Me: Who assumes this?
D.G.: Thoughtless people. Sadly there are a lot of them out there (of all political persuasions, of course).
I am actually curious what a thoughtful opponent of redistribution like yourself thinks about the distributional consequences of the service industry. I can imagine a few perspectives:
1. These jobs should be filled by young people getting work experience; they shouldn't be long-term careers. I like this one in theory, but it begs the question of how to manage the economy in such a way that there are enough suitable "career" jobs for everyone who works hard and is educated. IMHO automation and off-shoring will make this very hard.
2. The jobs that aren't truly necessary (e.g. we don't actually need cheap pizza) will go away. The jobs that are truly necessary (e.g. distributing physical goods) will wind up paying more if that's the only way to get workers. This answer works great as long as there's sufficient competitive demand for labor (see #1).
3. These jobs should be filled by immigrants. IMHO, this is probably the best solution. Obviously it's not permanent, but IMHO if we reach the point where we run out of people who are desperate to immigrate to the US, that means that the world has gotten so much better that I will jump for joy and not worry about what comes after that.
M.W.: Unfortunately I don't think any of those three alternatives are viable, Dan. They all run smack into the problem you identify in #1: "not enough suitable 'career' jobs due to automation and off-shoring."
I don't think capitalism contains a solution for this problem, and yet I don't see the "bread and circuses" approach as viable either. The only solution I can imagine is social: building an ethic of cooperation which values work but doesn't necessarily require compensation to be equal to production. There is absolutely enough productive capacity to make all human beings quite wealthy, but only if the top producers are open-handed in their generosity. The early Church "had all things common," and while I think property rights are important for pragmatic reasons, I think a Zion society (sorry for the religious terminology but I don't know how else to describe it) also requires that people not be particularly ATTACHED to their property--if it is clear that someone else needs a vehicle more than you need a second car, you give it to him freely.
Thus, the only conceivable solution I see lies within the principles of the gospel of Christ. Any solution which isn't built on voluntary cooperation and a spirit of true charity will ultimately break down.
D.G.: That's really interesting, Max! In some sense I agree; while I think the solution should be formalized through government rather than being totally voluntary, I do think that in practice it's dependent on a philosophical consensus across all levels of society. Just like democracy is only sustainable if the leaders actually believe in it.
M.W.: Why would it have to be formalized through government? If you really do have a philosophical consensus, it seems that any coordination mechanism would work--government has no advantage over the Kiwanis Club in that scenario. I'm interested in why you think otherwise.
That being said, I think coordinating information is a perfectly legitimate function of government.
D.G.: Two reasons:
1. Government is good at solving collective action problems. Even if there's a general consensus, it's far too tempting for individuals to try to free-ride.
2. Having a broad consensus that resources should be redistributed leaves a ton of open questions--how much? from whom? to whom?. The democratic process is the right way to answer those questions.
T.H.: I am a fan of a floating income tax rate for corporations and the top 1%. Tie it to the unemployment rate and the average income for the bottom 50% of households. No improvement = 90% tax rate for the ultra rich.
T.L.: I think a missing link in this is capitalism itself. As we've seen by shrinking wages and lowered incomes, there is very little capital floating around for the entrepreneurial minded. Per the SBA, small businesses make up 99.7% of U.S. employer firms and 49.2% of private sector employment. If we give more capital for expansion, or start-up capital for new businesses, we can provide more employment opportunities. I know a lot of people with good ideas, especially in niche or emerging markets, who can't access the capital to realize their ideas.
M.W.: Dan, I'm afraid I can't agree as much as I would like. If my friend has a need that I can help fulfill, the democratic process is not in the same position to meet that need that I am in. Furthermore, if by 'free riders' you mean 'those who have refusing to use their means for the benefit of others, on a wide scale' I'm afraid you don't have a consensus in the first place. Forcibly taking from some in order to give to others is the 'bread and circuses' model, and for a variety of reasons I don't think it's sustainable, not least because it fails to build feelings of friendship between the giver and receiver.
