that the most basic necessities of life are available to everyone, and that services most effectively provided by collective effort are provided by elected representatives accountable to us, rather than self-interested and unaccountable individuals.

So, maybe we need another word, besides "redistribution of wealth". It is never a good idea to let the opposition frame the debate, after all. Stewardship of wealth, perhaps? I know Obama and Biden really tried to replace "redistribution of wealth" with "fairness", but I don't think that's any good either. It calls to mind little children crying "No fair!" when their siblings get a bigger scoop of ice cream, and that's absolutely not the point of socialism. (Chalk that up as another early warning sign that Obama is not a leftist).

 

[Alceste]

One confounding problem is that the wealthier people in the U.S., I think, are just not aware of how bad conditions are in the poor parts of the country. A lot (not all) of them don't understand what it's like to work hard, be responsible, and still not make much progress. They think the only way to be poor is to be lazy and irresponsible, because for them and everyone around them, it's true.

Another reason to tackle the problem of income inequality - the wealthy in countries with severe income inequality, like the US, are not only ideologically, but geographically isolated from their poor neighbours, offering little or no opportunity for either demographic to get to know the other on a personal level, and see what their lives are actually like.

 

[Jackytar]

I don't know what "capitalism" does or doesn't believe, but you have stated that you believe the free market would provide better libraries, better schools, cleaner water, more effective fire protection, better roads, better sewers, better environmental regulation and enforcement, better labour and workplace safety standards, better food and drug quality monitoring, a better army, navy, and coast guard, better border security, a better police force, better orphanages, better public transport... I could go on and on, since governments in mixed economies provide a lot of communal services in exchange for our tax dollars.

"Extreme" Libertarians (a minority) actually do believe this to be true. Except for the military. Going even more extreme, anarcho-capitalists would even argue for private forces. But seeing as I already allowed for local public works, sensible regulations, even a form of universal healthcare and other social safety nets, you are once again misrepresenting my position.

But I'll play along and give the Libertarain viewpoint. As an example of public works, lets use the fire department seeing as you seem to feel this would be the most difficult to defend. Individuals could purchase fire protection from private providers. Now, why would they participate? Aside form it being a rational choice, their mortgage holders would most likely require it. How is this different than the town requiring it? Mortgages are private contracts freely entered into, with the terms agreed in advance. Why is this better than the town doing it? Fire protection services can compete for your business by improving services such as response times, perhaps adding additional services such as inspecting your property annually and servicing your fire extinguishers, and lowering costs through efficient management of their company, not exactly a hallmark of government. What about those who own their home and refuse to purchase fire protection? That's their business. Does not impinge on me.

I've already addressed environmental regulation. If you pollute you are causing harm to others and/or their property. Who better to watch out for this than me? Regulations and court remedies for such an assault are perfectly legitimate roles for government. My liberty stops when it encroaches on yours. Do you believe this principle is upheld under cronyism? Because that's what big governments seem to devolve into, as you have witnessed yourself.

Even I can't get my brain around residential roads and sewers, though I've seem the arguments. Seems to me a collective of the whole would be the best solution. And even "extreme" Libertarians are not opposed to collectives if they are freely entered into. In fact it is a central tenet of Libertarian thought. Not sure who would opt out of that or why but I'm not making the argument that all public works are illegitimate roles for government. And it is more than a little disingenuous to refer to such things as your idea of "socialism" in the context of a discussion that started with such things as remedies for wage disparity.

Jackytar

 

[Alceste]

"Extreme" Libertarians (a minority) actually do believe this to be true. Except for the military. Going even more extreme, anarcho-capitalists would even argue for private forces. But seeing as I already allowed for local public works, sensible regulations, even a form of universal healthcare and other social safety nets, you are once again misrepresenting my position.

Can I take this to mean you are retracting your original statement that the free market has a better solution for every problem than socialism? Excuse me while I carve a little notch into my laptop. :beach:

But I'll play along and give the Libertarain viewpoint. As an example of public works, lets use the fire department seeing as you seem to feel this would be the most difficult to defend. Individuals could purchase fire protection from private providers. Now, why would they participate? Aside form it being a rational choice, their mortgage holders would most likely require it. How is this different than the town requiring it? Mortgages are private contracts freely entered into, with the terms agreed in advance. Why is this better than the town doing it? Fire protection services can compete for your business by improving services such as response times, perhaps adding additional services such as inspecting your property annually and servicing your fire extinguishers, and lowering costs through efficient management of their company, not exactly a hallmark of government. What about those who own their home and refuse to purchase fire protection? That's their business. Does not impinge on me.

