Via Religious Left Online, I ran into Dignan’s post on “The Politics of Poverty.” Dignan criticizes both the right and left approaches to fighting poverty (although the solution he settles on is fairly right-wing), but in this post I’m gonig to concentrate on his critique of income transfer programs (also know as welfare).
1.) Is The Government Inefficient?
Dignan writes:
As it relates to poverty reduction, government fills the role of the middleman. And no middleman in all of history has created more friction and additional cost than the federal government. Non-profit charities are often rated by their ability to direct the highest percentage possible of donated funds to those in need. The higher the administrative costs are, the less money goes to those the charity intends to help.
If the federal government was rated in the same manner, it would fail tremendously. A tremendous portion of money raised (i.e. taxes) for those in need (i.e. welfare recipients) actually goes to pay the salaries of government employees, retirement accounts, an unreal amount of office space, etc. If the US federal government actually were a non-profit charity, it would be on the cover of Time magazine for defrauding its donors.
Dignan should take a look at the federal Earned Income Transfer Credit (EITC), the largest cash grant for poor families in the US. The EITC spends less than 1% of its budget on administrative costs ((Internal Revenue Service, “Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Program Effectiveness and Program Management FY 2002 – FY 2003” (pdf link) )) , a ratio that I doubt any private anti-poverty charity can match. (The EITC is probably even cheaper to run than it appears, since state EITC programs save money by “piggybacking” on the Federal program’s administration; if the impact of state programs could be included, the EITC’s adminstrative costs to benefits paid out ratio might be less than half a percent.)
Of course, the EITC has an exceptionally low administration-to-outlay ratio, but the percent of their budgets most federal income transfer programs spend on administration – 9% to 13% ((Internal Revenue Service, “Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Program Effectiveness and Program Management FY 2002 – FY 2003” (pdf link) )) – is excellent by the standards of nonprofit charities. Here’s the advice Daniel Borochoff (President of the American Institute of Philanthropy) gives people considering giving to private charities:
Ask how much of your donation goes for general administration and fund-raising expenses and how much is left for the program services you want to support. AIP’s Charity Rating Guide recommends that in most cases 60% or more of your charitable donation should go to program services. Less than 40% should be spent on general administration and fund-raising costs.
Dignan’s belief that private charities are far more efficient than government transfer programs has no basis in truth. In terms of bang for the buck, income transfer programs are as good as private charities, and in some cases – such as the EITC – ten or twenty or fifty times better than private charities.
2) Are Income Transfer Programs “Coercion, Not Charity”
Dignan writes:
…Government aid is not charity. It doesn’t even have the ability to be charity.
By its very nature, government is coercive. That it, it has the power of the sword to command people to action. Almost everything the government does comes with the implication that if one goes against the government, they will be forcibly made to do as the government requires. It doesn’t make sense for the Religious Left to speak of helping the poor by the country giving more. It is too easy to be generous with other people’s money.
Dignan’s reasoning is atrocious. Even if the government is coercive, how does it logically follow that “it doesn’t make sense… to speak of helping the poor” through the government spending more on income transfer programs? There’s no logical reason to suppose that coercive money will have less of a poverty-reduction effect than non-coercive money would.
Dignan’s logical incoherance aside, I take issue with his discussion of coercion. Dignan ignores the difference between the coercion of a dictatorship and the so-called “coercion” of a representative democracy. In a dictatorship, it’s true that no one has any choice. But unless Dignan sees no difference between democracy and dictatorship, he must realize that US taxpayers do have a choice – a choice at the voting booth. ((As I’ve argued in the past, there’s more to freedom than the freedom to vote; a free vote is only meaningful in the context of other civil rights, such as free speech, the freedom to walk the streets, and so on. I stand by that, but I’m not going to discuss it in detail in this post because it would be too much of a digression.)) We choose to elect legislators who choose to spend a certain amount on income transfer programs. And in states with ballot measure elections, we can sometimes vote directly for specific taxes and programs. ((Dignan is inconsistent to object to coercion only when the government does it. What about God? Dignan says that Christians are commanded to help the poor. But isn’t a commandment from God – which always carries the implicit threat “do it or you’ll burn in hell” – at least as coercive as anything the IRS has to offer? Plus, I don’t get to vote for a different God if I don’t like this God’s policies, which makes God immeasurably more coercive than government.))
Dignan’s argument, because it dishonestly pretends that electoral choice does not exist, is too inaccurate to have any merit.
3) Is Helping The Poor Really About Helping The Rich Feel Good?
Dignan asks:
But isn’t it fruitless to try to end poverty since Jesus said that we would always have poor among us?
This made me think that there is more to this than is on the surface. Why would Jesus ask people to do something that he knew they would fail at?
Maybe Jesus thinks that it’s self-evidently worthwhile to help those poor people we can help, even if that’s less than 100%. It’s quite possible to answer Dignan’s question while remaining focused on trying to improve the lives of people in need. Unfortunately, Dignan goes in another direction, saying that the purpose of charity is to help the rich feel good:
Ask anyone who has spent time working in a soup kitchen or building a house for the homeless and they will tell you how good it made them feel. I don’t think that we should be motivated by the promise of feeling good about ourselves, but I don’t think there is any denying that great good does come from helping those in need. There also tends to be a relationship between how close we get to those in need and how we feel about our works of charity. Spending time with an inner-city fatherless child can have a tremendous impact upon our lives in addition to the positive impact on the child’s life. However, in those cases where we simply give money to a charity (still a laudable action), the impact upon us and those in need is lessoned.
So how much are we missing when we delegate charity to the government? How easy does it then become to avoid the poor and avoid getting messy with other people’s lives? How easy do it become for the poor to resent those better off in society that they have little interaction with? How easy does it become for some to foment class warfare?
* Dignan says “I don’t think that we should be motivated by the promise of feeling good about ourselves,” but a paragraph later he says “how much are we missing when we delegate charity to the government?” So despite his disclaimer, Dignan uses the supposed lack of benefits to the wealthy as a reason to oppose welfare programs. But that’s nonsense – income transfer programs should be supported based on how much they help the poor, not based on how little they do to help Dignan.
* Dignan’s argument is an obviously false dichotomy. We can support income transfer programs and we can participate in programs that provide direct services or mentoring to poor people. An argument that implies we must choose one or the other is dishonest.
4) What Actually Works
In his post, Dignan fails to ask the most important question: Can income transfer programs actually reduce poverty in the real world?
The answer is, yes they can. Look at this table ((United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), “A League Table of Child Poverty In Rich Nations.” (pdf link.) )) , comparing child poverty rates of various countries, before and after income transfer programs take effect.
If we ignore the effects of income transfer programs, child poverty in the US is comparable to that of many other wealthy nations – and less common than it is in some countries. But because other countries have much more generous income transfer programs, the child poverty problem in the US ends up being worse than the child poverty problem in any other rich country.
