The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A God Damned Separate Thread For Your Argument About Government Dependency
Astaereth
In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
Wiki has many definitions of "dependency," but I like this one:
The pertinent questions are:
1) What government benefits, if any, must be present in order for a citizenry to be able to thrive?
2) What level or form of government benefits, if any, not only responds to dependency but creates it?
I'd argue that we have a lot of economic and historical data suggesting that some government benefits have no effect on need. For example, the availability of health care does not seem to decrease the ability of citizens to go without health care, because that ability was and remains zero.
Other benefits have the effect of decreasing need. Government subsidized student loans help people get an education which they can then use in order to be productive members of society.
Are there government benefits that have the effect of increasing need, or removing someone's ability to support themselves without the benefits? Welfare 'gaps' where you end up earning less money once you find work come to mind. On the other hand, the presence of government-funded roads has influenced our entire system of transportation and commerce such that most businesses could not be competitive if they couldn't use those roads.
Is that dependency? Is dependency always harmful? I don't know, but here's a God Damned Thread about it. Enjoy.
A dependency need is thought to be characterized by two components: (1) It is a real need of an organism, something that must be present in order for the organism to be able to thrive, (2) It is something that an individual cannot provide for him or herself.
The pertinent questions are:
1) What government benefits, if any, must be present in order for a citizenry to be able to thrive?
2) What level or form of government benefits, if any, not only responds to dependency but creates it?
I'd argue that we have a lot of economic and historical data suggesting that some government benefits have no effect on need. For example, the availability of health care does not seem to decrease the ability of citizens to go without health care, because that ability was and remains zero.
Other benefits have the effect of decreasing need. Government subsidized student loans help people get an education which they can then use in order to be productive members of society.
Are there government benefits that have the effect of increasing need, or removing someone's ability to support themselves without the benefits? Welfare 'gaps' where you end up earning less money once you find work come to mind. On the other hand, the presence of government-funded roads has influenced our entire system of transportation and commerce such that most businesses could not be competitive if they couldn't use those roads.
Is that dependency? Is dependency always harmful? I don't know, but here's a God Damned Thread about it. Enjoy.
+1
Posts
2) The acceptance of a government by the citizenry implies that the citizenry has agreed to be dependent upon that government for any issues they have agreed to place within the responsibility of that government.
I think those questions are tied together, and I think the answers are based largely on semantics. Someone who thinks that dependency is always harmful will basically find themselves defining "dependency" in a way that requires harm, then coming up with a reason why, say, the road example does not count as dependency.
If you go with the definition you provide - which I think is a pretty decent definition - then yes, the US road system has created a dependency, but one which is clearly not harmful.
While I don't want to derail or turn this thread into something it's not meant to be, I would posit that the more interesting questions are less in the global definitions and philosophy, and more in the specific examples. Does, for example, unemployment insurance foster a dependency that encourages certain life choices (ie, does it make you tend to remain unemployed?) In that specific case, yes, to a point - being guaranteed a paycheck that is $X/week means that you're screwing yourself if you find a job that pays less than that, so a rational actor will hold out for a better paying job, thus potentially turning down permanent positions. That said, is it really detrimental to society if a data analyst holds out for a data analysis position, rather than taking a job as a fry cook that will allow him very little time to find more appropriate work? (I'd say no.)
My feeling is that, for most broad examples that get trotted out as "government dependency," they are of the unemployment insurance or road system variety - dependence of a sort that is a net positive for society, even if they may result in a few localized negatives. (See also: "welfare queens," food stamps)
I will never tire of quoting this statement from 1848:
They were writing about the creation of public sewer systems.
Corporate welfare can create extra dependency, because if your competition is receiving it and you aren't, you have a competitive disadvantage.
To bring up the issue from the last thread, I am currently dependent on my employer (vis health coverage) to provide me with health insurance. Is that better than depending on the government for the same service? Even if we accept that a position of dependence is undesirable, it doesn't seem like I should find much difference between depending on my employer and the government. I mean, aside from the fact that I couldn't be laid off and lose my hypothetical government coverage.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I know which option provides less room for abuse and more likelihood for me to actually get the services I need.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
These arguments usually break down into three pieces:
1) You can negotiate with your employer. Your employer has Blue Cross and you think they should offer Kaiser, you can talk to them about it.
