13 ms·

The Fall of the American Worker

98 points by amardeep 13y ago

regal 13y ago
By the middle of this article, I felt refreshed to be reading something that seemed to be saying, "There are people who struggle economically, but that's okay - the world is an imperfect place, and people take their own lives down their own paths that make them better or worse." Into the second half though, the overtones began to paint a very Upton Sinclair-like story of crushing, inescapable poverty, and ultimately the piece ends with the same message The Jungle ends with: it's unfair that some people make a lot more money than other people do. And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? Everybody always wants to say, "Oh it's so sad that these people are suffering," and then generously volunteer that someone else pay for it: "Hey! Why don't we make THAT guy give that OTHER guy his money!" Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Wonder why that is...
- jwillgoesfast 13y ago
  I agree. But, there is some value in "Advocacy" for people in this position. Although, that card is probably played out by now and its cliche/annoying unless someone actually proposes or better yet is actively involved in a solution. There is a 2000 year old book that basically says "There will always be the poor" --not sure exactly what that means, but it kinda makes sense. For me, I've tried both large scale and small scale ways of helping "the poor" and I've developed the model of: 1. help people when you can & however you are able...It probably won't help them long-term though but maybe thats ok. 2. A few of those folks really are motivated to change their life for the better, so when you help them, it may pay off for the greater good. Either way, studies show that helping others and "giving to a good cause" typically pays off higher "happiness dividends" than selfishly spending money on yourself (unless its for a new smartphone or laptop of course :))
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Are you saying that a writer at a newspaper who makes median income is actually in a position to give some of that income to poor families, versus a CEO who makes $15 million a year?
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    His meaning was quite clear from what he wrote. If you must, argue against his points, don't just appeal to emotions - they are never useful for conducting policy.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      I'm not appealing to emotion. My question is rather simple and I want him/her to answer it.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      It's not just an appeal to emotion, there's a valid point in enraged_camel's post. It's not hypocrisy to defend redistribution only by people who own more than X, even if that X is above the author's income. There's a qualitative difference between owning a median income and "fuck you money". regal's point, on the other hand, is not only completely speculative, as it's completely irrelevant, because the argument isn't invalidated even if stated by an hypocrite.
    - fudisgud 13y ago
      scoff Funny you're complaining about that comment: This whole piece is one big emotion appeal for class warfare and unionism "If only Little Johnny's parent's union jobs didn't disappear, then he wouldn't have lived in a broken home, and would have buckled down and gone to college!" "Why does this group of people, who I know little about as individuals, have it so well?!" Typical bleeding-heart bull, which is, of course, what this movie is about (and how this author barkers for his friend's movie). "Come one, and all, see how unfair life is in America!" It's too bad these families both work so hard and barely get by. Maybe they did get screwed over by circumstance. Maybe they shouldn't had assume union jobs were forever. Maybe the lure of a paying job today to help the family kept those kids out of college. Or maybe those kids were fuck ups and didn't take school seriously. I guess I should pay for a ticket to find out if I should feel superior to the family or to the CEOs. Complaining about how life is unfair will get folks into the art movie theater, but it's not going to provide opportunities for these families to better their lot.
- jshen 13y ago
  "And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. There is a stunning lack of insight into the unfolding of human events that passes for moral and economic wisdom in some circles. And it is pernicious. Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong." http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/ http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-witho...
  - mistermann 13y ago
    Q: What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity? A: My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. [From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”] > Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. Most critics of Rand that I encounter base their opinion on an incorrect caricature that is reinforced by other critics repeating the same incorrect untruths. I consider myself to be generally in agreement with most of Rand's philosophy, but am nothing like your description of her followers. Granted, a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots, but it wasn't Rand's teachings that brought them to that state.
- icebraining 13y ago
  That's no true, plenty of people who support legally enforced redistribution also donate money to charities.
- zafka 13y ago
  I think your opinion of what this piece implies is a bit skewed. I see this scenario played out over and over everywhere I look. I happen to be one of the lucky ones, I won the genetic lottery, and the geographic one too. I expect to be able to make a decent living at least until the brain rot sets in. The sad fact is though, at least it appears to me, is that there will be fewer jobs for the majority of the population every year. At the same time the wealth that society as a whole is producing is accumulating at an increasing rate. I do not think the author of this article wants everyone else to shoulder the plight of the masses. I think that he, like many others suggest that society as a whole considers a method to allocate a portion of our GDP to those who have been eliminated from the game. The most ironic part of this ongoing discussion, it that the people around me who are most vocal about letting "these parasites" fend for themselves, are the next group that will be in the same boat. Yes, many of these "hard working" design engineers who paid their way through the public supported universities, will not be needed when the tech evolves just a little bit more. Then the lower 85% will be the extraneous work force, and the beat goes on.
- mistermann 13y ago
  I really don't like this argument. First, advocacy of an idea is good in itself. Second, the advocate putting their money where their mouth is will only impoverish them self while making very little change. However, if overall society was to adopt a united approach to it, the results would be very different. I'm not going to give up 10% of my income if it's just me doing it, but if everyone is doing it, I'd be willing (assuming there is a non-stupid plan for how to spend it, which is not likely).
- Nursie 13y ago
  Not everyone makes their own path. Some have paths chosen for them by genetics or simply by misfortune. And amongst those that have chosen the wrong path, is it reasonable in such a rich society that they should have to be selling blood plasma to keep food on the table? I don't think it's unfair that some make more than others do. I think it's unfair that many are scratching around for money for the bills and enough to eat, when we have a society of riches and excess beyond anything seen before in history. So I offer my own money in the form of taxes. We know from history that when welfare is entirely down to charity we get a shortfall, a growing underclass, mass criminality, workhouses, inescapable poverty etc etc.
  - llamataboot 13y ago
    It's also worth pointing out that social mobility in the US is very low.[1]The single greatest predictor to your future wealth is your parent's wealth, which obviously you had nothing to do with. 1) http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobility.html http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobi...
    - HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
