5 ms·

To phrase child welfare in terms of a capitalist mindset: if you care about expanding your business and keeping labor costs down, you care about the size and qu

To phrase child welfare in terms of a capitalist mindset: if you care about expanding your business and keeping labor costs down, you care about the size and quality of the domestic labor pool, and thus you care about the access to education, the stable living arrangements, and mental welfare of your fellow country people and their families, and thus you support welfare to your poorest country people. To do otherwise, is to not just be heartless, but also foolish. There's nuance to this, like the effects of immigration and outsourcing, but with a high dollar, you need highly skilled labor to create export goods and for national security, and talent doesn't emerge in a vacuum.

29athrowaway 5y ago
Unless your business is extracting something from the ground, like oil, diamonds or gold, without the help of the majority of the population. From "The Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey, an adaptation of "The Dictator's Handbook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  Mining and extraction does seem to have a Baumol effect, and it's a problem for those countries to justify expenses like health, education and housing when easy money is being made.
davmar 5y ago
If the capitalist mindset you described were accurate, then we would have the kind of society you described because we’ve had a very capitalist economy from the start. But that’s not what we see, so unfortunately what you assert cannot be true. However, you’re right that we live in capitalism. And it creates child poverty.
- zaroth 5y ago
  That [some] child poverty exists in a capitalist society does not mean that capitalism creates child poverty.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    You can say the same thing about feudalism and the conditions of those who lived under it.
  - troupe 5y ago
    If we kept the threshold for poverty at the same threshold it was 200 years ago, we'd probably say that capitalism reduces poverty. But as the standard of living moves upward, the threshold for poverty moves up too.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      Poverty (in addition to staggering population increase) is a consequence of mercantilism and civilisation, thus recent technological advances in quality life that reduce poverty are bringing those people back to square one. It's hard to say if those technological advances would not have emerged under alternative economies. Edit: Communist countries did have extensive well-functioning public health care systems (Cuba is an extant example) but that has to be balanced with the central planning in some larger communist states (namely China/Russia) that caused unprecedented famine and misery. Perhaps in an alternate timeline, if communist states weren't living in a world that was economically hostile (sanctions etc.) they might have thrived and focused on quality of life as a technology driver
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > However, you’re right that we live in capitalism. And it creates child poverty You don’t have to create child poverty, as child poverty is the natural state of nature.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    The 'natural state of nature' is pre-civilisation, where the definition of poverty doesn't really make sense. Everything since the dawn of the civilisation is our own artifice, including the economic systems that we have become subservient to.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  I'm couching a problem in a capitalist frame, I made no assertion that we live in a perfectly capitalist economy. The irony is that China understands the economic value of quality of life better than the US, with the latter making a lot of fuss about the primacy of economy in decision making.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    > China understands the economic value of quality of life better than the US I don’t get what you mean, quality of life can be really low in China (eg no indoor heat in southern China in the winter mean the girls selling snacks at the train station are wearing jackets and gloves while still freezing), but people put up with it.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      I might be naive here, but to my understanding the vast majority have access to housing and quality education in comparison to the US?
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Nope, you are being naive. Compulsory education only goes through the 8th grade, so many (40-60%) don’t have a high school education, let alone a quality education (if from the rural area, your school will suck, and the hukou system means you might not be able to get an education at all in the city your family moved to to make money). China doesn’t technically have homeless people since many of the grifters in their cities have land back home (again, because of the hukou system, your home is hard to change). However, they migrate to cities to try and not starve to death, and might wind up sleeping under an underpass (or somewhere the police can’t find them, to avoid getting beaten). A lot of people who are poor but still have money live in basement rooms (no window, would be illegal in the USA, it’s actually illegal in China as well but rule of law is not a Chinese thing), see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_tribe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_tribe. Middle class Chinese do well, but they are just a small part of a country with 1.4 billion people. Not everyone lives like they were from Shanghai.
AmericanChopper 5y ago
I don’t think any sensible capitalist would disagree with this. But the implication that follows, which is “therefor the government should collect more taxes to finance more programs…” is not so obviously a good idea. The government is the least efficient resource allocator ever created. If you ask the government to do something, it will deliver the lowest possible quality outcome, and the highest possible price. Basically your comment basically misses all of the politically controversial aspects of policies like this, in my opinion.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  The failures of private schooling in many places I. The world don't bear this out. In many parts of the world, public education is much more effective per dollar spent than private alternatives. Same with health care. The idea that government is particularly ineffective is not an absolute. We'd do well with dropping it as an assumption and instead question why certain governments fault to produce good outcomes.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > The government is the least efficient resource allocator ever created. Why? And are you sure? Are there any statistics on the matter regarding this particular program?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
gruez 5y ago
I don't doubt that redistributing income to "poorest country people" helps in "expanding your business and keeping labor costs down" in some amount, but is it a net positive? ie. if the government levies a 10% tax to give to the poor, can you expect your revenue to increase by 10% to offset that?
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  In an advanced economy you need skilled workers. Skilled work needs a healthy population, enabled and motivated to learn the skills necessary. The US can try to compete on low-skilled manufacturing jobs, but the high dollar gets in the way of that. Whether there's a net increase in GDP or government revenue, I'm not qualified to even guess, but if I'm running a business and I can benefit from human resources on-site, or need them to have deep cultural knowledge to fulfil my business needs, a local talent pool increases competition, reduces my expenses, and ensures timely and potentially revenue-generating improvements to my enterprise.

