6 ms·

Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing

Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system; and c) it builds solidarity and shared values rather than socioeconomic conflict and what I've come to regard as revenge egalitarianism.

arethuza 13y ago
One question I find interesting is to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values. Personally, I'm all for it - but that's a product of my age (40s), location (Scotland) and where I grew up (a small village in the North of Scotland). NB Having a father who served in the RAF during WW2 probably influenced me far more than I realised at the time - my political views around 20th century history are now almost identical to what his used to be.
- king_jester 13y ago
  The better question is why governments spend so much time trying to reenforce social stratification by placing so many qualifications on social programs.
  - toyg 13y ago
    Money. Resources are limited, so it makes sense to prioritise (Whether the resulting accounting efforts end up costing more than it's otherwised saved, it's another matter).
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  > to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values. To the extent that government is the actual exercise of the public's solidarity and shared values, I'm inclined to think it does have a legitimate role to play in giving expression to those values.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I think building solidarity and values is tremendously important, and here's why: what is the government really responsible for? Even as you go down the political spectrum to libertarians (short of anarcho-libertarians), you have consensus that government should at least provide security, from domestic crime and international threats, the enforcement of contracts, etc. Most people would go on to say that it's the government's job to provide at least basic education, utilities and transportation, etc, and do so with low waste and corruption. Fostering a culture of solidarity and shared values goes directly to those basic functions of government. When you look at Scandinavian countries, and wonder how their systems work so well, you have to consider how shared culture and values plays a role in that success. When you wonder why the welfare state works so poorly in the U.S., you can't ignore the impact of the tremendously acrimonious culture we have, steeped in animosity between the races and between different socioeconomic classes. And if you go further down the spectrum of dysfunction, you can't help but notice the stark contrast between the extensive but relatively corruption-free governments of the Scandinavian countries and the very limited but highly corrupt governments of places like India or Bangladesh. I think that comes from a lack of solidarity. There is no motivation to, say, not take a bribe, if your mentality is that you're only in it for yourself.
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right. And that is indeed the language we see used by some to promote universal health care or a living wage. My pet theory is that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be. My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education, etc. E.g. in Chicago, there is a deep schism between the heavily black south side, and the whiter north side. Now, every city has poor parts and rich parts, but what's really stark about Chicago is how completely the two parts disassociate from each other, due to in no small part a lack of shared culture.[1] This is, of course, to the detriment of both. The school system (CPS) is a primary example. Its a deeply dysfunctional piece of welfare: generous on one hand (relatively high spending/student), but crippled by the fact that whites and the middle/upper classes all but "opt out" of the system (CPS is 90% minority and 90% low-income). [1] My wife grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there were also rich people (doctors, store owners) and poor people. But there was tremendous shared culture: everyone went to the same high school, one of a small number of churches, participated in the same set of after-school activities, etc.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  I don't find that interesting at all, I find that question to be very scary, because I don't want a government that is in the business of telling people what is right and what is wrong. I want a government of people smart enough to themselves realize what is right and what is wrong and to ensure that the government follows these things. A government that runs Guantanamo and puts people in jail for smoking joints isn't an entity that should tell anybody what is right and what is wrong.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
at-fates-hands 13y ago
This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.
- eru 13y ago
  Why don't they chop up the US in 60 Finland sized bits, if it's so much easier to have success in a small country?
  - ecopoesis 13y ago
    Great idea. We can call these bits: "states"
  - billybob255 13y ago
    Uh, it's been chopped up into bits since it existed as a country (currently 50), and they're all a little different.
  - samatman 13y ago
    I have to assume this was sarcasm, but they're called states, and many Americans would like to see them regain power relative to the Federal government. A baby box is the kind of thing California would do, if we weren't broke like everyone else. Though, California alone exceeds the population of all Nordic countries combined.
  - roberto 13y ago
    Why not 50... and call them "states"?
- grecy 13y ago
  America also takes in taxes from it's vast population, so it still "costs" the same per capita.
  - 13y ago
protomyth 13y ago
Yeah, this program meets even the literal wording for nanny state program. Even on a fiscally conservative level, this isn't a bad government program. It address a specific education / health problem and fixes it for everyone at a much lower cost than a lot of other attempts in other countries (think much fewer personal and administration costs). It is statistic-based[1] and save total cost[2]. I shudder to think of how expensive that box would be in the US after all the contractors and graft. 1) Although one would think infant mortality would be a straight forward stat, it actually isn't because of how people class "viable". Even inside the EU it is approached differently by different countries. One of the big dangers of comparing statistics across countries. 2) think problems that could be fixed in childhood / pre-natal as opposed to living costs later.
Symmetry 13y ago
Also (d), it doesn't create a disincentive increasing one's income. It's pretty easy to get into a situation in the US where you have more money making 30K a year than 35K, just because you lose access to means-tested benefits.
duairc 13y ago
It's not really in the interests of the ruling class to build genuine solidarity and shared values. Divide and rule.

