1,075 thoughts on “Walmart and the Welfare State”

  1. Here is my thing with much of the handwringing over Walmart: If they raised wages, offered health care, etc. what would happen to their prices? What would happen to the people who depend on Walmart’s low prices to get by? It just doesn’t seem quite as simple as it is often made out to be.Report

    1. Price increases to offset wage increases in a company like Wal-Mart are a red herring – all the company has to do is accept the corresponding drop in profit percentages and the pricing can remain intact. It’s like Papa John’s saying they have to either raise prices or fire workers to comply with the Affordable Care Act – they won’t say how much they might have to lower prfit margins to remain neutral, but I bet they could do it for under 10%.Report

      1. Of course. But what incentive does Walmart have to accept a drop in profits? What mechanisms can force them to do so?

        A societal mentality of every man for himself is really the issue here.Report

      2. Interesting how people always think that profit is like Prometheus’s liver–it’s infinitely large, it always grows back after you rip out a piece, and it might be painful to take another chunk but you only feel that pain empathetically (which is to say, it’s imaginary.)Report

        1. Yes. I am assuming that. Because otherwise they wouldn’t be advocating for lower taxes. In a non-nearly-monopoly market, a taxhike doesn’t cost much of anything to a company, because prices are set via competition.
          In a monopoly-like market, a taxhike costs the company a lot in PROFIT, because they can’t raise prices to compensate.Report

          1. My understanding is that your assumption is wrong. It has been a few years since I looked at this so I may be wrong, but I believe that their profit margins are such that a small wage increase would remove them entirely.

            Their profits are almost entirely from economies of scale.Report

          1. And how do we respond to the existence of sweatshops? Do we say, “Well, that’s the market rate?” Or do we try to figure out some way to remedy the situation, so that people don’t feel like they have to work at a sweatshop in order to survive?Report

    3. They’re already abandoning Walmart for dollar stores, particularly near the end of the month. Wallmart’s financial disclosure docs are ALWAYS worth aread.Report

    4. It’s important to note that labor costs are only a part of their cost structure. If labor costs rise 10%, they would only need to raise prices by some amount <10% to compensate. Likely only a percent or two, maybe 5% at most.Report

  2. We don’t know how much the prices would rise.

    If the prices increased such that a struggling family needed 1000 more dollars per year to buy the same goods then the wage increases would have a more negative effect than if the wage increases only caused price increases such that the struggling family only paid 50 dollars more per year.Report

  3. Gotta love the irony, but as I always ask commentators on both sides when issues like this come up – what do we DO about it? Calling out these inequities is the first step, and I’d love to see some enforcement against Wal Mart and others for their clearly illegal anti-union actions. But the publicity surrounding lack of living wages and health insurance has been around for, what, two decades regarding this company? The bad press certainly hasn’t hurt them any – they are as unwilling to engage in fair labor practices now as they were when I worked there part time a decade ago.Report

    1. The only solution to things like this is a strong union movement in stores, which can’t come about without the government actually enforcing the laws around union-busting that Walmart routinely violates. That’s the key here.Report

        1. That would also help. But even putting teeth in the “don’t fire people for organizing” bits, which are already on the books, would be useful. Certainty of enforcement would be huge even barring a change in the law.Report

          1. TH isn’t so bad. It has a place.
            A union can shut you out of work as well as open the door.
            There are many different models, and you don’t get to choose the model by membership.

            There are many, many times that I feel like a land-locked peasant trapped in some antiquated feudal system.
            In fact, that’s a completely adequate summary of the situation.Report

      2. I disagree.
        I like the idea of government-assessed fees for services provided to employees.
        It won’t level the playing field, but it would make it much less tilted.Report

  4. And Wal-Mart doesn’t just depress the wages of it’s own employees, it’s practice of pressuring suppliers to meet it’s low price points forces those same suppliers to cut costs to the bone. And don’t even get me started on the corrupting and illegal practices they employed to secure retail locations in Mexico. Apparently Wal-Mart is the biggest single employer in Latin America as well. I wonder how those employees manage to get by?Report

    1. Just to put your comment in some perspective.

      Down in Brazil, minimum wage is R$ 600 per month. Thats roughly U$300 per month – our usual ‘business months’ are considered to have 172 hrs of work.

      A big mac meal costs R$17 – roughly U$8.5

      A Chevrolet Camaro (first car that came to mind that exists here and in the US) – begins at R$ 203,000. Thats U$ 101,500. Yes, 100k.Report

  5. Ron Unz, writing for The American Conservative addressed raising the minimum wage, and tackled this question of ‘what would happen to prices?’

    . . .given the simultaneous rise in labor costs among all competitors and the localized market for these services, the logical business response would be to raise prices by a few percent to help cover increased costs while also trimming current profit margins. Perhaps consumers would pay 3 percent more for Wal-Mart goods or an extra dime for a McDonald’s hamburger, but most of the jobs would still exist and the price changes would be small compared to typical fluctuations due to commodity and energy prices, international exchange rates, or Chinese production costs.

    The resulting one-time inflationary spike would slightly raise living expenses for everyone in our society, but the immediate 20% or 30% boost in the take-home pay of many millions of America’s lowest income workers would make it easy for them to absorb these small costs, while the impact upon the middle or upper classes would be totally negligible. An increase in the hourly minimum wage from the current federal level of $7.25 to (say) $12.00 might also have secondary, smaller ripple effects, boosting wages currently above that level as well.

    The piece is worth a read; a good conservative argument for a liberal policy.Report

    2. Should note that a big part of the argument here is that low minimum wage means that tax payers subsidize giant retailers like WalMart. Increasing minimum wage would actually move many people, the working poor, off welfare and decrease the EITC, so there would be a significant federal savings.Report

      1. Pirate,

        To mash up the line from Kung Fu… When you can point out the logical mistakes in the link you provided, it is time to discuss it. Until then, we are both wasting our time.Report

          1. i can’t open yours. Can you re link?

            The point about Pirate’s that was interesting was its focus on retail jobs. It basically suggests a minimum wage on retail jobs, which is interesting. The reason of course is that retail jobs, like government jobs, don’t face competition from outside the US. Manufacturing jobs were killed when we messed with market forces. Foreigners stepped in and did it for less.

            Since foreigners can’t step in to do retail jobs, they are more immune to competition, thus the government can use mandatory wage hikes as a kind of redistribution paid by consumers of retail products.

            I am not a fan of this approach due to the way it interferes clumsily with the market, and thus will reduce productivity. On the other hand, the best retort to my concern is probably “compared to what?”.Report

            1. The American Conservative article.

              He makes the same argument, but also several others. The big one being that the conservative argument here is for shifting the burden of a living wage to private industry instead of having it subsidized by the taxpayer.

              Important in all this, it seems, is that WalMart has requested an increase in the minimum wage, but will not raise its wages without the force of law. That does make me wonder if there’s an element of regulatory capture — another tool to put the small retail competition out of business, perhaps.Report

              1. Zic,

                I kinda like it. If we raise the minimum wage to $25,000 or so, we can basically eliminate poverty. We can raise ourselves up by our own bootstraps, so to speak.Report

              2. Hey Blaise, I don’t know if this is a ‘standard’ libertarian position, but James gave this answer when I asked this question before. I am not sure I totally buy it, but the thread starts here.Report

    3. The problem with a sudden rise in minimum wage is that there might be a lot of stuff that is tied to minimum wage.

      Here in Brazil we have a lot that is tied up with minimum wage – Everything related to federal retirement is, as well as most federal employees wages are based on the value of the minimum wage. So a rise on the value of minimum wage means that the whole government spending will go up a lot.

      Yes, it is a stupid system.Report

  6. Rather than beating up on Wal-Mart, we should be looking at why these people can’t find better jobs. Wal-Mart jobs are pretty useful as part-time jobs for teens and others who want a second job. If enough people currently working there move on to greener pastures, the need to fill those positions will push the wages up.Report

    2. Why can’t we do both? Try to get Wal-Mart to give these workers a better salary, and also try to enhance their skills so that they have more options? They’re not mutually exclusive.Report

    3. That’s an interesting question. They’re not qualified for those jobs. The larger question remains, in the game of Wage Limbo — (basso profundo Caribbean voice) “How lowww … can you goooo?”

      Want to sell something to Walmart? There’s a whole process for it. They’ve got the whole life cycle of your product mapped out. They’ll help you find an appropriate manufacturer for it (in China, natch), they’ll look at your numbers, tell you exactly where your price point will be every year you sell your product, predict exactly how you’re going to reduce your margins. Nobody who sells to Walmart gets a break.

      Many manufacturers refuse to deal with Walmart on those terms, in which case, Walmart will start competing with them via a house brand. They’ll steal your trademarked bottle design and put their own mouthwash in it and colour it to your exact shade of blue and sell it right next to your product.

      If there are greener pastures there are also browner pastures. A lot fewer green ones than brown ones. Walmart could pay its people more and pass the costs along to the consumer. But once you’re in the commodity space, you’re driven by ever higher volume and ever lower margins and that’s all Walmart does. You want an alternative to beating up on Walmart? Walmart beats up everyone, even their own suppliers. Care to comment on that? Coz this is what I know. Every bottle of Listerine going through Walmart flows through my web services.Report

      1. This is really important. I’ve seen several businesses, small manufacturers, done in by WalMart (and here in ME, by LLBean) in just this way. Smaller producers cannot meet the needs, often end up growing their businesses too fast while shedding other, existing customers, and so fail, only to have their product co-opted by the monster they were trying to sell their product to.

        The end result is both fewer places to shop and fewer products to choose from. But hey, that stuff is cheap.Report

      2. ” in which case, Walmart will start competing with them via a house brand. They’ll steal your trademarked bottle design and put their own mouthwash in it and colour it to your exact shade of blue and sell it right next to your product. ”

        House brands have been a thing since forever. It’s not something that started with Wal-Mart.

        Besides, you seem like the kind of guy who’d claim that it’s the mark of an anticompetitive loser to claim that they should have some kind of exclusive authority over putting a particular blend of chemicals in a bottle.Report

      1. I often wonder if perhaps the most optimal social program would be a moving allowance. Most of the problems seem to be people stuck in the wrong place: places where there are no jobs, places where the schools are bad, etc. Let’s give everyone a free move to the place of their choice. And you get another free move every two years in case that didn’t work out for you. The beauty of this is it also helps the other side of the equation: places with plenty of jobs can now fill them. Places that want growth can more easily compete for people looking to move.Report

        1. Actually, if you move to take a job, your expenses are currently tax-deductible, so something like this is in place. I think it’s refundable, too, but not 100% sure on that.Report

              1. Still, that inner-city single mom has to put the moving money up front, and be reimbursed at a (potentially) much later date. The working poor aren’t just income-poor, they’re also capital-poor. This is one of the problems with most proposals for carbon taxes in the energy arena. Pundits say that the resulting higher energy prices will cause people to buy more insulation, replace/repair windows, get a car with higher mileage, put in a high-efficiency furnace, etc. The poor can’t do those things, all of which require capital.Report

            2. Yeah, that’s great for me, but doesn’t help the inner-city single mom with three kids who doesn’t make enough to pay taxes.

              Wait, which side am I on?

              Clearly not the left. If you were, you’d say that inner-city single moms with three kids who don’t make much money pay more in taxes than the rich do.Report

        2. Mises would like this. And it would solve a lot of problems This OneTime ™, aka the current recession/depression.
          Just one problem: a lot of people sunk tons of wealth into their current properties. They aren’t getting that back. Do you support jinglemail? (send back in the keys, cancel all debt?)Report

          1. Well, I was figuring most of the people benefiting from this would be renters, not homeowners. But it could be tweaked to allow for cases where the owner is underwater in their mortgage. Just have to be careful not to create an incentive for people to screw over the mortgage companies. And yes, I’m biting my tongue trying to avoid starting a whole subthread on the cause of the housing bubble.Report

            2. Just re-read your comment and realize I was a little off the mark. Yeah, that is a problem, if everyone leaves and can’t get anyone to buy their house, business, etc. Guess I’ll have to think this one over a little more. Already working on Retirement Solutions, Inc. Now I’ve got Mobility Solutions, Inc. on my plate, too.Report

              1. More of a market problem is folks buying a $100,000 house thinking that it will be worth MORE 20 years from now… It won’t. Most of the money people sink into new houses is fancy gewgaws, with hardly anything spent on the bones. (and this is ignoring problems like subsidence…) Very few people buy “forever” homes, and this is because people are being priced out of their retirement (most of a person’s wealth aggregates in his house, not retirement savings).Report

              2. All the appreciation in home values is in the land. The actual house value depreciates (at an average rate of ~1/3%/yr).

                And the Case-Schiller home price index shows that the value of residential housing has just matched inflation for the last century.

                It’s a relatively safe mattress to stuff your money in, since you need a place to live anyway, but it’s not really a paying investment unless you get lucky and ride a good bubble.Report

              3. Suburbs aren’t going to be popular forever. And then everyone who decided to plunk down in a cheap exurb is gonna be really poor, because they can’t sell out, and gas prices will pinch ’em good.Report

              4. Once the shifting of thought that led to “outsourcing” morphs and shifts and realizes that “homesourcing” is not *THAT* different plus you don’t have to provide janitorial, I think we’ll see as much pro-suburb pressure as anti.Report

              5. Outsourcing still includes management to make sure the peons are putting in their hours. Homesourcing, which doesn’t, is a much harder sell.Report

              6. There was one hell of a backlash to, let us say kindly, “certain accents” in certain outsourced countries that did, indeed, result in hits to the bottom line.

                For a while there, there were a spate of commercials that tried to walk the fine line between coming out and screaming “OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTERS ARE BACK IN THE US!!!” while refusing to acknowledge that they might have ever been somewhere else.

                I have high hopes that there will be at least one corporation that says “WE’RE MAKING MONEY HAND OVER FIST!” and that results in investors asking “why aren’t you doing this?” in the same way that outsourcing once inspired.Report

              7. I called Verizon customer service a while ago, and got a guy with one of those accents. He was great, so it was just idle curiosity when I asked him, while we were waiting for my phone to reboot, where he was. He replied “Albuquerque, sir” (which, if you picture it being said in that accent, is quite funny.) And it was true. When I mentioned Breaking Bad, it turned out that he was also a fan and mentioned several places he knew well that had been used for location shots.Report

              8. Mike,
                yeah, I know someone who works for a big corp around here. She’s from South America originally, and still has a lot of the accent. When people sometimes ask her “where are you calling from” she responds “US Steel Tower”Report

          2. Actually, I do support jingle-mail. It’s in the contract. I have the right, for whatever reason, the hand the property back to the lien holder. There are costs associated with it, of course (credit score hit, responsibility for the remainder of the note after the sale of the property, etc.), but it is my right.Report

        4. There’d have to be (significantly large) areas with a labor shortage; currently we could tell if/where those would be by finding large labor markets with rapidly increasing wages.

          I don’t think that there are too many.Report

    5. The problem is that there are a lot of jobs which are necessary for society but seem absolutely determined to pay a low wage. This is an issue I think about a lot.

      There was another story this week in Bloomberg that was indicative of this trend. It was about an African-American woman who worked as a care taker for the elderly. She has been making 12 dollars an hour since 2005. She also lost her dream house in the Fiscal Crisis. The story contrasted her fate with the guy who ran the Mortgage Department at Bear Sterns. He made something like 8 Million Dollars last year and seemed to suffer no punishment despite being the guy who ran the department that caused Bear Sterns to belly up.

      Why does the home care taker only make 12 dollars an hour and has not seen a raise since well before the fiscal crisis began? The United States has a rapidly aging population and we are going to need more people who take care of the elderly. No one can argue with a straight face that her job is unnecessary. Perhaps it is not quite skilled labor but there should still be a wage premium for necessary jobs.Report

      1. And there are a lot of jobs that are utterly unnecessary for society, but also seem to want to pay a low wage. Canvassers and Waitresses in particular.
        The market for legal prostitution, on the other hand, seems remarkably expensive.Report

      2. New Dealer,

        You should think about it a lot. It is like a Zen Koan. When you finally get it, all will be clear. You may also want to think about why water and food, which are necessary for life, usually cost less than diamonds, which are totally superfluous.Report

        1. And why someone who has the rare talent to destroy a firm as large as Bear Stearns makes so much more than someone with the mundane talent of taking care of people.Report

    6. Or her contrast her to me.

      I graduated law school in 2011. According to the statistics, only 55 percent of people who graduated law school in my year have jobs that require bar passage. Luckily I am one of these people.

      My job is on contract but it pays very well. Surely my firm could probably charge less because of the alleged overglut of recent law school graduates. Some firms have been trying to take advantage of this. Yet my firm luckily does not.Report

  7. Its also worth pointing out- again- that Wal-Mart only exists in its present form, due to the legal and regulatory structure that the taxpayers have constructed and pay to maintain and enforce.

    I say this in anticipation of the properety rights/ contract rights argument, that the labor agreement between workers and Wal-Mart is not the taxpayer’s business. The taxpayers have every right to ask if Wal-Mart’s very existance is in our benefit and if so, under what terms we allow them to operate.Report

      1. I phrased it deliberately to make the point that Wal-Mart in its present form, has no right to exist.
        The corporate form of business has no natural right to exist- it was a legal fiction, a thing that we the taxpayers created for the sole purpose of being aconvenience to us, to facilitate our needs for commerce.

        We could, with a stroke of the pen, abolish it tomorrow and Wal-Mart revert back to a sole proprietorship.

        Further, as we’ve discussed on many other threads, all large corporations in America exist atop a massive pile of direct and indirect subsidies, market distortions, and outright welfare, given to them by the taxpayers.

        We have every right to ask if all of this privilege we create is in our best interests.Report

  8. This post is like a fly trap for those drawn to folk theory economics.

    1) Walmart pays market wages for labor. That is what they should pay if we want to optimize productive efficiency and prosperity.

    2). If you think market wages are too low, then I recommend rectifying it with non market fixes. Let’s see to it that these working poor get their fair share of the almost trillion dollars in means tested redistribution we spend each year in the US.

    3) Beware oversimplified models on the effect of coercively higher wage rates. If Walmart doubled wages, the market would respond not by getting the same people higher wages, but by different people becoming Walmart employees. You would just get substantially higher qualified and skilled people filling the slots. The major effect would be to subsidize skilled workers and encourage them to underutilize their skills.

    4). Beware oversimplified models of profits. The long term effects of raising rates cannot be paid out of long term lower profit margins. The market will respond to this and the net result will be less stores, higher prices, fewer employees and less competition. Profits are dynamic signals in markets.

    5). Considering the tone of this post and those on the left and their anti market, anti walmsrt vitriol, I cannot begin to imagine why the Walton’s donated money to the GOP. This is like a case study on why we want to encourage political contributions. To combat illogical pandering like this.

    6). Is anyone surprised that Walmart wants to reduce wages? You do know that this is what employers are expected to do to manage costs, right? Managers are paid to optimize costs vs benefits. If anyone thinks they have done so pooly, the market response is to prove it by doing so better yourself. Which you can do by working for or investing in Target.Report

    1. Yeah. I knew a manager once (worked Ames). He was always giving out bonuses. Got him better employees, better workers, and he was always turning a better profit than everyone else in the division.Report

        1. Not really. We have two different game theories, one of which is entirely dependent on being the only green thumb around. It works because it’s exceptional, not the other way around.
          If everyone were foxes, substantially less fleecing would occur.Report

    2. 1) Walmart pays market wages for labor. That is what they should pay if we want to optimize productive efficiency and prosperity.

      This is a truism, and tells us nothing.

      It’s also why we need a strong labor movement. “We’re just paying you the market rate” is a pretty sorry excuse for paying people shit, but it seems to work for people who feel like the market determines the value of everything. The nice thing about the labor movement is that it says, “You know, we’re worth more than that to you, and we’re going to put pressure on you to pay us what we’re worth to you, not what you can get away with in the ‘market.'” This isn’t folk economics, it’s just not the facile economics of the “market” pure and simple.Report

        1. Roger, I actually think you don’t understand them. At a given price-point, Wal-Mart generates a certain amount of profit. But how to divide that between workers and management? There are multiple viable equilibria on that one. Unfortunately, we’re in the one where the Waltons earn billions and wages for their employees are low. The way to move to a better equilibrium is to enhance the bargaining power of the employees relative to management–hence, unions.Report

          2. Dan and Chris,

            As I mentioned to Kimmi below, the wage levels paid to workers can be viewed as a theory of how to meet consumer needs. Target’s theory might be let’s pay slightly higher wages and get better workers and see how that works. The theories then play out in the market. Profits are the signals that consumers give on how well those needs were met. They are like applause. Saying Walmart is wrong in a reasonably well functioning market is like saying the audience is wrong in their enjoyment of a concert.