Some right-wingers claim that such international comparisons are unfair, because the poor in the US are richer than the poor in other countries. ((It’s also been claimed that such international comparisons are unfair because the US child poverty problem is linked to single parenthood. However, as figure 35 of this web page shows, income transfer programs in other countries are also better at helping single-parent families out of poverty. )) This is not true. When measured by purchasing power, the poor in other wealthy countries are generally better off than the poor in the U.S. According to international poverty scholar Timothy Smeeding ((Smeeding, Timothy, 2004. “Public Policy and Economic Inequality: The United States in Comparative Perspective” (pdf link.) )) :
…The real incomes of Germans at the 10th percentile are on average 2 percentage points higher than the real incomes of Americans at the 10th percentile. Low-income Canadians are even better off, with incomes 6 percentage points higher than low-income Americans. Only in Great Britain (whose GDP per person is less than 70 percent of that in the United States in Table A.1) were the living standards of low-income house holds measurably lower than in the United States (35 vs. 39 percent). Overall, lower-income Americans are no better off and often worse off than the low-income persons in other nations….
These real income measures are admittedly crude. They should be seen as measures of net spendable income rather than of total consumption, which would also include goods and services such as health care, education and child care that are provided at different prices and under different financing schemes in different nations. To the extent that low-income citizens elsewhere need to spend less out of pocket for such goods as these than do low-income Americans, the latter are at an even greater real income disadvantage.
If Dignan is really concerned with the poor, his primary question should stop being “is government in some academic sense coercive?,” or “what good does helping the poor do for non-poor people like me?” His primary question should instead be “what has been proved to work?”
By that standard, income transfer programs are an essential part of any serious poverty-reduction agenda. And that’s the choice – serious poverty reduction versus “free market” solutions that have never worked in the real world – that all voters, Christians and non-Christians, face in the voting booth. At the next election, I hope that Dignan decides to vote for what’s been proved to reduce poverty, rather than voting against helping the poor.
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]
Pingback: Catallarchy
Is he really interpreting “The poor will be poor always” as Jesus’s suggestion to not help the poor?!
As an apostate, I’m not going to interpret the New Testament for other, but I honestly don’t think I’ve ever heard or read someone interpret that statement to suggest one should not help the poor!
No, he’s not interpreting it that way – I’m sorry if I gave that impression. He (she?) clearly, explicitly thinks that Christians still have a duty to help the poor. He just argues that the purpose of this duty is that helping the poor makes rich people feel better.
I do recommend going and reading his entire argument; the bits I quoted here aren’t the whole thing.
The coercive argument is interesting since many government assistance programs need to be applied for. It’s not like we have federal agents out demanding that the poorest must take every cent of assistance they are entitled to.
His (her?) point isn’t that the government coerces impoverished people into accepting assistance; it’s that people are coerced into paying taxes, and those taxes are then used to assist impoverished people.
It IS coercive to “give” through taxes. Just try not paying your taxes next year. The IRS has the power to literally put a gun to your head, take your assets and send you to prison.
It just isn’t charity unless it is voluntary. When was the last time an NGO sent anyone to prison for not donating? I don’t contest the need to give to the poor, just the method.
It IS coercive to “give” through taxes. Just try not paying your taxes next year. The IRS has the power to literally put a gun to your head, take your assets and send you to prison.
Traffic lights are also coercive. After all, the police can put a gun to your head and arrest you if you run enough of them.
Indeed, Josh. All state action is at bottom coercive. That’s why it has to be restrained to its proper sphere: things whose quality is not somehow ruined by being handled coercively.
Indeed, Josh. All state action is at bottom coercive. That’s why it has to be restrained to its proper sphere: things whose quality is not somehow ruined by being handled coercively.
Is charity ruined by being handled coercively? How?
Is charity ruined by being handled coercively? How?
It’s probably not directly ruined for the recipient, who probably has enough to worry about without deeply contemplating the moral order of the universe around him or her. It is indirectly damaged, however; see below.
It’s ruined for the giver, however. If you decide to go to the soup kitchen and help out for the day, that likely has a certain set of beneficial effects on your character; thinking of others, prioritizing community service and helping above self-interest, deferring gratification, and so on.
If I come to your house and tell you that I’m going to beat the shit out of you if you don’t come along, and then hector you into a van and force you to the kitchen, and stand behind with you with a truncheon to hit you when you stop being nice, I’m thinking the moral benefits for you will not materialize. Even if you want to help the soup kitchen and I don’t have to beat you much, you’re likely to feel put upon and infringed in your life path.
In the latter situation, although they aren’t the ones who beat you up, you’re likely to foment some resentment and anger towards the people the soup kitchen helps. It’s unlikely that their next appeal for voluntary help will have as much resonance for you; “oh, those people, the ones who the goons make me work for. Yeah, I’ll be RIGHT OVER.” You, being a higher being of moral exaltation, may resist this human temptation; it is certain, however, that many other people will simply wash their hands of charity altogether (unless further force is used.) So the coercion damages the voluntary impulse for charity, as well, and reduces the love they could otherwise be getting from the coerced.
Robert,
I see your point if you are talking about dictatorial government coercion. If, however, we are talking about a government in which people have a voice, your analogy doesn’t hold. I guess that it would still hold for people who vote against government “charity,” though.
The next question would be, how many of these people who vote against social welfare programs contribute to charity and would they contribute all of their taxes that currently go to social welfare programs to charity? The (limited) reading that I have done on this issue indicates that they would not. If this is true, coercion in the US does not really damage charity. If this is not true, I need to find out about it and reevaluate my position.
Even if you voted for it, it’s coercive. Coercive simply means that force will be used to impose an outcome regardless of the desires of the participants. (Is a mugging 50% less coerced, because one of the two participants desires the outcome?)
I doubt that people would voluntarily give as much as they are forced to give. Of course, in other areas of life, that is not used as a justification for the forceful taking of something which ought to be a gift of the heart.
“Of course, in other areas of life, that is not used as a justification for the forceful taking of something which ought to be a gift of the heart.”
Why ought it?
It’s ruined for the giver, however.
I think I’d rather see poverty dealt with effectivley than have ‘givers’ feel better about themselves for having worked a few hours aat a soup kitchen.
All state action is at bottom coercive. That’s why it has to be restrained to its proper sphere: things whose quality is not somehow ruined by being handled coercively.
To my mind, you’re not a fit enough authority on what is or isn’t ruined by being handled by state corecion. Your way of doing things seems to have more focus on making the ‘givers’ feel better about themselves than actually having an effect.
I doubt that people would voluntarily give as much as they are forced to give. Of course, in other areas of life, that is not used as a justification for the forceful taking of something which ought to be a gift of the heart.
Ought to according to you. Again, you’re not much of a moral authority except when it comes to some sort of Ayn Rand fantasy world.
Robert, let’s imagine two countries, Democracyland and Dictatorshipland. The two countries start out identical in what laws they have (traffic laws, felonies, and so on), and in the means to enforce these laws. The only difference is that Democracyland has free and fair elections, which can be used to elect a new government which can change the laws, and Dictatorshipland does not.