2) You can change employers.
3) Dependence upon employers creates an incentive to work, and working is good.
I don't believe that any of these reasons carries the weight that American conservatives (or even moderates) ascribe them.
1) Most people have limited or zero negotiation power with their employer over major benefits matters. You might be able to negotiate a slightly higher employer-paid fraction of your premium, but for all but the smallest employers and/or the highest-ranking executives, you're not likely to effect significant change at your workplace.
2) You can change employers, sure, but your employer can also change you. You can get laid off at any time, for any reason. Tying critical benefits (like health care) to an at-will employment system is insanity.
3) Limited benefits, like basic welfare, or health insurance, have not been shown empirically to eliminate incentive to work. People work because they want nice things; they want to travel, to invest, to start businesses, to buy cars and TVs and houses. A little food and basic medical care don't abrogate that.
However, I do think that there is a kernel of truth to each of them that should be taken into account in policy details. I'm not simply playing devil's advocate here - rather, I'm acknowledging the devils in the details.
1) What avenue does the government agency provide for resolving grievances? Is there an ombudsman or citizen's advocate? Take a look at the problems some veterans have with Veterans' Administration benefits - the VA is notoriously intractable (though they are getting better).
2) Are there private alternatives to the public service? Canadian law makes it exceedingly difficult for a physician to practice privately in most specialties, and this contributes to their waiting list problems. I don't support that. Other countries like Germany have done a better job with the balance between public and private healthcare.
3) If a welfare service is need-based, is there an eligibility cliff where you could end up worse off if you start working? Most of the time, there isn't any such cliff, which is why the disincentive effect is largely exaggerated. One program where there is a disincentive is Social Security Disability Insurance. Once you're on SSDI, you can work for short periods of time without losing it. This is called a Trial Work Period. However, while you're trying to get SSDI, you should not be working - any worked hours during the application process (which can take months or years) reduce the likelihood of getting any benefit at all. Applicants are usually advised not to even attempt to work during the application process. Needless to say, this filters out many applicants who might, for example, do freelance work from home and be unable or unwilling to spend months idle.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's the basis for a lot of the work on the 'poverty trap' and it is very much a problem with most government assistance. Marginal tax rates generally do not have that large of an influence on people unless they are pretty significant (like, 70-80% significant). Unfortunately that tends to describe how most help works at the breakpoints. Particularly since making a dollar over qualifying for MedicAid is basically incurring a tax rate of ∞% (though the ACA helps resolve this compared to status quo ante) unless the raise came along with benefits.
The very people who rant loudest about "government dependency" - conservatives - are the ones most interested in creating it, via "poverty traps." They tend to be very suspicious about fraud, so they set things up so that if you earn anything at all, even a fraction of what you need to live, you instantly lose all your benefits. It would be best that benefits "ease off" gradually as people get back on their feet, rather than suddenly vanish.
For instance, if a person on benefits gets $1000 in a lottery win, they shouldn't celebrate, because that's their benefits gone until it is all spent. This creates a fatalistic attitude in the poor that thrift and saving is pointless because it all just gets taken away, so the best thing to do with sudden windfalls is to blow it. This is probably where the proverbial flatscreen TV in a household on food stamps comes from.
Right. If we say "well, we only want to help the people who really seriously truly need it with a cherry on top" then we come to the assumption that welfare should be 1) long-term and 2) difficult to get.
But if you look at the actual numbers on poverty, we see things like how most homeless people are only homeless for less than a year. (IIRC, the average is six months.) Similarly with food stamps - most people who take food stamps also on it for less than a year.
Yes, there are people facing intractable poverty and long-term unemployment, who need assistance for years at a time. But most people who take benefits aren't in that category. They're people who work part-time, or odd jobs, or seasonal agricultural jobs, and need temporary help. Or they float in and out of poverty; sometimes making it; sometimes not. Or they're elderly and they're receiving an "entitlement" that they partially contributed to by working (Social Security).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Flatscreens are also super inexpensive these days. Unlike all other electronics, the cost of a good TV has dropped considerably.