            There are ramifications of viewing this as a struggle between the owners and the employees, it is inherently an act of cooperation, not conflict, with supply and demand determining the optimal weights. Assuming that we could take x from annual profits and move it to employees, ignores the effects longer term of lower expected risk adjusted rates of returns. This will reduce capital investment, numbers of stores, competition in the industry, raise prices and lower the number of required workers.

            Yes, short term we can enact a wealth transfer by taking from net worth of the Waltons and shifting it coercively to our favored groups. But this is called exploitation. I believe I have no right demanding they fund my conscience. Any fair system would not pick out the one party that is doing the most for those workers (paying them voluntarily agreed to wages) and penalize this by forcing them to pay above market wages. It isn’t just wrong and partial, it is counterproductive. It penalizes job creation.Report

            1. Heh. About the time you get around to explaining how Walmart employees can be paid so little that they qualify for food stamps, then we can get back to the much-hated Wealth Transfer line of rhetoric. I’d prefer not to have my tax dollars subsidise goddamn Walmart’s wage structure.Report

              1. The alternative is to demand that the one person actually providing the job pay for your conscience. There is a cost to manipulating markets, and the cost plays out in less effective markets, and since market’s create the wealth that we use to fund our conscience, this is very dangerous.Report

              2. Now yesterday was awfully productive, me talking about how Libertarians were trying to reduce friction in the economy. Don’t be posing absurd alternatives.

                When we want more of something, we subsidise it. When we want less of it, we tax it. That’s the truism, nu? Subsidies are a form of market manipulation. If the taxpayers put Food Stamps in a Walmart employee’s pocket, it’s that much less Walmart has to pay them. Simple economic fact. In point of fact, by keeping its workers below the poverty line, they pay fewer taxes and their employees remain on assistance.

                So whose conscience is being mollified by subsidising Walmart? Not mine.Report

              3. Markets create wealth? Humph. Aeroseal is simply a distribution of soemthing that wasn’t market created. Ditto velcro and a gadzillion other things. Useful, cool stuff.

                RISCy business, eh?Report

            2. Roger, ideally it would be “inherently an act of cooperation, not conflict,” but of course it’s not when the employer holds all of the leverage. That’s why unions can act as a counterbalancing force, and, dare I say, as one that can quite easily be considered a part of the market. To say that wages are at “market level” simply because that’s what wages are is to miss that point (and many others). Sure, Walmart’s profits would drop, or their prices would go up (the latter is probably more likely). If the prices went up, and then their profits dropped, we could have a conversation, but ya know, unions have been known to take wage cuts when profits fall.Report

              2. Naturally. Refusing to hire men because they’re more resistant to blackmail is all a happy daffy supply and demand thing.
                “Hey guys, we’re going to lower your wages!”
                –Hell, no!
                “Hey girls, we’re going to lower your wages!”
                –my kids still have to eat, don’t they…?

                Exploiting psychology is all part of supply and demand

                How is chocolate like sex?
                –a better Zen koan for you.
                Not that I expect you to get it.Report

              3. Roger, I didn’t claim that wages are set by leverage. However, there are two groups who have interest in wage levels, and often one of those groups has all of the leverage, or power, or whatever you want to call it, such that the only “market factors” that play a role in wage-setting are those related to the interests of that group.Report

              4. Chris,
                This would be true in a market of one employer. In a market of lots of employers, wages are set not by the lowest wage that the employer can imagine but by the lowest wage that is simultaneously too high for another employer to entice the worker away. That is where supply meets demand.

                And yes, this stuff is very complicated and above my pay grade. Every time I post my comments I realize that James K or Nob or James H or Brandon will correct me, and sometimes they do, and when I dig into it I usually find they were right and I was wrong. Damn! That said, the only way I can learn is to try to say it and then read their push back.Report

              5. Roger, except, as others have noted on this thread, the employer end works more efficiently when there are more employers too. It’s not as simple as the lowest wage they can pay without losing their employees to other employers, because the other employers aren’t the only variable in the equation. Labor is another variable, and one that can, by raising that lowest wage, raise the wages throughout the market.Report

              6. Chris,

                Could you clarify please? I am assuming lots of prospective workers and employers and that the competitive cooperative dynamic leads toward full employment.

                Raising the lowest wage, by such things as a minimum wage or a coercive union, would lead to more unemployment and lower net productivity and wealth. The key to a more prosperous working class pretty much comes out of increased productivity. Productivity is the path to prosperity. Not workers fooling themselves about solidarity.Report

              7. Roger,

                Raising the lowest wage, by such things as a minimum wage or a coercive union, would lead to more unemployment and lower net productivity and wealth. The key to a more prosperous working class pretty much comes out of increased productivity. Productivity is the path to prosperity. Not workers fooling themselves about solidarity.

                This is false, likely because the paragraph that precedes it is false. Again, look at the effects of unions in the first 60 years of the last century.Report

              8. Chris,

                US Incomes and standards of living are substantially higher now than then. And the real gains have been in less developed nations.

                Chris, I know this sounds goofy and all , but the past decade was the best decade ever for humanity and average incomes. By a long shot, by a country mile. This isn’t as good as it can get, but it is the best it has ever been.Report

              10. ya know, unions have been known to take wage cuts when profits fall.

                And they’ve been known to push their firms over the cliff by refusing to take them.Report

              12. Hostess. Even the Teamsters told them not to strike. And now the union is complaining that Hostess was mismanaged. Well of course they were, which is exactly why it was a stupid time to strike. When you’re chained to a clumsy person at cliff’s edge, you don’t give them a push.Report

              13. The union may , in fact they likely, screwed up. However they had already taken significant pay cuts and had Hostess unilaterally take away money/benefits to use for the companies needs.Report

              14. And its not like the management had demonstrated any particular skill in running the company profitably.
                From what I’ve read, that management team couldn’t run a whorehouse on a Navy base.Report

              16. Hostess (the company) was also a victim of leveraged equity investing Bain style. New investors, investing borrowed money, transferring that debt to company while paying themselves back, plundering pensions, etc.

                That, btw, leaves taxpayers on the hook for the pensions.Report

              18. Hostess hasn’t been without its problems over the years. To blame their current demise on Private Equity is to purposely misread the facts. For decades the American eating habits have been to replace sugary bleached foods with more whole wheat, sugar free offerings. Yes everyone (except me) might cheat now and then and have a Twinkie now and then, but that’s nothing to hang a business hat on.

                IF the union wanted to keep their jobs (5000 of them) AND wanted to keep their brethren not in the same union (13,000) employed , they could have accepted some concessions. Of course by not doing so they sure showed Hostess didn’t they? The word stupid doesn’t even begin to describe some people.Report

              19. Ward-
                Your first paragraph describes how the management targeted the wrong product to the wrong market;
                Yet this fundamental business error could have been- should have been- overcome by the workers taking a pay cut?

                Is that really your argument?Report

              20. I know more than I can say about Hostess Brands. My current firm was involved with their emergence from BK. Trust me on this, it isn’t the unions. The unions already took a hit in 2009.Report

              21. Here’s what I can say. When Hostess Brands filed for their second BK, they simply stopped paying into the retirement fund, as per their previous 2009 agreement.

                The unions really didn’t want to take them to court over this, but Hostess Brands was already before the court. So there’s the outstanding unpaids, among them are the obligations to the union pension fund…. the rest you already know.Report

              23. Other companies are doing well in the bakery business, companies NOT saddled with addled employment contracts as Hostess was. Those contracts paid over $65/hr plus unsustainable pension benefits. The word unsustainable is one that needs to make it into the vernacular of the liberal lexicon. Companies CAN NOT survive on unsustainable business practices. Governments CAN NOT survive on unsustainable practices either, although being able to print money and field armies gives them a bit more “runway” as the VC’s would call it.

                And Nob is wrong about the Teamsters, they are no longer part of the AFL-CIO and /had/ agreed to concessions. Let’s talk about those concessions shall we? The unintentionally funny part of this scene was the antiquated work rules the Teamsters operated under, wherein delivery trucks would not commingle different Hostess products.

                Unions have driven companies out of business before, they will continue to do so in the future. There is no antidote for stupidity. 18,000 people are unemployed because one of the unions at Hostess was at least as stupid as the management. Certainly 20 years ago they could have started working on better products and marketing if they hadn’t been making unsustainable concessions to their unions. Unions have ZERO interest in the long term viability of the companies they work for, they are only selfish interest agents, always have been, always will be. The rest is just window dressing.Report

              24. In what sense did the union members screw up? Management made an offer; the workers decided they’d be better off working somewhere else, so declined the offer. Sounds like a routine negotiation. Yay free markets.Report

              26. Lib, just like with the auto industry, when times are good mgt makes deals with unions that are mathematically and fiscally unsound. Would mgt have made those decisions in the /absence/ of the unions applying pressure? I leave the answer as an exercise for the student.Report

              27. Clearly the free market isn’t working, because management keeps getting out-negotiated by unions. We need laws to prevent workers from talking to each other or forming associations that can hurt their employers.Report

              28. @Mike, if you’re happy that a minority of employees can drive the company out of business (and cause unemployment for the majority) then so be it. I’m guessing you’re not in a union yourself, just brutha’s wit em.Report

              29. Ward, shouldn’t that be a minority’s right, if their absence is crucial enough to the company that the company cannot survive without them? If a small company of seven has one superstar programmer, should that one guy (a minority) be prevented from threatening to leave without a raise?

                If you think that the employees ought to have to act as a single unit, either they all strike or none do, then that’s a big union argument.Report

              30. I’m agreeing with you, Ward. It’s one thing for a corporation’s management to use corporate assets to influence an election — that’s protected free speech. But for a corporation’s employees to conspire to try to increase their wages? That should be a RICO violation.Report

              31. I think everyone’s missing my point about Hostess.

                1. I agree that mismanagement is the reason for Hostess being in dire straits. I don’t really know whether it was sheer stupidity, inability to adapt to changing American dietary patterns, private equity, or what, but for purposes here that doesn’t matter–call it all management, and say it’s the reason Hostess already went through bankruptcy and was struggling in recovery.

                2. I understand that Hostess’s employees had already made concessions. I also understand that Hostess had imposed unilateral changes (approved by a judge) in the contract that cut employee’s benefits even more.

                3. When your employer is that close to the wall, what does a rational union do? The Teamsters said, take it, shut up, and come back to demand more when the company actually recovers (I may be paraphrasing a bit there). The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union (best union name ever!) instead made demands that led the firm’s owners to decide that actually closing the business down was their best option. And instead of getting anything remotely like they asked for, the workers all lost their jobs.

                Clawback suggests the workers rationally “decided they’d be better off working somewhere else, so declined the offer.” No. Any worker who decided they’d be better off working somewhere else would have quit and gone looking for a job. What they actually did was to ensure elimination of the job itself. That’s a substantively different thing.

                I’m not letting management off the hook here, but as I said, if you’re at the edge of a cliff and you’re chained to a clumsy person, you don’t push them.Report

              33. The workers evidently decided their prospects for finding other jobs, combined with their judgment of the expected value of holding out for a reasonable offer (i.e., the value of a successful strike times the probability of success) exceeded the value of accepting the crap management offer. Funny how economic actors are assumed to be generally rational except when they consist of some hated group.Report

              34. Clawback, that doesn’t explain why instead of just leaving their jobs they actually destroyed them. If I decided my job was no longer worth the pay, and that I had better prospects elsewhere, I’d resign, not make sure the job disappeared.Report

              36. If I decided my job was no longer worth the pay, and that I had better prospects elsewhere, I’d resign …

                But that’s what they did. They just did it collectively, which they have every right to do.

                … not make sure the job disappeared.

                This is incoherent. The company is free to keep making Twinkies without the workers if it so chooses.Report

              37. “This is incoherent. The company is free to keep making Twinkies without the workers if it so chooses.”

                Is it? I am not an expert on labor, but many of the reports I read made it seem like the company had to figure it out with the labor or they wouldn’t be able to staff the plant. Are there any requirements that they work with union labor? Was no one willing to cross the picket line? These are genuine questions… I’ve never been a part of a labor or worked in a union shop.Report

              38. It’s not i coherent at all. Management said “We’re going to go under unless we get these concessions”” and the Union said “Fish you, you’re lying. If things are so bad, why did you all give yourself raises?” It turned out the management wasn’t lying. This time. And they gave themselves raises because, you know, they could.Report

              39. Kazzy, proceeding without the union workers would have been complicated but possible. The company chose not to attempt it, which suggests they determined doing so would not be economic. Which in turn suggests they decided they cannot produce and sell Twinkies economically enough to attract qualified workers, union or none.

                You’ll note none of this fits in with some “the union destroyed the company” trope.Report

              40. Mike, the decision to close was made by the company, not the workers. That it was preceded by a threat no more places the onus on the workers than my saying “your money or your life” before murdering you would make you responsible for your own murder.Report

              41. Kazzy,

                I agree. Management should have had the freedom to renegotiate contracts or find new employees. If they in actuality did have this freedom, then so be it, the market hypothesis lost out in the competition of trying to serve customers. If they did not have this freedom, then they had their hands tied behind their backs, and we limited the responsiveness of the market.Report

              43. It seems to me that companies should be able to hire as they like (with certain limitations… no “Irish need not apply” rules) and employees should be able to organize as they like. I am sure there are real reasons why it is not quite that simple. However, it does appear to the untrained eye that it is needlessly complex.

                Ultimately, if you can’t run a profitable business, you probably should go under. I mean, it’s not like we have the mayors of major cities putting forth legislation specifically targeted at certain industry…oh… wait…Report

              45. And they’ve been known to push their firms over the cliff by refusing to take them.

                The factory’s closing because it’s not profitable enough and the owner won’t invest in upgrading it!

                Creative destruction is capitalism at work.

                The factory’s closing because the bank won’t renew the company’s line of credit!

                The bank’s is in business to make a profit; it’s not a charity.

                The factory’s closing because the union won’t accept the latest round of pay cuts!

                Fishing unions, always destroying jobs!Report

              46. It’s interesting to me that the actions taken by the collective known as a union is always nefarious but the actions taken by the collective known as the owners and representatives of a firm are never nefarious.Report

              49. Note that the reason I am washy washy on this is that my experience is much of the disagreement between libertarians and the left is that those on the left are often evaluating the action on intentions or first order effects, and the libertarians are trying to anticipate all effects in a dynamic world of chains of cause and effect.

                The arguments on sweatshops, the effect of higher wages on profits, and other concerns in this thread often come down to disagreements of this manner. I have not worked out the details pro and con of limiting workers ability to exchange data on their salaries as a part of a voluntary employment contract. It seems like a bad idea to me, but before I am sure I would want to see how the factors play out in a dynamic world.

                Wouldn’t you?Report

              51. much of the disagreement between libertarians and the left is that those on the left are often evaluating the action on intentions or first order effects, and the libertarians are trying to anticipate all effects in a dynamic world of chains of cause and effect.

                I’d say the opposite. Libertarians start from “Absolute property rights are an unmixed good”, and are willing to go wherever that leads them (e.g. the public accommodations section of the 1964 CRA being evil statist coercion), while liberals try to gauge the effect of different policies before embracing them.

                I’m guessing that you’d completely oppose a law against disclosing salaries, because that would obviously be coercive, but you’re unwilling to call something enforced by private economic sanctions coercive. I’d call that a libertarian blind spot.Report

              52. Roger’s never met a sweatshop owner in his life, I suspect. I know far too many meddlesome people… The amoutn of coercive acts in some of these “sweatshops” is truly gruesome.Report

              54. *spits* Both stupid and dumb. The people most in need aren’t working sweatshops, Roger. And why help one person when you can save 100 from blindness with the same amount of funds? A kid who goes blind by the age of 5 is functionally nonproductive as a citizen, particularly in poor countries. Living by begging.

                But, oh, no, let’s talk about sweatshops, as if you know anything about them.Report

              55. Of course they aren’t working in sweatshops yet, they are still waiting for my much needed capital investment, I am ashamed to say. Does anyone have a good list of sweatshops I can invest more in?Report

              56. Mike,

                I agree with your take on anyone who believes in absolute property rights. Seriously.

                I think it is possible that a law which prohibits taking action against employees disclosing salaries woul be a good idea. I really am not sure. I am not against all regulations, nor am I for property rights for the sake of property rights.Report

            3. It is truly amazing that you can discuss the poverty wages the Waltons pay their employees (a practice that gives them a share of Walmart profits sufficient to make the Waltons among the wealthiest Americans out there), and somehow conclude that transferring some of their net worth to those employees would be exploitation!

              Sorry. I just can’t see this bunch of manipulative plutocrats as the victims here. T

              As to capitalism, the union movement started in this country precisely because of things like this. If you think unions are counterproductive and socialist and whatever, then it would behoove you not to defend the sort of business practices that ultimately lead to workers uniting.Report

              1. Dragon,

                I do not support exploitation from any side. I dont support the Walton’s using force against employees or vice versa. Both lead to a worse world. The proven solution to this issue is to set wages based upon supply and demand, and supplement it with safety nets, public and private.Report

        2. Roger, I know you don’t, and that’s why I called your economics “facile.” It’s a convenient way of treating avoiding having to deal with real problems, and even suggesting that they aren’t the moral problems that they are.

          But, given that I know what happens when labor movements are strong, I don’t have to accept “facile” economics that treat wages as a simple product of a labor market.Report

          1. Chris,

            I think you not ought to call Roger’s economic facile, and claim your approach isn’t folk economics, until you’ve put some serious study into the field. I know you’re aware of the concept of folk psychology, and I’m sure you’re aware of how little understanding of your field people who’ve never bothered with a serious study of it have.Report

              2. James, what I find odd is that when someone else says what I’m saying (Mike S, for example, down thread), Roger has no problem accepting it. I can’t help but think that his take on my economic knowledge has nothing to do with my economic knowledge or his (which, I now suspect, is probably about as impoverished as mine).Report

              3. Chris,

                I am sorry. I just didn’t think I needed to restate my same arguments to Mike. I will though. Again, I am no expert on this stuff, and will appreciate any corrections.Report

              4. You’re no expert on this stuff? You talk like you are, so often saying that others absolutely are wrong, that they don’t get concepts that they absolutely must get, that you are absolutely right about, that there’s no chance you are wrong apply just as you think they do in the situation at hand. I would say that kind of talk requires the confidence of an expert in the subject-matter of his expertise, except that, especially in a field like economics that relies so heavily on stylized assumptions about behavior, but generally as well, in my experience real experts tend not to display it quite like you do. So I guess your behavior comports with your self-description as “no expert.” Perhaps it comports more with “ideologue” or “polemicist.”Report

              5. Speaking as someone who argues with Roger a great deal, I’d rather have someone directly oppose a point generally, then retreat specifically. Makes for a sounder debate, I think. The Devil is in the details as he usually is, but so are the angels who dance on the head of a pin.Report

          2. But, given that I know what happens when labor movements are strong, I don’t have to accept “facile” economics that treat wages as a simple product of a labor market.

            Sure, unions can cartelize the labor market, and that changes the price and market-clearing quantity of the labor market for their industry. Every introductory economics textbook has a section on monopolistic markets, and how they differ from competitive markets. Specifically, they tend to result in higher market-clearing prices and more producer surplus, but also deadweight loss and lower market-clearing quantities.

            No one’s saying that unions don’t change the dynamics of the labor market. We’re saying that those changes are not good.Report

        3. Me and my liberal friends were saying this just the other day, if only there were a business pro who could drop by and explain to us- slowly and clearly, mind you- How Business Works.
          Maybe even give us a primer in Econ 101 (“when demand rises and supply falls, prices A) Rise or, B) Fall . We can never get that straight!)

          And sure enough, here we go!Report

            1. It’s a great opportunity. All you have to do is take a gamble on your philosophy, pay double market wages and see what happens. Please, please go for it. After all, your employees will buy some of your stuff so you can get some of your money back, right? Now is the chance to test your theories!Report

              2. Yes. If your theory works it can prove itself, whether I believe it or not. Markets are constructive problem solving systems that solve for the problem of how do we cooperate best together to solve consumer related problems.Report

              3. FIRE in da hole! Cheating customers is an entire marketplace in of itself, isn’t it?
                What’s the market to do? I know, start a two-hour riot in Reykyavik.Report

              5. Hmm, if only there was a real world empirical example of higher wages being coerced on employers, and then we could examine to see the effects!
                Too bad the idea of workers striking and forcing employers to raise wages is nothing but a novel theory. It would be great to see how it would work.