Do you, personally, believe that there is absolutely no difference at all in the level of coercion that each system places on its citizens? Or if you do see a difference in the coerciveness of the two governments, what is that difference?
It is the duty of Christians to help the poor — or the ‘least of my brethren’. I think how people interpret the helping is key to the issue. It’s easy to write a check, give money, or donate used clothing or stuff. It’s not easy to give of one’s time — to volunteer, to get in there and roll the sleeves up and touch the people that no one else will touch. Mother Teresa had a famous line that I keep in mind — ‘Give until it hurts…’
Amp:
There is a difference in the level of oppressionthat each system places on its citizens. There is no difference in the nature of coercion itself. It is far better to be taxed by people whom you voted for and whom you can turn out if you decide you don’t like them, than it is to be taxed by a dictator who will kill you if you cough at an inopportune moment – but you are being taxed either way. The nature of taxation as a process is immutable.
You have to pay either way. Men with guns will come throw you in jail if you don’t pay, either way. It’s better to be thrown into jail in Democracyland (probably) – but you’re in jail, either way.
Would I rather live in Democracyland? Oh my goodness yes. But government is by its nature coercive and based in force (legitimated by tradition and assent) – but force, nonetheless. Even Democracyland government.
Nerdlet:
Why ought it?
Can’t help you if you don’t already know, sorry.
I think I’d rather see poverty dealt with effectivley
Well, good luck with that. Unfortunately poverty has not proven itself susceptible to being “dealt with effectively”. The poor ye have always with you – therefore, be concerned for the poor, but be concerned with how you help them as much as whether you help them. Giving the crackhead in an alley $10 cash is not a kindness. Giving him a welfare program may or may not be; it’s a more complex moral scenario.
If you need to be seen doing good who are you doing it for – yourself or others? I find the idea of charity extremely self-righteous.
A true christian should understand that loving your neighbour as yourself also means seeing to that your neighbour has the same economic opportunities as yourself. For a society that means being socialist – sharing and giving every child the same opportunities.
The US like to pretend that this is what you’re about but the saying that every child can grow up to be president just isn’t true unless society decides to make it so.
What I do for a living is deal with the poor. Specificly, I deal with the “unworthy” poor, the adult homeless population. Many of the people I work with are addicted to alcohol or crack cocaine, both, or a combination of other substances. I work for an agency that receives a chunk of public money, from local, state, and federal levels, as well as significant private contributions. Other agencies in my city are completely private religious organizations.
All of the agencies are sorely needed. My agency, with three case managers, one computer data entry person (part time), one laundry/shower/maintenence position, one referral specialist, and two security guards, serves well over 150 people a day.
Again and again, I find that it’s not primarily the addiction, or the mental illness, or the physical illness, or the combination of individual problems, that is the reason the person is not housed. There are huge issues with transportation with regard to employment — most of the best jobs are in the suburbs, which have little to no bus service. There is very little safe, affordable housing, and the wait for government assisted housing can be as long as three years. When addicts are ready to get clean, quite often the system isn’t ready to help them. Waiting lists for treatment beds can be a month long, and it’s very difficult to sustain motivation for that long, especially for someone with a history of failure. There are very few places for chronically mentally ill people to go to get help, and chronic physical illnesses are almost invariably deadly among the homeless population in a much shorter time than the same disease would kill a housed person. Many of the people on the streets of my city are developmentally disabled, and services have been cut to the “most functional” of that population.
There are a lot of individual bad choices that can lead to homelessness. Certainly that’s true among my clients that are in their 30s and older. Those same choices, made by people with more of a familial or societal cushion, however, are not nearly as catastrophic. And among my youngest clients, in their early twenties, I almost invariably find that they either come from the foster care system (which abandons them at 18 or 21) or they come from a family that has been living in the streets for generations.
As for government “coercion” being either a) inappropriate or b) ineffective in the service of alleviating poverty, I have found, as Amp did, that it’s simply an unexamined myth. Societal is an interdependent unit. Every last one of us has been dependent on others: families, communities, and governmental units, at some point in our lives, and every one of us contributes to the support of others. It’s normal in every lifetime to have periods of independence and periods of dependence. Recognizing this changes the paradigm significantly.
Rather than looking at how effectively services are delivered to the poor, shouldn’t we be looking at whether or not these services actually help people become not poor? I seem to remember friends who are social workers saying that it is very difficult for their clients to get *off* and *stay off* welfare once they are on it, so wouldn’t that mean that income transfer programs are an ineffective and inefficient means of reducing poverty? If these programs actually work, the new clients would go through a series of steps that would allow them to live as functional, independent adults, and they would exit the program, the end. So while we might see a constant number of people on welfare, they wouldn’t be the same people. I don’t think that’s the case in the real world.
As for the coercive part, doesn’t the recipient of the state-sponsored charity in the U.S. have to follow the rules in order to continue receiving the charity (and even sometimes have to follow a completely different set of rules to begin receiving the charity)? That’s a form of force, I would think.
Just my two cents.
Lee, prior to the end of “welfare as we know it”, most recipients received benefits for only about two years. It is indeed important to look at whether services rendered to the poor actually help lift them out of poverty. Unfortunately, the US has taken a mighty punitive tack the last forty years or so.
Contrast the success of Social Security, a program which has tremendously lowered poverty levels among seniors and the disabled, the widowed and orphaned, with, say, most housing programs. There are insufficient units for the number of people who require them, the units themselves are unattractive, isolated, poorly maintained, and stigmatized. Oddly enough, the problem of homelessness can be solved by providing people with homes. It is usually less expenseive to go ahead and put someone in a normal apartment than to put them in “shelters” which are unsafe and temporary. Even though we know what will work, even though we know that getting people into homes will enable them to better hold down jobs, complete their education, reduce their suseptibility to depression, illness, and violence, we don’t do that, because it looks too nice.
It’s interesting that people focus on the idea of charity. Charity, being entirely voluntary, does do some things okay. But if insuring that all humans within a society have certain basic needs met is left up to charity, then, indeed, the poor will be always with us. While some people may derive a warm fuzzy feeling from helping out at a soup kitchen, as a way to reduce poverty it really fails miserably. You know what does work really well? Bring all public schools up to adequate levels. Guarantee that every student who graduates with a certain GPA will receive tuition to state colleges, contingent upon maintaining some GPA while in college.
We know what reduces poverty and we don’t do it. Our very Christian nation prefers to keep charity for the warm fuzzies, rather than actually reduce poverty. I wonder why that is?
Robert, that doesn’t make any sense at all.
If I vote someone into office, and lobby them to have higher taxtes so we can help the poor, how on earth does that involve coercion? In a democracy, it involves what best might be termed “distance” from your OWN CHOICE (elections) and their effect (taxes.)
Your argument seems to suggest that taxtes are coercive even if I want to pay them, and have demonstrated that wish by electing people who imose higher taxes. That is a very strange use of the word “coercive”. Are you seriously suggesting that taxes, unless completely voluntary a la ‘donation boxes’, are always coercive?