But, yeah, being poor teaches you not to save. And your life is so stressful that you would much rather have a TV and some video games than to just pay off some of your debt.
I feel that populations need to set certain metrics as to where values need to be at a certain point in time. If moneyed interests can meet those values and make a profit on it to boot, fantastic, if not, the government needs to fill the gap. I'd rather like to see the two compete with one another.
I just want to say this, because I always want to say it every time I hear the phrase 'welfare queens':
There are no welfare queens. There never were any welfare queens. These beings occupy the same space as McCarthy's communist spies.
That quote from Ronald Reagan in 1976 is the genesis of the term 'welfare queen', and the character within said quote is completely fictitious. Nevermind that it's absolutely absurd at face value - people believed it because the Presidential candidate said it, and it stuck.
This idea that there are people out there milking government subsidy food stamp / health care money to make hundreds of thousands of tax-free dollars every year is just fucking crazy, yet it's the cornerstone of arguments saying that these programs shouldn't exist.
EDIT
And moniker. He's a welfare king. Totally different animal.
If we're shifting from domestic policy to foreign affairs, sure. The recent Senkaku Isle flareup has dashed a lot of my hopes for moving the US Marines from Okinawa. But I really do suspect we're dealing with the services owed by the government to the citizenry, either federally or locally.
Certain people have it so good with their food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, and free ER visits for health insurance, that they become lazy and don't ever want to get a job, because the government gives them everything they could ever want or need. All they need to do is keep having kids, and the government keeps giving them more money! How great! And they will vote en masse for any party that will give or increase these benefits, and against any party that dare threatens to take them away.
I realize this is a crock of shit, but it is sincerely believed by many people. Anecdotes are what they are, but this is what I hear when I hear people complain about government dependence.
Look dude the communist spies were real and if you are questioning that you must be a communist spy. Are you a communist spy? You are, aren't you?
http://www.democracycorps.com/Republican-Party-Project/inside-the-gop-report-on-focus-groups-with-evangelical-tea-party-and-moderate-republicans/
Specifically, the part on Pg 10: There's some quotes from the survey I skipped over about your standard welfare queens bullshit. This ones the kicked to me:
This is what all the talk of "dependency" is about. It's a muddled code word to hide racism and the standard "Every American is an Island" bullshit that the US loves so dearly in it's political rhetoric.
But...but... I don't want my work sullied by Rule 34!
Out compete them, like Robin Thicke. Drop the nudie version of your work at the same time you drop the clothed version. If you're not willing to "fill that niche," so to speak, oh well. Ron Jeremy is always willing to work, you slacker.
What? What? This is physically hurting me.
I don't
I can't
What? Can someone explain to me how this thought process works?
Having been in this exact situation, I can confirm this 100%. As soon as someone at the bottom of the pile gets a few quid, there's always someone lining up to take it away. Spend it immediately.
One of my favourite cheap tricks when talking with 'conservatives' is to give them an easy opening: taxation. Inevitably, and I mean without fail, they will bring out the "higher taxation discourages people from working" line. Then I ask them what effect they think facing an effective tax rate of 100% - and it's actually well over 100% because going to work every day costs a lot of money - has on encouraging people to stop signing on and get a job.
http://www.esquire.com/features/era-big-government-marcus-stephen-0400?click=main_sr
It's basically about how the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program of the Social Security Administration was gutted under Clinton over completely false claims that it was a source of "free money" for "cheaters" and how that helped deny children in desperate need of medical care help.
As far as "voting emotionally", I read a WSJ op-ed a few weeks ago that argued that conservatives "don't really vote emotionally"; the same standard "conservatives are realists" bullshit. I hate that I live in a world where "we should try to cut down on the amount of people dying" is not a rational statement to some people.
This is a big one. Like, I'm a fairly responsible person, but I have been in extremely tight financial situations. When you have $100 left in your pocket and a week until pay day, you scrimp and save and plan every last penny. When you have $5 left in your pocket and a week until payday, you're fucked anyway - let's go to Starbucks and get the venti.