arethuza 13y ago

One question I find interesting is to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values. Personally, I'm all for it - but that's a product of my age (40s), location (Scotland) and where I grew up (a small village in the North of Scotland). NB Having a father who served in the RAF during WW2 probably influenced me far more than I realised at the time - my political views around 20th century history are now almost identical to what his used to be.

king_jester 13y ago
The better question is why governments spend so much time trying to reenforce social stratification by placing so many qualifications on social programs.
- toyg 13y ago
  Money. Resources are limited, so it makes sense to prioritise (Whether the resulting accounting efforts end up costing more than it's otherwised saved, it's another matter).
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
> to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values. To the extent that government is the actual exercise of the public's solidarity and shared values, I'm inclined to think it does have a legitimate role to play in giving expression to those values.
rayiner 13y ago
I think building solidarity and values is tremendously important, and here's why: what is the government really responsible for? Even as you go down the political spectrum to libertarians (short of anarcho-libertarians), you have consensus that government should at least provide security, from domestic crime and international threats, the enforcement of contracts, etc. Most people would go on to say that it's the government's job to provide at least basic education, utilities and transportation, etc, and do so with low waste and corruption. Fostering a culture of solidarity and shared values goes directly to those basic functions of government. When you look at Scandinavian countries, and wonder how their systems work so well, you have to consider how shared culture and values plays a role in that success. When you wonder why the welfare state works so poorly in the U.S., you can't ignore the impact of the tremendously acrimonious culture we have, steeped in animosity between the races and between different socioeconomic classes. And if you go further down the spectrum of dysfunction, you can't help but notice the stark contrast between the extensive but relatively corruption-free governments of the Scandinavian countries and the very limited but highly corrupt governments of places like India or Bangladesh. I think that comes from a lack of solidarity. There is no motivation to, say, not take a bribe, if your mentality is that you're only in it for yourself.
- euroclydon 13y ago
  I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right. And that is indeed the language we see used by some to promote universal health care or a living wage. My pet theory is that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be. My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education, etc. E.g. in Chicago, there is a deep schism between the heavily black south side, and the whiter north side. Now, every city has poor parts and rich parts, but what's really stark about Chicago is how completely the two parts disassociate from each other, due to in no small part a lack of shared culture.[1] This is, of course, to the detriment of both. The school system (CPS) is a primary example. Its a deeply dysfunctional piece of welfare: generous on one hand (relatively high spending/student), but crippled by the fact that whites and the middle/upper classes all but "opt out" of the system (CPS is 90% minority and 90% low-income). [1] My wife grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there were also rich people (doctors, store owners) and poor people. But there was tremendous shared culture: everyone went to the same high school, one of a small number of churches, participated in the same set of after-school activities, etc.
tomjen3 13y ago
I don't find that interesting at all, I find that question to be very scary, because I don't want a government that is in the business of telling people what is right and what is wrong. I want a government of people smart enough to themselves realize what is right and what is wrong and to ensure that the government follows these things. A government that runs Guantanamo and puts people in jail for smoking joints isn't an entity that should tell anybody what is right and what is wrong.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

at-fates-hands 13y ago

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

eru 13y ago
Why don't they chop up the US in 60 Finland sized bits, if it's so much easier to have success in a small country?
- ecopoesis 13y ago
  Great idea. We can call these bits: "states"
- billybob255 13y ago
  Uh, it's been chopped up into bits since it existed as a country (currently 50), and they're all a little different.
- samatman 13y ago
  I have to assume this was sarcasm, but they're called states, and many Americans would like to see them regain power relative to the Federal government. A baby box is the kind of thing California would do, if we weren't broke like everyone else. Though, California alone exceeds the population of all Nordic countries combined.
- roberto 13y ago
  Why not 50... and call them "states"?
grecy 13y ago
America also takes in taxes from it's vast population, so it still "costs" the same per capita.
- 13y ago

protomyth 13y ago

Yeah, this program meets even the literal wording for nanny state program. Even on a fiscally conservative level, this isn't a bad government program. It address a specific education / health problem and fixes it for everyone at a much lower cost than a lot of other attempts in other countries (think much fewer personal and administration costs). It is statistic-based[1] and save total cost[2]. I shudder to think of how expensive that box would be in the US after all the contractors and graft. 1) Although one would think infant mortality would be a straight forward stat, it actually isn't because of how people class "viable". Even inside the EU it is approached differently by different countries. One of the big dangers of comparing statistics across countries. 2) think problems that could be fixed in childhood / pre-natal as opposed to living costs later.

Symmetry 13y ago

Also (d), it doesn't create a disincentive increasing one's income. It's pretty easy to get into a situation in the US where you have more money making 30K a year than 35K, just because you lose access to means-tested benefits.

duairc 13y ago

It's not really in the interests of the ruling class to build genuine solidarity and shared values. Divide and rule.