Mind you, this is a better argument when applied to the minority in a majority-rule government, But you’re not saying that here.)
I suppose the point is that your wish to pay higher taxes will be imposed (by force if necessary) on people who have the exact opposite wish. How is that not coercive?
I dunno about Robert, but I would say yes, obviously. Probably necessary, but coercive.
Or to try an analogy, if the majority votes that abortion should be made illegal, would it be inaccurate to say that the government coerces women to carry to the term? No, in my opinion.
I simply can’t see the vehement opposition to the FACT that government is coercive. And I’m not even small-government fanatic like Robert.
I thought that Left and Right were both coming to a consensus that the way forward for “welfare” is the “Basic Income Grant.” Every adult gets $10,000 (or whatever the number should be) every year, regardless of need or want or inherent morality, and that clears out welfare and social security and all the other, smaller, income transfer programs. Also good for low administrative costs.
The Left likes it because it’s guaranteed money for the poor, and the Right likes it because it the mirror image of a flat tax, and doesn’t give bad incentives.
Are you seriously suggesting that taxes, unless completely voluntary a la ‘donation boxes’, are always coercive?
Of course – manifestly, obviously, and intrinsically.
Armed people will imprison you or hurt you if you don’t do X. That’s pretty much the definition of coercive. Maybe you’d do X anyway, in which case the coercion is not terribly onerous upon you – but you’re still under coercion; change your mind about the taxes you want to pay, and tell the nice man at the IRS “you know what? turns out this isn’t a good year for the level I suggested – let’s start that next year”.
I understand the confusion engendered by the idea that you can be under coercion to do something that you want to do. Notice, in the case of taxes, that you aren’t volunteering to pay a certain amount, and having the state require everybody else to pay the same amount. You’re having the state requiring everybody, including you, to pay. Think of it this way: if you’re drafted into the Army, is the draft not a draft because you happen to support the war and probably would have joined up anyway?
Wanting the thing the government is forcing you to do makes life easier, but it doesn’t change the nature of force.
Pingback: Asymmetrical Information
The question of whether government is coercive or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government should play a part in poverty reduction, and what kind of part. A certain level of social coercion is necessary for a healthy, happy society or we would be living in an anarchy under jungle law where people would be free to kill, rape, abuse at will.
So, is government coercion (i.e. taxes) a good thing when it comes to poverty reduction? Yes, because it is effective and the good it does (poverty reduction) is far more substantial than the harm (some people losing the ability to use philanthropy as a social bargaining chip). In fact, I would even count that “harm” as a good thing, because people should not be able to use philanthropy in a self-serving way as a social bargaining chip. It is morally reprehensible to use philanthropy this way.
This is at the core of the difference between conservatives and liberals or socialists. Conservatives see things primarily in terms of carrots and sticks, costs and benefits. Other people are objects to be used and exploited for personal benefit. The way to control other people in self-serving ways is by using carrots and sticks. Philanthropy is a tool that can be used as a carrot (or stick, by conditionally denying it). When people stop needing the philanthropy of conservatives, when they can get help without bowing down to them, that really gets their goat. Because, that’s one tool of control that is taken away from the hands of the conservatives.
“Nerdlet:
Why ought it?
Can’t help you if you don’t already know, sorry.”
Robert, stop treating your opinion as a fact that someone just ought to “know”.
Well, there is also the economic harm that is done to the people who have to pay for it (duh!), and the possibility that measures used to reduce poverty (progressive taxation) will de-incentivize productivity.
“Well, there is also the economic harm that is done to the people who have to pay for it (duh!), and the possibility that measures used to reduce poverty (progressive taxation) will de-incentivize productivity. ”
My comment was meant to only address the pros/cons already raised in the thread. There could be a hundred other pros/cons to consider. For example, you raise the question of “economic harm that is done to the people who have to pay for it”. What about the benefits to people who paid for it in terms of living with reduced crime and disease (that tends to go along with reduced poverty)? You mention that measures to reduce poverty will de-incentivize productivity. What about the increased productivity of people who are no longer hungry and homeless?
Extortion. “Give money to the poor or they will commit crimes”, and besides, is it even true, or is the correlation and causation the exact reverse (meaning that people who are likely to ignore social norms and commit crimes end up poor)?
Meeting very basic needs isn’t what I’m opposed to, I support free education, some level of healthcare for all, and basic stuff like food and some form of shelter. I don’t support extensive levels of welfare and equality of outcomes.
But this isn’t what this article was defining as poverty. Poverty is defined as “50 % of median income” thus it is only relative poverty that is discussed. Even with equality of opportunity, there will be differences in income simply because some people are more productive (and lucky) than others.
what in this article was…
I think it’s coercive. I make less than 30k a year, pre-tax, pay $500 per month to support governmental social programs with no input as to where the monies go, and am taxed at a *higher* rate than those folks who make 68k + a year.
Basically the less poor are subsidizing the more poor.
Note, I don’t mind paying taxes towards such programs, but I do think that they are in nature coercive. I don’t “pay” taxes yearly as I am a conscientious objector to war taxes, but I do feel a civic duty to basically let the government suck out $500 dollars per month from my paycheck. And, yes, for whatever reasons, even though my income is low, I’ve owed the federal government taxes most years – in addition to what is taken out bi-weekly.
I would feel that the current practices were less coercive if folks with higher incomes were taxed at the same rate as those with lower incomes.
Amp,
I did go and read Dignan’s article after posting. (I admit to having been anxious to see if your comments were working!)
Using Jesus’s quote to suggest we shouldn’t have government poverty programs because Jesus’s intention is to maintain a pool of poor who are then available for private charity which will make the rich feel good is also very odd!
After all, in the story, a woman (possibly Mary) annoints Jesus with ointment. Some people (possibly Judas) complain that instead of wasting the ointment on Jesus, it should have been sold and the proceeds used the feed the poor. (In John, it is Judas who complains. Judas’s motives aren’t is said to carry the purse for the group and thought to steal from it. Other Gospels don’t specifically say Judas is the complainer nor do they suggest he intended to steal the money afterwards.)
When the “whoever” complains, Jesus does say the poor will always be with us.
But it’s hard to see how this becomes “And so the government shouldn’t help them. Instead, we should leave this to private individuals so they can feel good.”
After all, Jesus doesn’t say “Oh! Yeah! The Romans don’t do squat for the poor. We’re all private individuals. Let’s sell the ointment, help the poor and feel great about ourselves!” Nor is there any suggestion that a government official wants to tax the ointment to help the poor.
As it happens, when Jesus said “Render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers”, he didn’t add “But Ceaser better not start running anti-poverty programs.”
I say this as a person who is dubious about government efficiency in many, many things, including poverty programs. I just can’t see how to read the Gospels to mean, “Jesus counsels against government anti-poverty programs!”
It seems the most you could say something like: “Jesus may be neutral about government taxing the rich to support anti-poverty programs” or “Jesus doesn’t necessarily require Christians to advocate government anti-poverty programs.”