                In the meantime, lets discuss economics again, in a fact-free, evidence-free way, where we trade abstract theories and postulate hypotheticals with game theory and ideology.Report

              10. Heh. Those damned old unions, paying themselves huge raises, climbing into the lifeboats after decades of mismanaging the company and loading it up with debt. It took a court to reveal the full extent of the damages done by those dreadful unions the owners.Report

              11. I agree with you.

                You guys need to chill.

                Obviously bad management is bad for business. There is no way I support golden parachutes for the people whose incompetence and negligence torpedo a company. The reward structure, particularly for executives, is horribly skewed, in a way that is both grossly inequitable and destructive of economic growth in the long term. A captain should go down with the ship, not shove the children out of the lifeboats.

                If I could publicly cane those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis and the subprime loan fiasco, I would. Personally.

                That being said, that is all beside the point, because all I was trying to address was that you are acting as if there is no possible downside to unionization. I simply pointed one out.Report

      2. It’s also why we need a strong labor movement. “We’re just paying you the market rate” is a pretty sorry excuse for paying people shit

        There’s nothing to excuse. An employer makes an offer, and potential employees are free to take it or not. If the employee doesn’t have any better offers, that’s not the employer’s fault.

        The bottom line is that paying above-market wages is charity, not something that employers owe to their employees. The idea that there’s some connection between employing someone and having an obligation to give him charity is sheer non sequitur. The logic doesn’t even rise to the level of “facile”—there’s nothing there at all.Report

        2. Here’s a brief primer of employment theory. To get money to cross the counter and into a cash register (the entire point of capitalism) someone has to ring up a sale, or these days, manage the cashier-bot at the self-checkout.

          An employer can only justify hiring someone if there’s some monetary benefit to the proposition. The employee must agree to work for somewhat less value than he brings into the firm. To illustrate this principle, when a gangster wants to extort money from a firm, one option is to featherbed: create a job for someone who does no meaningful or profitable work. Salesmen work on commission but they’re worth every penny if they can create value. But they still need a base salary, be it ever so low, to keep them in peanut butter between sales.

          But the employee is not privy to the accounting which goes into the justification for his hire. Nor would the salesman know the true cost of production of the goods he sells. Unless you’re waist deep in the accounting, it’s hard to know what the margin actually is. Nor would anyone know how much anyone else is being paid, unless others told him: in America, knowing everyone’s salary is very rare.

          There’s simple way to short circuit the Marxian employer-employee conflict. It’s often seen in Europe, where it’s actually the law in countries such as Germany. If an employee were on the board of directors, the employees would know the true state of affairs. This goes both ways: the employee-director could come back to the employees and say “Folks, times are not good, to keep this firm afloat we must cut salary costs for a while, until we get into a better patch.” But when times are good again, the board remembers the employees and rewards them for sticking it out through tough times.

          Employees are not cashier-bots. Employers aren’t ATMs. When I hear people talk about Market Rate for employees, there’s no market without meaningful information to support it.Report

          1. Blaise this is where you’re screwed. There is NOTHING stopping a union from plunking some of the billions it collects in dues and BUYING shares in the company. But enough shares and you are /guaranteed/ at least a seat on the BOD. Problem solvedReport

            1. I’m not screwed. I just finished the paperwork for my consulting firm, turning the revenue over to the people I trained. Heaven forbid an employer would take an interest in the well-being of his employees, or consider them as valuable assets.

              You’re the one who’s screwed, thinking employees ought to have to buy their way into the good graces of the board.Report

              1. You talk like you have a fishing clue how I run my businesses. I’ve NEVER had employees who didn’t have options to own shares in the company. I’ve also had employees continue buying shares above and beyond the ones they were granted outside of the option program (ie on the open market). I’ve made millionaires out of employees who bought into the business. However I’ve never had union employees either, the very concept of having an adversarial relationship with owners is anathema to me. My employees /are/ owners, so adversarial with me is adversarial with themselves.

                We could make fun of other unions, such as the pilot’s union at United Airlines. They had a crippling ALPA strike WHILE the pilot’s union was the /majority/ shareholder in the company. At the company meeting a pilot stood up and said, “My shares were worth $2.5 million and now they’re worth nothing” and management explained to the pilot how his OWN actions caused that to happen, just so he could get a few thousand a year more in wages. Braindead is as braindead does.

                If unions were such a great idea, unions should own companies and run them the union way. We’re all sitting by with bated breath to see how that all works out. Funny thing is, unions have been around for more than a century and the only outcome of the “union” running things was in the Soviet “Union”. We all know how /that/ particular experiment ended.Report

              2. Well, my crew of monkeys are pretty happy with the arrangement. Germany has this problem beaten. It’s obvious: put an employee or two on the board, the problem solves itself. You can even outlaw closed unions. Wouldn’t that be great?Report

    3. So Roger I’m guessing you should be fully supportive of the employees of Walmart voluntarily organizing to pressure their employer to improve working conditions yes? You’re down with deregulating the old labor laws that currently restrict what activities and strategies labor movements are allowed to use (presuming of course that force and fraud remain illegal of course) yes?

      Also regarding your #2 I believe Elias already observed that Walmart specifically employs the redistribution you’re talking about as part of its employment model.

      But I do agree with you on one thing. Absolutely everyone who possibly can should patronize Target instead of Walmart.Report

      2. North,

        Of course I support non coercive labor organizing in the private sphere. I don’t think it can lead to above market wages, though it may be able to slightly adjust what the market clearing wage plays out to. In other words, voluntary unions are a great idea, but probably not very effective in achieving much higher wages. The key word above was voluntary.

        By the way, I would really value any critiques you or Nob or either of the Patricks provide on this issue. You guys often disagree with the libertarians, but you always know what you are talking about. When you tell me I am wrong, I really listen, because there’s a very real chance you are correct.Report

          1. Hence the emphasis on the word voluntary. The effect of non voluntary, aka coercive unions is to get higher wages at the expense of the industry and the consumers the industry was intended to serve.Report

            1. That would presume the workers were volunteering to do their jobs. Please dispense with that Voluntary/Coercive line of rhetoric. It doesn’t work in the real world. There’s nothing voluntary about stocking shelves.Report

              3. Chris,

                In the end, they chose it over entropy. Life requires constant problem solving to survive and thrive. Markets are systems that discover how to cooperate together to meet these needs in a world of entropy and scarce resources. If you master plan the market, you kill off the problem solving capability and the result is poverty, short life spans, and about 6 billion less of us. Please do not do anything to markets until you learn how they work.Report

              4. If you master plan the market, you kill off the problem solving capability and the result is poverty, short life spans, and about 6 billion less of us. Please do not do anything to markets until you learn how they work.

                And again you’ve essentially created a straw man. No one is suggesting we master plan the economy, but instead that the reigns should be taken off another market force. One that you’ve even admitted is such a force.Report

              5. P.S., I’m trying to stay respectful, but arguing from the position that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t understand how the market works, is a pretty shitty way of going about things. For one, your view is not the only one even among experts. So if you want to argue that your interlocutors disagree with you simply because they don’t understand economics, you’ve got some legwork to do before that becomes a convincing point in your favor. As it is, it just looks like you’re being dismissive.Report

              6. Chris,
                no, see, roger just said that since I can make a profit (and have) via paying above market wages, he’s wrong and we’re right. Nevermind that I wasn’t arguing it was a universal solution…Report

              7. Heh. You’re already on board for subsidising Walmart’s crap wages. You’ll have to decide which you want, a world where we have equilibrium or one without it. As wages stagnate and executive compensation increases, that’s proof positive we don’t have market equilibrium and soon enough it’s into a death spiral, leading to your Hobbesian Dystopia.

                Oh, by the way, poverty increases populations, not decreases them. Capitalism always concentrates wealth, no sensible person argues with that. The key to keeping capitalism working is to make sure the money keeps moving from hand to hand, and not into cash glaciers.

                The Fiscal Cliff is provoking an interesting response on Wall Street. Corporations are currently holding roughly 6-8 trillion dollars in cash reserves: they can’t seem to find anywhere useful to invest that money. But faced with the prospect of higher taxes, they’re now disgorging that money as dividends.

                That means there’s going to be a torrent of cash entering the economy. Until quite recently, he usual route to deal with that cash was to simply buy back stock. And it’s all going to be taxed, which will give the USA quite a boost. You don’t have to Master Plan the economy. You have to steer it toward some goal.Report

              9. It is not market distortion for unions to negotiate a higher price at which to sell the labor it is offering, no more than it is for a corporation to negotiate a lower price for the products it resells. That is the market. .. but only ideologues think markets, left on their own are inherently efficient,Report

              10. Really.

                And consumers, too. Though I never set food in them if I can help it, more and more I cannot help it because the alternative are no longer available.

                And manufacturers, too, who chose to go out of business because of WalMart’s requirements for doing business with WalMart and the lack of alternative markets (see above).

                WalMart. The Norman Bombardini of marketplace solutions.Report

            3. Roger, the right to voluntary agreements is not an absolute–for instance, an eight-year-old can’t voluntarily agree to a 40-hour work week, and I can’t make a voluntary agreement to sell myself into slavery even if I had a willing buyer. So the small bit of coercion involved in what you call “non-voluntary unions” frankly doesn’t concern me all that much, when weighed against the large gains in human well-being that would come about from higher levels of unionization.Report

        2. The current “market wages” result, among other things, from the huge disproportion in bargaining power between employees and workers. It seems to me that if you rectify that, the result is still a market wage.Report

          1. Agreed! This is why the Let It Bleed essay on libertarism in the workplace was such a good read. If Wal-Mart fires you, they have the slight hassle of replacing you; if you get fired, it’s a much more traumatic experience with much more serious consequences. Any approach that ignores the dramatic power disparity between employers and employees, especially low-skill employees, is nuts.Report

            1. I haven’t read the Freddie piece yet, but to the extent that collective bargaining led to more efficient negotiations between workers and management, it would be a good thing for both sides, and for society/humanity. Any coercion on either side will lead to less efficiency and less prosperity all else equal.Report

          1. Costco employees get pretty much the same wages as the union employees. They have a three year cycle where the employees’ wages are adjusted to the union rates. True, it doesn’t offer the protections afforded the Teamsters members, but 85% of Costco employees have health insurance.Report

    4. 1) Walmart pays market wages for labor. That is what they should pay if we want to optimize productive efficiency and prosperity.

      “Market wages” is a fallacy. Wages are a result of price discovery. Supply/demand, you know, that sort of thing

      2). If you think market wages are too low, then I recommend rectifying it with non market fixes. Let’s see to it that these working poor get their fair share of the almost trillion dollars in means tested redistribution we spend each year in the US.

      Most Walmart employees don’t earn enough to pay taxes.

      3) Beware oversimplified models on the effect of coercively higher wage rates. If Walmart doubled wages, the market would respond not by getting the same people higher wages, but by different people becoming Walmart employees. You would just get substantially higher qualified and skilled people filling the slots. The major effect would be to subsidize skilled workers and encourage them to underutilize their skills.

      They won’t double wages. Walmart is in the commodity business. They don’t sell quality, they sell volume. The only way they could improve wages would be to get off the death spiral of low quality. You have it exactly backward: Costco pays its people more because they compete on quality and volume. Of course, you have to buy a lifetime supply as a minimum sales unit. Just sayin’.

      4). Beware oversimplified models of profits. The long term effects of raising rates cannot be paid out of long term lower profit margins. The market will respond to this and the net result will be less stores, higher prices, fewer employees and less competition. Profits are dynamic signals in markets.

      Profits aren’t the only signal in markets: beware of oversimplification yourself. Walmart’s dumping cash into dividends to avoid higher tax rates. It’s hardly alone in so doing.

      5). Considering the tone of this post and those on the left and their anti market, anti walmsrt vitriol, I cannot begin to imagine why the Walton’s donated money to the GOP. This is like a case study on why we want to encourage political contributions. To combat illogical pandering like this.

      Walmart wanted low tax rates. Such contributions were an investment to that end.

      6). Is anyone surprised that Walmart wants to reduce wages? You do know that this is what employers are expected to do to manage costs, right? Managers are paid to optimize costs vs benefits. If anyone thinks they have done so pooly, the market response is to prove it by doing so better yourself. Which you can do by working for or investing in Target.

      Which takes us full circle. Walmart can reduce wages because it can: so much for “Market Wages”.Report

      1. You pretty much offered the same definition I would use to define “market wages.” Furthermore, I agree with many of your points. Just to clarify, number two relates to the need to ensure that working poor get their fair portion of means tested transfer benefits. My guess is that some of them do already.Report

          1. I believe that if Walmarts wages do not meet my values, that it behooves me and those who agree to subsidize them. Asking Walmart to do so would be counterproductive to enhancing the prosperity of the poor. It would do more harm than good. In this case the moral high ground of paying for my values and the path which is most productive are totally aligned.Report

            2. See, Roger… that’s a fine idea. And we should pay for that social largesse by taxing the crap out of the subset of the population that owns as much wealth as the the bottom 40% combined. That would be the Wal-Mart heirs, BTW.Report

              1. The “wealth” the Walton heirs own is in the form of Walmart stock. Destroy Walmart and you’ve destroyed their wealth base. Tax them to death if you like but there is NO WAY you’ll receive the book value of that stock. Even selling their shares on the open market will drive down the value of the remaining shares, so $10Billion worth of shares will clear the stock market at something like $1B or less. Paper value is just that, paper. Much of the “wealth” of that top 1% looks exactly the same, good on paper, illusionary in reality.

                Bill Gates put a large percentage of his Microsoft stock into the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. They’ve been steadily selling the stock since they had it gifted to them. That has been a headwind against the Microsoft share price, which has been stagnant almost to the day since the foundation was formed.

                The US government owns a goodly chunk of GM. They couldn’t possibly recover their investment if they started selling. Only over much time could it /possibly/ get back to the price at which the gov’t paid for the shares and this was out of BANKRUPTCY! The debt was all cleared off the books already, it was a clean slate (except for the concessions to the unions, but I won’t go there in this tiny column).Report

              2. To pile on here, at the risk of being labeled a FYIGM toady of the oligarchy (only a matter of time anyway), I’d like to make two observations.

                (1) If two members of the household were earning $14k each (and such arrangements are common, I’m told) then the combined income of $28k would put that household ahead of 1/3 of the households in the US. I don’t have stats on health insurance coverage, so there is a comparability issue, admittedly.

                (2) If we were to expropriate the evil Walton clan, and could convert most of it to cash (contra wardsmith) to fund a pay increase for present and future Wal-Mart employees, it would work out to about $1 per hour. If instead, that perpetuity were put towards health insurance, it wouldn’t be enough – it would have to be more than 3 times that (see this).

                Just trying to scope out the magnitude of this injustice.Report

    6. Nearly everything that Wal-Mart sells comes through a port or harbor on the coastline of maerica.
      Nearly all of these ports were constructed by taxpayers.

      Suppose We decided to charge a fee for port use, commensurate with the societal cost that We estimate Wal-Mart is costing Us?

      Suppose We charged a trucking fee for the use of Our roads?Report

        1. Everything we do, “jacks up prices” for consumers. But the increased price isn’t a wash; the benefits of reduced welfare dependency of the workers is superior to the slightly higher prices.

          And the threat of a trade war can’t be an all-purpose defense against a legitimate action to cover our costs.

          Or to put it another way- if China only trades with us on condition we impoverish ourselves into 3rd World despair, then we have nothing to gain from trade.Report

              2. If only these things existed in the real world, where we could study them!
                Then we wouldn’t be forced to speak in hypotheticals.

                Alas.Report

    7. There is more to life and decision making than Market Justifcations. There is also ethics, morality, fairness and justice. Abstract notions but important ones that makes us human. Ghandi was onto something when he came up with the creed of no economy/commerce without morality. This is much better than the cheerful praise of The Dismal Science.

      So even if there is a perfectly market justified reason for Wal-Marts compensation practices, they are still morally and ethically wrong and therefore should stop. It is wrong to give people less than a living wage and causes more of a burden on the state. If Libertarians wanted less state than they would support higher living wages for unskilled workers. Of course you maybe you have a secret fantasy of meeting a Robspierre or Trotsky one day.Report

    8. “these working poor get their fair share of the almost trillion dollars in means tested redistribution we spend each year in the US.”

      Well, about half of that trillion (that the right often lies about, implying that we spend a trillion on poverty) is medicaid paid by the states and federal gov’t. It’s not like there’s a bunch of wasted welfare-cash on medicaid that we can just use to help walmart employees.

      A lot of that “means-tested” money is not “welfare to help the poor” but is money that is absolutely necessary to keep the middle class, middle class.

      BTW, Rober Rector -the guy Heritage guy who authored the trillion dollar claim- is a hack and a liar (of sorts.). “In a 1994 congressional hearing, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation unveiled one of the most repeated sound bites of the 90s: “Since the onset of the War on Poverty, the United States has spent over $5.3 trillion on welfare. But during the same period, the official poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged.” This is totally false; the poverty rate fell from 19 to 11 percent between 1964 and 1973. And the U.S. has spent only $700 billion on AFDC and food stamps since 1962. To get his inflated $5.3 trillion figure, Rector’s “war on poverty” had to include solidly middle class programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, veterans pensions and Medicaid, three-fourths of which goes not to the poor but the elderly and disabled. (6)”

      http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinktank.htm

      There is no “welfare” money sitting around to help Walmart workers. We spend very little on the working poor (outside of the bare minimum of medicaid.)

      That will need to change if the Walmartization of society continues apace.Report

      1. Yes, of course the trillion bucks is being greatly spent on the middle class. We tax each other to pay ourselves, with politicians and bureaucrats standing in the middle and laughing at our folly.

        Your desire to fund the working poor by demanding others rise up to the challenge is not very fair, is it?Report

        1. We don’t tax each other to pay each other. We tax each other, with the wealthiest and the upper-middle class paying the most (though that’s at risk) to pay those in the middle-class who might need help at the moment (say a lower-middle class student gets help paying loans or Pell Grants) who will then be more able to pay it back later. (For example, a lower-middle class student gets Pell Grants for Undergrad, does well in life, and then later becomes someone who pays more in taxes.)

          I think gov’t programs that help the middle class are good and necessary. But they are beside the point.

          Rector, the author of the trillion dollars for welfare dishonesty, seems to think all of those middle class programs count as welfare for the poor, or at least that’s what he wants the rubes to hear.

          The truth is, about 5 percent of the federal budget is spent on the non-working poor: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor

          It is harder to calculate how much is spent on the working poor as opposed to the those who are higher up in the middle class.

          My point is simple: as inequality increases, if we don’t keep increasing the minimum wage, if current trends continue, we will have to start spending a lot more on the working poor. And as we do that, Walmart will be -as others have pointed out- able to pay less.

          I think the solution we’ll eventually get is this: Everyone in America will get a basic living wage and basic healthcare along with the option of getting subsidized loans (paid back dependant upon how much you earn after your education.) You will then get more money on top of your government cash if you take a job at Walmart or some such, adding up to a good-living wage. If your job pays enough, you will forfeit your basic living wage, but you won’t care. If you continually don’t work at all for more than a year and lazily collect your basic living wage, you will be entered into a selective service (maybe for 1 year, not all military, maybe also peace corps or teachers aid or whatever, where you will be trained, and people with children will have to be given selective service options that allow them to stay with their child) lottery or you will be given the option to forfeit your basic living wage.

          Maybe.Report

        2. “to fund the working poor by demanding others rise up to the challenge is not very fair, is it?”

          No, it is fair to have a system that redistributes wealth so as to benefit the worst off.

          Stanford Encyclopedia, Rawls on redistribution, fairness, and justice:

          “Rawls’s second principle of justice has two parts. The first part, fair equality of opportunity, requires that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use them have the same educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. “In all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed” (JF, p. 44). So for example if we assume that natural endowments and willingness are evenly distributed across children born into different social classes, then within any type of occupation (generally specified) we should find that roughly one quarter of people in that occupation were born into the top 25% of the income distribution, one quarter were born into the second-highest 25% of the income distribution, one quarter were born into the second-lowest 25%, and one-quarter were born into the lowest 25%. Since class of origin is a morally arbitrary fact about citizens, justice does not allow class of origin to turn into unequal real opportunities for education or meaningful work.