I mentioned private fire brigades because it's been tried, here in the real world, and the results were exactly as disastrous as you would expect. Picture a city block on fire, with 3 different private firms tripping over one another in an effort not only to save the buildings of their own clients, but also to ensure their competitors' clients' buildings burn to the ground, and you'll have some idea of the effectiveness of a free market fire service. I won't even get into the problem of unscrupulous firefighting companies resorting to arson when business was slow.

It's a good thing socialism stepped in to provide a better solution to the problem of firefighting, wouldn't you say?

And it is more than a little disingenuous to refer to such things as your idea of "socialism" in the context of a discussion that started with such things as remedies for wage disparity.

Jackytar

Actually, I entered into a debate with you because you claimed that the free market has a better solution to every problem than socialism. I couldn't argue that point without making any reference to effective collective (aka socialist) services, now, could I?

Besides, the remedy for wage disparity is a minimum wage that is tied to the actual cost of living and a progressive tax rate. Once you've said that, what else needs saying?

 

[DallasApple]

Im looking in the yellow pages from now on..

(wink)

Love

Dallas

 

[Jackytar]

Can I take this to mean you are retracting your original statement that the free market has a better solution for every problem than socialism? Excuse me while I carve a little notch into my laptop. :beach:

Nope. Collectivism is a feature of free market thought. The difference is when things become coercive. And I'm still waiting for you to falsify my statement. When you do that, I'll notch your laptop.

I mentioned private fire brigades because it's been tried, here in the real world, and the results were exactly as disastrous as you would expect. Picture a city block on fire, with 3 different private firms tripping over one another in an effort not only to save the buildings of their own clients, but also to ensure their competitors' clients' buildings burn to the ground, and you'll have some idea of the effectiveness of a free market fire service. I won't even get into the problem of unscrupulous firefighting companies resorting to arson when business was slow.

Anecdotal! Umm umm... Not falsifiable! Umm umm... Fantasy world! This is criminal behavior, with obviously skewed incentives, if it is indeed real. Sounds like a Charlie Chaplin movie.

Besides, the remedy for wage disparity is a minimum wage that is tied to the actual cost of living and a progressive tax rate. Once you've said that, what else needs saying?

Indeed.

My penchant for hard work necessitates my absence for a couple of days. Y'all be good to each other and don't legislate any new taxes while I'm gone.

Jackytar

 

[Alceste]

Nope. Collectivism is a feature of free market thought. The difference is when things become coercive. And I'm still waiting for you to falsify my statement. When you do that, I'll notch your laptop.

Oh, brother. So when socialism works, it's actually capitalism. Is that your argument now? Really?

Authoritarian tactics are neither capitalist or socialist. Authoritarianism is opposed to Libertarianism. Collectivism is opposed to Individualism. We are not arguing authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, as we are both libertarians. We are arguing collectivism (socialism) vs. individualism (capitalism). If you weren't so blinded by your prejudices about the left, and what it wants, you would have noticed this 10 pages ago.

Right, so which statement was I falsifying again? Was it a rant about pencils or something? A gentle reminder would be helpful.

Anecdotal! Umm umm... Not falsifiable! Umm umm... Fantasy world! This is criminal behavior, with obviously skewed incentives, if it is indeed real. Sounds like a Charlie Chaplin movie.

Touche! However, you can falsify the claim that private fire brigades actively attempted to prevent the competition from putting out fires, or that they did not put out fires in houses that had not ponied up a fee - even when these were adjacent to fully paid up clients. It's a factual claim, so it is falsifiable.

Speaking of which, I remember now, I was supposed to track down the study that you didn't link to, which was referenced in passing in that newspaper article. Okee doke. But it sure would be easier if you'd just make a specific factual claim.

My penchant for hard work necessitates my absence for a couple of days. Y'all be good to each other and don't legislate any new taxes while I'm gone.

Jackytar

Quick, guys, Jacky's not paying attention - let's divvy up his frubals so we won't have to earn them ourselves.

 

[Alceste]

Weak.

Let's try this ---> here

Jackytar

OK, here you go. This is what the free market advocate who wrote your news article says the study says:

a little-noticed study the Labor Department released several months ago found that the benefits of the biggest federal job training program were “small or nonexistent” for laid-off workers.

This is what the study actually says:

More intensive training is associated with greater initial earnings losses but also greater long-run earnings gains. The negative program impacts we observe in quarters immediately following participation turn positive by the second year after participation.

Game, set, match. You'll be coming over to notch my computer when you're finished with your hard working, I presume?

 

[Jackytar]

Okay, one more swipe and then I'm off. Mostly because I thought of something good.

Oh, brother. So when socialism works, it's actually capitalism. Is that your argument now? Really?

Yes, of course. Free market capitalists are making a racket all over the country about the scourge of socialist fire departments! It's just one step away from communism! When are we going to get a leader like Ron Paul who will rid us of this red menace!