Not that which we give, but what we share–
For the gift without the giver is bare;
Who bestows himself with his alms feeds three–
Himself, his hungering neighbor, and me.
On coercion: many writers (e.g. Robert Nozick) hold a ‘moralized’ view of coercion, that an action isn’t coercive if it’s morally legitimate. For example, it isn’t coercive for the government to keep me from killing you. If you don’t accept the moralized view, then the undeniably just & necessary functions of government do become coercive, & to be opposed to policy just because it’s coercive is to argue that the government shouldn’t protect life & property. In either case, yelling ‘coercion’ is hardly a debate-stopper.
A useful introduction to the literature on coercion:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/
Let’s be pragmatic. Poverty only creates more poverty from one generation to another. Statistically, poor people have more children than wealthy people. Therefore over any generation, poverty has increased. Stereilize the poor. Stop them from reproducing. Problem solved. BTW, I was born poor, still poor, will die poor.
In the latter situation, although they aren’t the ones who beat you up, you’re likely to foment some resentment and anger towards the people the soup kitchen helps. It’s unlikely that their next appeal for voluntary help will have as much resonance for you; “oh, those people, the ones who the goons make me work for. Yeah, I’ll be RIGHT OVER.” You, being a higher being of moral exaltation, may resist this human temptation; it is certain, however, that many other people will simply wash their hands of charity altogether (unless further force is used.) So the coercion damages the voluntary impulse for charity, as well, and reduces the love they could otherwise be getting from the coerced.
Then why aren’t these kinds of programs unheard-of in Democracyville, Robert? Wouldn’t all that seething resentment eventually result in high political penalties for any politician supporting any kind of welfare? Those goons have constituencies, after all.
Then why aren’t these kinds of programs unheard-of in Democracyville, Robert?
Because disincentives work in marginal, not absolute, terms.
Wouldn’t all that seething resentment eventually result in high political penalties for any politician supporting any kind of welfare?
Eventually, and to a degree. It is well-established that this happened in American political circles in the last forty years or so. Have you noticed a lot of winning politicians building campaigns based on higher welfare benefits?
I asked Robert:
Robert responded:
Robert, I don’t feel you answered my question. Obviously, Dictatorshipville is more oppressive. We agree on that.
And obviously, taxation is by definition coercive. My question is, do you think taxation is just as coercive in Democracyville as it is in Dictatorshipville? I’m asking about degrees of coerciveness.
Actually, it’s more likely that the men (and women) with computers will freeze your bank accounts.
Yes, we agree on this. Government is by nature coercive. But do you think that’s an either/or thing – either something is entirely coercive, or it’s not coercive at all? Or do you think there are degrees? And if you think there are degrees, then do you see a difference in degree in the coercion of Democracyville and that of Dictatorshipville?
If you define “effectively” as “there is no longer any poverty at all,” then you’re correct. However, the fact is that some systems are – if you believe in empirical evidence – far more effective at lowering poverty rates than others. Given that fact, why not favor the methods that are most effective at lowering poverty?
It is true that welfare isn’t the total answer, I am not denying that people need food and shelter, rather what I am saying is that a free handout isn’t the answer. See my post in the “Remember Working Women….” blog. I have a teenage girl that is living with me that comes from a family that has been on welfare for many many years, she is one of 5 in her immediate family but also has two older half siblings that weren’t in her household. No I am not a foster parent, she is a friend of my children, and I am a single parent and have been for the last 11 years and have worked to support my children and I only have 3 (I have to pay fo rmy children). And I qualify as the working poor and even qualify for the earned income credit.
I do not expect to ever be rich the only thing I would like to attain is that all my bills are paid and I owe nothing to anyone and the extra $5 in my hand can be spent on me for a change. It will take another 10 + years before that will ever happen (when my youngest finishes college).
I Work for Social Services (sorry not in the capacity that most of you might be thinking, I am the Lan Admin – I make the computers, phones and networks work). I also have a work relief person (someone on assistance that has to work/volunteer to get their benefits they do not get paid), this person is a great worker and has been interviewing for other jobs but to no avail, but before this person started working for me they had no job prospects, poor self esteem, and no current work history. Most people unless totally lazy want to be productive and meet their own needs but there are roadblocks and other issues in the way.
Minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation, and the low-end jobs don’t even pay the rent, and forget it if you have kids, why work for 40 hours aweek at minimum wage only to have most of your paycheck eaten up in daycare costs and rent (you are lucky to have anything left even in a household with 2 working parents and only one child). This is why alot of people on welfare can’t get off, there is no off, they can work 40 hours a week and still require services, there is no self-sufficeintcy to be obtained, no way to feel good about the work done because they can’t make enough to support their family, they still have to go down and put their hand out for assistance, which takes time away from their job, lowers their self esteem, and reduces their income because most do not have any sort of personal time to cover for the time they need to take off for their appts.
Kids just graduating from high school don’t have any options but to either go to a trade school or to college. Most low-end employers do not hire full time so there are no benefits, kids gets sick and can’t work, there is no money to go to the doctor until he hasn’t worked for a couple of weeks when his income level is low enough to qualify for medicaid, in the meantime he isn’t able to pay the rent for next month so he might not even have a place to live. No body can live like that, the uncertainty and the chaos is too great.
I don’t have any solutions to offer, but I do feel that the with more and more regulations and bigger and bigger government, that even the working poor who do not qualify for Public assistance, will eventually be among the numbers on public assistance, which leaves no one to pay the taxes that are needed to fund those who need assistance.
What happens then???
-Trouble
There is no difference in the level of coerciveness. Coercion is coercion.
The differences we observe between states come from the amount of coercion deployed, not the nature of that which is deployed.
As far as poverty goes, I generally favor whatever methods are most effective at lowering poverty; however, lowering poverty is not an absolute value which always trumps other values. An economic system which contains positive incentives for entrepreneurship and work is more desirable than an economic system that devalues those things – even if the latter system is better at mitigating poverty.
There are levels of absolute poverty which are so abject that their existence causes poverty mitigation to become a more important value. We blessedly do not approach those levels of poverty in the west. Our poverty is strictly of the relative type, which is less morally compelling. (If your child cannot eat, this is a moral situation of overwhelming importance; if your child cannot attend Bryn Mawr but can manage state, less so; if your child must choose between a PS2 and an XBox for Christmas, we have dropped beneath the radar level at which I can bring myself to care.)
We are indeed fortunate to have the luxury of considering the value of other goods besides charity.
I notice on the graph above on child poverty that the Scandanavian countries have good results, and Sweden the actual best. This is probably the country with the most generous social welfare system in the world, and along with that the highest taxation. It is also regarded as one of the most egalitarian societies if not the most egalitarian society in the world. Overall the Swedes don’t have a concept of the deserving or the undeserving poor. Everyone has the right to welfare when they’re in need, along with free education and healthcare and other benefits. The country scores well on measures of social health because status – as in feeling that one belongs and is cared about – is apparently more important to peoples well-being than actual wealth. (although I should mention that the overall standard of living is high.) We may say that the high taxation is coercive – not voluntary – but Sweden is a democracy in which the people have voted for the Social Democrats for most of the last eighty years or more. (And critics still insist on calling the Swedish system an ‘experiment’, with the underlying assumption or hope even that it will fail.)