You're welcome to try it anyway but I will vote against it.
M.W.: Thomas, the ultra-rich don't care about the marginal tax rate. They only care about the capital gains rate.
T.H.: In my tax plan this rate would take over for ALL income above $1 mil per year. I think it is stupid to have a lower capitol gains rate for high earners. The rich are going to invest in stocks either way - and even if they don't its not a terrible loss.
M.W.: This is a bit of a tangent, but I would advocate eliminating all corporate taxes and the capital gains preference too--just tax everything as ordinary income. Today we tax some income twice and other income hardly at all--it's a mess.
Me: "...but it begs the question of how to manage the economy..." No, it doesn't. The economy doesn't need managing. It only needs government to punish lawbreakers. The rest works itself out.
D.G.: "The rest works itself out."
Can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you think that without government intervention, everyone who worked hard and got an education would find a job concomitant with their qualifications? Or do you think that's unnecessary, and that it's okay for people who are qualified for higher-paid jobs to get stuck doing low-paid manual labor due to the state of the economy?
Me: No one is entitled to a job, let alone a job in their field or a job that pays them what they expect.
The relationship between an employer and an employee is consensual. There is a job if there is work to do. That's why employers hire.
D.G.: "The relationship between an employer and an employee is consensual. There is a job if there is work to do. That's why employers hire."
Agree. That's why I would much rather see a guaranteed basic income instead of a minimum wage.
However, I would genuinely like to understand your views, so let me ask my question a different way. If a hard-working person who got as much education as was available to them (in the US under current law, that typically means college), but could only find a low-paying service or manual labor job, would you say that outcome is:
a) Deserved, because no one is entitled to anything other than their market value;
b) Undeserved, because the individual's efforts deserve better, but still fair, because the outcome was established by a fair, neutral market; or
c) Undeserved and unfair?
"IF you dig up some examples, can I simply dismiss them as not good enough or numerous enough?"
"If you've got minimum skills, minimum education, show minimum motivation, and provide a minimum contribution to the workplace, why the hell should someone be forced to pay you more?" http://bit.ly/1drRUDR
"The unskilled dumbasses that are striking try to join a workforce mafia."
"These are little to no skill jobs that require minimal education and training. Unfortunately there are millions of dumbass people that fit that mold, lol."
"if you cant keep a simple order right at min wage, what makes you think you deserve more????"
"In most cases these burger flippers won't even come to work. They quit without notice and bring nothing to the table. They are minimum wage employees for a reason."
"If they're too stupid or unskilled to obtain a better job then they don't really deserve more, because any idiot can flip a burger."
https://www.facebook.com/TheComical.../posts/356634097803108:
And yes, I know you can find plenty of internet idiots on the other side as well. Like I said above... thoughtless people.
M.D.: I would much rather see you adopt one of these people in poverty. Take him into your home, or at least your life on a regular basis, and treat him as a social equal who is temporarily in need. Some people don't even know how to write a resume, others have chicken-and-egg transportation problems. Others really do have no interest in or aptitude for holding a job, but at least you'll be there as a friend.
Once you are doing that, you have at least a shred of moral standing to talk about forcing everyone else to help the poor. Otherwise not so much.
Me: Exactly, Mr. Wilson. There are elements in our society who seem perfectly happy forcing other people to do things they consider compassionate, but would never consider opening their own homes or checkbooks.
Several years ago we took in a family of 5, and the 6th was born right in our house. At the same time we took in a troubled young married couple, so we had a total of 11 people living in our house. What was astonishing is that we had no financial difficulty in caring for all those people, even though I had just started a new job at much lower pay.
It's not easy to make a personal investment in people. Too many of us would simply rather have government take care of it, whether by welfare, minimum wage, rent control, or food stamps. None of these things have ever solved the problem for which they were created, because they all eliminate the crucial element: Personal human compassion.