          The second part of the second principle is the difference principle, which regulates the distribution of wealth and income. With these goods inequalities can produce a greater total product: higher wages can cover the costs of training and education, for example, and can provide incentives to fill jobs that are more in demand. The difference principle requires that social institutions be arranged so that any inequalities of wealth and income work to the advantage of those who will be worst off. The difference principle requires, that is, that financial inequalities be to everyone’s advantage, and specifically to the greatest advantage of those advantaged least…

          The difference principle gives expression to the idea that natural endowments are undeserved. A citizen does not merit more of the social product simply because she was lucky enough to be born with gifts that are in great demand. Yet this does not mean that everyone must get the same shares. The fact that citizens have different talents and abilities can be used to make everyone better off. In a society governed by the difference principle citizens regard the distribution of natural endowments as an asset that can benefit all. Those better endowed are welcome to use their gifts to make themselves better off, so long as their doing so also contributes to the good of those less well endowed. “In justice as fairness,” Rawls says, “men agree to share one another’s fate.” (TJ, 102)”Report

          1. Shazbot,

            I would not agree to live in that society, so it wouldn’t be fair to me would it? My guess is Walmart wouldn’t agree to it either, since you seem to be picking them at random in a totally partial way after the fact rather than before.

            I believe a better definition of fairness is as follows. A game or transaction is minimally fair if the players agree to the rules. To make it more fair, provide multiple alternatives and allow them to choose the best game or transaction for them. Thus you can get people with different values to agree with playing or interacting with others .

            If the players choose Rawls rules, then they will indeed be playing a fair game according to them ,and that is what matters. My guess is you and Rawls would choose his system. I would choose another based upon what really seems to work in the real world.Report

            1. “I would not agree to live in that society, so it wouldn’t be fair to me would it.”

              So your definition of fairness is: X is fair if X maximizes Roger’s self-interest?

              I just took a break from the family, but that is crazy, no?Report

            2. Sorry, I didn’t read the rest of your comment. You have a definition of fairness (which is a worse one than I thought).

              Rawls says the rules we select for society (i.e. how to organize the basic structure of society: the nature of democracy, economic issues, the extent of property rights) are fair to everyone if everyone would choose those rules (on the basis of pure rational self-interest) from behind the veil of ignorance. (The veil prevents you from knowing who you are in society, i.e. that you are rich Roger and not a poor black, blind person born to alcoholic, child-molesting parents.)

              The problem with your way of choosing rules is that no one would agree to any set of rules. The powerful would select rules that benefit them, the poor would slect rules that benefit the poor, but no set of rules could be agreed to by everyone. If we accept your method for determining fair rules, then there are no fair rules, because there are no rules that everyone would agree to.

              But from behind the veil of ignorance, everyone will view society similarly, because everyone is rational, self-interested, and equally ignorant of their own situation.

              But from behind the veil of ignorance, we would be very worried about being the worst off in society, so we would want opportunities and the resources needed to get those opportunities to the worst off.

              Happy Thanksgiving from a Rawlsian.

              Back to dinner.Report

              2. Judas,

                I find it is more productive to reveal my half formed opinions to the light of discussion. This allows me to refine, revise and hopefully improve them. Obviously I have a lot of room for improvement.Report

              3. Shazbot (and Murali if out there)

                I basically agree with Rawls veil, with caveats. First, what I like about it is that it leads to impartial rules. The classic example is the procedural fairness of dividing a pie… You cut and I will choose.

                Let me clarify how my views of fairness possibly* differ from Rawls’:

                I believe people have different values and will thus tend to choose different social arrangements that meet their values from behind the veil. This implies more decentralized institutional arrangements.

                I believe many people will tend to choose outcomes based upon lifetime expected value adjusted for time preference rather than at a point of time.

                I suspect I place a lot more value on incentives and the dynamic affects of actions and interactions. How we distribute the spoils of our efforts is the most important decision in what and how we create. And creating value, over the long term eats distributing value for launch. In other words, a creative society over the long haul is going to be unimaginably better for most than a more equal but uncreative society.

                I suspect most people would choose the society which would allow them to optimize their expected lifetime earnings, rather than minimize downside risk. In other words, I believe most people are less risk averse.

                Finally, I think people need to be able to choose not upon intellectual rationalizations, but based upon how societies actually work. Societies are complex adaptive systems, and how we think they will work in a thought process is not how they really work. Thus I would choose based upon empirical evidence of how people actually tend to perform according to my values.

                As to your argument that people would not ever agree to rules, this is both incorrect and yet at the same time more true for Rawls’ rule set than for mine. Why?

                First, rules and institutions tend to evolve. We can influence them in directions that make them more like Rawls’ or more like mine. Many institutional arrangements are established between two people and expanded out. I agree voluntarily to play with Dave, and he agrees to play with me. Agree to rules and others can join in.

                Over the last ten thousand years, millions of games and institutional and social arrangements have evolved, expanded, competed with each other, died out, flourished and proven themselves. Of course the rich would love to have rules that give them advantage, and the poor look for the same. Some societies have discovered ways for the two to work together voluntarily. One side cuts, the other chooses.

                * I say possibly, because I find Rawls, confusing, and really do not care whether he agrees with me or not, I seek wisdom on fairness not wisdom on what he thinks.Report

              4. Some basic Rawls stuff:

                “I believe people have different values and will thus tend to choose different social arrangements that meet their values from behind the veil. This implies more decentralized institutional arrangements.”

                Rawls idea is that X is fair if self-interested choosers would choose X from behind the veil. So, in that sense, their moral “values” are irrelevant to what is fair. This is one the advantages of Rawls’ theory.

                “And creating value, over the long term eats distributing value for launch. In other words, a creative society over the long haul is going to be unimaginably better for most than a more equal but uncreative society.”

                I’m not sure I understand this. I think you mean that socialism kills incentives and creativity, i.e. that we need to reward motivation and good choices and “winning” in economics. I think Rawls agrees. But we can redistribute goods and still have markets that reward winners and punish losers. In fact, if we took away all inheritance, the parents of rich kids would be more motivated to work, and the children of poor kids might feel more empowered (instead of believing, accurately, that their odds of success are grim) to compete. But to organize society so that there is fair competition amongst all requires distributing wealth from the top to the bottom. It also requires regulations to prevent the wealthy from gaming the system or passing off externalities to everyone else, etc. It also means redistributing resources and opportunities and wealth to those who were born unlucky to have certain disadvantages: born into poverty, bad education, disability, bad parenting, etc.

                “n other words, I believe most people are less risk averse.”

                I’m sympathetic to this criticism. But it misses the point. See here and Harsayani’s critiques on risk aversion.
                http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

                In brief, you are somewhat risk averse if you -before the ACA- were young and bought health insurance. Different levels of risk aversion are all plausibly rational, but all Rawls needs to prove that the difference principle is what you would choose is that you would want, out of self-interest, to insure yourself against being born into horrible poverty or disability (or both) without some aid from the state. If you sometimes purchase insurance (or save your own cash as a kind of insurance) against massive loss, then you are risk averse enough to choose the difference principle from behind the veil.

                “Finally, I think people need to be able to choose not upon intellectual rationalizations, but based upon how societies actually work. Societies are complex adaptive systems, and how we think they will work in a thought process is not how they really work. Thus I would choose based upon empirical evidence of how people actually tend to perform according to my values.”

                Rawls agrees. From behind the veil of ignorance, you see society as it is. (You just don’t know who you are.) So, you know for instance that markets maximize overall wealth, including creating wealth at the bottom for the worst off. But you know that a safety net will not destroy the market and benefits the worst off. Etc. Etc.

                The rest of your post is pretty much incomprehensible to me.Report

              5. To the extent Rawls does agree with me, I think he is right.

                I have not yet picked out Harsayanis critiques, as the article is really long and complicated. I will try to work through it though.

                As I stated I totally agree people would wisely choose a society with safety nets and with strong incentives for creating value.Report

            3. A game or transaction is minimally fair if the players agree to the rules.

              But which set of rules is the one that people ought to agree on? That’s been your argument all along, actually – that people ought to adopt and play by different rules. Take unions as an example: the rules union members accept are that they get to leverage higher wages out of employers by collectively bargaining. The employer in turn accepts a rule whereby management gets to leverage lower wages out of employees by breaking the union, or hiring scabs or shipping jobs overseas. The problem is that management’s rules – that they permitted to seek and achieve the lowest possible labor rate – doesn’t require any agreement on the part of labor to be acted on.

              Of course, most liberals, it seems to me, are inclined to think that the desire of management to maximize profits isn’t negotiable, or contingent, or up for a public vote, or part of a contract. It isn’t an agreed upon rule, but an acceptance of a basic fact. But how that desire manifests is negotiable. (Those are the rules we’re talking about here, yes?) And liberals think that if management’s desire to maximize profits is entirely open ended, then labor needs some leverage to act as a counter-balance and make the game fair. And that means permitting labor to seek the highest wages possible thru collective bargaining, but other means as well.Report

              1. SW,
                Just to clarify, I think people playing the same game need to play by the same rules.  I am encouraging as decentralized institutions as possible or practical so that those with different values can play different “games” with like minded individuals.  That said, over time, some rules prove themselves over time and become the standards.  Some rules need to be society wide.  To further complicate it, sometimes standards are better when set consistently so that people can experiment together without creating chaos.  

                I believe the rules that lead to the best long term prosperity of humans in regards to wage negotiations is loosely grouped around mutual agreement and open entry/exit and competition. This is a hypothesis on my part though, and I recognize both that I could be wrong or that it could be wrong tomorrow, or that it may not match others values. As such, I think it is good that people experiment around this rule set, especially if they can do so without using coercion. 

                I am of course fine with them bargaining collectively, or striking collectively. I am also fine with management firing them collectively.  It is a voluntary contract of employment and should be so on both sides. And the should comes because I see all economics facts pointing out that this leads to more happy smiling prosperous humans that spend their days debating on the Internet as opposed to toiling all day in the fields before they return to their clay huts. 

                The reason wage negotiations are fair is that they do have the same leverage. Employees are competing with other prospective employees for jobs.  Employers are competing with employers to hire people.  Characterizing it the other way is silly. Does this make sense?Report

  9. If Wal-Mart raised wages, more people would apply to work there. Some of them would have more impressive qualifications than the current employees. “Job gentrification” would put them out of work.

    If that sounds good to you, by all means, advocate it.Report

    1. So is your position that there’s no way to improve the lot of Wal-Mart’s current workforce? Union wage premiums exist, and are especially strong for low-skilled workers in hard-to-outsource jobs like Wal-Mart (cite).Report

      1. Or, if you feel there’s a better way to improve the lot of the working poor, write about it! You say that you favor a functioning welfare state, and I take you at your word; but you almost never seem to get angry about the plight of the poor, the way you do about drug policy or drones. You don’t spend that much time writing about it, either; it’s usually an aside in a post, designed to deflect liberal criticism rather than bring about actual change (and the fact that the changes you favor are fundamental transformations that most likely won’t ever happen completely makes you even more vulnerable to this charge).

        In short, Jason, I believe that you favor “a no-deductions negative income tax with a substantial guaranteed minimum income, minus the entire welfare state”. But I also believe that it’s not a high priority for you; that you’re willing to sacrifice almost nothing to gain progress on this front. I don’t believe that someone trying to get by on $14K pisses you off the way that many other issues do, or the way that it obviously does anger Elias.

        And that’s why liberals and libertarians can’t agree on the welfare state. Not because our visions are logically incompatible–if we both wanted to, these are the kind of differences that could be hammered out in any form of coalition politics. But because we place drastically different weights on different priorities.Report

          1. Roger, I’m not sure if you were around for the discussion of privilege that occured a while back, but I’d like to point out that comments like this are exactly what set off a lot of alarm bells in that regard. There’s only one abortion clinic in the entire state of Mississippi. It may be “inconvenient” for a rich person to take a day off and drive several hours to get an abortion; for a poor person, that burden can quickly escalate to “impossible” (for instance, if they don’t own a car, or don’t have a flexible employer). To dismiss it in mocking tones just reeks of unexamined privilege that fails to consider the circumstances of others.Report

              2. It is all about balance. There is a subset of the left that is as wacky on convenient, low cost abortions as there are of libertarians who argue for liberty for liberties sake.

                To moderates, it is kinda weird. I suspect a memetic brain virus is responsible for both. But I could be wrong.

                And I am pro liberty and pro choice.Report

              3. I’m all for cheap public transportation, Scott. Once a day (or once a week) service would seem to be all that’s needed. Hell, “catch a ride” on the mailtruck… That has to go to central processing.Report

    2. Perhaps more importantly, this may cause people who are qualified for more productive work to end up taking jobs at Walmart, and the economy loses whatever value they would have created in that more productive job.Report

        1. If for whatever reason they find their current jobs less desirable, sure. I had a friend who quit a high-paying job in the software industry to work retail. The heterogeneity of preferences is easy to underestimate.Report

          1. I’m fine with accepting a certain amount of heterogeneity of preference, but if you think a.) the market is rational, and b.) people will leave better opportunities for worse one’s en masse because of a slight shift in the short-term attractiveness of the worse opportunity, then there’s something wrong in your thinking.

            There’s also something wrong in your thinking if you think there are a lot of skilled workers making $9.50 long-term who will be excited about the possibility of making $.25 more long term. The people who would leave their jobs for newly raised Walmart wages are, in general, the people working at Walmart’s competitors or with similar skill levels to existing Walmart employees. I mean, it’s not like anyone’s suggesting that Walmart pay nurses wages, or hell, even medical assistant wages.Report

              1. Roger, not with a quarter, no. The process is, as you’ve noted (I point out again), a market one: Walmart and its employees (unionized or no) come to an agreement on wages, and either the people can live on them or they can’t, and either Walmart continues to make the profits it wants or it doesn’t, and we start the next round of coming to an agreement. The reason this doesn’t happen now is because Walmart is able to crush any attempt at unionization.

                If you’re wondering why people on the labor end look at this as an antagonistic relationship, there’s your answer. That and because there are people who say these are the “market wages,” and the employees of Walmart should be grateful, or get another job.Report

              2. Chris,

                Again I am confused. Yes, every day can be viewed as an open employment contract between Walmart and each employee. They have a job that needs to be done, and the wage they pay is the level that someone who can do it well is willing to accept. If they pay more than that, then someone else can come and say, “I will do the same job for one penny less.”. As a profit maximizing firm, they will accept the one cent lower rate. Eventually nobody offers their services for less.

                Of course there aren’t just millions of potential employees, there are millions of potential jobs and thousands of competing potential employers. These bid up wages. Supply then meets demand.

                If Walmart voluntarily or if an employee cartel used threat of violence to achieve wages that are different than this level, then resources would be allocated less efficiently and productivity would be lower. Agreed?

                An example, if they paid double wages, then the result would be higher skilled workers would apply for these jobs instead of doing the job that optimizes their skills ( you just raised the entry level above the more demanding job.) Thus pverqualified people would get these jobs. The unskilled workers you want to help would now need to look for a new job, but if you eliminated all these jobs, then you also eliminated the need for these workers. Now we have structural unemployment, higher skilled workers misplace in lower skilled jobs. Less total productivity and lower GDP divided among the same number of citizens.

                This is really complicated, and I appreciate any corrections to this basic, probably oversimplified model. However that is my take on it.Report

              4. if they paid double wages, then the result would be higher skilled workers would apply for these jobs instead of doing the job that optimizes their skills ( you just raised the entry level above the more demanding job.) Thus pverqualified people would get these jobs.

                And here the argument is again. An objective measure of what constitutes an “over qualified person” taking a job is outside the scope of libertarianism, it seems to me, and confuses the goals of the theory. Libertarianism is a theory about liberty (based on the NAP, primarily), and voluntarism. If a person is presented with options A and B, and they choose B even tho they are overqualified for the job, they are acting rationally and freely within the libertarian framework. It’s the ideal (optimal) outcome. To measure that person’s choice against a model where everyone works to the level of their skill set is not a libertarian model, it seems to me. It’s an ideal that logically follows from maximizing liberty. A libertarian can’t use both metrics to justify a policy or position, at least as I see it.

                If overqualified people are taking jobs that under-utilize their skill set, then that is either a) permissible within libertarianism, or b) libertarianism isn’t primarily concerned with maximizing liberty (since the overqualified person chose that job freely and rationally as the best option available to him or her).Report

              6. Another way to say this, in language Tim K is comfortable with, might be that libertarianism is about processes and productivity is about outcomes, and conflating the two is inherently problematic.Report

              7. Fuck all. HOW do you fix the finance sector hiring OVERQUALIFED folks?
                Yeah, sir, that’s my fucking problem. I don’t give a jack-all damn about people who aren’t gonna make me new awesome shit, and their fucking productivity. Call me selfish, I call it fucking practical.
                Some forms of overqualified are a LOT more painful for the economy than others. Soem people are far more qualified to create new markets, new ideas, more cool shit than others.

                Oh. Yeah. Solve That for Me.

                (I like an inheritance tax, myself, as it drops money into the hands of consumers fromt he hands of “investors” — aka lazy people who don’t work for a living)Report

        2. This is why you don’t need 100% of jobs to be unionized in order to raise wages pretty much across the board. If unionized Walmart pays $9.75, then my boss will have to pay something more than that to employ my number-crunching or real-time programming skills. IIRC, the “magic” number is about 30% — that many union jobs and all employers have to pay roughly union wages in order to attract labor.Report

          1. Having worked at Walmart during my impressionable years, I feel like I can say a few things about it.

            First, the jobs at Walmart completely suck. You get a lot of grief for little cash compensation.

            Second, when some union reps came around, the store managers rounded up all the employees for the morning meeting and told us, straight up, not to talk to them, and that we didn’t need to talk to them, because they already treated us so well. Even as a teenager this struck me as somewhat peculiar.

            Third, Walmart had net profits of $15.4 billion in 2011. They also had 2.1 million employees worldwide. I am not an economist, but I am pretty sure that means that a pay hike of around $7,300 per year for every employee (some of whom are already paid pretty well, admittedly; ie managers), would consume all of their profits.

            Assuming the average Walmart schlub works 25 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that is 1300 hours. So, an increase of $5.5 dollars would be the absolute, untenable maximum wage increase.

            If the woman in the OP making $14,000 a year is typical, then she would be bumped up to around $21,000.Report

              1. Um, so a company ceases to exist the moment it stops making a profit? I’ll let Sony know they should’ve blinked into nothingness a few years ago.Report

              2. I doubt anyone will actually read this comment, since it is not exactly timely, but my point was to ground this conversation in something other than invective.

                My main point was to establish the maximum amount of wiggle room that Walmart has in terms of adjusting wages (without addressing how the wage increases would actual interact with Walmart’s gross earnings. Obviously there is a relationship there, but I am not clever enough to suss it out).Report

              3. … you’ve never bought stocks, like, ever, have you? Utilities never run a profit (it’s why people invest in them!) Most of the biotech sector doesn’t run a profit, like, ever (if they actually find something that works, they promptly skyrocket in value and get bought up by MERCK or some other big corp).Report

            2. This assumes no gains in productivity from greater compensation, in increased morale, better retention, or any of the other things that seem to work for Costco. You know, no one would make this argument about, say, office chairs (“We have to buy the very cheapest ones, and if we all get chronic lower back problems, we owe that to the shareholders!”) but it’s so easy to assume that non-white-collar workers are purely a drain on the people who actually matter.Report

        3. By the way, I didn’t say that people would leave their current jobs to work at Walmart. The more likely scenario is that people who could do somewhat better with some work choose not to put in the effort to get a better job, because Walmart pays enough. It’s not going to deter someone from going to medical school, but maybe someone who otherwise would have taken computer classes at community college to get an office job decides just to stick it out at Walmart.Report

    3. Money that goes to the Walmart employees gets spent in the local economy instead of disappearing into the bank accounts of the Walton’s to remain unspent. Additionally it increases tax revenue.

