3 ms·

While it's true that, a priori, there's no reason that ethnic homogeneity should be a prerequisite for a welfare state, this idea is misleading because it suppo

by fdsaaf 10y ago

While it's true that, a priori, there's no reason that ethnic homogeneity should be a prerequisite for a welfare state, this idea is misleading because it supposes that all ethnic groups contribute to the welfare state equally. I know that it's modern dogma that all groups are equal in all respects, but hear me out: what if they're not? What if, for whatever reason, ethnic group A subsidizes B's existence? This difference will damage the social cohesion necessary for a welfare state to exist. In the real world, we observe huge group differences in productivity, educational attainment, conscientiousness, fecundity, and other characteristics, and in the real world, we see that mixing groups does indeed damage social cohesion. I understand that this observation is unpopular --- but this unpopularity doesn't make it wrong. I don't think it's politically possible to create a strong welfare state in a country populated by identifiable groups with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good. Others have commented that it's the size of the country that makes welfare impossible --- that it just doesn't work over a certain size. As a practical theory, I think that's true, but I don't think size itself is the root cause. I think that as a country's population increases, the visibility of low-contributing groups increases, and it's this visibility that reduces the will to create a global welfare state.

troels 10y ago
I think this is quite right. But this is even true if the racism is unfounded. The mere illusion that some ethnic groups are low-contributing will weaken the cohesion of society. So in this backwards way, racism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  The way out of this trap is to emphasize the shared identity of people in the country instead of encouraging them to think of themselves as members of distinct ethnic groups within that country. It's for that reason that the identity politics of today's social justice advocates infuriates me. These activists can't see that their divisiveness is actually bringing them further from their goals.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    It's too bad that you can't voice the opinion that unity is a good thing without getting downvoted or criticized.
  - Melchizedek 10y ago
    An even simpler way would be to not let countries become multi-ethnic.
pg314 10y ago
> I don't think it's politically possible to create a strong welfare state in a country populated by identifiable groups with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good. That is wrong. In Belgium you have a strong welfare state, identifiable groups (Flemish people speaking dutch, Walloon people speaking French), with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good (GDP per capita in 2006 of 27,900 EUR and unemployment < 4.55% (2012) in Flanders vs 20,100 EUR and 10.12% in Wallonia [1]). Of course there is perpetual political bickering and stereotypes, but so far they manage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Belgium
fuyugare 10y ago
> What if, for whatever reason, ethnic group A subsidizes B's existence? If we were to divide up the country into the subsidizers and the subsidized (whatever that means), why must we pick ethnicity as the dividing feature? Or, to put the question differently, if America were ethnically homogeneous, would it follow that there wouldn't be a taker/maker split to "damage social cohesion"? To give an example of a different dividing criterion, how about the disparity between federal tax revenue and federal spending per state? Taxpayers in "red" states get a 4.0 percentage point better return on investment in federal taxes than "blue" states [0]. If one were to accept your claim that "identifiable groups with different socioeconomic contributions" (a condition states surely satisfy!) make welfare impossible, one would have to conclude that the American welfare state is broken because it has states! [0] https://wallethub.com/edu/state-taxpayer-roi-report/3283/ https://wallethub.com/edu/state-taxpayer-roi-report/3283/
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  > why must we pick ethnicity as the dividing feature? Human behavior is largely heritable. Ethnic groups represent groupings of heredity. (Look: I know the first sentence is one of those things you just can't say. Nobody wants to admit to believing it. But it's true. Instead of raking me over the coals for saying something that is true and unpleasant, how about we find a way of grappling in a fair, humane way with reality?)
  - fuyugare 10y ago
    > I know the first sentence is one of those things you just can't say Evidently you can, as you've said it here. You alt-righty folk seem to mistake "something you just can't say" for "something you just can't _defend_". But yes, let us try to find a "humane" way to make America an ethnically homogeneous country. A kind of cleansing, shall we say? Once everyone has the same ethnicity, they will all behave the same. Science vult!
    - fdsaaf 10y ago
      We can't make America a homogeneous country. What we can do is stop demonizing successful groups and blaming them for social disparities. You're not going to make any progress so long as your discussion is limited to blaming white men for everything.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>What if, for whatever reason, ethnic group A subsidizes B's existence? This difference will damage the social cohesion necessary for a welfare state to exist. In the real world, we observe huge group differences in productivity, educational attainment, conscientiousness, fecundity, and other characteristics, and in the real world, we see that mixing groups does indeed damage social cohesion. I understand that this observation is unpopular --- but this unpopularity doesn't make it wrong. If wishes were fishes, I'd order a plate of chips. You're proposing we ask a "what if" question without tying it to reality.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Eupolemos 10y ago
> I don't think it's politically possible to create a strong welfare state in a country populated by identifiable groups with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good. Maybe I misunderstand you, but strong welfare states exist, and they have always had groups with different socioeconomic contributions. Denmark has always been a nation with strong cultural differences to the point where people simply cannot understand each other's dialects, there were poor areas, rich areas and so on and so forth. What am I missing here?