      As the middle-class son of an uneducated single mother who didn't get a high-school diploma until after I did, I'm having a little trouble buying that...
      - sherr 13y ago
        There actually seems to be quite a lot of evidence for the US having a low social mobility. I recall some articles a while back in The Economist about it [1][2], something that surprised me a few years ago. Not any more. It doesn't take long to find many reports detailing this. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-virtuous-meritocracy-entrenching-itself-top-repairing-rungs http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-v... [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21571399 http://www.economist.com/node/21571399
      - justin66 13y ago
- ExpiredLink 13y ago
  > Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Nobody needs to offer his own money, though. You give a moral answer to a social conflict. You miss the point.
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  Warren Buffet is a noted advocate for higher taxes, and very few people have more to lose from higher taxes than he does.
- wisty 13y ago
  > Nobody ever offers his own money, though. A lot of people offer their money. Most countries have social security systems, which were voted in by people who stand to lose money over them. If I give a homeless guy $10,000, that won't stop all the other homeless guys from causing me all the problems that they cause (like not buying enough stuff to provide me with a better job, or clogging up the local emergency ward because they got pneumonia). But if I conspire (with a few fellow voters) to give $10,000 to all the homeless guys, then the problem is partially solved. And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. It's no secret that the truly rich often don't pay taxes.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. This is very true. America leans more heavily on the rich to pay for government than the rest of the OECD. Only Australia even comes close. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...
    - gizmo 13y ago
      Those stats are extremely misleading, because in the US the rich are also disproportional beneficiaries of their tax money (compared to other countries). In the US the rich pay taxes for schools they end up with better schools in their neighborhood. And they get better parks, and better libraries and better everything in rich neighborhoods. Very little of that money ends up improving poorer neighborhoods, so in the US rich people pay those taxes mostly to themselves. The taxes aren't very re-distributive, which defeats the point of progressive taxation. Tax deductions in the US also go disproportionately to rich people, whereas in Europe there are many big tax breaks for poor and middle class families. So it's absolutely not the case that the US has the most progressive tax system among industrialized nations (as claimed in the linked article). Only when you creatively slice and dice the data can you arrive at such a conclusion.
      - 13y ago
- ams6110 13y ago
  On top of that, I have never heard a convincing argument that some people are poor because other people are rich.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? About 25%. I'm OK with a tax level of between 35-40% on a moderate (>$50k) income, and I'd like about 75% of that to be spent on helping other people especially through education and healthcare) and the other 25% to be spent on things like defense, NASA, cops and so on, that's meant to benefit everyone. I'm willing to negotiate these various percentages, within reason. When I can, I pay a bit more tax than I absolutely have to because it makes me feel good, although some years I don't earn that much and I just pay what I have to. I'm not demanding that you must pay much more tax, but I am happy to pay a moderate amount and then a bit extra if I can afford it. Does that answer your question?
rndmize 13y ago
Ironically, Murray wrote a book in 06 called "In Our Hands" where he advocates replacing the welfare state with a universal income of $10k/year per person for every citizen 21 and over. He opens the book by saying his preference would be to have no welfare of any kind, but that as most people would never accept that, a universal income program would be the next best thing. In an America of increasing stratification and decreasing wealth and power on the lower and middle sides of the scale, I find myself liking the idea more and more. I don't think we really need so much of the population in the workforce as we move towards better automation/software processes.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Yup. My country, Canada actually experimented with this idea. Sources: [1] http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/03/25/mb-poverty-experiment.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/03/25/mb-p...
  - jwillgoesfast 13y ago
    Hmm, this is really interesting. Have any other communities experimented with this?
    - lettergram 13y ago
      Norway and Sweden both give you a check for having kids and I believe Norway gives you part of the oil money.
      - justincormack 13y ago
        You don't get given the oil money, the whole idea is to invest it for when the oil runs out.
      - jswinghammer 13y ago
        Meaning they give you your own money back to you for doing something they like. How generous.
grecy 13y ago
Sounds like the description of a second or third world country.
- kmfrk 13y ago
  I am sure Hans Rosling has a chart to show something to that effect lying around somewhere.
schoper 13y ago
Supply and demand. If I wanted to make labor more expensive, I would do something about the people trying to import cheap labor. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-fourth-of-july-sermon-from-slate.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-fourth-of-july-sermon-f...
StandardFuture 13y ago
>social critics who believe that the decline of America’s working class comes from a collapse of moral values >They [the two families] have to navigate this HEARTLESS economy by themselves. The social critics may be right. However, they point to individuals as morally incompetent, etc. But it takes an entire society to define an economy. So I am wondering if these social critics are right but they are blaming the moral collapse only on those currently most negatively affected by it i.e. those impoverished, out-of-work,etc. However, the Germans under the Nazis were morally incompetent but had raving economic success. So, all in all I don't know. I was just thinking that you cannot say that just because an American is either well-off or filthy rich that they are more morally competent than the rest of the society.
- smackay 13y ago
  Quite the opposite in fact, http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_m...
- coolsunglasses 13y ago
  Nazi governance wasn't economically successful.
gesman 13y ago
The world is too connected. Lots of local and expensive labor can now be outsourced to el-cheapo locations. Which means CEO can produce same stuff at less cost, keeping more profit. It's almost like law of physics - energy flows along the pathways of least resistance.
- StandardFuture 13y ago
  Or the "laws of game theory" per say. :P But yes, with ALL the values that we hold in America: capitalism, a sense of morality, etc. It is inevitably that we will only grow towards becoming more merged with the world around us. Simply because: their is more economic benefit for companies looking more at everything they do in an ever growing international sense. However, worker Joe does not study game theory and has zip way of learning about working with Chinese manufacturers. I get the feeling that we are seeing the inevitable. The 'third worldliness' that persisted throughout much of the world is melding with the old 'American isolationist.' However, we as capitalists now have a taste for the economic fruits of thinking internationally and we won't give it up. But, still it makes me wonder because The British Empire had international success and it only made Brits that much more wealthier (BUT they also had a strong sense of 'frontierism' e.g. colonialism) ... And I think that is the one thing we seriously lack today. If jobs go to China, then in Imperial days that would equate to colonies being formed in this 'new land of China' (e.g. Brits moving to the American/Australian Colonies for new opportunities, etc.) That is NOT our situation today. If jobs move ANYWHERE, there are already cooperating entities there that do NOT need more people. That is because cooperation for monetary reasons is much easier to do in today's age. Currency exchanges, the digital age, etc. make that much more efficient instead of old times where everything was purely about 'trade or be conquered.' ... Just some thoughts.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