      This local growth creates new opportunities for the displaced workers. The increased tax revenue makes providing services for the displaced workers more affordable as well.Report

      2. TPG

        Sure the family has a money vault where they swim in cash and mock the poor. Get real, the corporation’s profits go to its shareholders the biggest of which are public pension funds like CALPERS.Report

      3. Yes, but the Walmart economy transfers less money to employees in general than we are used to. If we want to keep things as they are, we will have to get used to larger and larger transfers of wealth from the top to the working class.Report

      4. “Money that goes to the Walmart employees gets spent in the local economy instead of disappearing into the bank accounts of the Walton’s to remain unspent. Additionally it increases tax revenue. ”

        Congratulations, you invented trickle-down economics.Report

        1. Sadly as my wife, who has run several doctors’ offices, tell me it is hard to get folks to even show up on time these days. She has told me that she will forgive a lot if someone shows up on time on a regular basis. Yet these same folks always want higher salaries when they have few if any skills. It is easy to get on the gov’t dole. How far this country has fallen .Report

          1. Ah, but now we have the best of both worlds. Walmart gets its people to turn up on time … aaaand… those people are on the Gov’t Dole. Isn’t capitalism great?Report

          2. Seriously?
            Your argument is yet another variant that American workers (present company excluded, I am sure) are lazy bums who refuse to work hard, but prefer to live off the dole.Report

              1. It may very well be that the bakers calculated that the pay they were offered was worth walking away from.
                Which is exactly what businesses do every single day of the week, when they strategically default.

                You have heard that theory that conservativism and libertarianism are actually just elaborate defenses of authoritarians, of a feudal mentality of obedience to Rightful Authority?
                This is where that theory gets its start.

                We both agree that that the company was mangled by inept management; yet it is the action of the workers that you find morally objectionable- the actions of the management appear to be acceptable to you.
                Why?

                As an analogy, if the management had asked for more favorable terms from the bank instead of the union, and the bank refused, tipping the company into bankruptcy- would you be angrily accusing “those bankers” of destroying the company?

                Why is self-interest on the part of workers morally reprehensible, yet not on the part of management?Report

              2. I don’t know the full history of the corp but I do believe that the current owners bought it and tried to make a go of it. Without the the current owners who took the risk to buy the crop and fix it, the unions would have been out of jobs a while ago. I understand and appreciate self interest but at a certain point it seems that having a job you don’t like is better than not having a job as it allows you to survive until you can find a better one. Self interest is great until it becomes a substitute for common sense. Your banker analogy it fails b/c the unions helped create the problem. From the article I linked to, “Unlike some non-unionized rivals, the maker of Wonder Bread and Drake’s cakes had to navigate more than 300 labor contracts, with terms that often strained efficiency and competitiveness, Hostess officials have said. In some extreme cases, contract provisions required different products to be delivered on different trucks even when headed to the same place.” When they pull fish like like that I don’t have any sympathy for them.Report

              3. Scott,

                The company was screwed in so many ways, but the biggest reason was that there was no viable plan to grow revenues and increase profitability. It came out of bankruptcy too heavily leveraged and without any plan to increase revenues and profitability, there was no way to reduce the leverage as a percentage of the total capital structure. That someone thought this was a good way to emerge from bankruptcy strikes me as crazy.

                Yes, the contracts with the unions were a burden (one of many) on the company (and every capital source looking to invest into the company stated as much), but why is this only the fault of the unions? Management accepted the terms of the agreements. Why is it that when collective bargaining agreements are discussed, the unions bear the brunt of the “collective bargaining” component but people (especially right-leaning individuals) ignore the “agreement” component.Report

      3. That’s one thing that I’ve been thinking about.
        Maybe I’m something of a snob, but I think unions work better where the type of work is more specialized and require a higher level of training.

        And a couple of other things here:
        I’ve known a few people in the Riverside-Ontario area that were members of the grocers union. California has a system that sustains union membership for grocery workers.

        That said, there are several types of establishments that are known as “grocers.”
        There’s the model where everything is stacked in boxes and you bag your own groceries.
        There’s the more upscale version with an expanded deli section, some of which now have wi-fi.
        There’s the type with high shelves where you point at a product and a guy with a stick knocks it down from the shelf for you.

        A lot of different business models doing the same thing.Report

        1. I’d think long and hard before looking to California, Illinois or Detroit for economic advice. These areas have all been captured by libertarian special interest groups.Report

    5. If Wal-Mart raised wages, more people would apply to work there. Some of them would have more impressive qualifications than the current employees. “Job gentrification” would put them out of work.

      In some cases, yes, in other cases, it would motivate WalMart employees who currently are undermotivated on account of working nearly full time and still being poor to come to work with a better attitude, care more about helping make the shopping experience at WalMart a bit better, and keep their job. I think it’s an overstated argument that somewhat better wages at WalMart would cause a whole-sale switch-out of the labor force.

      However, I don’t think that an argument about the social value of low prices is overstated. I personally would have no problem if a rise in wages at WalMart -sky allowed/caused WalMart to rise slightly above its current low-price-bad-shopping-experience market point. Maybe something that subtly apes Target’s experience (although I’m not really sure how much of that shopping experience comes directly from the employees). But then, despite not being particularly flush myself, I already don’t shop at WalMart because the experience is so bad and the price difference just isn’t worth that much to me. But it’s clearly worth ti to some. Should we will that the near-lowest price option of WalMart be priced up somewhat by better ages for its employees? I’m not sure who’s getting done over here: the public (especially others who work for low ages not at WalMart) if wages at WalMart go up and with them prices, or WalMart employees if prices stay low at the cost of wages staying low too. Again, I know I’d be happy if WalMart became a nicer place to shop, but there would be a loss for others. Our economy could currently use a bit more price-wage inflation, but rising prices at WalMart would hit everybody (including those of us who don’t even shop there), while a corresponding wage increase would only affect WalMart employees (if WalMart increased its wages, would that put upward pressure on wages at Target the way that rising prices at WalMart would allow prices to float up at Target as well?).

      These are the questions that to my mind should determine whether we want wages to go up at WalMart. We shouldn’t will there to be jobs that pay really badly just so that the very marginally employable can hold them. Those people are (according to the argument) doing those jobs now. We shouldn’t assume that the prospect of better pay couldn’t offer enough incentive for them to be able to improve their performance enough to be able to keep them. That’s an incredibly condescending and disempowering assumption to make.Report

        1. Costco is low prices for affluent people. It’s still a question whether really-low prices for people without much cash-on-hand are important to preserve. Tbh, I’d be perfectly happy if we had much better income assistance for the working poor (like you seem to endorse in this thread), and let WalMart float where it wants on the shopping-experience/price matrix. Thing, I think it’s comfortable with the place it occupies. If there were better income assistance, it would be taxed more & may be forced into providing a better experience for everyone, shoppers & workers alike.Report

          1. True. Costco is only 1/10 the size of Walmart and its product selection [except for toilet paper*] is whatever they can get a deal on. The article was interesting because Costco does indeed pay better, and has happier and more productive workers, with a retention rate of 75% rather than Walmart’s 50%**.

            *They come for the toilet paper, they stay for the 10-lb tub of Greek yogurt.
            http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.aspx?post=e8a6e01c-31c6-4846-b880-e43773d53b26

            **”A 2004 Business Week study ran the numbers to test Costco’s business model against that of Wal-Mart. The study confirmed that Costco’s well-compensated employees are more productive.

            The study shows that Costco’s employees sell more: $795 of sales per square foot, versus only $516 at Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart (which, like Costco, operates as a members-only warehouse club). Consequently Costco pulls in more revenue per employee; U.S. operating profit per hourly employee was $13,647 at Costco versus $11,039 at Sam’s Club.

            The study also revealed that Costco’s labor costs are actually lower than Wal-Mart’s as a percentage of sales. Its labor and overhead costs (classed as SG&A, or selling, general and administrative expenses) are 9.8% of revenues, compared to Wal-Mart’s 17%.

            By compensating its workers well, Costco also enjoys rates of turnover far below industry norms. Costco’s rate of turnover is one-third the industry average of 65% as estimated by the National Retail Foundation. Wal-Mart reports a turnover rate of about 50%.

            With such rates of employee retention, Costco’s savings are significant. “It costs $2,500 to $3,000 per worker to recruit, interview, test and train a new hire, even in retail,” said Eileen Appelbaum, Professor at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations. “With Wal-Mart’s turnover rate that comes to an extra $1.5 to $2 million in costs each year.”

            Other analysts of the retail industry agree that happier, well-compensated workers help generate bigger profits. George Whalin, president of Retail Management Consultants in San Marcos, Calif., disagrees with many of Wal-Mart’s critics, but said: “There’s no doubt Wal-Mart and many other retailers could do a better job taking care of their employees. The best retailers do take care of their employees — Nordstrom’s, Costco, The Container store — with fair pay, good benefits and managers who care about people. You have fewer employee issues, less turnover and more productivity. It lessens costs to the company.”

            Still, Wall Street analysts intent on cutting up-front labor costs tend to frown upon Costco’s model. “Costco’s corporate philosophy is to put its customers first, then its employees, then its vendors and finally its shareholders. Shareholders get the short end of stick,” said Deutsche Bank analyst Bill Dreher.”

            Average Pay
            Wal-Mart: $9.68/hour
            Costco: $16/hour

            Health Plan Costs
            Wal-Mart: Associates pay 34% of premiums + deductible ($350-$1,000)
            Costco: Comprehensive; employees pay 5-8% of premiums

            Employees Covered By Company Health Insurance
            Wal-Mart: 48%
            Costco: 82%

            Employee Turnover (estimate)
            Wal-Mart: 50%
            Costco: 24%Report

              1. Walmart @3.5% margin. Not much wiggle room. If McArdle is on your flip-your-lid list, do not read.

                http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/23/unions-organize-walmart-protests-rest-of-the-nation-goes-shopping.html

                Recessions are also a time when employers don’t necessarily have a lot of profits to give up. Walmart’s $446 billion of revenue last year was eye-popping, but its profit margins are far from fat–between 3% to 3.5%. If they cut that down by a percentage point–about what retailers like Costco and Macy’s have been bringing in–that would give each Walmart employee about $2850 a year, which is substantial but far from life-changing. Further wage improvements would have to come out of the pockets of Walmart’s extremely price conscious shoppers. Which might be difficult, given how many product categories Amazon is pushing into.

                Report

              2. That’s about a third of the avg. mortgage payment per year (and this for people not in Boswash!), or half of what a car costs, if you’re lucky. I’d say that has the potential to be life-changing, particularly in a two person family.
                But what the hell do I know? I just read the numbers…Report

            2. Shareholders get the short end of stick,” said Deutsche Bank analyst Bill Dreher.”

              A priori, no doubt. Because CostCo doesn’t employ the “standard” model for maximizing profits. Profit/hourly employee seems like pretty good refudiating evidence, tho.Report

            3. Nice post, Tom.

              I admit that my opinion of Wall Street analysts was solidified a while ago.
              Back when Apple was in the doldrums, I was listening to a radio show where several of them agreed than Macs needed a new operating system, and it was 100% fishing obvious that not a single one knew what an operating system was.Report

              1. I’m on the fence about this stuff, Mike. Although I oppose the gov’t getting its hands all over private transactions, there also exist situations where the employee is so desperate that he’s not an equal partner in the employment agreement.

                This was especially true in the early Industrial Age, and the rise of unions completely understandable, even to the point of resorting to violence. shut up and work yourself to death in the hope of eventual peaceful change? Screw that, universe.

                Costco does appear to be a unicorn, its CEO accepting $350K as salary, the stores’ wares limited to what it can sell at attractive margins. It’s a 1/10 the size of Walmart, and I don’t see that its model could stand 10X growth.

                [We let out membership lapse this year, and I don’t really miss my old Kirkland lifestyle.]

                OTOH, Walmart is only possible in a welfare or mixed-welfare state making up the shortfall. The libertarian cannot truthfully deny this. It is not a self-contained organism. It’s more an adjunct to the economy than a full member of the economy.Report

            4. “Costco’s corporate philosophy is to put its customers first, then its employees, then its vendors and finally its shareholders. Shareholders get the short end of stick,”

              This demonstrates an angle in one of my other posts- the Wal-Mart model maximizes shareholder value, ahead of customers and employees.

              Given that we the taxpayers have created the laws that created corporations and the stock market, aren’t we the taxpayers within our rights to modify those laws when we decide that they are no longer benefitting us?

              In other words, there is no natural right for the stock market to even exist, let alone exist in a form that doesn’t benefit the commonweal.Report

    6. You’re saying we are currently experiencing bad thing A (Walmart leveraging wages against the public safety net) but correcting that would entail bad thing B (gentrification! even worse!!). So on your view, there’s just no good solution to this either way. That’s a funny thing for a libertarian to say, it seems to me.

      It’s similar to Brandon’s argument below: if we allow increases in wages at Walmart then we – as a society – might experience less total productivity because overqualified people will end up taking those jobs. Boooo! But why should a libertarian care about that? The goal of libertarianism is to achieve the maximally free society, not the maximally productive one. (Maximal productivity is supposed to follow from maximal freedom.) If a person decides that taking a $12 job at Walmart is the best option they have, even if they’re overqualified for the job, then there is a problem in the theory, not in the choices people make. Because by definition, the person is maximizing his or her utility by taking a job they’re overqualified for.Report

      1. SW

        For the record, Jason and I argued the exact same point too, and all of us appeared to do so spontaneously without comparing answers.

        I won’t answer for the other three, but I care more about productivity, which I will summarize as collective human problem solving output, than I do with freedom. I value freedom because it leads to good results for the most people, not for freedom’s sake alone.Report

        1. So you’re in favor of a high inheritance tax, as that provides a much better equality of opportunity for people? (with concommittant ability for entrepreneurial people to SELL stuff, instead of Bubbling Assets?)Report

        2. Fair enough Roger. I wrote a comment in response to your argument upthread (I think). I’ll take this a your response to what I wrote there.

          But I do want to point out that conflating productivity with libertarianism is a no-no. The two things are conceptually distinct (tho there is, as I said, some overlap there). And I’ll need to think about this some more, but it seems to me that structuring policy to prevent an overqualified person from freely and rationally taking a position which doesn’t maximize that person’s productivity is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism as it’s conventionally understood.Report

          1. Stillwater,

            I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about on the supposed divide between productivity and libertarianism, or what Tim has said on the topic.

            And we are not trying to structure things so the overqualified can’t freely take lower skilled jobs. We are trying to get markets free enough so that the best applicant is drawn to the job at the lowest cost, thus creating the product most efficiently.Report

              1. There’s you answer about how pragmatic/consequentialist you are in your argumentation, I guess.

                If lower wages necessarily increases efficiency, and efficiency is a trumping good, then you’re not making a pragmatic or consequentialist argument. You’re making a first principle argument.

                Can we agree on that?Report

      2. And the idea that those higher-paid people might also be more productive as Walmart employees: find better ways to serve customers, give better feedback on how well sales and special offers are working, give intelligent feedback on how to improve store layout and purchasing decisions, etc. — that’s all stupid. I mean, for God’s sake, they’d be the kind of people that work at Walmart.Report

  10. She said that many employees who would otherwise be working full-time were scheduled for 24 or 26 hours a week, so that Walmart would not obliged to provide them with full-time benefits.

    Government levies huge tax on employing workers for 30 hours or more per week; company avoids employing workers for thirty or more hours per week. Let’s go live now to the city park, where we have a report that a dog has bitten a man.

    “I struggle to support my family on $14,000 a year,” said Sara Gilbert, a customer service manager at the company for three years. “My children are in state housing and we get subsidized housing and food stamps.”

    So let’s say that a living wage for a single parent with three children is, say, $30,000 per year. So we pass a law obligating Walmart to pay all of its employees $30,000 per year. What about the employees with five children?

    Because without the big government welfare state that their chosen candidates promised to strip to the marrow of its bones, the Waltons would could not get away with paying their employees such a pittance.

    What is your mental model for how this works? How exactly do welfare benefits lower the market price of unskilled labor?Report

    1. A living wage is just that: the amount it reasonably costs to maintain and reproduce the labor force, no? If people are working but earning less than it costs to maintain themselves in a state fit to do that work, and the government takes up that slack, then companies paying that low wage are benefiting indirectly from the welfare state.Report

      1. No, LWA. The difference is that there are myriads of choices for employers without becoming an immigrant to another country. Remember, a fair interaction is one that both agree voluntarily on, and where there are plenty of easy competing alternatives. There is a big, big difference between switching jobs and moving to Somalia.Report

        1. “Remember, a fair interaction is one that both agree voluntarily on, and where there are plenty of easy competing alternatives. ”
          Dang, see I keep forgetting that! Its like the prices-go-up-when-demand-rises thingy that we liberals can never understand.
          Thanks for the tip!

          But, just so we’re clear- a wage negotiated between Wal-Mart and its worker is fair because they both voluntarily agreed on it, and there are…whats that again..”plenty of easy competing alternatives”.

          Got it!Report

          2. :But, just so we’re clear- a wage negotiated between Wal-Mart and its worker is fair because they both voluntarily agreed on it, and there are…whats that again..”plenty of easy competing alternatives”.”

            Actually, statist policies have steadily reduced the alternatives for many many years, so, because statist policies have created an environment of economic stagnation, now government tells us it has to control more and invest heavily in the Great Recession so that we can grow and prosper. We’re stuck in a loop that’s spiraling down a giant crapper once known as America the Beautiful. But, elections have consequences, so…whatev. It’s the Fair Deal and justice will prevail, without pants, though. It’ll be entertaining, at least.Report

      1. I don’t know why they took the job. If they don’t have the job skills for a better job then why complain about the wages? I guess they just want more money without having to provide better skills for their employer.Report

        1. I don’t think that is an unreasonable position. Certainly America’s CEOs don’t, as they make well over the industrialized world’s average. And they don’t give enough added value to compensate.Report

        2. Many of them do have job skills. It is just that the job market only has so many positions that employ skilled labor and the unskilled labor positions (given the death of unions) don’t support a person. So it’s gov’t subsidies or a degree of inequality that is intolerable.

          Maybe you believe the market will eventually push them all to go back to school to bcome programmers and they’ll all get great high-paying jobs, and we’ll have no unemployment and the market will solve everything. That’s a conceivable possibility, but all the trends in the actual market we live in suggest that it isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future. Walmartization is growing. Low-skilled labor is getting crushed economically and society is suffering as a result.Report

          1. The only reason for systemic unemployment is that the market has not cleared. This is caused by the very interferences you are promoting. You are making recommendations that degrade markets then complaining about the market. Cause and effect.Report

            1. What does this Market Clearing involve? Systemic un- and under-employment is a function of aggregate demand. This market-clearing business can only go so far: no economy can employ everyone. Where demand for jobs exceeds supply, there’s no upward pressure. But the job market never actually “clears”.

              Markets only clear where buy meets sell. The only way such an employment market would “clear” is if we were selling slaves, which I hasten to add you’re not advocating, just pointing out employment is an ongoing relationship, where only continued demand for services can possibly keep that relationship ongoing.Report

              2. This attributes a level of efficiency to the labor market that has never been observed. It is, essentially, like a chemist working with ideal gases. For example, you can’t eliminate structural unemployment if the labor market evolves too fast for labor to keep up. This is particularly true when it evolves at a rate that essentially excludes people of of a certain age (because they’re trained/educated for an earlier market which is sufficiently different to make any sort of quick catching up impossible). We see this today, for example, in the fact that much of the structural unemployment is the result of a labor market that evolved rapidly and left people without some sort of degree or advanced certification (not just a 2 week program, e.g.). So a lot of people who became unemployed in their 40s or 50s simply won’t be able to catch up, and will therefore spend much if not all of the rest of their working years (which will probably go on much longer than they otherwise would have) underemployed or unemployed. There doesn’t appear to be any market corrective for this, and so far, government programs designed to provide training, certification, and education, have been woefully inadequate.Report

              4. But again, even the “approaches” extends well beyond the observed data. In the case I described, the labor market is actually creating more unemployment, not less, and it’s creating even more underemployment than unemployment (we haven’t even talked about underemployment, but it’s a pretty big problem for the market).Report

              5. Chris,

                The more we interfere with the market with minimum wages, licensing requirements, above market union wages and so forth the more structural unemployment we will get. Yes. That is one of the major reasons why I do not recommend above market wages.Report

              6. Until a sale is completed, the market hasn’t cleared. Unless someone actually owns the means of production, whole and entire, which would be true if a master owned a slave, no transaction has cleared.

                Furthermore, several significant factors present which further tangle the completion picture. Fungibility: one employee cannot completely replace another. While it’s true, nobody’s indispensable, costs accrue to replacing an trained employee, no matter how unskilled the job might seem. Timing is another: the worker must be able to do the work when it needs to be done. This list gets very long.

                You’re right, we’re several steps away from slavery. Those steps are all screwing with market clearing.Report

  13. I think Walmart foreshadows the doom of society as we know it. Okay, that sounds extreme, but hear me out (read me out?).