by fdsaaf 10y ago

troels 10y ago

I think this is quite right. But this is even true if the racism is unfounded. The mere illusion that some ethnic groups are low-contributing will weaken the cohesion of society. So in this backwards way, racism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

fdsaaf 10y ago
The way out of this trap is to emphasize the shared identity of people in the country instead of encouraging them to think of themselves as members of distinct ethnic groups within that country. It's for that reason that the identity politics of today's social justice advocates infuriates me. These activists can't see that their divisiveness is actually bringing them further from their goals.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's too bad that you can't voice the opinion that unity is a good thing without getting downvoted or criticized.
- Melchizedek 10y ago
  An even simpler way would be to not let countries become multi-ethnic.

pg314 10y ago

> I don't think it's politically possible to create a strong welfare state in a country populated by identifiable groups with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good. That is wrong. In Belgium you have a strong welfare state, identifiable groups (Flemish people speaking dutch, Walloon people speaking French), with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good (GDP per capita in 2006 of 27,900 EUR and unemployment < 4.55% (2012) in Flanders vs 20,100 EUR and 10.12% in Wallonia [1]). Of course there is perpetual political bickering and stereotypes, but so far they manage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Belgium

fuyugare 10y ago

> What if, for whatever reason, ethnic group A subsidizes B's existence? If we were to divide up the country into the subsidizers and the subsidized (whatever that means), why must we pick ethnicity as the dividing feature? Or, to put the question differently, if America were ethnically homogeneous, would it follow that there wouldn't be a taker/maker split to "damage social cohesion"? To give an example of a different dividing criterion, how about the disparity between federal tax revenue and federal spending per state? Taxpayers in "red" states get a 4.0 percentage point better return on investment in federal taxes than "blue" states [0]. If one were to accept your claim that "identifiable groups with different socioeconomic contributions" (a condition states surely satisfy!) make welfare impossible, one would have to conclude that the American welfare state is broken because it has states! [0] https://wallethub.com/edu/state-taxpayer-roi-report/3283/ https://wallethub.com/edu/state-taxpayer-roi-report/3283/

fdsaaf 10y ago
> why must we pick ethnicity as the dividing feature? Human behavior is largely heritable. Ethnic groups represent groupings of heredity. (Look: I know the first sentence is one of those things you just can't say. Nobody wants to admit to believing it. But it's true. Instead of raking me over the coals for saying something that is true and unpleasant, how about we find a way of grappling in a fair, humane way with reality?)
- fuyugare 10y ago
  > I know the first sentence is one of those things you just can't say Evidently you can, as you've said it here. You alt-righty folk seem to mistake "something you just can't say" for "something you just can't _defend_". But yes, let us try to find a "humane" way to make America an ethnically homogeneous country. A kind of cleansing, shall we say? Once everyone has the same ethnicity, they will all behave the same. Science vult!
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    We can't make America a homogeneous country. What we can do is stop demonizing successful groups and blaming them for social disparities. You're not going to make any progress so long as your discussion is limited to blaming white men for everything.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>What if, for whatever reason, ethnic group A subsidizes B's existence? This difference will damage the social cohesion necessary for a welfare state to exist. In the real world, we observe huge group differences in productivity, educational attainment, conscientiousness, fecundity, and other characteristics, and in the real world, we see that mixing groups does indeed damage social cohesion. I understand that this observation is unpopular --- but this unpopularity doesn't make it wrong. If wishes were fishes, I'd order a plate of chips. You're proposing we ask a "what if" question without tying it to reality.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Eupolemos 10y ago

> I don't think it's politically possible to create a strong welfare state in a country populated by identifiable groups with differing socioeconomic contributions to the common good. Maybe I misunderstand you, but strong welfare states exist, and they have always had groups with different socioeconomic contributions. Denmark has always been a nation with strong cultural differences to the point where people simply cannot understand each other's dialects, there were poor areas, rich areas and so on and so forth. What am I missing here?