"In the words of Tammy Thomas, whose similar story is told in my new book, “The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America,” these people do what they’re supposed to do. They have to navigate this heartless economy by themselves. And they keep sinking and sinking." What the fuck? The country I grew up in didn't tell people what to do. People were encouraged to figure out what needed doing. Then they went and did it. I think we do a great disservice to the poor to focus on jobs as some ends to themselves. They are not. Jobs are the result of innovation and entrepreneurship. Not everybody has to be an entrepreneur, but you need enough of them to keep things mixed up constantly for everybody else. There is no "play by the rules". That's bullshit. You either live your own dream or somebody else's. There is no middle ground. You don't just "create jobs" for people who "follow the rules". This is not a maternal society. This is organized chaos, where the chaos is creatively destroying things that don't work and replacing them with new things as humanity moves along. God, I hate this navel-gazing pulp.
- anon1385 13y ago
  I find your description of human lives as 'things that don't work' to be utterly sickening. The mind of an individualist is a scary place.
  - defen 13y ago
    Pretty sure he was talking about jobs/companies/industries and not people there.
  - penrod 13y ago
    The phrase "things that don't work" is obviously not referring to human lives, it is referring to behaviors chosen by people. We make choices as to how we spend our time, how we sustain ourselves, how we interact with other people, etc. Some of these choices work out, some do not. Fortunately, we and our fellow humans can learn from these experiences and adapt our behavior. The incremental discovery of "things that don't work", and adjustment to these discoveries, is good and necessary because no one has, or will ever have, a complete understanding of the perfect society for human flourishing. Given the limits on knowledge, I find the mind of an individualist far less scary than the mind of someone who presumes to know how others should live, and is willing to use force to ensure that they comply with that vision.
saraid216 13y ago
I don't like this article; I find it argumentatively weak. I fully agree with the premises and conclusions, but the path it takes to get there is severely lacking. So I'm going to offer a better path. Critics of the welfare state, like Murray, prefer to talk about choice rather than hardship. Their general argument can be summed up as, "They made poor choices, and are now facing the consequences of those choices." The problem with this perspective isn't the profound lack of empathy, but rather a presumption that there exists a system of perfect information that everyone is tapped into. Choices have consequences. But we rarely see the many possibilities a choice can yield, let alone the probable weightings of each one. Even granted the great presumption that everyone should be perfectly rational, it still depends on perfect information. "She shouldn't have had a child with the wrong guy," says Murray, and Maharidge seems to just accept this. The proper response would have been to dig deeper. Should she have made sure that she couldn't have children first before having sex? Should she have not had sex? How could she verify that that guy was the right guy? And this still presumes that she had a choice in having sex with him in the first place. But perhaps more to the point, how would she have known each of those things? How would she have discovered that birth control exists? How would she have been afforded sex education and family planning strategies? This isn't a feminism/sexism issue, though I'm veering a little too close to that. We know things because we learn them. We hear about them through rumor and this is filtered through whatever heuristics and analytical brain software we happen to have available. And yet these pathways for comprehending information and sifting truth are built on trial and error. We learn something; we believe it; we find that a certain part wasn't true after all; we adjust; we move on. This process happens. We make mistakes. That's how we learn what consequences exist to the choices we make. Yes, we make bad choices, but this is frequently, virtually always, because we could not see with perfect clarity what consequences there would be. That's what experimentation is. Because at the end of the day, we don't really have a choice. We can't change the laws of physics so that a ball we throw into the air doesn't come back down. I might choose to throw the ball up, but I can't choose whether or not it comes back down. The limit of choice is reality, and we do not have a perfect understanding of reality. By placing the burden of consequences on those who did not know them before making the choice, you ask them to supercede reality. That's something of a stretch in to call a reasonable expectation. When you talk to hardworking poor people about their lives, you'll find that a common question is, "What could I have done differently? How could I have done better?" And I ask you this: if choice is the final word, why are these questions being asked?
michaelochurch 13y ago
What happened to agricultural commodity prices in the 1920s (causing rural poverty that spiraled into the Great Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. Perhaps the cutting edge of technology will be spared-- that's what most HN posters have bet their careers on-- but even that's unlikely if the collapse spreads. Poverty isn't self-correction or "market discipline". It's a cascading failure that corrupts the whole society, then as well as now.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
TempleOS 13y ago
Thou shall not covet. Biotch. Highs and lows balance. The Parable of the Bags of Gold 14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ 22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’ 23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ 24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ 26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
tsotha 13y ago
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we import thirty million Central American peasants to compete with these families so they never get a raise!
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>Central American peasants Wow. You don't sound racist at all.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    You are correct. I don't. EDIT: On second thought, I see I am somewhat in error. Let me amend my statement to say "Central and South American peasants".
CleanedStar 13y ago
Obviously there is very little rational analysis or response on HN to this article or the issues it covers. It's obvious from the wording of the replies of those who are more sympathetic and those who are less sympathetic to those mentioned in the article. Look at the wording: "poor choices...empathy...choices have consequences...we make mistakes...morality of altruism", "The country I grew up in....Jobs are the result of innovation and entrepreneurship", "morally competent", "how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes" Not much rational analysis. Just a sermon, or morality tale, or an abbreviated Ayn Rand screed against altruism, which might as well be a religious sermon. Poverty is an essential cornerstone of the current economic system. There have been many economic systems over the millenia - hunter-gather societies, then slave societies, then feudal societies, then capitalist societies. From the philosopher Hegel to Francis Fukuyama we've had intellectuals say our current economic system is the last one. From the 19th century on, some have said other economic systems might become predominant in the future, particularly socialist ones. Capitalism is the only economic system where poverty is necessary. When a company's revenues exceeds its capital expenses, the money has only two places to go - profit or wages. If there was full employment, strong unions, no laws banning secondary strikes like Taft-Hartley etc., workers would get more and