Sweden operates in a world environment that is quite hostile and I have to say I find this almost immoral from countries like Australia even as their governments profess to have goals of eliminating child poverty. Who is really looking at what works? Wealth re-distribution does work in Sweden although global influences are starting to have an impact on the ‘Home of The People’ approach to nationhood that the country is famous, but in my view not nearly famous enough, for. (Big companies putting head offices in foreign countries so they can compete for CEO’s etc where taxes are lower, for one example.)
The working class votes for social democrats out of habit and loyalty, but these days it is worth looking at who votes for the left in Sweden. Curiously, these die-hard Social Democrat supporters are largely unemployed and in the receiving end of large government handouts.
Almost as if Social Democrats were kind of “buying” votes with handouts. Perish the thought.
Looks like market reality is catching up with Sweden. When the companies and investments go, so goes the wealth.
correction: Not Social Democrats, but also Leftists and Greens. The three are quite close allies for all practical purposes.
Your link doesn’t say much except that immigrants vote left. You’re also suggesting that immigrants are unemployed in Sweden something I don’t know. Sweden was third in the world out of 117 nations in global competitiveness in 2005 just behind the US and Finland so it appears that Social Democracy is working well there.
This report is from the 2005 World Economic Forum hardly a progressive organization.
Read the first link in my link, for clarification.
Sweden’s unemployment is a highly contested figure (quite understandable considering the ruling party wants things to look good) From wikipedia article on Sweden:
(my emphasis)
It is also worthwhile to differentiate between the immigrants, as the greatest immigrant group is Finns, who have somewhat low unemployment rate.
As for Muslims, an Islamic site claims that
That would be, let’s see (presuming the official rate is used to compare), 22.4%-56% percent unemployment rate among Muslims.
Some Swedes are quite sceptical of the direction the Sedish welfare state is taking for other reasons too.
(the link also concludes that the true total unemployment rate could be as high as 20-25%)
One reason that global competitiviness in Nordic countries is so high is very high quality education, which means that employers have a very talented workforce to use. Alas, what is forgotten is that quite many Swedes migrate to greener, more business-friendly pastures, taking their knowledge with them.
It is also wothwhile to remember that Sweden has been falling (comparatively) in the highest GDP per capita statistics ever since the 1970s, which is quite odd if it is so competetive.
I didn’t say it was. The measurement devices sounded somewhat vague.
From their FAQ
I suggest that real-life market reality is more important potential.
than potential. I mean, if Swedish companies are outsourcing due to overly restrictive economy, all that potential is lost.
It should be noted that people in extended sick-leave or in early retirement aren’t counted as unemployed in the US, either. (Not unless they’re actively looking for a new job, anyway.)
The working class votes for social democrats out of habit and loyalty, but these days it is worth looking at who votes for the left in Sweden. Curiously, these die-hard Social Democrat supporters are largely unemployed and in the receiving end of large government handouts. Almost as if Social Democrats were kind of “buying” votes with handouts. Perish the thought.
Have you ever wondered why does the progressive left seem to treat Islam with far more nuance than it gives to Christian fundamentalism? It is a constant source of exasperation to me, at least. Wonder no more. I see someone translated an excellent article by Jussi Halla-aho in English, complete with percentages of immigrants and votes to left (from Sweden, which has numerous immigrant ghettoes).
You’ve said the Left in Sweden is largely unemployed and hint it is largely made up of Muslims. Wikipedia says 12% of Sweden are immigrants and 20% either immigrants or children of immigrants from Finland, the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and other Nordic countries, in that order. 4% of Swedes are Muslims with a high unemployment rate according to your link. Another link says the working class, feminists, trendy young people and other socially conscious people also vote Left. If 44-110% of Muslims are unemployed that’s still a maximum 4% of the Left vote. The Leftist coalition received 48.7 per cent of the total vote while the conservative opposition received 46.2 per cent of the vote so it’s an exaggeration to say the 4% unemployed Muslim left vote is to blame for the total 48.7% leftist vote. Even if 11% of all immigrants were unemployed which isn’t likely since Fins have a low unemployment rate it’s still a grand total of 2.2 % out of the 48.7 total left vote. So neither Muslims nor the unemployed is responsible for keeping the Left in power. I’m going to ignore the 20-25% unemployment rate from your conservative, neo-liberal link.
Even if you add the total number of unemployed in Sweden with the total number of Muslims even though these two populations overlap it’s less that one-third the total Left vote.
You have completely misunderstood my points. Let me explain.
Actually, without the link breaking the comment in two parts, the comment I made looks pretty much the opposite of what I meant. Sorry. I suppose you read it as a claim that traditional social democrats are largely unemployed. That isn’t my claim, my claim is that die-hard supporters of leftist in immigrant ghettoes are largely unemployed.
I never claimed that. But like in American politics (Florida 2000, anyone, or Ohio 2004), a small shift in traditional balance of power can disrupt it entirely, as is obviously the case in Sweden. The fact is that Muslim immigrants vote Left, and gee whiz, Left wants more immigration. I think this is rather relevant.
leftists in immigrant ghettoes…
The point being, usually Left/Right split is more or less 50/50. Obviously the Left gets votes even without the symbiosis I mentioned (=buying votes).
It is simply getting enough to tip the balance.
Never on any kind of principle or after any level of thought you think, Tuomas?
There was an excellent article on Sweden written by an American, Daniel Brook, in 2004 and published in Dissent Magazine on the net. It’s gone from there now, unfortunately, but I’d like to quote from my printed copy because he wrote that Sweden performs as well as it does, despite a falling GDP *because* of the social and economic system there.
Brooks acknowledged that Sweden faces challenges but says that if both the American and Swedish systems are viable in a globalised world, the debate becomes about values. The Amercian system over the last thirty years, he writes, has created a situation in which ‘wealth distribution has reverted to Gatsby-era levels’. On the other hand the Swedish system, while it may not be *as* egalitarian as it once was, is still among the most egalitarian in the world. The question is, once wealth has been created, do you let it, and the power that goes with it, accumulate in the hands of the few, or do you re-distribute enough of it that you can have a fair and humane society in which people are valued over money and of which you can feel proud to be a part?
Still, there’s the 2% on government programs.
And of course, sick leave is quite well paid for. Which is good since Swedes are uncommonly sick people, when comparing sick leave days.
I also wonder whether the definition for “early retiree” is rather different. I don’t think it refers to net-millionairies drinking daiquiris, but rather people who are simply so unemployable for social reasons that they have been cleaned up to “retirees” category.
I simply find the 5.6% quite implausible. Finland has stronger (but not very much different) economy, and much higher unemployment.
