4 ms·
Welfare discouraging work has largely been refuted: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html?smid=t
by Futurebot 11y ago
Welfare discouraging work has largely been refuted: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfares-corrupting-influence-on-the-poor.html?smid=tw-share http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/business/the-myth-of-welfa...
Where it does discourage work, the effects are extremely minor. Your contention that their wealth was before the welfare state is completely incorrect and ahistorical. Even the crudest measures show that to be wrong. Examples:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/gdp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/gdp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/gdp
For France, the numbers since 1960 have been fantastic overall. Look through the OECD measures:
https://data.oecd.org/france.htm https://data.oecd.org/france.htm
I'm sorry, but your statements don't hold up to any of the measured data, and this excludes things like perceptions of corruption or gross happiness. No country is perfect, but the ones I listed are doing better than the US on almost every internationally recognized measure.
- patrickaljord 11y agoI know for a fact that here in France we have both substantial unemployment and at the same time many job offers available that people refuse to accept because they can afford to live on welfare instead. By definition, if they could not live on welfare they would accept these job offers. As for these countries building their wealth before the welfare state: - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html - http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0319/034.html http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0319/034.html
- Futurebot 11y agoYour first link is a known biased source. Your second one doesn't undermine the case; it mainly discusses that tweaks are needed, not that the social democratic system doesn't work as you've implied. No one is arguing that the numbers never need to change; the entire discussion about the US is that the numbers need to change (in the other direction.) As far as whether those people would accept the offers, it's possible at the margin, which are the minor effects I've mentioned. The numbers matter, though. France is a particularly bad example to use considering its job performance: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/cheese-eating-job-creators/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/cheese-eating-jo...
- patrickaljord 11y agoSorry but if you are just going to dismiss my sources because they are too biased then there is no point in continuing this conversation. Not to mention the irony of following that with a Krugman article which as biased as can be.
- Futurebot 11y agoThere's little irony. Krugman has publicly changed his opinion on several items over the years, and isn't an advocacy organization or a think tank. Cato's raison d'etre is the promotion of "negative liberty" to the exclusion of virtually everything else. I regularly read Cato, and I even agree with some of their work (things like replacing the welfare state with a GBI, free speech absolutism, etc.), but I still consider them a biased source even if their views sometimes dovetail with my own. It'd be different if you cited credible right-wing (economic) sources, but there are few left since the intellectual foundations of much of what passes for economics on that side of the divide (a chaotic Reagan-Thatcherism, a right-of-center Neoliberalism (older FT/Economist-style), or a wild-eyed goldbuggery) have fallen apart in the modern world. It's not symmetric at this juncture. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/economics-turns-left-after-free-marketeers-retreat-noah-smith http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/economics-t... We can stop the discussion, sure. Let's do that.
- argonaut 11y agoI consider myself center-left and I like Krugman a lot, but you can't deny he's just as biased as Cato/AEI (on the right), and the Brookings Institute (on the left). They are all biased. That being said, they are all reputable enough not to outright lie or distort. At worst they selectively omit, or their opinions/editorializations/analysis are wrong or speculative.
- Futurebot 11y agoNo way. There is absolutely no symmetry in the positions; that's part of the false equivalence narrative. Is Krugman, Baker, DeLong, Thoma perfectly unbiased? Of course not. Do I trust their lack of bias more? I do. If someone were to argue about the less biased nature of Cowen, Hanson, or Murray, or other RW intellectual, we might have a discussion. I don't agree with those people half or more of the time, but I definitely trust them to change their minds and look at the facts, rather than having an a priori position immune to facts. I don't expect the same from Cato, and certainly not from AEI or Heritage (whom I consider far more biased than Cato.)
- argonaut 11y ago> Welfare discouraging work has largely been refuted Did you read your own link? Your own link says: "There is little doubt that welfare can discourage employment, particularly when recipients lose benefits quickly as their earnings from work rise. Still, the effects are muted."