6 ms·

I'd say it's large reductions in government programs, from health to education to food and welfare programs for the poor. I don't have data, but it's hard to be

I'd say it's large reductions in government programs, from health to education to food and welfare programs for the poor. I don't have data, but it's hard to believe that such programs have no effect. Also, the U.S. moved on from being an industrial economy decades ago, long before most people realize. In Detroit, for example, auto industry jobs began declining in the 1950s.

rayiner 9y ago
Has there been a net decrease in these programs since 2008? I think the opposite is true.
- existencebox 9y ago
  I was curious, so I tried to answer this question. Problem being, detangling the cause/effect and interactions of e.g. employment with food stamps isn't immediately obvious to me. To give some of the examples I was looking at: Overall, social security and disability spending per capita, and overall enrollment, is up. (at a very high rate since the 90s, comparatively to prior).[0] However, out of pocket costs and private insurance costs have been increasing at even higher rates [1] To look at food stamps, SNAP participation has been going down rather significantly in recent years.[2] It's an open question as to the relative contributions of increased employment rates vs. changes to eligibility (often via republican states imposing work requirements), let alone normalizing this against the various unemployment/"workforce participation" measures to find the "real rate" of unemployed, un-protected individuals, which has certainly not recovered since the recession [3]; implying that the SNAP cuts may not be from the "good signal" (employment is found) precondition. Something that's not well captured in the above (chosen because they were a few "notable social programs" I could think about off the cuff) and someone more informed than I could likely tell me what the core metric for this would be; but there's an worrying pattern I keep hearing about regarding schools pushing for a four day school week. (here's an analysis showing the motivation of cost cutting, and the unfortunately lacking results [4]) If the implied need to cut costs is _that severe_, for whatever reason (my assumption would be a combination of state funding and taxbase) one can reasonably see this as another eroding facet of state/social support, if not necessarily intentionally. All in all; I get the feeling that while local benefit cuts (and more importantly aspects such as increased out of pocket costs for healthcare) are probably not helping, it's only one aggravating facet along the side of a core deeper systemic trend(s). [0] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends... [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-index/articles/2015/05/07/us-news-health-care-index-shows-massive-increase-in-consumer-costs https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-index/articles/2015/... [2] http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-participation-640500 http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-part... [3] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [4] http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/93/69/9369.pdf http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/93/69/9369.pdf
- forapurpose 9y ago
  The GOP has refused to increase spending and has tried to cut it on principle, and in some places has cut it dramatically (e.g., Kansas). Most importantly, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the "Sequester") was designed to set spending so low that both parties would be forced to compromise on regular-order spending bills in order to fund what was important to them (generally seen as defense for the GOP, domestic welfare programs for the Democrats). Instead, GOP spending hawks refused to compromise and spending has been locked at an insanely low level since then. That includes a lack of funding that is crippling even the supposed GOP priority, the military.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    How is the military being crippled? What non-civilian military programs need more funding and why?
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > How is the military being crippled? What non-civilian military programs need more funding and why? Speaking generally: Readiness is very low; large amounts of equipment is out of service do to lack of parts, and training is severely cut back, meaning the personnel are not ready to perform their jobs - a major issue when they may die and national security may be harmed; AFAIK training is what has long given the U.S. military its edge. There are not enough personnel, forcing the current ones to work exceptionally long and hard, which is also affecting morale. One recent example are the collisions of navy ships in the Pacific; basic navigation and seamanship training was cut for the officers, they were constantly deployed and exhausted, and they worked 100+ hour weeks. Here's a recent article I saw from a respected defense publication: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/2018-forecast-can-the-navy-say-no/ https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/2018-forecast-can-the-na... Also, the military cannot afford weapons programs it needs to compete with 'near-peer' threats such as China and Russia. Generals/Admirals and Secretaries of Defense, for multiple administrations, have been warning Congress for years that they are unable to fulfill their missions with current funding. That's all off the top of my head; there certainly are more problems I'm not thinking of. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "non-civilian" programs. If you want to keep up on these issues, I'd try these publications; budget is only one issue they cover, but they cover it well and seriously, without much political spin: https://www.defenseone.com/ https://www.defenseone.com/ https://breakingdefense.com/ https://breakingdefense.com/ https://www.defensenews.com/ https://www.defensenews.com/
rsync 9y ago
"I'd say it's large reductions in government programs, from health to education to food and welfare programs for the poor. I don't have data, but it's hard to believe that such programs have no effect." I disagree. I think the population we are discussing has not historically been heavy users of social benefits (although more than they usually know) and it is the change in status to being a potential user of such benefits that causes their desperation. As someone who grew up in an impoverished, semi-rural community, it is my observation that everyone had a life narrative that explained how they "weren't just poor people". It's a big, big blow when it becomes impossible to maintain that narrative.