    Here are the facts as I see them. 1.) The labor that people provide to Walmart is vitually worthless. I don’t mean to insult Walmart employees (I worked a similar retail job for a couple of years), but Walmart really just needs any warm body. Once upon a time, retail sales required expertise, salesmanship, maturity, and good retail sales people had something they could sell (as labor) to retailers. But big advertising and the big box phenomena kills that. You don’t go to Walmart to get help with or advice about what you are buying, the way people used to when buying clothes or food or hardware.

    2.) Walmart has no self-interested incentive to pay its employees anything. Even in the utopia of full-employment, there will be lots of employers like Walmart who deploy labor that is nearly worthless. And all those people who don’t have valuable labor to sell to employers like Walmart will have no leverage to force Walmart to keep them.

    3.) Unions offer a possible solution. Walmart employees (or retail employees in general) could become, conceivably, a powerful 40’s style union like the auto unions used to be.But unions are dead and dying. The union solution is not feasible.

    4.) So Walmart employees are doomed to low wages. And the trend in the U.S. (and all first world countries) is that the percentage of people who are educated are developing labor skills that are more and more valuable, and there is a growing pool of people who have no skill to offer except be a warm-body for a company like Walmart.

    5.) As Elias states, these low paying jobs are not enough to sustain a family without massive aid from the government. And as I have argued, we will see more people in these jobs, even in full employment, and their wages will remain crap all. The state (and voters) will then have a choice of deciding to transfer large amounts of money (actually supplementing wages, not just health insurance or demanding a minimum wage) or accepting a level of inequality (of outcome and opportunity) that will be unimaginable. Both these alternatives will require and will cause fundamental changes to society as we know it. One will move us to a level of welfare that could be described as truly socialist. The other will move us towards, not just a class stratified society, but something more resembling a caste society.Report

    2. I disagree Shazbot5, I doubt that Walmart foreshadows any kind of doom, particularly since we already have Walmarts doom (and the doom of similar big box retail venutres) slithering around with us here on the internets. Online retailing is big and rapidly growing bigger, it’s going to eventually start chomping into the market share of behemoths like Walmart particularly since they don’t have to integrate the capital costs of multiple stores or employees.

      What this presages for low income Walmart employees I’m not certain. If Walmart gets devoured or even merely ravaged by online retail/delivery then they’re out of jobs. There are presumably replacement jobs in delivery and warehousing but online retail eliminates a lot of sales jobs and replaces them with fewer high paying programming and information jobs along with some customer service call centers (likely offshore).Report

      1. Okay, I do think boutique retail could make a come back, partially by working with the online shopping experience. In my dream world, online retailers will also have local stores (in the mall or whatever) where you can go and meet with an expert, who will have samples and advice about various products. I think this could work for books (small places with a few books where people go for gift ideas or to drink a coffee and look at a few new books that are owned by Amazon) or clothes (sort of how it is now, but maybe fewer brick and mortar stores with more expert employees) or even groceries (you go to a local place occasionally that gives you recipes and shows you foods you might not have thought of and then you buy your regular stuff online).

        As an old man, I find myself sometimes in need of a record store where I can ask some kid about music to buy for my nieces, or a video store where there are movie buffs or at least people who have seen some new movie I am interested in. I would be willing to pay for that experience and expertise.

        But there is no guarantee that we will get this. Part of the problem is that advice about movies, clothes, food, and music is all online, for free. That is great, but people used to get a fair wage by selling their expertise. No longer. And now a lot more people are, according to the market, “unskilled.” even if they have an expertise to offer.Report

  14. Good post, Elias. A few thoughts/topics for discussion that I think are important here:

    1. You write in the OP that “As the example of Sara Gilbert shows, Walmart’s willful near-immiseration of its workers is, today, only feasible due to big government programs like public housing and food stamps.” You forgot to add “and Obamacare.” Lest we forget, Walmart actively lobbied for the passage of PPACA: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5127536-503544.html

    2. Walmart’s reliance on federal social programs is critical to its ability to block unionization while keeping wages low. It is, quite literally, Walmart’s first line of defense against unionization that would force it to pay higher wages, helping to minimize employee dissatisfaction with Walmart’s crappy treatment of them, thereby minimizing the appeal of unionization. This is precisely the opposite of how Whole Foods and Wegmans block unionization, which is by taking responsibility for treating their employees well. Although Whole Foods’ prices are obviously sky-high and it competes for, effectively, a luxury market, Wegmans’ prices are actually pretty competitive, and their proprietary products are usually cheaper (and better!) than other grocery stores’ proprietary products. Simply put, taxpayers subsidize Walmart’s fight against unionization.

    3. Walmart’s second line of defense against unionization, exemplified in its pending NLRB complaint, demonstrates why unions should be viewed as labor market participants and why existing labor market interventions on the whole work far more to the harm of sellers (employees and unions) and to the benefit of buyers (employers), rather than vice versa as it is commonly presumed. What makes these interventions particularly offensive is that they directly impinge upon employee 1st Amendment rights of speech and association – rather than merely allowing employers to fire employees for the exercise of those rights, existing labor law actively makes the exercise of those rights illegal in many circumstances.

    Specifically, in its NLRB complaint, Walmart is accusing employees and the union of “illegal picketing” – in other words, they’re accusing them of “illegal speech.” In most contexts, complaints about “illegal speech” are given the short shrift they deseerve by the courts; but in the context of the NLRA, they’re given priority and must be expedited, with a successful complaint resulting in an outright injunction against further speech.

    But even beyond that, the actual strikes are spreading in spite of the NLRA, not because of it, and their effectiveness is ultimately going to be limited because of the restrictions that the NLRA puts on them. Specifically, the striking workers have had to be exceedingly careful not to seek recognition as a bargaining unit and it is, in effect, illegal for them to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of association by openly seeking to associate with a union. If and when hard evidence emerges that the striking employees are directly cooperating with a union, you can rest assured that Walmart will be filing an additional complaint.

    A major reason the strikes thus far have been effective is that they have been unpredictable and have been able to take advantage of the element of surprise (hence the reason that the leaders won’t identify stores that will be going on strike), preventing Walmart from stopping them before they begin or making contingency plans. Unfortunately, because of the NLRA, the only way to preserve this element of surprise is to avoid any open attempt at, or demand for, collective bargsaining. That is not a small restriction, and there’s a reason why strikes like this are so rare (absent social media and some very recent groundbreaking NLRB decisions protecting employee use of social media, I’m not even sure they’d be logistically possible).Report

    2. Mark,

      I too think Walmart should play fair with employees, just as the employees should too. But I want to pull out the second point you made.

      “2. Walmart’s reliance on federal social programs is critical to its ability to block unionization while keeping wages low. It is, quite literally, Walmart’s first line of defense against unionization that would force it to pay higher wages, helping to minimize employee dissatisfaction with Walmart’s crappy treatment of them, thereby minimizing the appeal of unionization. This is precisely the opposite of how Whole Foods and Wegmans block unionization, which is by taking responsibility for treating their employees well. Although Whole Foods’ prices are obviously sky-high and it competes for, effectively, a luxury market, Wegmans’ prices are actually pretty competitive, and their proprietary products are usually cheaper (and better!) than other grocery stores’ proprietary products. Simply put, taxpayers subsidize Walmart’s fight against unionization.”

      This is the first worthwhile argument against Walmart that I have seen in this thread. It deserves our focus and discussion. Anyone care to weigh in against Marks position?Report

      1. Well, its similar to the argument most liberals are making about Wal-Mart; that its cheap prices are in fact not the workings of a market, but are subsidized by social programs.

        I referred to this in post #125 where I figured we could quantify how much Wal-Mart is costing us, in terms of social welfare, and assess fees and taxes sufficient to cover the cost to us.Report

          1. For the record, I do not believe this argument is correct, but I believe it is a damn good argument. However I am unqualified to counter it.

            Brandon or one of the James or Jason care to weigh in? Otherwise Mark wins per the rules of good blogging.Report

            1. Again, I’d like to see an actual model for this, because it’s not at all clear to me that the existence of welfare subsidies actually results in Walmart being able to pay lower wages. I laid out my argument for why I don’t think this is the case—and why the opposite may actually be true—in another recent thread, though I forgot which.Report

              2. It’s trivial. Different rules apply for part-time workers and full-time. Walmart keeps the number of hours below the full time threshold for precisely this reason.

                Each such part-timer’s pay check is low enough for that worker to qualify for food stamps. If, let’s say, Walmart had two part-timers doing the job of one full timer, (it’s not that simple, but grant me the simpler math), Walmart can (among other curious benefits) avoid having to offer the part-timer benefits such as health insurance and doesn’t even have to pay unemployment. Walmart knows all such “employees” qualify for food stamps. It makes sure they qualify, to avoid the overhead associated with a full-timer.Report

              3. Yup. The effect, to the worker, is that the federal benefits, which Walmart doesn’t pay for, raise their hourly compensation to something a lot closer to the hourly compensation they would be able to get with a union, meaning there is less incentive to take the risks necessary to try to organize as a union.Report

              4. I’d like to read that comment, BB.

                What do you mean by “model” in the above comment? It seems clear enough in principle: Walmart can leverage the wages it pays its employees against the safety net. If there were no safety net, then Walmart’s employees would be more inclined to unionize/collectively bargain to get higher wages.

                This is actually a very clever argument Mark and LWA have put forward, one that libertarians ought to take seriously. The absence of a safety net would cause workers to increase pro-union activity more aggressively in order leverage “living wages” (I don’t mean that pejoratively) from their employers. Neither policy/outcome is consistent with the libertarianism, but it seems consistent with the empirical evidence.

                And I think recourse to the ideal case (“libertopia” as it were”) isn’t a plausible move at this point, since we have an actual, real world example of a major corporation trying to shave pennies off its wage-cost to enhance its bottom line. That part of the scenario is fixed, it seems to me. Corporations will do whatever is within their legal power (and sometimes illegal power as well) to maximize profits. (That comment shouldn’t be objectionable.) So it wouldn’t change one iota in any alternate scemario, it seems to me.Report

              5. Here it is.

                The absence of a safety net would cause workers to increase pro-union activity more aggressively in order leverage “living wages” (I don’t mean that pejoratively) from their employers.

                Ah, I see. Sorry about that. I was stuck on a slightly different version of the claim which didn’t specify unionization as the mechanism.

                I’m still not convinced, though. Maybe not having welfare to fall back on causes them to be more afraid of losing their jobs, and they don’t unionize because of that. In general, I’m skeptical of the idea that an employee’s personal expenses play a big role in wage negotiation. The employer doesn’t care, because the employee’s labor doesn’t magically become more valuable just because he has more expenses. The employee cares, but really, we all want to make more money. It’s not clear to wanting more money is all that different from needing more money, in terms of their effects on unionization rates.Report

              6. It seems clear enough in principle: Walmart can leverage the wages it pays its employees against the safety net. If there were no safety net, then Walmart’s employees would be more inclined to unionize/collectively bargain to get higher wages.

                This is actually a very clever argument Mark and LWA have put forward, one that libertarians ought to take seriously. The absence of a safety net would cause workers to increase pro-union activity more aggressively in order leverage “living wages” (I don’t mean that pejoratively) from their employers.

                I don’t see how Mr. Stillwater’s analysis here is the least bit controversial. When unionization in the Industrial Age began, it was a question of survival, not avarice.

                That Wal-Mart “freeloads” on America’s “socialistic” safety net is surely beyond question. OTOH, they also hire many who are—let’s face it—otherwise unemployable, many who could not get a job anywhere else, neither smart, young, nor strong.

                But they’re people too, and better for them as human persons that they’re out there every day. The “dignity of work,” they call it, and it is indeed dignified. And if the taxpayer fills in the $$ around the edges, well, that’s dignified too. I don’t have a problem here.Report

              7. Stillwater,Mark, LWA, Brandon and Tom,

                Ok, let’s assume that Walmart can reduce the likelihood of unionization because of social safety nets. Lets just take that as a given Indeed as SW implies, management should optimize efficiency /productivityof their company, and in a society with safety nets that includes taking this into account.

                What are the implications that various people are making on this? Are you suggesting that Walmart is getting corporate welfare or that this is supplementing net profits? Are you suggesting we don’t establish safety nets, and instead require employers to pay higher wages? Are you recommending something else?

                What then are the implications that people are suggesting libertarians take from this? Remember, we are all for non coercive unions. If this leads to Walmart avoiding coercive unions, I am not sure the take away you think we should have is the one we actually do have. And if they get non coercive unions, I am not convinced wage rates will really change appreciably for anyone.

                We have an Actual good discussion going on this sub thread. Let’s keep it going.

                Oh, Happy Thankgiving.Report

              8. Roger, I have no problem with WalMart employing the unemployable or semi-employable and the taxpayer filling in the rest. I’m a cheerful half-a-loaf kinda guy.

                Not to mention [OK, I will] that the “dignity of work” is the ideal for the human person. There are all sorts of checks and remittances, but a paycheck is the best of them all.Report

              9. I’m in agreement with Tom on this point: Walmart hires lots of people who are otherwise very likely to not find work. I’d just mention that they do so because those people are already receiving government subsistence that covers part of their living expenses.

                I’m not sure the moral dimension of Walmart hiring the elderly and disabled can be disentangled from the economic motive of hiring otherwise unemployable people at less than subsistence wages as clearly as Tom might be (I’m not saying he is) suggesting.Report

              10. Walmart hires lots of people who are otherwise very likely to not find work. I’d just mention that they do so because those people are already receiving government subsistence that covers part of their living expenses.

                I don’t understand this. If the government stopped providing benefits to those people, Wal Mart would not hire them?Report

              11. Have you read upthread? It’s part of a larger argument that Mark T and LWA put forward, one that Roger and Brandon Berg challenged, Tom sustained, and I’m just following up on what I thought was a very good point made by TVD.Report

              12. I still don’t get it. The semi-employable don’t have better options, so they’ll take what Wal Mart offers. If the gov’t stops giving them bennies, Wal Mart won’t suddenly have to. Those semi-employable people will just need jobs even more desperately, and their bargaining position vis a vis Wal Mart will be even worse.Report

              13. I should add, in reference to the unionization argument, that if unionization became a real threat, it would be minimized by hiring the barely employable, because their lack of overall skills is likely to affect their organizing abilities.

                Of course if an effective union does develop, then, yes, you’re right that Wal Mart will stop hiring the barely hirable because at union wages they’ll demand greater employee productivity. So the ironic effect of unionization would be to take away jobs from those who have the greatest difficulty finding other employment. Are we all comfortable with that?Report

              14. James,
                you’re assuming rational actors. Assume that half these people are “trapped” in places without other options. Now, we do have jobs for these people, they just aren’t in their current geographical area.

                Cut walmart’s actual “here’s what you get” payout, and some/most of these people move.

                Maybe. I’m not assuming rationality, after all.Report

              15. So the ironic effect of unionization would be to take away jobs from those who have the greatest difficulty finding other employment. Are we all comfortable with that?

                Probably not, but that’s besides the point, right? I mean, libertarianism is the idea that labor surplus finds a market, yes? So that’s not an issue for a libertarian to be worried about, it seems to me. Someone’s going to get those jobs.

                But that concern is also besides the point being discussed, which is that Walmart suppresses wages and total compensation because the government will fill in the cost-of-living gap. Are you comfortable subsidizing Walmart’s profits and employment practices with your tax dollars? Are you comfortable with Walmart actively obstructing the formation of a union to represent Walmart employees’ interests to they could obtain a living wage and better total compensation?

                Jumping all the way to a potentially undesirable outcome following from Walmart increasing it’s pay-rate isn’t very consistent with libertarian market principles, it seems to me.

                Outcomes are the kinds of things only liberals worry about, right? And maybe that’s your point. If so, it isn’t a very good one.Report

      2. It sounds very much like what I’ve heard from some guys in my trade from Connecticut.
        They tell me that in Conn., the companies pay well to keep the unions out.
        I gather that this has a lot to do with the influence of NY being right next door.Report

      3. How, exactly, are the employees not playing fair, though? Absent a union through which they can collectively bargain, the only way they can leverage their collective market strength as suppliers of labor is to strike and protest, taking a risk of being fired in the process. These are legitimate, non-coercive actions under any definition of non-coercion, little more than an exercise of free speech rights.Report

        1. This is absolutely right. I’m not anti-Walmart, and I’m not particularly pro-union (I agree with you about RTW, though I don’t think employers should be forced to recognize a union and I don’t think anyone should be required to join one unless it’s part of a union-employer arrangement), but I fail to see any problem here.

          (It’s not unlike those who were talking about how “unions killed the twinkies”… as though the union in question had an obligation to play nice so that we could have tasty treats – and that’s without regard to whom I think was making the best decision.)Report

            1. Why? Its a union that works at the airport. They are not going someplace where they aren’t involved just to be a pain in the rumpus. I understand it will be difficult for passengers. But for a protest to be effective someone has to actually notice it and also present a cost for the employer.Report

              1. Because I don’t want their squabble complicating the ability of people getting home to see their family over Thanksgiving. Flying is risky enough around the holidays without having to worry about this. This isn’t like the Walmart folks, preventing people from getting the best deal on Black Thursday/Friday. This is seriouser stuff.

                They want to get noticed, they’re getting noticed. It is a sort of notice that makes me more antipathetic to their cause, however. The same would apply if the airport were to initiate a lockout or somesuch just prior to the holidays.Report

              2. I know its a pain for fliers. If i was the union i’d be very careful how i protested. I would aim for being seen and getting the message out with creating as little nuisance as possible. However i think the reality is some strikes only work by being enough of a PITA that people press employers to give in a bit. Sympathy only goes so far.Report

              3. Being seen is cool. Being seen makes me wonder if they have a point and what their point might be and maybe I should be agreeing with them.

                Screwing with traffic makes me – on some level, at least – hope that their employers win, regardless of the merits of their case.Report

              4. This is a line that all unions/labor groups straddle when they strike: they want to put pressure on the employer and make their cause visible in order to gain outside support, but they don’t want to inconenience people other than the employer so much that they turn against the action/cause.

                I’m watching that unfold here. The bus drives in Austin voted to strike about a week an a half ago, but they haven’t yet followed through, because the week following the vote was F1 week, and then the Thanksgiving week. Striking during that time would have created enough of an inconvenience not only for regular riders but also for many people who don’t ride regularly that it would probably have harmed the drivers’ cause. And as it is, the drivers are likely to get a lot of sympathy because the contractor for whom they work has really been fucking them over royally.Report

              5. In this particular case, there’s the additional dynamic that one of the most vocal supporters of unions in general (the cosmopolitan left) tends to brag about not shopping at Wal-Mart in the first place.

                “If you paid your workers more, maybe I’d shop there!” is not something I tend to hear in this debate.

                Not from the Target/Costco/Amazon people, anyway.

                Which then makes me wonder: what are the people who actually shop at Wally World most likely to think when they see the flier? “GOOD FOR THE UNIONS!!!” is one possible response… but “Are they gonna raise my prices for this?” seems equally likely.

                The lack of solidarity seems to be a problem here.Report

              6. I’m not quite sure the “Cosmo left loves unions” but will never shop there isn’t just a variety of Volvo driving Brie NPR watching stereotype. Lots people on the leftish side think unions are a good idea and have so for a long time. I’m sure some of those lefties would be irritated by this strike. Then again most people want cops to ticket speeders but feel put upon when they get stopped. Actually a paragraph later, i sure the Cosmo left looks down on Sprawlmart is pretty much just a convenient stereotype.

                I’m sure lots of people would put me in the Cosmo Left group but my dad was a union organizer in the 30’s so i have a personal attachment to unions as well as thinking they are a good idea. And i shop at Walmart for a few cheap items.Report

              7. Jaybird,

                Anecdotally, I shop at Walmart and if I rolled up to the Walmart in and they were picketing, I would likely start considering alternatives. I don’t know if I agree with them or not, but I’m not going to be making The Statement of crossing a line.

                I’d imagine that others, less financially well-to-do and more empathetic towards trying to ratchet up meager wages, might be even more sympathetic. I think there is at least some discomfort among the working class that shops at Walmart as to how much the employees there are getting paid and their working conditions. The empathy may well be there.

                Or maybe not, but it might well be worth a shot. (There’s also the issue that workers protesting instead of working would have a detrimental effect on shopping there anyway. I’d be wondering how long the lines inside are going to be – which is already an issue at Walmart since the lines tend to move slow.)

                (In contrast to LAX, where I would be quietly fuming and likely not blaming the employer.)Report

              9. Safeway here in town had a strike a couple of years ago and, oh, maybe 15 years ago.

                15 years ago, the city stood in solidarity with the union for the most part and didn’t cross the line.