I disagree with the premise entirely. The Swedish Model isn’t IMHO egalitarian. The high progressive taxation/low property taxation ensures that those who have accumulated wealth stay as the privileged class, whereas people who work hard and are productive aren’t entitled to the fruits of their own labor, and thus do this for non-economic reasons, like national pride. But for how long?*
But, here’s the kicker — if the property tax, on the other hand, was the one that is high, Sweden would have snowballs change in hell in global competition. This is why welfare state works fairly well (at least in certain societies) whereas socialism does not. Is it fair and humane? I beg to differ.
* Anders Chydenius said:
I acknowledge that I have observed the closeness of the split between Left and Right. There was even some talk last year that the Feminist Initiative, the first officially feminist political party to put up candidates for a national election (this month in Sweden), could draw enough votes away from the Social Democrats to allow a victory for the Right. After all the infighting in the FI, and possibly for other reasons too, it’s now apparently unlikely that they’ll get enough percentage votes to get a seat in the Parliament. (Riksdag?) Aside – I got this info from the Swedish Local News in English for anyone interested in following the Swedish election – I can’t remember the website address off-hand, but it comes up in google.
Are you Swedish, Tuomas? I’m a New Zealander living in Australia. I got interested in Sweden when I kept hearing reports on different social issues over the years in which Sweden seemed to be setting the bar.
No, I’m Finnish.
I’m somewhat critical of the welfare state — beleive it or not — because I have observed the tragedy that is high unemployment and low incentives often from quite close. Some say that “McJobs” are degrading, but I simply can’t believe it compares to the intense shame of being one of the practically unemployable poor (low education, no work experience, etc,) on government “help” programs.
Rampant suicide, alcoholism, young people wasting away… It isn’t all utopia in all areas.
Perhaps I should clarify that I’ve lived in, and near some low socio-economic, high unemployment areas, and it’s just tragic.
Egalitarianism is surely a measurable thing – at least for comparative purposes. The consensus is that Sweden is a comparatively highly egalitarian society, regardless of whatever inequities might still exist. How long will people say, put national pride before an individual accumulation of wealth? (if that’s what enough people are doing), I don’t know. For as long as they can ask themselves the ‘Wall Street’ movie question -“how many boats can you waterski behind?” perhaps. If you idolise wealth you create poverty, someone famous once said. (paraphrased). As I said, and you might be saying too (when you ask ‘how long?’), it’s a question of values.
Fair enough. I won’t presume to know what I don’t know about the whole overall situation, or suggest that things are perfect. I do maintain though that there is a debate to be had about values, social benefits vs costs etc. and about what the goals of the people and governments actually are, rather than what is paid lip service to.
Well, I’d say if you idolize equality (of outcome) you create poverty too. The only difference is that everyone will (presumably) be equally poor.
It is entirely possible to hold a non-miser value set while opposing strongly coercive welfare state.
I agree, but then, I’m not a politician ;).
Lip service is their forte.
I don’t think equality of outcome is the goal so much though as equality of opportunity and equality of safety, care and dignity. Some people will always achieve more than others even on an even social playing field to begin with. This could be due to family influence (encouraging a sense of direction, purpose and commitment), personal talent, luck (right place, right time), whatever. There should be room for tangible reward for hard work and achievemnent but not without some sense of proportion I guess is what I’m saying. Don’t reward a few so excessively that it’s at the expense of opportunity, safety, care and dignity for many.
Yes, for individuals. But should the socially disadvantaged have to depend on the generosity of individual or corporate philanthropists for the basic things I mention above? How do you envisage a ‘non-coercive’ welfare state? (This is taking as a given that any democratically elected government has some or much opposition to whatever it does, so coercion is unavoidably ever-present in the society. Oh, that’s all been gone over above… ) Or do you just want to do away with welfare altogether? Would you rather be poor in America or in Sweden?
Me: I think I’d rather see poverty dealt with effectivley
Robert Well, good luck with that. Unfortunately poverty has not proven itself susceptible to being “dealt with effectively”.
Actually, there are countries where poverty is dealt with more effectivley than others. Did you somehow miss that fact?
I care about equality of opportunity, obviously. I don’t seek equality in safety, care and dignity, rather, I care about whether there is decent safety, care and dignity for everyone. Just because my neighbor works his ass off and earns 10 times more than me (hypothetically) doesn’t mean that my dignity suffers due to my relative position to him.
There is no central planner who chooses to reward the few excessively in a free market. I don’t know why have you this idea that society can effectively micromanage the redistribution of resources for equality of all.
I don’t. I said strongly coercive, and IMO Swedish State is much too meddlesome. I don’t see welfare state as an ideal, anyway, but I do support meeting the very basic needs, by government, if necessary.
I think governmental welfare should be somewhat limited, instead of the ever-growing colossus it is Scandinavian states. As for that last question, well, if I were perpetually poor, Sweden, but the changes are that there would be more opportunities for improving my own lot in life in America which is rather important, YMMV.
So I guess that would be America. Besides, my English is far better than my Swedish.
Pardon me for piping in, but as has been pointed out, the chart is relative. In theory, a country where everyone earned the grand total of 10 USD/year, and not any more or less, the “poverty” percentage would be 0%.
You can only guarantee every child the same opportunities if you make every family’s situation equal; everyone has the same amount of money, the same housing, etc. That’s definitely socialism. But it’s soul destroying, because it disconnects the level of attainment from the level of effort. Pretty soon effort drops, and the society stagnates. That’s why socialism doesn’t work.
What I believe that society owes children is that all a certain minimum level of opportunity, and that the basis for that minimum level of opportunity should be based on education. All kids should have access to an education that teaches them how to read and write (i.e., to effectively communicate) and how to do math to at least the level of algebra. They should be taught some basic fundamentals of logic. They should know how the various levels of government work and what the ideals and principles that they were founded on are. They should know the history of their country and the world in general – the bad things should be criticized, but equally the good things should be celebrated and held up as an ideal to follow. They should have some kind of education in basic art and music. They should be educated about how the scientific method works and the scientific principles that the technology that we use every day are based on, including medical technology – and that means they need to know how their bodies work.
Finally, they need to know that they themselves are responsible for taking care of themselves and others; that granting some of the functionality of that to the government does not transfer the responsibility as well. They need to understand that there are consequences to their actions, both good and bad, and that equality of opportunity does not, should not, and cannot mean equality of outcome.
You can give every child a particular level of opportunity without implementing socialism. It can be done under capitalism. But to give every child the same opportunities regardless of their family situation means that you take away from an adult the ability to advance his family by working harder and smarter than others, and that’s one of the main reasons to do just that. Take that away, and you violate those adult’s rights and you kill a society.
And in theory, scales are useless for measuring mass because in deep space very massive objects don’t weigh anything at all!
It’s true that this measure of poverty would not be useful in a society in which everyone had identical, poverty-level incomes. So what? In the real world, that’s simply not a reasonable concern.