more in wages until profits disappeared. When companies have the lever to send workers into poverty, they become happy "just to have a job". This allows for companies to make workers work longer hours for less money, or to put in a more strenuous effort during the time worked. Everything can be discussed rationaly, but when discussing how poverty exists in capitalism in a manner it did not in feudalism, or prior economic systems (or possible future ones), words like "morality" are brought out. People can rationally discuss VCs and valuations and options. But rationality has to go out the window when discussing how poverty exists in the current economic system, we have to get a sermon, rational discussions of the topic are not allowed. Also a look at history is not allowed. That our economic system is just one in a chain of systems, and that "socialism" is still a bugaboo of the people moving the levers of our economic system is a sign of this. Capitalism is new historically as a dominating system, and has very shaky elements, so you want to make people forget that...in Europe countries are still under feudal trappings. That in the the 1930s, the capitalist west had its factories lying dormant while the USSR couldn't build factories fast enough. And so forth. You want to forget that the property in the US was stolen from Indians, or even the property in Poland or Ireland stole from the Polish and Irish. You want to forget Africans were dragged to the US in chains and set to work in stolen Indian property. That even the property accumulated from the profit made off these people after is similary ill-gained. And that this all happened historically recent, relatively. History has to be forgotten to, even fairly recent history. It's a topic which can't bare rational analysis or a look at recent history. Some type of moral sermon is all that's called for. Not just the "heartless conservatives" but the "bleeding-heart liberals". Mawkish calls for the poor to be fed for moral reasons is just as silly as moralistic claims that the poor are lazy.
Tichy 13y ago
One think I have come to realize (in a non-scientific way, don't have time to look up all the numbers): I think there never really has been a stable time in our history. Those golden days of the past where workers could earn well were also just a fleeting moment, and perhaps at the same time other people were already struggling and suffering. Today software developers do quite well, but in a few decades we might get to read the same kind of stories about them. The world is changing all the time, and people are always struggling to keep up and survive.
graycat 13y ago
Here we have been suggesting that part of the problem, for both individuals and our society more generally, is poor people having kids they can't afford to support well, i.e., in the sense of good parenting. But from some poor countries there are claims that when outside forces result in poor people having more money, right away they slow down on having children -- the rate of births falls. So, for one related point, using some version of socialism to raise poor people from poverty should reduce the burden on society of children of poor people and not increase that burden. Or, in this case, poverty does not cause people to exercise more discipline and be more responsible but on both points, less. So, society might calculate an expected return on investment: Invest some money in raising poor people out of poverty and see how much society saves later in expenditures on the social problems of children with poor parents with poor parenting. But, wait, there's more! Finland beat back the Swedes, Russians, and Germans, but now they are losing! How? They are having only about 1.5 children per woman. Extrapolate that out for 100 years and see a smaller Finland; for 300 years and see nearly no Finland. And that figure of 1.5 is close to what holds in several countries in Europe. Why? So far in the more advanced countries with the higher standards of living, they have decided they don't want to be parents. Joke: Come back in 500 years and find nearly everyone super fired up about being good parents. Why? Because all the other branches of the tree died out! Darwin wins again! Of course, there is likely a grain of truth in this joke, and if so then we stand to be in one of the periods of relatively fast genetic change, assuming that the desire to be good parents is significantly a genetic thing. But, wait, there's more! So, some of the people lost their jobs because in effect their jobs were shipped overseas. So, we go to a retail store, buy an item made overseas, pay for it, and then also pay taxes to pay to help the person who lost their job as we bought this item from overseas. Are we actually helping the US in this way? I know; I know; all those textile workers in the Carolinas were supposed to get much better jobs at Microsoft as Microsoft sold software to the overseas textile industry. Who believed this? Yes, apparently in the US we can import items with low or no import tariffs; I've heard that this policy on imports is rare in the world, that most other countries protect their domestic workers. There are claims that such protectionism is, net, bad for the US economy, but this argument seems to write off the training, experience, and capital associated with the person who lost their job with this expensive write off ignored. For more, the economy is important. Then destroying the financial system is a disaster. How to do that? We saw how in the 1920s: Use high leverage to blow an asset bubble. In response we put in a lot of controls in finance to keep that from happening again. Then starting in 2000 or so, we did it to ourselves again, although this time with real estate. Plenty of people, e.g., the COB of Wells Fargo who said clearly that we would not like the results, saw the problem coming. Yet, we let the bubble inflate. If we want to say that actions have consequences, then we should be willing to say that bubble blowing has consequences and with discipline, we had plenty of information, we wouldn't do such a thing. For more, one of the problems in the US is social problems from poor people, but actually we wanted poor people and have worked, more than once, to import a distinctive lower class we could have as poor people and cheap labor. We've deliberately created an underclass, and we are seeing some of the consequences. From all I can see, except for new technology in the last 60 years, the US standard of living was higher in the 1950s. Then we exported a lot but imported very little. But how did the exporting help the US? Or, workers at Caterpillar built an earth moving machine and sent it to a third world country or one of the countries so damaged in WWII that they couldn't make such a machine again yet. So, the US got paid in foreign currency that we swapped for gold or some such -- nearly useless. Net, the US was able to do better being nearly self sufficient. Sure, we might import rubber and tin, but mostly we were self sufficient. Sounds like maybe we should be self sufficient again.
mark_l_watson 13y ago
Great article. Shows the heartlessness of a critic of a social safety net. I believe that people can be motivated and very successful in life, without having their motivation destroyed by seeing people who can barely get by get a little help, for example food stamps. In other words, I don't believe that supplying a minimal social net destroys incentives to get ahead in life.
davidf18 13y ago
People frequently focus on increasing wages but the really important thing to remember is quality of life. With increasing productivity should come lower cost for the same goods (adjusted for inflation). The New Yorker is based in New York City where I live. Both renting apartments and purchasing housing has increased in cost significantly because of an artificially induced housing shortage through zoning laws meant to favor wealthy landlords over those who rent or want to purchase an apartment/coop. (this is called by economists, economic rent) There are many, many laws like the zoning laws in NYC that cause economic rent that favor certain groups over others. Another example in New York City are Taxi Medallions which limit the number of taxis and making them less affordable for passengers. Instead of focusing on wage increases which might be limited by globalization, we should look for all of the economic rents and removing them through legislation thus allowing markets to do their job.

