Dear Conservative,
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
6 comments:
While I agree with your overall argument that conservative oriented budgets do little to help those in need, I have to disagree with one of your premises: "I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money." I have to say the majority of people would rather stay at home. You're essentially claiming that people would rather work for someone else than purse their own desires.
A better premise would be to argue that there are strong incentives to ultimately find a job and forgo public assistance. Those might include opportunity for increases in pay and/or sociability aspects, among others. The incentives also have to be reinforced with decreasing assistance over time, and mandatory - and hopefully assisted - job searches.
It is naive to think that Joe the Plumber would rather get back to plumbing than sit around getting paid to drink beer and watch TV.
I do believe that most people would rather work than sit at home - that people want to feel useful, productive, and to contribute to society. And they would much rather have a job and the independence that comes with it than be dependent on government assistance.
And I don't think that belief is naive. In fact, I would say that belief is backed up by my own very real experiences in public service as well as the social science literature. If you want just a glimpse of the literature, start with William Julius Wilson's When Work Disappears.
I do regret that so many people assume that most people are by nature lazy and would prefer to be unproductive.
It leads to bad policy because we assume we cannot give people too much help or they'll never gets jobs. And it assumes that poverty is more often caused by too much government support rather than too few jobs.
And maybe worst of all, it assumes that when someone has stopped looking for work, it is because they are lazy and not because of the many other reasons that might cause someone to lose faith and simply give up.
You make a lot of assumptions about my point. Before I correct those assumptions, let me elaborate on your premise. To be more specific, you argued that people would rather work for their pay, than earn the exact same pay without doing that work. If we break this down, we can assume there exists person A who makes X dollars a week at his job. Given your premise, person A will make X dollars a week by doing whatever he wants at home. This means no decrease in pay over time, no limit on pay, and no additional requirements to receive that pay.
In the context of your post, perhaps I should have assumed this premise only applied in a realistic situation; i.e., person A has to be actively looking for jobs, does have a limit on their assistance, and has to meet with someone weekly about their job search. However, rather than your readers assuming these were aspects of your premise, you should have provided a more specific and detailed premise. My argument is not about the nature of out of work individuals, but simply that your premise is flawed.
If you were to tell me that for the same amount of money I get paid right now, I could stay at home all day and do whatever I wanted, I would be ecstatic. Would I spend my time on the couch doing nothing? Perhaps. But the point is that it would be up to me. When I read about software developers who have left their job to develop their own applications and become self-sufficient, I realized how fulfilling it would be to be your own boss. This is the situation that your premise presented. Whether it be Joe the Plumber who likes to watch TV and drink beer, or Megan the carpenter who decides to spend all her time making furniture; if a person has the option to make the same salary at home vs at a job, they will be at home.
I think that your assumptions about my argument - that people are lazy, that people do not look for work out of laziness - may derive from my final comment about Joe the plumber. I should have given more examples to explain my point: ultimately, people would rather be self-sufficient than work for someone else if there is no difference in pay. Your premise should have included the negative aspects of living on government assitance in order to support your overall argument.
I understand your position, and the assumptions behind it, and I still think people would rather work than not. Even if we set aside the hassles of being on public assistance and the inability to see pay increases, I still think people would rather work than not.
I wonder if we can both agree on two things. First, that overall people want to work and feel productive and that is one of the main drivers to seek work.
Second, that some people would rather work for themselves but cannot / are afraid because it might not be profitable.
I am unclear though what the policy implications of this are. The reason I mentioned work in the post is because I wanted to make the point that I think benefits are not a major disincentive to work because, again, people ultimately want to work - want to put their skills to use and be active - but cannot find jobs.
I can't tell if you are saying that because people would rather work for themselves that public assistance is a disincentive to work.
I don't think it is, especially because I can't think of any research or anecdotes that tell me about people that are not looking for work but are perfectly happy at home doing something productive but not profitable.
I think I slowly strayed away from the point of your article and tried to argue about a premise in the wrong context. I 100% agree with you that public assistance, administered correctly, does not deter people from seeking a job.
My original argument was more hypothetical and maybe slightly philosophical. I was stating that if you give someone the same amount of money to do whatever they want - work at home, watch tv, travel the world, build the next facebook - that they would be getting at a given job, there would be no incentive to work at said job. Their salary is the same, if they were to get a pay raise every X months, they get it. Their life is exactly the same, except that no one is requiring them to go to a job. Maybe that's obvious but it was specifically directed at your premise: "I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money."
I do agree that people want to feel productive, but I think that people would rather define their own level of productivity, then let their boss define it for them.
If you want to continue to respond to my ramblings on this post, I am more then happy to continue. Like I said I strayed away from your original post, so this may be better suited to another setting. Perhaps the lunchroom.
I wonder what you mean by "administered correctly"? That might be the only place we disagree. However, we can save that for another time. I think the point you have been making is more interesting at the moment.
I really need to think through whether I agree with your point. I know there are some people that would much rather be their own boss. And of course, some of those people don't do it because of a fear that they won't be able to support themselves fully that way. I know of at least one very brave and confident person that didn't like the stress of being a free-lancer.
Under your argument, if that fear was gone and their income was the same either way, most people would choose to work for themselves.
I must admit that I am being tripped up a bit because of how many different types of jobs exist and trying to imagine how that person's role would be different if they worked for themselves instead.
But even without considering that, there is a cynical side of me that thinks most people aren't that ambitious. Maybe most people like going to work knowing that someone else has the responsibility of deciding what needs to be done.
I used the word cynical because I'm not sure if I am being fair to my fellow man and woman.
I need to think this over some more. While I agree many people would prefer the freedom you describe - and would flourish in such an environment and work even harder than they do as a subordinate - I just don't know if I think most people would prefer it (not to mention flourish).
Post a Comment