Nice try at attempting to re frame the argument from something you can't defend - like job retraining - to something you think you can. You want to call thing's like fire departments socialism. As if this is the actual debate.

Authoritarian tactics are neither capitalist or socialist. Authoritarianism is opposed to Libertarianism. Collectivism is opposed to Individualism. We are not arguing authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, as we are both libertarians. We are arguing collectivism (socialism) vs. individualism (capitalism). If you weren't so blinded by your prejudices about the left, and what it wants, you would have noticed this 10 pages ago. ?

Gobbledegook. You are not a Libertarian. Neither is Glen Beck ,btw.

Touche!

I forgot the best one... Socialist Propaganda!

However, you can falsify the claim that private fire brigades actively attempted to prevent the competition from putting out fires, or that they did not put out fires in houses that had not ponied up a fee - even when these were adjacent to fully paid up clients. It's a factual claim, so it is falsifiable.

You haven't proven it's factual.
Let me ask you... do the McDonald's people in your neck of the woods torch Burger Kings? Are the windshield repair guys spreading rocks on the freeway? (That was the good thing I thought of.)

Speaking of which, I remember now, I was supposed to track down the study that you didn't link to, which was referenced in passing in that newspaper article. Okee doke. But it sure would be easier if you'd just make a specific factual claim.

You're too much! You just made a self-described "falsifiable" and "factual" claim that was inherently absurd with no supporting references. Here's your study link. Took me 15 seconds to find it. You think it's not obvious that you're ducking and weaving?

Quick, guys, Jacky's not paying attention - let's divvy up his frubals so we won't have to earn them ourselves.

<grumble>

Jackytar

 

[Jackytar]

OK, here you go. This is what the free market advocate who wrote your news article says the study says:

This is what the study actually says:



Game, set, match. You'll be coming over to notch my computer when you're finished with your hard working, I presume?

Yes, sure, the study directly contradicts itself, something the reporters at the NYT failed to notice. Why do I have the feeling you have taken this out of context? I'll deal with you later, pardner.

Jackytar

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi mball,

Maybe you could point out some relevant parts, since I don't have time to read an entire book or even a small part of one.

Just take a look at the table of contents. I believe pages 7 and 8 (or somewhere around there) talk about minimum wage and the effects on youth and minorities.

Explain to me how businesses can just get rid of some people when they have the same amount of business. If it takes 10 people to make 10 radios in one day and you fire 5 of them to save money, it'll take you 2 days to make 10 radios. You're then making half the money you were before, whereas if you kept those 5 people, you'd be making the same money you were before, but paying out, say, 33% more.

Explain to me how it makes sense for that business to fire those 5 people.

Your example has nothing to do with minimum wage because I am almost certain that a worker with the skills to assemble radios would not be making minimum wage.

Not to disparage your example but I believe I could come up with one more germane to the minimum wage. First, minimum wage workers are low-skilled workers. That is the very reason they don't get paid that much, their skills are limited and therefore they have very little bargaining power in selling their labor.

A better example of a minimum wage job would be a cleaning job (I've worked a couple minimum wage jobs; stocking shelves at a grocery store). What the minimum wage laws do is limit the options for the employer and the potential employee. I hire a person to clean the store or the factory and this person has a limited skill set but does know how to operate some cleaning machinery. I pay this person around the minimum wage. A second person comes along and also has a limited skill set in the cleaning capacity but cannot operate the cleaning machines. I would like to hire this person and pay him a little less than the first worker because he has fewer skills than the first worker. But the minimum wage law limits my options so I pay the second worker the real minimum wage: zero, I don't hire him. All this is because the government limits the options for me.

How does this help anybody? And as Walter E. Williams points out in clear empirical terms, the very people that are supposed to be helped are left without a job because the wage law prices low wage workers out of the market.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mr. Sprinkles,

Well sure, that's another thing we can look at, but originally I don't remember you making this caveat, that we are only interested in unemployment for people at that wage.

I don't know what else we can look at. When an engineer gets fired or hired, this has no bearing on the question of whether minimum wage laws create more unemployment. So, including the engineer in the collection of evidence would be a mistake.

So what? Clearly, any job loss at the min. wage level was made up for by job increases at higher wage levels. Otherwise the overall unemployment rate would have gown down over the past 60 years, as min. wage was increased over and over again. But that's not what the data shows.

The data does not indicate that. The link I posted clearly shows the rise in unemployment among the very people who would be working earning wages just below the mandated wage. That is why we need to look at the people who have the skills that put them at around the minimum wage. This is a very small group and in many ways distinct from the rest of the labor community. For example, look at the unemployment rate among African-Americans in Milwaukee, WI (or some other city) and it most likely will be well above the national average. In this group are a lot of people with very little education and thus very limited skills. These are the people who are priced out of the job market by a government mandated wage.