29athrowaway 5y ago

Unless your business is extracting something from the ground, like oil, diamonds or gold, without the help of the majority of the population. From "The Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey, an adaptation of "The Dictator's Handbook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

h0l0cube 5y ago
Mining and extraction does seem to have a Baumol effect, and it's a problem for those countries to justify expenses like health, education and housing when easy money is being made.

davmar 5y ago

If the capitalist mindset you described were accurate, then we would have the kind of society you described because we’ve had a very capitalist economy from the start. But that’s not what we see, so unfortunately what you assert cannot be true. However, you’re right that we live in capitalism. And it creates child poverty.

zaroth 5y ago
That [some] child poverty exists in a capitalist society does not mean that capitalism creates child poverty.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  You can say the same thing about feudalism and the conditions of those who lived under it.
- troupe 5y ago
  If we kept the threshold for poverty at the same threshold it was 200 years ago, we'd probably say that capitalism reduces poverty. But as the standard of living moves upward, the threshold for poverty moves up too.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    Poverty (in addition to staggering population increase) is a consequence of mercantilism and civilisation, thus recent technological advances in quality life that reduce poverty are bringing those people back to square one. It's hard to say if those technological advances would not have emerged under alternative economies. Edit: Communist countries did have extensive well-functioning public health care systems (Cuba is an extant example) but that has to be balanced with the central planning in some larger communist states (namely China/Russia) that caused unprecedented famine and misery. Perhaps in an alternate timeline, if communist states weren't living in a world that was economically hostile (sanctions etc.) they might have thrived and focused on quality of life as a technology driver
xyzzyz 5y ago
> However, you’re right that we live in capitalism. And it creates child poverty You don’t have to create child poverty, as child poverty is the natural state of nature.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  The 'natural state of nature' is pre-civilisation, where the definition of poverty doesn't really make sense. Everything since the dawn of the civilisation is our own artifice, including the economic systems that we have become subservient to.
h0l0cube 5y ago
I'm couching a problem in a capitalist frame, I made no assertion that we live in a perfectly capitalist economy. The irony is that China understands the economic value of quality of life better than the US, with the latter making a lot of fuss about the primacy of economy in decision making.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > China understands the economic value of quality of life better than the US I don’t get what you mean, quality of life can be really low in China (eg no indoor heat in southern China in the winter mean the girls selling snacks at the train station are wearing jackets and gloves while still freezing), but people put up with it.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    I might be naive here, but to my understanding the vast majority have access to housing and quality education in comparison to the US?
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Nope, you are being naive. Compulsory education only goes through the 8th grade, so many (40-60%) don’t have a high school education, let alone a quality education (if from the rural area, your school will suck, and the hukou system means you might not be able to get an education at all in the city your family moved to to make money). China doesn’t technically have homeless people since many of the grifters in their cities have land back home (again, because of the hukou system, your home is hard to change). However, they migrate to cities to try and not starve to death, and might wind up sleeping under an underpass (or somewhere the police can’t find them, to avoid getting beaten). A lot of people who are poor but still have money live in basement rooms (no window, would be illegal in the USA, it’s actually illegal in China as well but rule of law is not a Chinese thing), see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_tribe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_tribe. Middle class Chinese do well, but they are just a small part of a country with 1.4 billion people. Not everyone lives like they were from Shanghai.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

I don’t think any sensible capitalist would disagree with this. But the implication that follows, which is “therefor the government should collect more taxes to finance more programs…” is not so obviously a good idea. The government is the least efficient resource allocator ever created. If you ask the government to do something, it will deliver the lowest possible quality outcome, and the highest possible price. Basically your comment basically misses all of the politically controversial aspects of policies like this, in my opinion.

Daishiman 5y ago
The failures of private schooling in many places I. The world don't bear this out. In many parts of the world, public education is much more effective per dollar spent than private alternatives. Same with health care. The idea that government is particularly ineffective is not an absolute. We'd do well with dropping it as an assumption and instead question why certain governments fault to produce good outcomes.
sofixa 5y ago
> The government is the least efficient resource allocator ever created. Why? And are you sure? Are there any statistics on the matter regarding this particular program?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

gruez 5y ago

I don't doubt that redistributing income to "poorest country people" helps in "expanding your business and keeping labor costs down" in some amount, but is it a net positive? ie. if the government levies a 10% tax to give to the poor, can you expect your revenue to increase by 10% to offset that?

h0l0cube 5y ago
In an advanced economy you need skilled workers. Skilled work needs a healthy population, enabled and motivated to learn the skills necessary. The US can try to compete on low-skilled manufacturing jobs, but the high dollar gets in the way of that. Whether there's a net increase in GDP or government revenue, I'm not qualified to even guess, but if I'm running a business and I can benefit from human resources on-site, or need them to have deep cultural knowledge to fulfil my business needs, a local talent pool increases competition, reduces my expenses, and ensures timely and potentially revenue-generating improvements to my enterprise.