As a US centrist, I care about the social safety net. But I also care about efficiency. I have no love for a janitor making 200k/year. I don't care what the law

As a US centrist, I care about the social safety net. But I also care about efficiency. I have no love for a janitor making 200k/year. I don't care what the laws are, that's a broken system someone has figured out how to game. I think that in the future, decisions about redistributive action will be much more individual and finer-grained. People sometimes forget that nation-states aren't the only way to provide a social safety net, and in fact, they have significant disadvantages, including tons of complex rules and an entrenched bureaucracy that resists change. I would much rather have the social safety net work like American Red Cross (incidentally, to which I'm a donor) than the US federal government. The key is to install the right social norms so that as the power of states fall, people still feel compelled to engage in some level of redistributive personal donation. Fewer McMansions and boats, more volunteering and donation. In sum, just because the power of government and organized labor is declining doesn't mean everyone is going to become a cold-hearted scrooge. I think there's a third way, where we could help a lot more people for a lot less money out of pocket.