98 points by amardeep 13y ago

regal 13y ago

By the middle of this article, I felt refreshed to be reading something that seemed to be saying, "There are people who struggle economically, but that's okay - the world is an imperfect place, and people take their own lives down their own paths that make them better or worse." Into the second half though, the overtones began to paint a very Upton Sinclair-like story of crushing, inescapable poverty, and ultimately the piece ends with the same message The Jungle ends with: it's unfair that some people make a lot more money than other people do. And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? Everybody always wants to say, "Oh it's so sad that these people are suffering," and then generously volunteer that someone else pay for it: "Hey! Why don't we make THAT guy give that OTHER guy his money!" Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Wonder why that is...

jwillgoesfast 13y ago
I agree. But, there is some value in "Advocacy" for people in this position. Although, that card is probably played out by now and its cliche/annoying unless someone actually proposes or better yet is actively involved in a solution. There is a 2000 year old book that basically says "There will always be the poor" --not sure exactly what that means, but it kinda makes sense. For me, I've tried both large scale and small scale ways of helping "the poor" and I've developed the model of: 1. help people when you can & however you are able...It probably won't help them long-term though but maybe thats ok. 2. A few of those folks really are motivated to change their life for the better, so when you help them, it may pay off for the greater good. Either way, studies show that helping others and "giving to a good cause" typically pays off higher "happiness dividends" than selfishly spending money on yourself (unless its for a new smartphone or laptop of course :))
enraged_camel 13y ago
Are you saying that a writer at a newspaper who makes median income is actually in a position to give some of that income to poor families, versus a CEO who makes $15 million a year?
- tomjen3 13y ago
  His meaning was quite clear from what he wrote. If you must, argue against his points, don't just appeal to emotions - they are never useful for conducting policy.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    I'm not appealing to emotion. My question is rather simple and I want him/her to answer it.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It's not just an appeal to emotion, there's a valid point in enraged_camel's post. It's not hypocrisy to defend redistribution only by people who own more than X, even if that X is above the author's income. There's a qualitative difference between owning a median income and "fuck you money". regal's point, on the other hand, is not only completely speculative, as it's completely irrelevant, because the argument isn't invalidated even if stated by an hypocrite.
  - fudisgud 13y ago
    scoff Funny you're complaining about that comment: This whole piece is one big emotion appeal for class warfare and unionism "If only Little Johnny's parent's union jobs didn't disappear, then he wouldn't have lived in a broken home, and would have buckled down and gone to college!" "Why does this group of people, who I know little about as individuals, have it so well?!" Typical bleeding-heart bull, which is, of course, what this movie is about (and how this author barkers for his friend's movie). "Come one, and all, see how unfair life is in America!" It's too bad these families both work so hard and barely get by. Maybe they did get screwed over by circumstance. Maybe they shouldn't had assume union jobs were forever. Maybe the lure of a paying job today to help the family kept those kids out of college. Or maybe those kids were fuck ups and didn't take school seriously. I guess I should pay for a ticket to find out if I should feel superior to the family or to the CEOs. Complaining about how life is unfair will get folks into the art movie theater, but it's not going to provide opportunities for these families to better their lot.
jshen 13y ago
"And lurking at the bottom of this morass one finds flagrantly irrational ideas about the human condition. Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely self-made. They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease, and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history. Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything in life, no matter how hard one works. One must be lucky to be able to work. One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse. Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it. Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it. And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take credit for these accomplishments. There is a stunning lack of insight into the unfolding of human events that passes for moral and economic wisdom in some circles. And it is pernicious. Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong." http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/ http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-witho...
- mistermann 13y ago
  Q: What was Ayn Rand’s view on charity? A: My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. [From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”] > Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. Most critics of Rand that I encounter base their opinion on an incorrect caricature that is reinforced by other critics repeating the same incorrect untruths. I consider myself to be generally in agreement with most of Rand's philosophy, but am nothing like your description of her followers. Granted, a lot of her advocates are purely self-interested idiots, but it wasn't Rand's teachings that brought them to that state.
icebraining 13y ago
That's no true, plenty of people who support legally enforced redistribution also donate money to charities.
zafka 13y ago
I think your opinion of what this piece implies is a bit skewed. I see this scenario played out over and over everywhere I look. I happen to be one of the lucky ones, I won the genetic lottery, and the geographic one too. I expect to be able to make a decent living at least until the brain rot sets in. The sad fact is though, at least it appears to me, is that there will be fewer jobs for the majority of the population every year. At the same time the wealth that society as a whole is producing is accumulating at an increasing rate. I do not think the author of this article wants everyone else to shoulder the plight of the masses. I think that he, like many others suggest that society as a whole considers a method to allocate a portion of our GDP to those who have been eliminated from the game. The most ironic part of this ongoing discussion, it that the people around me who are most vocal about letting "these parasites" fend for themselves, are the next group that will be in the same boat. Yes, many of these "hard working" design engineers who paid their way through the public supported universities, will not be needed when the tech evolves just a little bit more. Then the lower 85% will be the extraneous work force, and the beat goes on.
mistermann 13y ago
I really don't like this argument. First, advocacy of an idea is good in itself. Second, the advocate putting their money where their mouth is will only impoverish them self while making very little change. However, if overall society was to adopt a united approach to it, the results would be very different. I'm not going to give up 10% of my income if it's just me doing it, but if everyone is doing it, I'd be willing (assuming there is a non-stupid plan for how to spend it, which is not likely).
Nursie 13y ago
Not everyone makes their own path. Some have paths chosen for them by genetics or simply by misfortune. And amongst those that have chosen the wrong path, is it reasonable in such a rich society that they should have to be selling blood plasma to keep food on the table? I don't think it's unfair that some make more than others do. I think it's unfair that many are scratching around for money for the bills and enough to eat, when we have a society of riches and excess beyond anything seen before in history. So I offer my own money in the form of taxes. We know from history that when welfare is entirely down to charity we get a shortfall, a growing underclass, mass criminality, workhouses, inescapable poverty etc etc.
- llamataboot 13y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that social mobility in the US is very low.[1]The single greatest predictor to your future wealth is your parent's wealth, which obviously you had nothing to do with. 1) http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobility.html http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/social-mobi...
  - HeyLaughingBoy 13y ago
    As the middle-class son of an uneducated single mother who didn't get a high-school diploma until after I did, I'm having a little trouble buying that...
    - sherr 13y ago
      There actually seems to be quite a lot of evidence for the US having a low social mobility. I recall some articles a while back in The Economist about it [1][2], something that surprised me a few years ago. Not any more. It doesn't take long to find many reports detailing this. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-virtuous-meritocracy-entrenching-itself-top-repairing-rungs http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571417-how-prevent-v... [2] http://www.economist.com/node/21571399 http://www.economist.com/node/21571399
    - justin66 13y ago
ExpiredLink 13y ago
> Nobody ever offers his own money, though. Nobody needs to offer his own money, though. You give a moral answer to a social conflict. You miss the point.
bryanlarsen 13y ago
Warren Buffet is a noted advocate for higher taxes, and very few people have more to lose from higher taxes than he does.
wisty 13y ago
> Nobody ever offers his own money, though. A lot of people offer their money. Most countries have social security systems, which were voted in by people who stand to lose money over them. If I give a homeless guy $10,000, that won't stop all the other homeless guys from causing me all the problems that they cause (like not buying enough stuff to provide me with a better job, or clogging up the local emergency ward because they got pneumonia). But if I conspire (with a few fellow voters) to give $10,000 to all the homeless guys, then the problem is partially solved. And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. It's no secret that the truly rich often don't pay taxes.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  And it's not like all these countries with social security nets are forcing rich people to pay for it. This is very true. America leans more heavily on the rich to pay for government than the rest of the OECD. Only Australia even comes close. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...
  - gizmo 13y ago
    Those stats are extremely misleading, because in the US the rich are also disproportional beneficiaries of their tax money (compared to other countries). In the US the rich pay taxes for schools they end up with better schools in their neighborhood. And they get better parks, and better libraries and better everything in rich neighborhoods. Very little of that money ends up improving poorer neighborhoods, so in the US rich people pay those taxes mostly to themselves. The taxes aren't very re-distributive, which defeats the point of progressive taxation. Tax deductions in the US also go disproportionately to rich people, whereas in Europe there are many big tax breaks for poor and middle class families. So it's absolutely not the case that the US has the most progressive tax system among industrialized nations (as claimed in the linked article). Only when you creatively slice and dice the data can you arrive at such a conclusion.
    - 13y ago
ams6110 13y ago
On top of that, I have never heard a convincing argument that some people are poor because other people are rich.
anigbrowl 13y ago
And I'm left with the same question I always have for these arguments: Mr. Article Writer, how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes of these stories? About 25%. I'm OK with a tax level of between 35-40% on a moderate (>$50k) income, and I'd like about 75% of that to be spent on helping other people especially through education and healthcare) and the other 25% to be spent on things like defense, NASA, cops and so on, that's meant to benefit everyone. I'm willing to negotiate these various percentages, within reason. When I can, I pay a bit more tax than I absolutely have to because it makes me feel good, although some years I don't earn that much and I just pay what I have to. I'm not demanding that you must pay much more tax, but I am happy to pay a moderate amount and then a bit extra if I can afford it. Does that answer your question?

