5 ms·
This seems to me a typical US response. Let me give you a perspective from the rest of the world. I've lived for years in multiple countries on multiple conti
by adekok 13y ago
This seems to me a typical US response. Let me give you a perspective from the rest of the world. I've lived for years in multiple countries on multiple continents, so I'm not just talking out my backside.
In the rest of the world, the poor people vote for health care, welfare, and unemployment insurance. This is because they want that safety for themselves if something goes wrong. They recognize that these programs are largely insurance. They pay into them in the expectation that most of the time nothing goes wrong, and they're not getting their moneys worth.
But when something does go wrong, the insurance is there to help them. In that situation, they get far more out of it than they put in.
Their decision to pay insurance is a rational one, based on cost/benefit analysis. It's the same as your decision to buy life insurance, or fire insurance on your house. (Car insurance is usually mandated, so I'll ignore that...)
Sure, there are scammers. But the scammers of these programs are individuals. Their impact is limited. The scams done by corporations, and people with the right connections far outweigh the scams done by Joe Average on welfare.
In the US, the poor people vote for no health care, no welfare, and no unemployment benefits. They also vote for lower taxes on the rich (corporate, inheritance, etc.). They claim this attitude is because they don't want idiots on welfare spending MY money.
You might be well intentioned, but the rest of the world thinks your approach is crazy. Not "Gosh, that's crazy!". But "We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty by reason of mental defect".
The disparity between rich and poor in the US has grown enormously in the past 20 years. And it's all because the average joe has bought a line of horse twaddle about "independence" and "welfare mom living off of MY money".
The rich people who've sold you that crap are laughing all the way to the bank. And Joe Average is left wondering why he's doing everything he's told... and is still poorer than his parents.
- jeremyjh 13y agoYou have to understand that much of debate in the US is coded for racism. There are a lot of European bigots who do not want to extend benefits and social services to (legal) immigrants, particularly islamic immigrants. In the US it is the same only the attitudes are also held against large segments of our citizens.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoThese programs are not largely insurance. People don't pay into them proportionally to their actuarial costs. I.e., the guy who drifts between jobs, getting fired every few months doesn't pay more for unemployment insurance than the guy who has been stably employed for the past 10 years. The disparity between rich and poor in the US has grown enormously in the past 20 years. And it's all because the average joe has bought a line Nope. The disparity in the US has moved more or less lockstep with the disparity in the rest of the world (with one exception in 1986 when a change in tax law caused income to be shifted from corporate to individual returns). If policy caused it, it's a policy that basically every nation has adopted. http://www.scottwinship.com/1/post/2011/03/what-would-it-mean-for-theories-of-us-income-inequality-growth-if-the-us-experience-has-been-similar-to-that-everywhere-else.html http://www.scottwinship.com/1/post/2011/03/what-would-it-mea...
- Aloha 13y agoUnemployment does work as insurance - the difference it, the beneficiary is not the one paying for it - their employer does - and I, the employee takes some of that thru lower wages.
- judk 13y agoActuarial cost is a function of a population, not an individual. It isn't obvious that a finer-grained breakdown is superior to nationwide "open enrollment"
- yummyfajitas 13y agoThe actuarial cost of any event is integral( cost x P(cost) dP ). There is no population involved.
- Domenic_S 13y ago> This is because they want that safety for themselves if something goes wrong. I have a hard time with this. If your monthly nut is $5k (mortgage, cars, kids, etc) what good is an $800/month basic income going to do for you when something goes wrong? In fact, it's likely that most people will raise their standard of living by the amount of BI they get, so their net/net when something goes wrong will be exactly the same as if they didn't get BI in the first place. If you're the type of person that would live below their means and save for the rainy day, BI is moot - you will be fine when something happens. If you're not that type of person, then you're just as screwed with or without BI.