Me: Dan, my answer is none of the above. The outcome is neither deserved or undeserved.
D.G.: So you think that the concept of desert is irrelevant to economic outcomes, is that what you're saying? What about fair or unfair?
Me: No, I did not reply that way. I replied "...can I assume no one does?"
Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Generally speaking, the obsession with fairness is a childish way of thinking. It is children who continually carp about fairness, and it is adults who tell them that life isn't fair.
D.G.: M.W., I have given substantial help to a number of friends in need; and I agree, some of them were in a cycle that is not easy to break out of (in particular, if you grew up poor, you likely know a lot of people who need help, and it can be very draining if you start helping them as soon as you have a little surplus).
(I also donate substantially to charity, but of course that doesn't have the personal touch.)
The fact is, a co-ordinated, national effort can achieve great things that I cannot as an individual. And critically, I view this as a matter of rights and justice rather than charity. Personally, I try to practice what I preach; but even the thief is right when he says that stealing is wrong.
D.G.: Rich, you asked if no one does, and I answered.Of course life isn't fair. That doesn't mean we just give up on justice. If you prefer, let's use the word just. Do you believe that the outcomes of capitalism are just? Or that they are unjust, but necessary because capitalism is necessary?
Me: You apparently misunderstood my claim. No matter.
Just is not synonymous with fair.
The outcomes of capitalism are what they are. Capitalism is simply voluntary association with a legal purpose in order to engage in a mutual exchange of things of value. Justice or fairness is not relevant.
When capitalism is violated (coercion, cheating, stealing, etc.), then government is required to prosecute lawbreakers. Generally, violations of capitalism are violations of property rights.
Compassion is an obligation of individuals, not government, when some of the outcomes of life are not good. A government program is not compassion, not effective, and not desired. Only people can be compassionate.
Compassionate people can and do band together to effect change. These are called charities, and they are also voluntary associations where participation is not coerced.
Notice that government is the only party that coerces participation. This is why government programs by definition are not compassionate.
M.W.: I'm with Rich on this. I don't know what deserved/undeserved even means in this context; trying to apply the terms of merit to a situation feels inappropriate. If it's 'deserved' does that mean I'm supposed to take satisfaction in the outcome? If it's 'undeserved' am I supposed to be outraged?
Government is good at solving collective action problems, but compassion isn't a collective action problem. There's no Nash equilibrium there that precludes reaching a Pareto optimum. If Bob helps Tom fix his car so he can get a job while Harry sits around, neither Bob nor Tom is worse off than if Harry had been helping Frank. Ergo, no collective action problem.
It has been my experience that individuals in need usually (but not always) need things that are more efficiently provided directly instead of by giving cash. (E.g. Rich probably could not have afforded to pay rent for three homes--but he could afford to let them move in with him.) Now maybe my experience will turn out to have misled me--maybe your experience with friends in poverty says they need cash most--but because federal programs are ill-equipped to provide anything but a check, I believe that if you turned all neighborliness into a government check instead, poor individuals would be substantially worse off.
Government, especially federal government, is the wrong tool for this problem. (Local government is fine, since it can still build communities--but note that the Issaquah food bank is a private entity! It receives some amount of funding from the state though.)
And incidentally, thanks for whatever you do to help the poor, Dan and others. If there is any solution to poverty it will be through individual compassion, so thanks.
Edit: off-topic, 'even the thief is right when he says stealing is wrong,' I 100% agree. Ad hominem is therefore a frustrating mode of discourse.
Edit 2: 'right now I view this as a matter of rights and justice rather than charity.' That appears to be the fundamental disagreement between us, then. So from your perspective, if Bob helps Tom but Harry doesn't help Frank, Harry is failing to uphold an implicit social contract with Bob about social justice. Is that right?
If so, yeah, I definitely don't see it that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment