posted
I have no problem being forced* to pay taxes, because I am busy working a very busy job and raising my family, that I don't want to spend my free time research which private corporations are best at helping the poor, and then continuing to monitor them to ensure they are still the best. I'm willing to allow for some inefficiency in terms of money wasted to free up more time for me.
* To me, this is sort of like saying I am forced to be a US citizen by virtue of my birth**
** Interestingly, if I were to run for president, my place of birth would be wrong... Even the wrong state. And there is a potentially deeper question of whether I was born in any state.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no problem being forced* to pay taxes, because I am busy working a very busy job and raising my family, that I don't want to spend my free time research which private corporations are best at helping the poor, and then continuing to monitor them to ensure they are still the best. I'm willing to allow for some inefficiency in terms of money wasted to free up more time for me.
It's easier than ever to do this. Here's a good one-stop shop for charity recommendations: http://www.givewell.org/
quote:I understand people fall on hard times and I want them to be taken care of. It is the chronic receivers I have a problem with. I don't think we should just throw people out on the streets, but I think a higher amount of responsibility and accountability needs to be placed on people who receive government assistance.
You realize that putting accountability conditions on welfare and unemployment will cost a lot of extra money in itself? You have to investigate and enforce them. Straight-up handouts like EITC are less wasteful and more efficient.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the surface of the issue I have no problems with accountability conditions...but the idea that in the end they will cost more is an interesting one I hadn't considered.
Would that cost be in employee time and therefore be just plugging that money back into the economy through job creation?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't have a point when I posted previously...I was just thinking out loud...but I do now.
I agree with Geraine that oversight should be a part of public assistance programs, and the fact that that oversight is not free doesn't make it "inefficient" as that money goes back into the economy by creating jobs.
posted
Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost. A gov't program could always hire more people doing absolutely nothing, for decent wages, but that wouldn't be a good thing. The money is not wasted, but neither is it spent well, if there is an alternative that works at least within a margin about equal to the cost of employing the people to do avoid it.
It isn't really clear to me what purpose is being served by most of the requirements that some people want put in place (that would be extremely costly to *actually* enforce), other than feeling morally superior to the people receiving assistance, either.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be better to restructure welfare so that income earned from jobs is reduced one for one, instead of reduced at arbitrarily set income rates.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no problem being forced* to pay taxes, because I am busy working a very busy job and raising my family, that I don't want to spend my free time research which private corporations are best at helping the poor, and then continuing to monitor them to ensure they are still the best. I'm willing to allow for some inefficiency in terms of money wasted to free up more time for me.
It's easier than ever to do this. Here's a good one-stop shop for charity recommendations: http://www.givewell.org/
And then I have to keep tabs on it continuously. I admit something that others probably agree with without realizing it (even those who complain about government inefficiencies in administering help), which is that my time is more precious than that. I'd rather use the time freed up from researching this to poke around with coding projects at home that could, in theory lead to me becoming an entrepreneur, creating jobs and helping people out of government assistance. Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost.
Not to those who need a job. And considering the title and theme of this discussion, that shouldn't be ignored.
quote:A gov't program could always hire more people doing absolutely nothing, for decent wages, but that wouldn't be a good thing.
I think that goes without saying.
quote:The money is not wasted, but neither is it spent well, if there is an alternative that works at least within a margin about equal to the cost of employing the people to do avoid it.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
quote:It isn't really clear to me what purpose is being served by most of the requirements that some people want put in place (that would be extremely costly to *actually* enforce), other than feeling morally superior to the people receiving assistance, either.
It's not a matter of feeling morally superior, it's about fairness and making sure that the help is going to someone who needs help and not to someone who is simply abusing the system for their own gain.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: It would be better to restructure welfare so that income earned from jobs is reduced one for one, instead of reduced at arbitrarily set income rates.
I have no idea what this means.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be better to restructure welfare so that income earned from jobs is reduced one for one, instead of reduced at arbitrarily set income rates.
Not one for one; then there would be little incentive to work. Probably more like reductions of 50 percent, so if someone earns an extra $10k, their gov't subsidized income goes down $5k, for a net gain of $5k.
quote:Not to those who need a job. And considering the title and theme of this discussion, that shouldn't be ignored.
Yes, for the purposes of this discussion. If you view jobs as a benefit, there's no reason not to spend money just to create oodles of $20k a year positions picking up every scrap of trash from the street seconds after it hits it. It'd be pretty cheap, and employ a lot of people, and if the jobs are a benefit, there's not really any reason not to do it. Except jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
quote:I think that goes without saying.
Why? You've said jobs are a benefit, so for a fairly low cost it is possible to create oodles of jobs doing random, simple tasks. What reason is there for not doing that, if the jobs are a benefit?
quote:It's not a matter of feeling morally superior, it's about fairness and making sure that the help is going to someone who needs help and not to someone who is simply abusing the system for their own gain.
Try to imagine the multitudes of ways people's situations could ill fit the simple criteria that're being bandied about. Now imagine the legions of people that would be involved in enforcing, especially with any sensitivity to those multitudes of ways. Now look at the statistics on how *little* welfare is abused now. There's a lot of projecting of ill intent on an imagined mass of potential welfare abusers.
I'm certain some people will abuse such a system, as any system is abused by some. I'm willing to live with that, so long as the system is set up with reasonable incentives for improving one's life. I think it is a far better alternative than requiring poor people be treated as potential criminals simply because they want gov't assistance with being poor. It is already extraordinarily hard to get the most deserving populations onto gov't assistance programs, in large part because of the onerous requirements, difficulty many people have understanding the requirements, arcane ways one can suddenly lose eligibility, and so forth. Adding *even more* conditions is an even worse idea.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm certain some people will abuse such a system, as any system is abused by some. I'm willing to live with that, so long as the system is set up with reasonable incentives for improving one's life. I think it is a far better alternative than requiring poor people be treated as potential criminals simply because they want gov't assistance with being poor. It is already extraordinarily hard to get the most deserving populations onto gov't assistance programs, in large part because of the onerous requirements, difficulty many people have understanding the requirements, arcane ways one can suddenly lose eligibility, and so forth. Adding *even more* conditions is an even worse idea.
posted
Most your posts fugu show that you know a lot more about economics that I do...and that's okay, I'm sure there is good reason for you to know these things (like they are your job or are interesting to you). But to say that jobs are a cost like it is a simple and closed matter just doesn't make sense to me.
To those employing, without those people in those positions (without those jobs) they would not be able to have a profitable company, to the government jobs create huge amounts of income tax, to the people jobs create money to spend in the real world.
In what way are jobs simply a cost?
Throwing money in a pit filled with gasoline followed directly by a match is simply a cost.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, the WPA and CWA, while not without issues, did get an awful lot accomplished while keeping families from dissolving into terrible poverty. And a lot of those WPA/CWA buildings, bridges, and roads could use some fixing up by now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To those employing, without those people in those positions (without those jobs) they would not be able to have a profitable company, to the government jobs create huge amounts of income tax, to the people jobs create money to spend in the real world.
The work done by the people is the benefit, not the job itself, and the work will be just as beneficial if it is done by a person or a computer (assuming it is done the same). If the job isn't doing work that is valuable, there's no benefit.
The key is realizing that money that is spent employing people in one particular position, especially gov't money, isn't doing something else. Such as providing another job that's actually needed -- if welfare administration was offloaded on the states (as is common with federal programs), then that money would likely be not employing a teacher, or not employing a garbage truck driver. You get the idea.
quote:You know, the WPA and CWA, while not without issues, did get an awful lot accomplished while keeping families from dissolving into terrible poverty. And a lot of those WPA/CWA buildings, bridges, and roads could use some fixing up by now.
It would be pretty much illegal to try to do the same thing, because the requirements we have for erecting such structures in such locations now are much more onerous (environmental assessments, engineer time for the plans, et cetera). I mean, we could do something similar, but it would be far, far more expensive than it was then, and a very different program. Also, I suspect there would be few people interested (unsurprising, as the situation in the US today is far better than it was back then, even ignoring the great depression). After all, farmers are having hard times finding people willing to diligently work picking berries for above minimum wage.
Also, the benefits are a lot less clear than you might think. People not participating in the WPA were quicker to get (better) jobs, with WPA workers staying in their gov't provided jobs for a long time. A direct handout that decreases at less than one for one with increased income means workers won't have to risk lowering their income by seeking normal jobs, the big problem for WPA workers. Further, just as it was back then, such a jobs program would probably become highly politicized, with WPA-style projects going far more to the states of those politically supportive of the administration at the time, instead of being closely focused on need, as a direct benefit based solely on income level would be.
Even with all that, I'm not really against it if it could be made to happen; the WPA and so forth people were employed doing fairly useful things, unlike the proposed welfare inspectors.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how you can separate the work being done from the cost of the person's pay in the word "job"...it's both, a job is a contract between the employer and the employee for work done and pay rendered.
If you want to say that "pay checks" are a cost...I might agree...but even those generate tax income and are spent into the economy.
And if governments were required to run on budget, then perhaps spending one place would remove money from another...but they aren't, thus we have a huge deficit.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: And then I have to keep tabs on it continuously. I admit something that others probably agree with without realizing it (even those who complain about government inefficiencies in administering help), which is that my time is more precious than that. I'd rather use the time freed up from researching this to poke around with coding projects at home that could, in theory lead to me becoming an entrepreneur, creating jobs and helping people out of government assistance.
Suit yourself, but it literally took me less than a half hour to pick a good charity from Givewell. Then all you have to do is check again every once in a while (if you want) to make sure they're still endorsed.
Since taxes are so unjustly low right now, I do think there's an obligation, depending on your income level, to give a bit more than you otherwise would to private charity.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know how you can separate the work being done from the cost of the person's pay in the word "job"...it's both, a job is a contract between the employer and the employee for work done and pay rendered.
It is pretty easy, really. For instance, if the work done can be done by computer, we say it does the work, but we don't say it has the job. You've asserted the mere existence of a job is a benefit. It isn't. Only the product of the job is a benefit. The existence of the job does, however, always require costs: the salary and other administrative overhead. That's true even if there's no benefit from the job. Thus, jobs are a cost, not a benefit, since the costs are inseparable, but the benefits are separable.
quote:And if governments were required to run on budget, then perhaps spending one place would remove money from another...but they aren't, thus we have a huge deficit.
Where do you think the money the gov't has (or has promised) comes from? Of course it all comes from somewhere. There's no magic free money the gov't gets to create from nothing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Even with all that, I'm not really against it if it could be made to happen; the WPA and so forth people were employed doing fairly useful things, unlike the proposed welfare inspectors.
That was my point.
Although I am a bit concerned about the state of some of our bridges and roads.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, btw have you figured out the answer to our little history quiz? What were the results of that economic strategy guaranteed to end all poverty in the US?
With us living in an age of pretty high corporate profits, all the stuff that was supposed to be 'trickling down' really isn't, and it's making a lot of supply siders and lafferites kind of shuffle their feet around a bit. Wealth gaps are getting kind of extreme!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is pretty easy, really. For instance, if the work done can be done by computer, we say it does the work, but we don't say it has the job. You've asserted the mere existence of a job is a benefit. It isn't. Only the product of the job is a benefit. The existence of the job does, however, always require costs: the salary and other administrative overhead. That's true even if there's no benefit from the job. Thus, jobs are a cost, not a benefit, since the costs are inseparable, but the benefits are separable.
You are implying that computers are free, with no maintenance and operating costs and just deliver work like magic. Jobs = work + cost. You can not separate the work part, or else it isn't a job, it is charity. The work done for the pay is integral to the concept.
quote:Where do you think the money the gov't has (or has promised) comes from? Of course it all comes from somewhere. There's no magic free money the gov't gets to create from nothing.
You suggested that paying people for oversight is like taking water out of a bucket...there is less water for other things. I'm saying there is not a bucket...we keep just pumping the well pump (printing more money and getting in deeper debt)...yes, eventually we will have to deal with all the debt, but to say that it literally takes away from doing other things is unrealistic I think.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are implying that computers are free, with no maintenance and operating costs and just deliver work like magic. Jobs = work + cost. You can not separate the work part, or else it isn't a job, it is charity. The work done for the pay is integral to the concept.
There are plenty of jobs that provide essentially no benefit, but are jobs. For instance, I could employ far too many people to pick up litter, as in the example. With so many of them, the streets would be nigh-spotless, but they'd be definitely in jobs: constantly on the watch for that occasional litter drop.
And your definition says the computer has a job. The computer doesn't. What's more, I never said the computer didn't have a cost. Those costs are costs too. Where did I say the only costs were jobs? I just said jobs were costs. Because they are.
Look at the quotation where you talked about jobs being a benefit:
quote:I agree with Geraine that oversight should be a part of public assistance programs, and the fact that that oversight is not free doesn't make it "inefficient" as that money goes back into the economy by creating jobs.
You called the *cost* of paying people salary a *benefit*, not the work being done. That is not true.
quote:You suggested that paying people for oversight is like taking water out of a bucket...there is less water for other things. I'm saying there is not a bucket...we keep just pumping the well pump (printing more money and getting in deeper debt)...yes, eventually we will have to deal with all the debt, but to say that it literally takes away from doing other things is unrealistic I think.
No, it's pretty much definitional. Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Whether the things being taken away are being taken from the future or not (and they aren't, at least not entirely; debt payments start immediately), they're still being taken away. In fact, they're taken away immediately in another sense: gov't debt is a sale of a security (such as a bond). When the gov't sells bonds, that money is *taken away* from other uses, immediately, in exchange for an asset that the person hopes will pay them money in the future. The bond then sits there earning interest until the time it is cashed, receiving money back from the government. Now, that effect isn't complete, due to the high value of the bond as a security, but it definitely happens.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it will help to look at it this way. People who count jobs as benefits tend to do the accounting this way:
The program accomplished X worth of goals plus created Y amount of payroll in jobs, for a net benefit of X + Y - expenses. See how you called the salaries a benefit in the bit I quoted? That's the exact same thing. (edit: even the more charitable way of phrasing this way of thinking, X + Y - Y - expenses, is still obviously very wrong).