                A few years ago, there were grumblings about how the Safeway workers aren’t even willing to pay five bucks for their health care coverage. More folks were willing to shop there.Report

              10. Jay, unions and labor aren’t infallible. Sometimes they are unreasonable. The difference between unreasonable capital and unreasonable labor is that, in the vast majority of cases, unreasonable capital holds more cards.Report

              12. Chris, keep in mind, I *LIKE* unions. Public sector ones, anyway.

                I think about the Wal-Mart situation, though, and think about the stuff that made unions work in the past and stuff that we’re doing today and seeing stuff that doesn’t overlap.

                I don’t see Solidarity.

                That should be a red flag, right there.Report

              14. As I said, the cultural differences between one of the most vocal groups (if not *THE* most vocal group) supporting the union and the groups most likely to be shopping at Wal-Mart.

                Don’t see a criticism in that sentence, mind. It’s intended as dispassionate observation.Report

              15. Jay, I think you’re both right and wrong. I don’t think the group you see as the most vocal is, in fact, the most vocal, but I do think there is a disconnect between the people who, once upon a time, supported unions, and the people who would benefit most from unions. This is reflected, unfortunately, in the fact that the Democratic party, which was once the party of labor, does little more than pay lip service to labor issues most of the time, and then only enough to ensure that labor continues to give them money come election time.

                Also, I think you meant to say private sector unions.Report

              19. We’re in fantasy land now.

                Maybe, but it’s not an uncommon perception. At least, back home, (private-sector) union jobs were considered much more connections-oriented than most jobs. Some of that may have been related to their desirability and so they could afford to be such. Or maybe it was mythical, and the union people perpetuating the myth were lying.Report

              20. The stories my Grandad told about the union were that anyone who wanted to work was given a job… maybe it was “last in, first out”, but it was also “last out, first back in” and even someone who was only smart enough to shovel sand could be assured of an honest day’s pay.

                It was the government job that you had to know someone to get.Report

              21. Yup, the one time I’ve been a member of a union, ya’ know I managed to get in? I hit the apply button online. Yes, in 1975, and in certain fire departments today, you might have to be the son of the son of the son of the son of a fireman, but the greatest growth in union jobs these days are in the service industries.

                Your typical union member these days is just as likely to be a thirty-something nurse with a nose ring as it is to be a burly dockworker.Report

        3. Mark,

          Based on my vast courtroom experience (primarily listening to judge Judy), I have learned that it is best to hear from both sides before passing a verdict. If you assure me that the employees are all fighting fair, I will take your word for it.Report

        1. Costco is unionized. So is Giant, the grocery store chain closest to me. And Jewel, the grocery store chain in Chicago where I grew up. Those are the examples I came up with off the top of my head. It’s not exactly unheard of.Report

          1. A) Those aren’t the stores Wal Mart supposedly drove out of business.

            B) Are their union rates lower now that Wal Mart exists?

            I’m not opposing unionization of Wal Mart employees. I just don’t care if they’re unionized or not.Report

        2. James, I was being facetious, because I thought you were. I do wish we had higher union rates. I don’t want to go back to a time when so many unskilled laborers had to work in soul-sucking, back-breaking jobs.Report

          1. Chris,

            OK, I missed that. I wasn’t being facetious so much as sarcastic. Too many people seem to think there were great high paying jobs in mom and pop retail stores until Wal Mart came along.

            I’m just going to exit now. I’ve had the Wal Mart argument too many times. It’s like arguing abortion; both sides have their positions carved in stone. I should have disciplined myself and just avoided it in the first place.Report

            1. James, no problem. I know some people around here have been treating you as though you’re arguing in bad faith, instead of just disagreeing, misunderstanding what someone is saying, or even being unfair unintentionally (because we’re all unfair unintentionally sometimes). I know you well enough not to believe that you’re arguing in anything but good faith. That’s why when you disagree with me, even on an issue I believe strongly, I always take a step back to think about it some more. Can’t say that of many people here.Report

      1. Not really. People seem to think things were better before Wal Mart. Look at Chris above. Look at M.A.’s comment the other day about all the retail jobs destroyed by Wal Mart. But you know, those mom and pop stores supposedly driven out of business by Wal Mart? They didn’t pay high wages; they also didn’t offer people either the product variety or the convenience that Wal Mart does. (And before anyone disses convenience, when a hail storm broke the skylight of the trailer I was living in at 1:00 a.m, so that water started pouring down the interior wall of my kitchen, “convenience” meant a place I could buy a ladder, tarp, and rope in the middle of the night and at a price I could afford, preventing much damage.)

        Look Wal Mart offers people jobs. It’s the best jobs that are available to them, or they’d be taking other jobs. And the response is not “thank god someone’s offering them an opportunity that’s better than their alternatives,” but “they’re so horrible to be offering them jobs that aren’t better enough than their alternatives.”Report

        1. Yes, that is the response. Because a job that intentionally gives you 28 hours a week to keep you from getting health benefits? That pays less than $10/hr and expects you to get by as an adult? That’s a shitty job! The proper response isn’t, “Well, we’re living in the best of all possible worlds”, but instead to support real efforts to redistribute wealth from the Waltons to their employees, and to level the playing field between the two so that employees can get a better deal. Contra you and Roger, it actually is possible to increase wages at the low end without turning us into some socialist hellhole where you wait in line for bread.Report

              1. Since Walmart isn’t nearby, I don’t have a whole lot of flexibility on when to go. Which is actually what makes it so handy. If I’m out in Redstone, I can go whenever I want. Other places close between 8 and 11. If I’m going to go shoppng last – a good idea since I will have coldfood in the trunk – then it’s really helpful. Lets me stay at the coffeeshop until closing time.

                But my current circumstances aside, it’s been a constant. You never know how nice it is to have a place that’s always open – and has a little bit of everything so you can usually get something close to what you want – until you don’t have it. The only time I shopped at Walmart back when I was in Southern City was for late night trips (partially for the lines, partially because of my work schedule). Since moving to smaller-town America – the ones that Walmart is alleged to have destroyed – it’s been a different matter.Report

        3. But you know, those mom and pop stores supposedly driven out of business by Wal Mart? They didn’t pay high wages; they also didn’t offer people either the product variety or the convenience that Wal Mart does.

          This is convenient and easy to say. But the economic impact of big-box retail is something that’s being studied, and studied hard. Most particularly, the shrinking town center, and the vanishing Main St.

          I can’t speak for other parts of the nation, but here in the rural parts of the Northeast, I don’t think it even begins with big boxes, but with government: with school consolidation. The small towns that lost their teenagers to high schools in nearby towns shrank, while the towns that got the high schools became regional service centers.

          It might be better, economically, if we all packed it in and moved to the city. But there’s also a lot of work that wouldn’t get done in rural areas as a result. Wal Mart isn’t a big factor in the economies of cities so much; but in rural areas, it’s rewriting the face of community every bit as much as school consolidation. And the net result is cheaper products under one roof, but they’re usually further away. Quality is a problem. And there are fewer jobs within communities to help diversify the local economy. But remember: I thing we undervalue the importance of strong regional and local economies.

          Sometimes, at the end of the day, cheaper is not always better, it’s just cheap. And those lost jobs? Well, at the hardware store, you used to get advice and help on how to do stuff, on what you needed. Try getting that at most Wal-Marts. I know guys who used to have well-paying jobs in hardware stores who now work in the hardware dept. at Wal-Mart. I watched the talk over the change, and weep.

          And I’m guessing they’d say you should have had a tarp and rope with you to begin with; that convenience has made you stupid. Which is kinda funny, because that’s one of the libertarian complaints about regulations. Maybe that cuts both ways.Report

          1. From the perspective of this Rural American, the existence of Walmart beats the non-existence of Walmart by a mile. The part about it being further away is negligible in comparison to the all-in-one aspect whether day or night. The quality issues with Walmart products are exaggerated (though, as with so many things, “it depends”).

            The much-maligned box stores (not just Walmart, but others as well) more generally have generally been greeted with open arms (far more outside the cities than inside them, for sure).

            Of course, we may just not know what’s good for us…Report

            1. This has been true for a long time. I remember when Walmart came to my small hometown in the mid-80s. It was a revolution: suddenly there were a bunch of jobs, and you didn’t have to either go to 10 different places or drive to Nashville to get stuff. Plus it was open 24 hours, so instead of the entire city shutting down at 9 pm, you could now actually get something in the middle of the night if you absolutely needed it, or if you worked 2nd shift.Report

              1. I honestly never cared that much one way or the other about Walmart when I lived in the city. I mean, there were some late night trips because, hey, it’s three in the morning and I’m awake and I wanted a basketball pump, but it wasn’t until I moved away that it started to actually matter.Report

              2. I don’t think anyone is disputing the value of a Walmart in a small town. I lived in a town about two and half hour drive to Denver for a while, nothing but knick knack shops and a City Market. When Walmart came to town, you could actually shop locally. No lie.

                I remember a conversation with a townie back then, when Walmart was lobbying the town for permission to bring in another store on the other side of town. She was in favor of it, because “Walmart could use the competition”.

                Small town life!Report

              3. I thought Zic was painting a pretty dour picture of the effects of Walmart on small towns. I might have been projecting arguments I’ve heard repeatedly (from people who, unlike Zic, never actually lived in small towns and sometimes have expressed a disinterest of people who live in small towns except when it comes to this and they suddenly care).

                So yeah, my response may have been unfair. Sorry if so, Zic.Report

              4. Will, I think you’re right about that actually. And maybe zic expressed that view. I probably – no, definitely – overstated things when I said that no one thinks that Walmart hasn’t done good things for small towns. I remember those types of arguments quite clearly, actually. I’ve lived in two small towns that have gone thru Walmartization. Back then, some people thought that on net, Walmart would be bad for the town. Others, tho, thought that Walmart would bring nothing of value to the town.Report

              5. First, I did specify the northeast. And lets consider — these are older towns, well established before the invention of the car. And I also noted that the shrinking service centers also pre-dated WalMart; pinning it somewhere around the move toward school consolidation, which also times with the pervasiveness of the two-car family, at least here. (1950’s on.)

                It would not surprise me that what’s a problem here in maintaining rural service centers is also a boon in newer communities where there seems a lack of choice.

                The point is that this is a very large country, and what’s true in one place may not be true in another.Report

              6. I should note that the second greatest shopping day in the history of Franklin, TN (at the time) is when Target moved in (circa 1992; it came with the mall. Then we were spoiled, because you didn’t have to just get what Walmart. Plus, for teenagers, Target was a better employer, and I just happened to be a teenager interested in making a little money for… umm, stuff.Report

              7. Now that you mention it, my observation is that main street didn’t get hit half as hard as shopping malls. Main streets in small towns run the spectrum, but shopping malls are almost uniformly depressing.Report

        4. Certainly an alternative response might be: “is it just that in one of the richest places and periods to ever grace the earth at extended duration, we have more or less any people that have to resort to this to get a bit of dental care?”Report

        1. I have no enemies. (Except that damned Papa Smurf! Long story.)

          But feel free to get annoyed at me and dismiss me in the way that you already do.

          I will comtinue to treat your respectful posts respectfully and your uncharitable, dismissive posts disrespectfully.

          Or do you want to have a comment-duel? (With scary, tense old-series Star Trek music?)Report

              3. If you value your sanity, do not google this. It is pretty much what Nietzsche had in mind when he said “if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you”.Report

  16. Just a bit of family promotion:

    Not available for free listening, but the track We all Bought the Farm is composer Denny Breau’s response to what, at the time, was the largest WalMart in the world.* My sweetie produced this CD, and plays melodica, sax, and harmonica on it. I highly recommend any of Denny’s work, he’s an amazing guitar player, singer, and composer. Younger brother of guitar legend, Lenny Breau, and son of RCA recording artists Betty Cody and Lone Pine Hal (back in the day when music was regional, they played the same RCA circuit as Chet Atkins.) Album photos were taken in my yard.

    This CD is not available at WalMart.

    *Do not know if this still holds. And please delete this if it rises to the level of spam.Report

  17. While I admit that I am no expert in economics, it’s become increasingly clear to me over the course of this thread that some people are taking an extremely narrow and both biased and ultimately inaccurate approach to compensation (let’s stop talking about wages exclusively, and widen it to compensation generally). Their argument, which is quite simple, is that Walmart is paying the market rate because they are paying the lowest rate the market can support. This is, as I’ve said up thread, tautological: the market rate is defined as the lowest rate the market will support, and so by definition Walmart is paying the market rate because any other rate they paid would also be the market rate. But there isn’t a market rate. That is, there isn’t only one rate the market will support, and labor’s goal, be it unionized or otherwise, is to get the highest rate of compensation that the market will support. In the end, if the system is working well, the two will compromise so that labor can live on their compensation and the employer can make a profit.

    And there are more than just the straightforward variables to consider. These are dynamic systems in which concessions to labor, both in the form of compensation and in the form of making the workplace safer and more comfortable, benefit the employer as well. For example, workers with access to health care will miss fewer days of work and be more productive. So will workers who are comfortable and not subject to things like stress injuries or injuries from repeated motions.

    I’ve been told several times that I don’t understand the economics of this, but I’m not pulling this out of my ass, and it’s not like this stuff is all that controversial. We can debate the short and long-term effects of raising wages across the board, but the interaction of labor and capital/management is part of the market, and labor is a market force that isn’t captured in the simple estimation of what capital can get away with. One of the reasons people hate libertarians (and I don’t hate libertarians — I find their world view abhorrent in many ways, but I don’t hate them) is the smug attitude you get from people like Roger and Berg that their view is the factual view, and there is no other possibly correct view, so everyone who disagrees with them simply doesn’t understand economics. It’s irksome in the extreme, and it doesn’t help your case.Report

    2. Also, there arelots of economists who think Walmart’s wages are a problem, for example Robert Reich.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/walmart-black-friday-strikes_b_2171524.html

      Reich’s view is that Walmart isn’t immoral. They’re just fulfilling a niche in the market. But the existence of Walmart and their labor practices is an awful consequence of how markets are currently set up. (He writes “Don’t Blame Walmart.”) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28reich.html

      We want cheap goods and we want Walmart to pay more. Well, we can’t have both. And it is unlikely that consumers will stop buying the cheap goods. The solution is not to eliminate Walmart but to regulate them into providing decent health insurance, full time work, slightly better pay, etc.

      “The fact is, today’s economy offers us a Faustian bargain: it can give consumers deals largely because it hammers workers and communities… We can blame big corporations, but we’re mostly making this bargain with ourselves. The easier it is for us to get great deals, the stronger the downward pressure on wages and benefits. Last year, the real wages of hourly workers, who make up about 80 percent of the work force, actually dropped for the first time in more than a decade; hourly workers’ health and pension benefits are in free fall…But you and I aren’t just consumers. We’re also workers and citizens. How do we strike the right balance? To claim that people shouldn’t have access to Wal-Mart or to cut-rate airfares or services from India or to Internet shopping, because these somehow reduce their quality of life, is paternalistic tripe….The problem is, the choices we make in the market don’t fully reflect our values as workers or as citizens…. The only way for the workers or citizens in us to trump the consumers in us is through laws and regulations that make our purchases a social choice as well as a personal one. A requirement that companies with more than 50 employees offer their workers affordable health insurance, for example, might increase slightly the price of their goods and services. My inner consumer won’t like that very much, but the worker in me thinks it a fair price to pay. Same with an increase in the minimum wage or a change in labor laws making it easier for employees to organize and negotiate better terms… These provisions might end up costing me some money, but the citizen in me thinks they are worth the price.”Report

    3. Chris,

      I apologize. I’ve really enjoyed your discussion, and have learned from it and specifically from you. My bad.

      The market rate isn’t what is actually paid, it is what would be paid in a reasonably free and efficient market. Before you and Blaise point it out, yes this is an ideal that is never achieved. It is just sought. It is what wages “seek” yet probably never find in a dynamic market.

      I hope I have addressed your points on optimizing profits and productivity already above, if not please push back again.

      I agree that any company that doesn’t consider your points in your second paragraph is stupid. That said, I hate to say it, but I think they should be free to be stupid too. In other words, I recognize it could be that they are right and that Kimmi and I are wrong.Report

      1. Oh, and yeah, on sweatshops these issues are even more important. I believe strongly that we should encourage market rates for adults in emerging markets. Above market rates is highly problematic.

        I may be irksome, but I truly believe sweatshop wages, if set at the free market rate, are best for the workers.Report

      2. Roger, another thing to consider is that, contra was certain writers on this site have said in the past, the point of organized labor is not to achieve a minimum level of subsistence, but to get a fair share of the fruits of one’s labor. This is another area where there is antagonism between capital and labor, and where they essentially serve as counterbalancing market forces. Labor and capital are both motivated to seek bigger slices of the pie, and by considering only capital in the “market rate,” we’ve essentially made a normative decision, rather than an empirical one, to exclude labor’s position that profits can be smaller so that labor’s slice is bigger.Report

        1. Chris,

          I won’t even try to convince you, but let me share the way others think about this issue.

          There is no absolute fair share. Fair isn’t a number, it is a process. A fair football game isn’t one that ends 7 v 7, it is one where both teams and the judges played by the agreed upon rules.

          In wage negotiations, the employee should ask for as much as possible subject to the risk of not getting accepted. The employer asks for as little as possible, subject to the concerns with turnover, and not getting any applicants. In a world with millions of applicants and millions of jobs and thousands of employers, there is a meeting place where any given employee can’t get any better offers, and any given employer can’t get any lower paid applicants. This is the market rate. It is procedurally fair according to the rules of free markets.

          In a tight labor market, the fair wage goes up. At other times the fair wage goes down.

          The only realistic way to get other than the fair market wage rate is if one of the parties uses fraud, violence or threats. This will really only work long term though if they can get everyone on their side of the exchange to collaborate. However, the incentive is for people or employers to not collaborate (per collective action problems). Thus the only real way to enforce the coalition is to police it with threats of violence as well.

          Thus there is the free market wage which is procedurally fair and there is some other wage which is established by threats of violence both among and between the sides of the negotiation.

          The threat of violence process really only works if an extremely powerful player dominates. In modern markets this usually means the state.

          The free market rules are not absolute, they were discovered over time. Other rules could theoretically emerge. The reason economists like these rules are that they lead to higher economic efficiency, higher standards of living, higher productivity and so forth compared to other rules. They also have the benefit of suppressing ( not encouraging) coercion. They avoid destructive zero sum activities and encourage an endless series of self amplifying positive sum, win/win interactions. They are the source of economic prosperity.

          Let me provide an example explaining the last point. If wages are set by coercion, the key to higher wages is more coercion and getting further in bed with the source of power that determines what the wage is. The same is true for getting lower wages. We have destroyed the market and replaced it with a top down centrally designed process.

          The key to higher wages in a free market is to improve ones skills, seek out high demand specialized fields,and increase productivity. In the end, wage rates and profits emerge out of this process, which serves the consumer.Report

          1. Roger, I don’t expect to change your mind, though I appreciate the apology above (I meant to note that in my last comment, but was half asleep). I just hope that you will accept that the model you’ve presented is not the only one used by economists to figure out how compensation is set. Labor does not need to be coercive in a way that makes it a distorting force in the market, which seems to be the way you see it. When organized, however, it can actually correct for distorting forces that result from capital having more information and more bargaining power. In other words, without the corrective effect of an organized labor, capital will tend to distort the market rate downward. And keep in mind, organized labor doesn’t tend to work only at the single-employer level, which adds another variable to your equations.Report

            1. Chris,

              I agree. To the extent a union gets people to voluntarily agree to bargain collectively, it can be more efficient. Again, it is always in danger of being undermined by workers that refuse to join though.Report

              1. Roger, it’s also always in danger of being undermined by employers who work to intimidate employees or otherwise undermine organization efforts. Historically, the biggest problem for unions has been the coercive tactics of employers. This, I believe, is one of the reasons pro-labor folks get so upset at Walmart. Walmart not only treats its employees pretty poorly (and they admit as much), but it also one of the most active anti-union employers out there. The argument — and keep in mind, this is an economic argument, and not one that I’m just making up, but one that comes out of economics — is that Walmart distorts the labor market. It doesn’t pay the market rate, it pays a rate that it can get away with because it manipulates the market. This might be considered a market rate, but at this point we’re not simply dealing with facts of the matter, but also with normative considerations.Report

            2. Well said, Chris.

              I am not a fan of a corporation using politics to interfere with markets, I am also not a fan of unions doing so either.