rndmize 13y ago

Ironically, Murray wrote a book in 06 called "In Our Hands" where he advocates replacing the welfare state with a universal income of $10k/year per person for every citizen 21 and over. He opens the book by saying his preference would be to have no welfare of any kind, but that as most people would never accept that, a universal income program would be the next best thing. In an America of increasing stratification and decreasing wealth and power on the lower and middle sides of the scale, I find myself liking the idea more and more. I don't think we really need so much of the population in the workforce as we move towards better automation/software processes.

tokenizer 13y ago
Yup. My country, Canada actually experimented with this idea. Sources: [1] http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100 [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/03/25/mb-poverty-experiment.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/03/25/mb-p...
- jwillgoesfast 13y ago
  Hmm, this is really interesting. Have any other communities experimented with this?
  - lettergram 13y ago
    Norway and Sweden both give you a check for having kids and I believe Norway gives you part of the oil money.
    - justincormack 13y ago
      You don't get given the oil money, the whole idea is to invest it for when the oil runs out.
    - jswinghammer 13y ago
      Meaning they give you your own money back to you for doing something they like. How generous.

grecy 13y ago

Sounds like the description of a second or third world country.

kmfrk 13y ago
I am sure Hans Rosling has a chart to show something to that effect lying around somewhere.

schoper 13y ago

Supply and demand. If I wanted to make labor more expensive, I would do something about the people trying to import cheap labor. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-fourth-of-july-sermon-from-slate.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-fourth-of-july-sermon-f...

StandardFuture 13y ago

>social critics who believe that the decline of America’s working class comes from a collapse of moral values >They [the two families] have to navigate this HEARTLESS economy by themselves. The social critics may be right. However, they point to individuals as morally incompetent, etc. But it takes an entire society to define an economy. So I am wondering if these social critics are right but they are blaming the moral collapse only on those currently most negatively affected by it i.e. those impoverished, out-of-work,etc. However, the Germans under the Nazis were morally incompetent but had raving economic success. So, all in all I don't know. I was just thinking that you cannot say that just because an American is either well-off or filthy rich that they are more morally competent than the rest of the society.

smackay 13y ago
Quite the opposite in fact, http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_m...
coolsunglasses 13y ago
Nazi governance wasn't economically successful.

gesman 13y ago

The world is too connected. Lots of local and expensive labor can now be outsourced to el-cheapo locations. Which means CEO can produce same stuff at less cost, keeping more profit. It's almost like law of physics - energy flows along the pathways of least resistance.

StandardFuture 13y ago
Or the "laws of game theory" per say. :P But yes, with ALL the values that we hold in America: capitalism, a sense of morality, etc. It is inevitably that we will only grow towards becoming more merged with the world around us. Simply because: their is more economic benefit for companies looking more at everything they do in an ever growing international sense. However, worker Joe does not study game theory and has zip way of learning about working with Chinese manufacturers. I get the feeling that we are seeing the inevitable. The 'third worldliness' that persisted throughout much of the world is melding with the old 'American isolationist.' However, we as capitalists now have a taste for the economic fruits of thinking internationally and we won't give it up. But, still it makes me wonder because The British Empire had international success and it only made Brits that much more wealthier (BUT they also had a strong sense of 'frontierism' e.g. colonialism) ... And I think that is the one thing we seriously lack today. If jobs go to China, then in Imperial days that would equate to colonies being formed in this 'new land of China' (e.g. Brits moving to the American/Australian Colonies for new opportunities, etc.) That is NOT our situation today. If jobs move ANYWHERE, there are already cooperating entities there that do NOT need more people. That is because cooperation for monetary reasons is much easier to do in today's age. Currency exchanges, the digital age, etc. make that much more efficient instead of old times where everything was purely about 'trade or be conquered.' ... Just some thoughts.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