But the real equation is as follows: X worth of goals were accomplished at a cost of Y amount of payroll (and expenses), for a net benefit of X - Y - expenses. That's the correct accounting. That tells us how much benefit there was to society by the project. Jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate how much work you put into your answers, but I still disagree, and honestly don't feel like trying to go into the same level of detail myself.
I don't see jobs simply as a benefit nor simply as a cost. That there are costs associated with jobs is obvious, but that there are benefits as well I feel is equally obvious.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: And then I have to keep tabs on it continuously. I admit something that others probably agree with without realizing it (even those who complain about government inefficiencies in administering help), which is that my time is more precious than that. I'd rather use the time freed up from researching this to poke around with coding projects at home that could, in theory lead to me becoming an entrepreneur, creating jobs and helping people out of government assistance.
Suit yourself, but it literally took me less than a half hour to pick a good charity from Givewell. Then all you have to do is check again every once in a while (if you want) to make sure they're still endorsed.
Since taxes are so unjustly low right now, I do think there's an obligation, depending on your income level, to give a bit more than you otherwise would to private charity.
Of course, I do give to private charity (several, actually), but if we decided to shift the burden of helping the poor much more onto individual's shoulders, that would become an issue.
Also, some of my donations go to other causes (like my High School, my wife's College, a Children's museum, NPR, a local college radio station we listen to frequently) than simply helping the poor (which we also donate to).
Better a government bureaucrat spends time managing our our money for helping the poor, than each of us individually doing so (at potentially cross-purposes).
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I wonder if what SW is getting at is the idea Kat was talking about before in this thread: that there's some additional utility to people being busy and feeling like they're working to support themselves, so that the value of a job is more than just the benefits of the work minus the associated costs of employment.
FWIW, I disagree that that's a good reason to try to create jobs...
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vonnegut's work contains some very interesting meditations on egalitarian ideals (Sirens of Titan is especially good for those).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, as a socialist, he was under no illusions of actual equality of individuals. His aim was more promoting kindness.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Los Capax Infinitos: By taking another's earnings you depriving them of a percentage of their life. The earner receives no compensation. I can't conceive of a justifiable reason to take some of a person's life and use it to support the life and leisure of lazy individuals.
You do, actually. Multiple ones, in fact. We could start with jails.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: fugu, I wonder if what SW is getting at is the idea Kat was talking about before in this thread: that there's some additional utility to people being busy and feeling like they're working to support themselves, so that the value of a job is more than just the benefits of the work minus the associated costs of employment.
Nope. The specific benefits I'm talking about (beyond the individual benefits to the employed person) are tax revenue and work generated and money spent in the economy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying the right equation for benefits from a gov't program is X + Y - benefits or X + Y -Y - benefits, roughly?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: Destineer: I don't know. I certainly have enjoyed his stories, but something tells me we wouldn't enjoy each other's company. He came across as a jerk.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The topic came up in the context of a gov't program. We were talking about jobs that might be part of that program. How can the jobs have a benefit (especially one that's purely due to wages paid, as you've outlined) that isn't a part of the net benefits of the program that created them?
Certainly it is to the overall benefit of the economy for there to be jobs and all they entail. But for any specific situation being evaluated, jobs are a *cost*, and any accounting otherwise is wrong.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But for any specific situation being evaluated, jobs are a *cost*, and any accounting otherwise is wrong.
I'm glad that's settled! Such a weight off my shoulders.
Dude, I suggested that we agree to disagree, I only restated to clarify because Destineer asked.
What I was stating was about jobs in general. I'm glad we see more eye to eye on the overall. Of course you didn't specify in your response that you were only analyzing the benefit of a proposed government program...all you said was "Jobs are not a benefit, they are a cost." with no modifiers.
As to why the program would be of benefit, we discussed this and there was a lack of agreement.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
/I had a real plan any fool can understand The advice, real simple—boost aggregate demand! C, I, G, all together gets to Y Make sure the total’s growing, watch the economy fly/
/Circular flow, the dough is everything So if that flow is getting low, doesn’t matter the reason We need more government spending, now it’s stimulus season
So forget about saving, get it straight out of your head Like I said, in the long run—we’re all dead Savings is destruction, that’s the paradox of thrift Don’t keep money in your pocket, or that growth will never lift…/
/The monetary and the fiscal, they’re equally correct Public works, digging ditches, war has the same effect Even a broken window helps the glass man have some wealth The multiplier driving higher the economy’s health/
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