rayiner 9y ago

Has there been a net decrease in these programs since 2008? I think the opposite is true.

existencebox 9y ago
I was curious, so I tried to answer this question. Problem being, detangling the cause/effect and interactions of e.g. employment with food stamps isn't immediately obvious to me. To give some of the examples I was looking at: Overall, social security and disability spending per capita, and overall enrollment, is up. (at a very high rate since the 90s, comparatively to prior).[0] However, out of pocket costs and private insurance costs have been increasing at even higher rates [1] To look at food stamps, SNAP participation has been going down rather significantly in recent years.[2] It's an open question as to the relative contributions of increased employment rates vs. changes to eligibility (often via republican states imposing work requirements), let alone normalizing this against the various unemployment/"workforce participation" measures to find the "real rate" of unemployed, un-protected individuals, which has certainly not recovered since the recession [3]; implying that the SNAP cuts may not be from the "good signal" (employment is found) precondition. Something that's not well captured in the above (chosen because they were a few "notable social programs" I could think about off the cuff) and someone more informed than I could likely tell me what the core metric for this would be; but there's an worrying pattern I keep hearing about regarding schools pushing for a four day school week. (here's an analysis showing the motivation of cost cutting, and the unfortunately lacking results [4]) If the implied need to cut costs is _that severe_, for whatever reason (my assumption would be a combination of state funding and taxbase) one can reasonably see this as another eroding facet of state/social support, if not necessarily intentionally. All in all; I get the feeling that while local benefit cuts (and more importantly aspects such as increased out of pocket costs for healthcare) are probably not helping, it's only one aggravating facet along the side of a core deeper systemic trend(s). [0] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends... [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-index/articles/2015/05/07/us-news-health-care-index-shows-massive-increase-in-consumer-costs https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-index/articles/2015/... [2] http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-participation-640500 http://www.newsweek.com/people-food-stamps-snap-decline-part... [3] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [4] http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/93/69/9369.pdf http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/93/69/9369.pdf
forapurpose 9y ago
The GOP has refused to increase spending and has tried to cut it on principle, and in some places has cut it dramatically (e.g., Kansas). Most importantly, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the "Sequester") was designed to set spending so low that both parties would be forced to compromise on regular-order spending bills in order to fund what was important to them (generally seen as defense for the GOP, domestic welfare programs for the Democrats). Instead, GOP spending hawks refused to compromise and spending has been locked at an insanely low level since then. That includes a lack of funding that is crippling even the supposed GOP priority, the military.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  How is the military being crippled? What non-civilian military programs need more funding and why?
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > How is the military being crippled? What non-civilian military programs need more funding and why? Speaking generally: Readiness is very low; large amounts of equipment is out of service do to lack of parts, and training is severely cut back, meaning the personnel are not ready to perform their jobs - a major issue when they may die and national security may be harmed; AFAIK training is what has long given the U.S. military its edge. There are not enough personnel, forcing the current ones to work exceptionally long and hard, which is also affecting morale. One recent example are the collisions of navy ships in the Pacific; basic navigation and seamanship training was cut for the officers, they were constantly deployed and exhausted, and they worked 100+ hour weeks. Here's a recent article I saw from a respected defense publication: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/2018-forecast-can-the-navy-say-no/ https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/2018-forecast-can-the-na... Also, the military cannot afford weapons programs it needs to compete with 'near-peer' threats such as China and Russia. Generals/Admirals and Secretaries of Defense, for multiple administrations, have been warning Congress for years that they are unable to fulfill their missions with current funding. That's all off the top of my head; there certainly are more problems I'm not thinking of. Also, I don't understand what you mean by "non-civilian" programs. If you want to keep up on these issues, I'd try these publications; budget is only one issue they cover, but they cover it well and seriously, without much political spin: https://www.defenseone.com/ https://www.defenseone.com/ https://breakingdefense.com/ https://breakingdefense.com/ https://www.defensenews.com/ https://www.defensenews.com/

rsync 9y ago

"I'd say it's large reductions in government programs, from health to education to food and welfare programs for the poor. I don't have data, but it's hard to believe that such programs have no effect." I disagree. I think the population we are discussing has not historically been heavy users of social benefits (although more than they usually know) and it is the change in status to being a potential user of such benefits that causes their desperation. As someone who grew up in an impoverished, semi-rural community, it is my observation that everyone had a life narrative that explained how they "weren't just poor people". It's a big, big blow when it becomes impossible to maintain that narrative.