"In the words of Tammy Thomas, whose similar story is told in my new book, “The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America,” these people do what they’re supposed to do. They have to navigate this heartless economy by themselves. And they keep sinking and sinking." What the fuck? The country I grew up in didn't tell people what to do. People were encouraged to figure out what needed doing. Then they went and did it. I think we do a great disservice to the poor to focus on jobs as some ends to themselves. They are not. Jobs are the result of innovation and entrepreneurship. Not everybody has to be an entrepreneur, but you need enough of them to keep things mixed up constantly for everybody else. There is no "play by the rules". That's bullshit. You either live your own dream or somebody else's. There is no middle ground. You don't just "create jobs" for people who "follow the rules". This is not a maternal society. This is organized chaos, where the chaos is creatively destroying things that don't work and replacing them with new things as humanity moves along. God, I hate this navel-gazing pulp.

anon1385 13y ago
I find your description of human lives as 'things that don't work' to be utterly sickening. The mind of an individualist is a scary place.
- defen 13y ago
  Pretty sure he was talking about jobs/companies/industries and not people there.
- penrod 13y ago
  The phrase "things that don't work" is obviously not referring to human lives, it is referring to behaviors chosen by people. We make choices as to how we spend our time, how we sustain ourselves, how we interact with other people, etc. Some of these choices work out, some do not. Fortunately, we and our fellow humans can learn from these experiences and adapt our behavior. The incremental discovery of "things that don't work", and adjustment to these discoveries, is good and necessary because no one has, or will ever have, a complete understanding of the perfect society for human flourishing. Given the limits on knowledge, I find the mind of an individualist far less scary than the mind of someone who presumes to know how others should live, and is willing to use force to ensure that they comply with that vision.

saraid216 13y ago

I don't like this article; I find it argumentatively weak. I fully agree with the premises and conclusions, but the path it takes to get there is severely lacking. So I'm going to offer a better path. Critics of the welfare state, like Murray, prefer to talk about choice rather than hardship. Their general argument can be summed up as, "They made poor choices, and are now facing the consequences of those choices." The problem with this perspective isn't the profound lack of empathy, but rather a presumption that there exists a system of perfect information that everyone is tapped into. Choices have consequences. But we rarely see the many possibilities a choice can yield, let alone the probable weightings of each one. Even granted the great presumption that everyone should be perfectly rational, it still depends on perfect information. "She shouldn't have had a child with the wrong guy," says Murray, and Maharidge seems to just accept this. The proper response would have been to dig deeper. Should she have made sure that she couldn't have children first before having sex? Should she have not had sex? How could she verify that that guy was the right guy? And this still presumes that she had a choice in having sex with him in the first place. But perhaps more to the point, how would she have known each of those things? How would she have discovered that birth control exists? How would she have been afforded sex education and family planning strategies? This isn't a feminism/sexism issue, though I'm veering a little too close to that. We know things because we learn them. We hear about them through rumor and this is filtered through whatever heuristics and analytical brain software we happen to have available. And yet these pathways for comprehending information and sifting truth are built on trial and error. We learn something; we believe it; we find that a certain part wasn't true after all; we adjust; we move on. This process happens. We make mistakes. That's how we learn what consequences exist to the choices we make. Yes, we make bad choices, but this is frequently, virtually always, because we could not see with perfect clarity what consequences there would be. That's what experimentation is. Because at the end of the day, we don't really have a choice. We can't change the laws of physics so that a ball we throw into the air doesn't come back down. I might choose to throw the ball up, but I can't choose whether or not it comes back down. The limit of choice is reality, and we do not have a perfect understanding of reality. By placing the burden of consequences on those who did not know them before making the choice, you ask them to supercede reality. That's something of a stretch in to call a reasonable expectation. When you talk to hardworking poor people about their lives, you'll find that a common question is, "What could I have done differently? How could I have done better?" And I ask you this: if choice is the final word, why are these questions being asked?

michaelochurch 13y ago

What happened to agricultural commodity prices in the 1920s (causing rural poverty that spiraled into the Great Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. Perhaps the cutting edge of technology will be spared-- that's what most HN posters have bet their careers on-- but even that's unlikely if the collapse spreads. Poverty isn't self-correction or "market discipline". It's a cascading failure that corrupts the whole society, then as well as now.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

TempleOS 13y ago

Thou shall not covet. Biotch. Highs and lows balance. The Parable of the Bags of Gold 14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ 22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’ 23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ 24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’ 26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

tsotha 13y ago

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we import thirty million Central American peasants to compete with these families so they never get a raise!

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>Central American peasants Wow. You don't sound racist at all.
- tsotha 13y ago
  You are correct. I don't. EDIT: On second thought, I see I am somewhat in error. Let me amend my statement to say "Central and South American peasants".