There's also the matter of having kids, and how that plays into the algebra. I have, at times, done moderately irresponsible things with some money because sometimes you just want your children to have a good time without having to tell them "Sorry, we can't do that, we're broke" every single time they express interest in something that costs more than zero dollars.
Poverty carries with it a tremendous amount of stress and a peculiar set of motivations that likely makes no sense to most people who have never actually been extremely poor. Like, say, anyone who has ever unironically uttered the phrase "lucky-duckies".
And that's the thing - there's nothing 'good' about being on benefit programs. It is stressful and something that actually requires maintenance (reporting any income earned, keeping track of tons of paperwork, managing what funds you DO receive, etc).
Government aid programs are born of helping people who, even when trying, can't make a basic living. This goes hand in hand with income levels and the minimum wage. Minimum wage does not provide a living, not even close. People in government can either raise our minimum wage to the point of not needing the aid programs, or just continue to fund the aid programs. But you can't keep wages down and axe the programs. No fucking way. Anyone who preaches that is, to use a Tea Party word, "enemy" of America.
There's really no feasible way to work yourself into long term unemployment benefits because it requires you to annually:
1) Get a full time job and work at it for several months
2) Become unemployed in a manner that doesn't place you at fault. (IE you can't just not show up, do something wrong, leave, or suck at your job)
3) Get evaluated by your state workforce commission and have them not notice that you've done this before.
4) Continue to do regular job searches for work that the people looking over your shoulder will agree is suitable work and not turn down a single offer of work that you get back.
Then repeat...
annually...
"Get a better paying job."
Hi there's only so many jobs to go around even with degrees kthx.
I like, "Just go to school or learn a trade!"
Because both of those things are free and entirely possible if you're sitting in the gap between homeless and lower-middle income and can just barely afford a studio apartment. Inevitably the person who I've personally heard say this is grifting the government for disability benefits and education benefits as a military veteran while working full time. I am sorry you claim to have PTSD and have 20% hearing loss you fuck, you don't automatically get to collect more in benefits than you actually make at your job AND THEN get to tell people to suck it up.
I am constantly in awe of people who both have a deep dependence on the government, and hate programs that benefit others. They EARNED theirs but everyone else is some sort of leech.
Agreed. If someone working "full time" cannot support a moderately sized family, they're not being paid enough. That is not a desirable scenario to have, and we should quit supporting that behavior of corporations.
"Oh! But they'll have to cut jobs to make up for the increased wage!" Nobody who says this has ever worked at a minimum wage job. Employers ALREADY use as few people as they possibly can, often sacrificing quality for reduced labor costs.
"Oh! Then they'll have to charge $20 for a Happy Meal, and no one will want that, so jobs will be lost!" Bullshit. If McDonald's charges $20 for a Happy Meal, then Burger King gets some free advertising. "Yo... fuck paying $20 for a Happy Meal. Come get our Kid's Meal for $<20." They are competing, you know. This encourages individual stores to NOT go along with higher wages, so if we just do a blanket minimum wage increase, we skip that game.
The hilarious(ly sad) thing is that kids have absorbed this idea and say stupid shit on Twitter, meanwhile THEY are whining on Twitter about how they need a job.
The only moral abortion is my abortion. It's the actor-observer bias all up ins.
Actually, I have seen the price on goods increase.
Over in east Texas, before the ACA was implemented, employers started cutting jobs and hours. It's the sort of thing where like a Jack in the Box at the corporate level doesn't give a shit, but all the people who manage JitB in Texas were enacting their political views as business. They cut hours and employees, so service time goes up. People get fed up, stop doing business at JitB. I saw something astonishing happen at that fucking place in my last months in Texas - the "value menu" (you know, the dollar priced stuff) went away. I mean, it was present and still named the value menu, but the prices were $2 or $3. Because they had to make up for the lost revenue, but they couldn't reduce operation cost because they were already running on bare minimum.
Really the issue goes back to executive pay rise. You stop that shit, and the money appears to pay for people full time at higher pay. Then benefit funds drop. Which means tax cuts can start happening.
Then again, bootstraps m i rite.