Of course it is. It’s a different thing, being not to able to afford food, or being not able to afford a new car. If poverty is defined as someone who has less money than his/her neighbors, it tells little of living standards. May I note again, than Smeeds, who measures living standards, chose to exclude former Eastern Bloc countries, and Russia, all of which chose this
Is it somewhat telling that every First-World country measured has more or less capitalist economy? Non-capitalist economies are simply unable to generate the necessary wealth in the first place.
Regarding the chances for income advancement in the US versus in Sweden, there are literally dozens of studies showing that people seem to work their way out of poverty more often in Sweden than in the US. Quoting economist Tom Hertz:
I’m quoting from Hertz because his paper, while not peer-reviewed, is available for free on the web. However, there are many papers in peer-reviewed econ journals which come to the same conclusion.
Of course. I don’t dispute the fact that there is high mobility within the working class. The two classes which the welfare state effectively isolates are the unworking poor (for whom there just aren’t jobs) and the capital owning class (whose main source of income is isolated from high income taxation).
It is also obvious to me that there isn’t complete equality of opportunity in US or UK, as the education system is worse (I’m sure you are aware of studies that show this), and it isn’t provided (to the upper levels) by the government.
To assume that I was perpetually poor, I would assume that I wouldn’t have as much education as I do, as the two correlate negatively, and effectively be on my own, relying on handouts/McJobs. I presume handouts aren’t good for you in the long term.
I disagree with the equality of outcome uber alles (as measured by income differences) -tone in this article of measuring poverty.
You know, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever used my magic admin powers to post an image in comments. :D
It seems to me perfectly plausible that it’s easier to work your way out of poverty in a country which provides a relatively high “floor” of income. It might be easier to work on learning new skills, or to put together a new business, if you don’t have to burn up all your energy working at McDonalds just to pay the rent.
This is different from what you argued before. Before you argued that the relative poverty standard is bad because it can’t detect poverty in countries in which everyone has the same income. I pointed out that your argument was nonsense, so now you’ve switched to a new argument: relative poverty standards are bad because the poor in country A may be much wealthier than the poor in country B.
However, I already rebutted this argument, in the original post, with the Smeeding quote you refer to.
It’s true that if we compare wealthy countries to poor countries, the “relative poverty” measures are less useful. However, my post does not compare wealthy and poor countries; it compares wealthy countries to other wealthy countries. And the poor in other wealthy countries are about as well off (and often better off) than the poor in the US.
Yes, of course that’s telling.
I don’t favor pure socialism or pure capitalism. I favor a mixed-market system, incorporating some advantages of both a market economy and a socialist state. I’d consider Sweden (and many other countries) to be examples of mixed-market economies, rather than examples of pure capitalism; that’s how I’ve seen them described in comparative economics textbooks.
Yes. If you have work. A big if. No work experience or high education, bit bad social skills? “We’ll call you.” The thing is, the product of the poor (labor) has such high fixed value that employers simply can’t afford to take changes. This hurts the least fortunate most.
It was reductio ad absurdum of the same thing, obviously.
You did. I don’t dispute the fact that the majority of the poor people have worse living standards in US than in Sweden.
I don’t favor the mixed-market socialism as a term, it is considered somewhat outdated.
I suppose I should point out that I’m not arguing for Minarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism, I am arguing for economics that would be somewhere in between of welfare state and liberal economics, and I oppose corporate welfare more strongly than invidual welfare. Somewhere in between of Sweden and US (most wealthy countries fall somewhere here), perhaps, but closer to US. Sweden isn’t a paradise.
Sweden may not be a paradise, Tuomas, but it does perform far better than most other countries, including the US, in terms of taking care of its citizens and creating overall social health, according to all the information I have. Would you dispute this much?
Doris Lessing once wrote somewhere that ‘It is by the failures and misfits of a civilisation that one can best judge its weaknesses.’ If you add to that ‘ economically non-productive persons’, like children, the aged, the sick, the unskilled in a tight labour market, etc, you can get a full picture. In Australia since I’ve been here the sad lament of the state of the health systems in every state is a constant buzzing in our ears. There is more political will to host Olympic or Commonwealth games than there is to address these issues seriously. I keep coming back to ‘intent’. 15 – 20 years ago a Labour (leftish) Prime Minister set a goal that by (some date which has passed) no child would be living in poverty in Australia. According to the chart above 12% still do, compared to 2% in Sweden. (We now have a conservative government which has recently enacted draconian industrial reforms along with punitive social welfare ones.) I guess I’m thinking about peoples actual lives and wondering why there is this obsession with allowing market forces the greater role when there is no country on earth that can demonstrate this translating into better overall outcomes for its economically disadvantaged people than Sweden has achieved with its social welfare system. It seems to actually mean what it says. The goal really is overall social welfare. They may not have created paradise, but why wouldn’t other countries admire and learn from what they *have* achieved, unless overall social welfare isn’t actually the goal?
Bottom line, as per the opening post anyway is that ‘Transfer’, Wealth re-distribution, Social Wefare, whatever you call it, *is* efficient and effective when it’s applied with the appropriate intent, as per Sweden, and now I guess I rest my case.
[Y]ou’ve switched to a new argument: relative poverty standards are bad because the poor in country A may be much wealthier than the poor in country B.
However, I already rebutted this argument in the original post, with the Smeeding quote you refer to.
I have difficulty knowing what to believe about comparing the living standards of the poor in the US and in other nations.
– UNICEF’s “A League Table of Child Poverty In Rich Nations” (2000) reported that the percentage of US kids living below the level of income designated the “poverty line” was 13.9%. This was worse than Luxembourg (1.2%), Norway (3.0%), Denmark (5.1%), Sweden (5.3%), Finland (6.9%), Belgium (7.5%), Canada (9.5%), France (10.7%), the Netherlands (11.1%), or Germany (12.5%), but was better than Australia (16.2%), Ireland (21.4%), the UK (29.1%), Italy (36.1%), Spain (42.8%), the Czech Republic (83.1%), Hungary (90.6%) or Poland (93.1%).
– To the extent that I understand it, Smeeding’s Figure 2 states that in 2000, the median US household had a (per capita?) income of $24,416, and the poorest 10% of Americans lived on less than 39% of that. This was worse than Canada (45%), Belgium (43%), Germany (41%) and the Netherlands (41%), but was better than Sweden (38%), Finland (38%) and the UK (35%).
And whatever deficits the US has regarding the poorest 10%, Smeeding acknowledges that median US households have more real income than median households in other industrialized nations. In other words, Americans at the 10th percentile have lower real income than Canadians at the 10th percentile, but allegedly Americans at the 50th percentile have higher real incomes than Canadians at the 50th percentile. Where is the cross-over point? For example, if data shows that Americans at the 20th percentile and above have higher real incomes than do citizens or households at the 20% percentile in the other industrialized nations, would this data support the general conclusion that the poor are worse off in the US than in other industrialized nations?
Some of the differences in the data may not be statistically significant, so I won’t draw any big conclusions based on the rankings. To the contrary, I can’t see how this data supports any big conclusions at all. At most, I’d conclude that the US is kinda middle of the pack but shows room for improvement.