CleanedStar 13y ago

Obviously there is very little rational analysis or response on HN to this article or the issues it covers. It's obvious from the wording of the replies of those who are more sympathetic and those who are less sympathetic to those mentioned in the article. Look at the wording: "poor choices...empathy...choices have consequences...we make mistakes...morality of altruism", "The country I grew up in....Jobs are the result of innovation and entrepreneurship", "morally competent", "how much of your income would YOU like to give to the heroes" Not much rational analysis. Just a sermon, or morality tale, or an abbreviated Ayn Rand screed against altruism, which might as well be a religious sermon. Poverty is an essential cornerstone of the current economic system. There have been many economic systems over the millenia - hunter-gather societies, then slave societies, then feudal societies, then capitalist societies. From the philosopher Hegel to Francis Fukuyama we've had intellectuals say our current economic system is the last one. From the 19th century on, some have said other economic systems might become predominant in the future, particularly socialist ones. Capitalism is the only economic system where poverty is necessary. When a company's revenues exceeds its capital expenses, the money has only two places to go - profit or wages. If there was full employment, strong unions, no laws banning secondary strikes like Taft-Hartley etc., workers would get more and more in wages until profits disappeared. When companies have the lever to send workers into poverty, they become happy "just to have a job". This allows for companies to make workers work longer hours for less money, or to put in a more strenuous effort during the time worked. Everything can be discussed rationaly, but when discussing how poverty exists in capitalism in a manner it did not in feudalism, or prior economic systems (or possible future ones), words like "morality" are brought out. People can rationally discuss VCs and valuations and options. But rationality has to go out the window when discussing how poverty exists in the current economic system, we have to get a sermon, rational discussions of the topic are not allowed. Also a look at history is not allowed. That our economic system is just one in a chain of systems, and that "socialism" is still a bugaboo of the people moving the levers of our economic system is a sign of this. Capitalism is new historically as a dominating system, and has very shaky elements, so you want to make people forget that...in Europe countries are still under feudal trappings. That in the the 1930s, the capitalist west had its factories lying dormant while the USSR couldn't build factories fast enough. And so forth. You want to forget that the property in the US was stolen from Indians, or even the property in Poland or Ireland stole from the Polish and Irish. You want to forget Africans were dragged to the US in chains and set to work in stolen Indian property. That even the property accumulated from the profit made off these people after is similary ill-gained. And that this all happened historically recent, relatively. History has to be forgotten to, even fairly recent history. It's a topic which can't bare rational analysis or a look at recent history. Some type of moral sermon is all that's called for. Not just the "heartless conservatives" but the "bleeding-heart liberals". Mawkish calls for the poor to be fed for moral reasons is just as silly as moralistic claims that the poor are lazy.

Tichy 13y ago

One think I have come to realize (in a non-scientific way, don't have time to look up all the numbers): I think there never really has been a stable time in our history. Those golden days of the past where workers could earn well were also just a fleeting moment, and perhaps at the same time other people were already struggling and suffering. Today software developers do quite well, but in a few decades we might get to read the same kind of stories about them. The world is changing all the time, and people are always struggling to keep up and survive.

graycat 13y ago

Here we have been suggesting that part of the problem, for both individuals and our society more generally, is poor people having kids they can't afford to support well, i.e., in the sense of good parenting. But from some poor countries there are claims that when outside forces result in poor people having more money, right away they slow down on having children -- the rate of births falls. So, for one related point, using some version of socialism to raise poor people from poverty should reduce the burden on society of children of poor people and not increase that burden. Or, in this case, poverty does not cause people to exercise more discipline and be more responsible but on both points, less. So, society might calculate an expected return on investment: Invest some money in raising poor people out of poverty and see how much society saves later in expenditures on the social problems of children with poor parents with poor parenting. But, wait, there's more! Finland beat back the Swedes, Russians, and Germans, but now they are losing! How? They are having only about 1.5 children per woman. Extrapolate that out for 100 years and see a smaller Finland; for 300 years and see nearly no Finland. And that figure of 1.5 is close to what holds in several countries in Europe. Why? So far in the more advanced countries with the higher standards of living, they have decided they don't want to be parents. Joke: Come back in 500 years and find nearly everyone super fired up about being good parents. Why? Because all the other branches of the tree died out! Darwin wins again! Of course, there is likely a grain of truth in this joke, and if so then we stand to be in one of the periods of relatively fast genetic change, assuming that the desire to be good parents is significantly a genetic thing. But, wait, there's more! So, some of the people lost their jobs because in effect their jobs were shipped overseas. So, we go to a retail store, buy an item made overseas, pay for it, and then also pay taxes to pay to help the person who lost their job as we bought this item from overseas. Are we actually helping the US in this way? I know; I know; all those textile workers in the Carolinas were supposed to get much better jobs at Microsoft as Microsoft sold software to the overseas textile industry. Who believed this? Yes, apparently in the US we can import items with low or no import tariffs; I've heard that this policy on imports is rare in the world, that most other countries protect their domestic workers. There are claims that such protectionism is, net, bad for the US economy, but this argument seems to write off the training, experience, and capital associated with the person who lost their job with this expensive write off ignored. For more, the economy is important. Then destroying the financial system is a disaster. How to do that? We saw how in the 1920s: Use high leverage to blow an asset bubble. In response we put in a lot of controls in finance to keep that from happening again. Then starting in 2000 or so, we did it to ourselves again, although this time with real estate. Plenty of people, e.g., the COB of Wells Fargo who said clearly that we would not like the results, saw the problem coming. Yet, we let the bubble inflate. If we want to say that actions have consequences, then we should be willing to say that bubble blowing has consequences and with discipline, we had plenty of information, we wouldn't do such a thing. For more, one of the problems in the US is social problems from poor people, but actually we wanted poor people and have worked, more than once, to import a distinctive lower class we could have as poor people and cheap labor. We've deliberately created an underclass, and we are seeing some of the consequences. From all I can see, except for new technology in the last 60 years, the US standard of living was higher in the 1950s. Then we exported a lot but imported very little. But how did the exporting help the US? Or, workers at Caterpillar built an earth moving machine and sent it to a third world country or one of the countries so damaged in WWII that they couldn't make such a machine again yet. So, the US got paid in foreign currency that we swapped for gold or some such -- nearly useless. Net, the US was able to do better being nearly self sufficient. Sure, we might import rubber and tin, but mostly we were self sufficient. Sounds like maybe we should be self sufficient again.

mark_l_watson 13y ago

Great article. Shows the heartlessness of a critic of a social safety net. I believe that people can be motivated and very successful in life, without having their motivation destroyed by seeing people who can barely get by get a little help, for example food stamps. In other words, I don't believe that supplying a minimal social net destroys incentives to get ahead in life.

davidf18 13y ago

People frequently focus on increasing wages but the really important thing to remember is quality of life. With increasing productivity should come lower cost for the same goods (adjusted for inflation). The New Yorker is based in New York City where I live. Both renting apartments and purchasing housing has increased in cost significantly because of an artificially induced housing shortage through zoning laws meant to favor wealthy landlords over those who rent or want to purchase an apartment/coop. (this is called by economists, economic rent) There are many, many laws like the zoning laws in NYC that cause economic rent that favor certain groups over others. Another example in New York City are Taxi Medallions which limit the number of taxis and making them less affordable for passengers. Instead of focusing on wage increases which might be limited by globalization, we should look for all of the economic rents and removing them through legislation thus allowing markets to do their job.