              The reason is because I believe the market solutions degrade into a win/lose political game where value is destroyed rather than created. In reading history, as best I can tell, this win/lose dynamic in various incarnations got every society since the advent of agriculture ten thousand years ago. All of them. They either stagnated long term to the equivalent of a few bucks a day living standard, or they collapsed altogether . Usually both.

              The trouble with zero sum, destructive competitions is that the logical response once you enter into such an arms race is to win it by beating the other guy. Walmart is engaged in such a battle. The unions are too. Both are trying to manipulate a zero sum political game to their advantage.

              They are both playing rationally. However, they are both playing the wrong game. The movie War Games was right. Some games are best not played.

              Libertarians are simply pointing to the exit sign that gets out of this zero sum game.Report

              1. I don’t think it’s really a zero sum game. I don’t think unions see it that way, either. In fact, I don’t think unions can see it that way and survive, because one of the main differences between capital and labor is that labor, in a capitalist system, is that labor is always going to be subservient to capital. Sure, capital needs labor, but the relationship is asymmetrical, and labor generally realizes this (and either works within it or pushes for revolutionary change). Hell, one of the reasons that European governments in the late 19th and early 20th century gave political concessions to labor is because labor was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with this asymmetrical relationship, and revolutionary fires were beginning to burn. One way to put out those fires is to make labor happy with the way things are, even though they remain in a more compromised position. Germany and France, for example, did this, while Czarist Russia did not.

                Anyway, the point is, labor has to accept that the relationship between capital and labor can be mutually beneficial, while capital can act as though it is a zero sum game. That’s what Walmart is doing. That’s what capital has historically done. Labor can’t afford to think that way.Report

              2. Also, I’m about to take off for the next several days, so I won’t be able to respond, but thank you for the exchange, and thank you again for the apology above. Happy Thanksgiving, and I hope we can have future exchanges like this. I suspect you’d be surprised to learn that we have similar views of government (I’m a quasi-anarchist, and notice I haven’t said a word in favor of government intervention), though vastly different philosophical views about the nature of economics and capital, resulting less from a difference in understanding of the facts on the ground than from normative, or perhaps better said, ethical considerations.Report

              4. They are both playing rationally. However, they are both playing the wrong game.

                This is where you lose me. You’re saying that people ought to be playing a different game, one that’s admittedly inconsistent with individuals actual, real and expressed economic rationality.

                You’re adopting a normative ideal of market activity and not only comparing reality against that ideal, your adopting an idealized definition of individual rationality in which people would be rational to reject the game they’re currently playing. But that’s incoherent, it seems to me. If individuals are rational to pursue their self interest by engaging in behavior B in game G, then they’d be rational to pursue B in game G’.

                So it seems to me that “changing the game”, on your view, requires individuals to adopt a different kind of rationality than the currently do. That would require people to be different than they actually are. But rationality just is what it is, independently of how we define it.

                Now, I get that you think the rules of the game as expressed in law and all that are not static and subject to revision. But if it’s in an individuals self interest to persist in engaging in a rule you think is wrong (according to an idealized model), it would be incoherent for that person to adopt a different rule, yes?

                How is your view of the “right game” supposed to be realized when you concede that individual rationality entails the existence of the current game?Report

              5. As an example of playing the wrong game, consider gladiators. It is a violent, zero sum game that even the one standing at the end of the contest often is a net loser in due to injuries sustained. They would be better playing a game like soccer, where they both enjoy the game and nobody is expected to get injured.

                My point is that we should avoid destructive competition such as gladiatorial sport. Instead the players should choose a constuctive competition such as soccer. However, once the gladiatorial, game begins, it is totally rational to kill the other guy.

                I am suggesting that we’d all be better off if Walmart and all prospective employees played a constructive game rather than a destructive one. Elias’ post was an expression of disgust that a company was trying to influence the political arena. My disgust is just one level of abstraction higher. I am disgusted we allow the game to degrade to this level of all, and I find cheering on the blood sport is abominable regardless of sides.Report

              6. My point is that we should avoid destructive competition such as gladiatorial sport.

                I think that’s where the disconnect between us arises. As an individual, I pursue my own economic self-interest, yes? As a practical matter, I do X, Y and Z to maximize the expression of that self-interest. So what does it mean to say that I ought to adopt a different set of rules and play a different game? Normatively, it means that you think my self-interest would be maximized if I all of us were playing a different game. And I might agree with that one-hundred percent. But in practice, I’m stuck playing the current game, not another one, and I’m only rational in acting according to different rules if it maximizes my self-interest.

                But by hypothesis, it doesn’t.

                I can only adopt the rules of the game you want me to play if, and when, those rules actually do serve my self-interest. But not until then, it seems to me. Even if I accept that a different game would be a better game to play.Report

              7. I think I agree with everything you said. Once we get buried in zero sum games, it is possible there is no easy way out.

                Everyone makes fun of libertarians for their idealism. They are often guilty as charged. We are suggesting what we as a better game, and we recognize that we cannot use force within the current game without betraying our very ideals.

                Once an industry, or institution or nation or relationship degrades into a destructive, zero sum pattern, it may be too late.Report

          2. In a world with millions of applicants and millions of jobs and thousands of employers, there is a meeting place where any given employee can’t get any better offers, and any given employer can’t get any lower paid applicants. This is the market rate. It is procedurally fair according to the rules of free markets.

            That is, there is one true wage, and the notions of consumer surplus and producer surplus have been abandoned. It’s funny how that isn’t true for any other market in the world.Report

            2. Mike,

              I didn’t say there was one TRUE wage. There are infinite numbers of possible wages. And yes, the point where supply meets demand is true of all working markets. So, what is your push back?Report

              1. the point where supply meets demand is true of all working markets.

                Only in a really degraded sense, in the case of sweatshop labor as per our previous discussions about it. In those threads, you argued that sweatshop labor practices were voluntary and mutually beneficial, and those conditions alone sufficed for a “just wage”, even tho, but the definition you’re working under now would entail that sweatshop labor markets aren’t really “functioning markets” since there greater demand than supply for jobs in those areas.

                Which is precisely why they’re attractive to employers, yes?

                Or am I missing something?Report

              2. If there are more applicants than supply then the wage rate is simply too high. In a free market the wage rate should keep dropping as it approaches the point of full employment. The effect of lower wages is to attract capital and jobs. The growth in capital and jobs increases wages and productivity. That is pretty much the story of the modern industrial breakthrough. This establishes a positive sum self amplifying system that produces various solutions for the elusive “consumer” aka all of us.Report

              3. It seems to me like you’re saying that a positive sum transaction is sufficient for free markets. Upthread you said that positive sum transactions are only necessary for free markets given that “In a world with millions of applicants and millions of jobs and thousands of employers, there is a meeting place where any given employee can’t get any better offers”. ANd that defines “market wage”.

                Here’s my question: in situations where the argument space of “receiving any better offers” is reduced to zero (because there are no other offers), how can we say that sweatshop labor practices reflect a market wage?Report

              4. I do not believe it is sufficient. No. There are rules which need to be followed for markets to work well. Part of how we identify good rules vs bad ones is that good rules lead to positive sum outcomes and bad ones don’t. GDP is one imperfect measure of these outcomes.

                If I understand your last question, if there are no better offers, then you should take the existing one. If there are no offers at all, you need to lower your demands. This is true for buyers and sellers, employers and employees.Report

              5. This is what you’re missing, Roger: your lovely sweatshop still won’t employ everyone. The sweatshop works while you have an exploitable population and another, wealthier population to buy their commodity goods. But it all comes to an unhappy ending: the sweatshop runs away to an even more exploitable population and your economy crashes anyway. In the race to the bottom, the laws of inertia take over.Report

              7. That comment is too broad to have any bearing on what BP is talking about, or any of the themes we’re discussing, it seems to me. I mean, one could just as easily say that the industrial revolution only led to massive increases in prosperity (in the US, anyway) because of unionization, which was only effective because capital was relatively fixed.

                You may reject that analysis, but it’s certainly not an uncommon or implausible view.Report

              8. It seems to lack supporting data. The industrial revolution started creating wealth for the first time before the popular advent of unions, indeed part of what allowed the revolution to kick off was that producers were able to escape the stifling guilds which were playing the same zero sum game. That and the stifling royal monopolies.

                Without looking up any data, memory serves that industries where unions prospered in the UK and US are the ones that began suffering or growing the least. In other words the effect of unions was to choke off the engine of productivity in comparison to less unionized areas.

                That said, I am fine and dandy with voluntary unions. It is unions using coercion (or employers using coercion) that I reject, and which I believe lead to choking off prosperity.

                Good discussion though….Report

              9. OK, if Roger’s comment about the industrial revolution is too broad, then look at South Korea, Taiwan and the PRC. Multinationals don’t open many sweatshops in S. Korea or Taiwan anymore, because those countries became too prosperous. It’s declining in the PRC as well, because it’s become prosperous enough that you can’t get the best wage rates there anymore. Today the game is Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, etc., but the economies of those former sweatshop dominant countries hasn’t collapsed–instead they parlayed the increased wealth into economic modernization.

                One could just as easily say that the industrial revolution only led to massive increases in prosperity (in the US, anyway) because of unionization, which was only effective because capital was relatively fixed.

                No, one really couldn’t. The increases in prosperity were occurring before unionization. This is particularly easy to see if we look at the industrial revolution in England. Marx was writing at the time of, and in response to, England’s industrial revolution. It had an astonishing amount of ugliness, which makes Marx’s (and others’) reaction pretty understandable. But Marx faced one fundamental problem: He predicted the masses would become more and more impoverished, while instead they became better and better off. Not by our standards today, certainly, but as a decade-by-decade increase. Instead of a vast starving unemployed industrial reserve army ready to overthrow the system, English workers kept increasing their daily caloric intake and had diminishing infant mortality rates.Report

              11. Roger, if we ever got together, I don’t know what we’d find to talk about. Too damned much agreement; it’d be boring. We’d have to drink until we got cantankerous and started disagreeing just to disagree.Report

              12. “sweatshop labor markets aren’t really “functioning markets” since there greater demand than supply for jobs in those areas. “

                If that’s true, then what it means is sweatshop jobs pay too much. For the market to clear, the “price” of the jobs to those demanding them needs to increase (i.e., the wage has to fall and/or the working conditions have to get worse).

                More simply, as long as people are still standing in line trying to get those sweatshop jobs, the employers are actually paying above market wages. So if the market really isn’t functioning right, it’s malfunctioning in the direction you would prefer.Report

              13. I was questioning Rogers definition of “market wages” and suggesting that it breaks down in the case of sweatshops. I wasn’t concerned with any particular outcome of how markets effect wages.Report

              14. That’s fair. Nevertheless, it does open up some interesting questions about the evils of sweatshops, doesn’t it?

                If we are in agreement that multinationals are paying above market wage rates in sweatshops, what explains that?Report

              15. This is overly simplistic, James. It’s easy to imagine ways that shopowners could wield power over workers even when the market is facially functioning.

                “Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.” -Adam SmithReport

              17. James, my point is that referring only to “wages” and “demand” can obscure other questionable characteristics of the market that obviate the usual justifications for letting “markets” run their course. (You can of course question whether these are markets or pseudo-markets.) It’s simplistic and reductive to conclude that just because people are lining up for jobs that there is no systemic exploitation.Report

              18. Robert,

                I wasn’t talking about justifying anything. You’re reading into it something I wasn’t talking about.

                But if you want to go there, then the reality is that all the working conditions cumulatively are the “price” (to the worker) of a job. The wage rate, the number of bathroom breaks, availability of fresh air, etc. And if people are still lining up to take those jobs–if demand is not fully met–then the price has not gotten too high, and employers could increase that price (whether by reducing wages, reducing the number of bathroom breaks, etc. etc.) and still get the number of employees they want.

                It’s not a normative argument, and you seem to want to have normative argument. I’m not going to bite on that.Report

              19. James, in the post to which I responded, you spoke of markets not “functioning right,” and related this to Stillwater’s political “preferences.” This is inseparable from normativity.Report

              21. Heh. You understood my comment (greater demand than supply of jobs) from the pov of capital. I wrote it from the pov of labor. Ie: that there are more people seeking jobs than there are jobs to be filled. And in a comment somewhere up there I proposed a scenario in which the value of the term “better job offers” is zero, as a limiting case. In that situation, Roger’s definition of “a market wage” doesn’t seem to apply.Report

              24. Now you’re not making any sense. If you the number of laborers is constant but the number of firms seeking employees goes up, then wages ought to go up, yes? That’s the scenario.

                Or does demand not increase price?Report

              25. But we’re still missing the point. The idea of a “market wage” as Roger defined it requires conditions that aren’t met in the scenario I described. So on what grounds do you conclude that labor is receiving an above market wage in that scenario?Report

              26. The idea of a “market wage” as Roger defined it requires conditions that aren’t met in the scenario I described. So on what grounds do you conclude that labor is receiving an above market wage in that scenario?

                The market price (and wages are a price) is a theoretical construct. We can compare other prices to that theoretical construct even if the construct itself were never found in the real world.

                If you the number of laborers is constant but the number of firms seeking employees goes up, then wages ought to go up, yes? That’s the scenario.

                Yes, standing by itself. But if there are still laborers willing to take the jobs at the status quo wage, then the wages should not go up, they should go down (until the labor market gets tighter). Only when all labor is employed and more firms come in seeking employees (or more loosely, as the labor market gets tighter), should the wage rate increase.

                And in industrializing countries, the pool of labor isn’t normally constant, but increases as labor moves from rural to urban areas. That’s a consistent enough finding that it’s probably worth treating as a law of economics. In fact industrialization in large part is just about the mobilization of labor–the reason developing countries get ridiculously high annual GDP growth rates is simply because labor is moving from low productivity ag work to much higher productivity industrial work. Nobody maintains those GDP growth rates after labor is fully mobilized.

                Rambling off on a tangent now, much of the oohing and aahng over the Asian economic model was misplaced–most people didn’t realize it was just about labor mobilization. And I think much of our oohing and aahing over the U.S. economy in the post WWII era is misplaced because most people don’t realize to what extent it was about labor mobilization, the movement of women into the workplace.Report

              27. then the wages should not go up, they should go down (until the labor market gets tighter).

                Unless the wage is already as low as it can go and still get people to show up.

                I know, I know. That’s not what the model predicts…Report

              28. Actually, thinking about this a bit more, you’re right. Just so long as there is someone in line to compete with the going rate, and wage rates between parties aren’t made public, then the wage rate for any individual is too high. Of course, the “above market rate” has already been agreed to by both parties.

                I suppose one could think of it as an auction where all the prospective employees publicly bid down the rate until the firm has reached the lowest wage rate sufficient to employ X number of people. That would be one way to understand the concept of market wages.

                There’s a down side to that (or upside, depending on pov), it seems to me. Especially on the model you advocate, where non-public transactions are a market.Report

              29. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Where do you think consumer surplus and producer surplus fit into labor markets? In particular,why do you seem to disapprove of labor organizing to reduce consumer surplus (i.e. raise wages.)?

                If you’d like to discuss the culture among employers that discourages reveling salaries (in many places, it’s a firing offense) and how that distorts the market by creating a vast asymmetry of information, feel free.Report

              30. I am fine with employees organizing to optimize their bargaining power, and I suspect it is unproductive to allow employers to suppress communication via threats. I very well could be wrong on the latter though. It seems wrong though.Report

              31. I suspect it is unproductive to allow employers to suppress communication via threats. I very well could be wrong on the latter though.

                Well, it’s not like that’s coercive.Report

    5. Their argument, which is quite simple, is that Walmart is paying the market rate because they are paying the lowest rate the market can support. This is, as I’ve said up thread, tautological: the market rate is defined as the lowest rate the market will support, and so by definition Walmart is paying the market rate because any other rate they paid would also be the market rate. But there isn’t a market rate.

      It’s not really clear to me what claim you’re rebutting, and who you think made it. Of course if the supply curve changes the market price changes, and of course unions can manipulate the supply curve. Any basic economics textbook has a chapter on monopolies and cartels, and no one is really disputing this.

      Cartelization is not a good thing. It reduces output and creates deadweight loss. When one group of workers unionizes, it’s good for them. But the benefit to them outweighs the cost to the rest of the economy. When everyone unionizes, it’s pretty much a loss across the board. As a libertarian, I don’t think the government should stop the formation of cartels, but neither should the government support it, nor should we as a society encourage or celebrate it.

      I have specifically been responding to the claim/insinuation by Elias and others that Walmart is doing something wrong—that there’s something immoral, or at least harmful, about paying low wages. To put it as Elias himself put it, I’m not sure whether this political worldview is best described as chutzpah or ignorance or fecklessness.Report

      1. When everyone unionizes, it’s pretty much a loss across the board.

        By the way, I want preemptively point out that the idea that the losses will come disproportionately from corporate profits is wrong. Union membership has been falling steadily since 1950 with no discernible effect on corporate profits as a percentage of GDP.Report

          1. Right, but the difference hasn’t been going to corporate profits. It’s been going to government transfer payments. Corporate profits were at the same place in the early 2000s as they were in 1950. They’re high now, but it’s a short-term spike. Union membership fell for 50 years with no long-term uptrend in corporate profits, so it’s pretty tough to argue that that’s the cause of the recent spike.Report

            1. Transfer payments, eh. Funded by wage earners. And not the wealthy.

              Huh. Now I wonder what all the complaining about “redistribution” is all about, when the middle class is actually funding those programs.Report

              1. Transfer payments, eh. Funded by wage earners. And not the wealthy.

                That’s only Social Security, which is currently about 4.7% of GDP, less than a third of total government transfers. There’s no cap for Medicare taxes, so high earners pay a wildly disproportionate share. Also, Social Security is redistributive as well, as the benefit formula is set up so that the more you earn the worse a deal it is for you. See my reply to greginak for details.Report

            2. What transfer payments have gone up sharply? Who is getting so much extra from the gov now that they didn’t get? SS, medicaid, medicare are the bulk of gov safety net spending. Of those only medical costs have gone up a lot, but most of those programs go to the elderly .Report

              1. From 1963 to 2011, as a percentage of GDP:
                Social Security: 2.5% to 4.7%
                Medicare: 0% to 3.7%
                Medicaid: 0% to 2.8%
                UI*: 0.5% to 0.7%
                Other**: 1.2% to 2.9%
                Total: 4.9% to 15.2%

                Payroll taxes: 3.5% to 6.1%

                Source: Economic Report of the President, table 29.

                I don’t see that the fact that it goes mostly to old people is relevant. The point is that the decline in wages as a percentage of GDP has not gone to corporate profits.

                I should mention that total government transfers were around 12% of GDP in 2007, so some of that is hopefully just a temporary spike.

                *Included for completeness, but you can ignore this, since it’s small, volatile, and doesn’t really have a long-term trend.

                **Your guess is as good as mine. Likely includes miscellaneous welfare programs like housing and food aid. I don’t believe it includes government pensions.Report

              2. The point is that the decline in wages as a percentage of GDP has not gone to corporate profits.

                How does that make any sense?If everyone else is earning less over a time because costs have gone up, but corporate profits have stayed steady, then it seems entirely clear that a decline in wages has gone to maintaining corporate profits.Report

              3. If everyone else is earning less over a time because costs have gone up, but corporate profits have stayed steady, then it seems entirely clear that a decline in wages has gone to maintaining corporate profits.

                Not necessarily. There could be other exogenous factors. One such exogenous factor is inflation. People at higher income levels are able to absorb inflation better than those at lower income levels.* Inflationary monetary policy therefore hurts the poor worse than it hurts the rich. It doesn’t follow that wealth is therefore transferred from the poor to the rich.

                Inflation means that the poor end up consuming less because they are able to afford fewer things. It means that the rich end up consuming more because the value of savings decreases. This reduces the amout of available capital for reinvestment, which also in turn depresses long term job-creation rates, which again hurts the poor in the long term as well. It is also unlikely that increased spending by the rich can compensate in terms of stimulating demand for the decreased spending by the poor.
                *Because consumption as a percentage of income is lower for the rich than for the poor.Report

              4. Inflation means that the poor end up consuming less because they are able to afford fewer things. It means that the rich end up consuming more because the value of savings decreases.

                If true, that rather confirms my point, no?Report

              6. If the exogenous effects are systematic, and in-built, then the relative decline of wage earnings as a % of GDP relative to the wealthy is evidence that the wealthy are the beneficiaries of policy decisions (and whatnot) that permit that to happen.

                I really don’t see any other way around this. Corporate profits are remaining steady while wage income has declined. Isn’t that the bare evidence we’re working with? I mean, if we’re not trying to massage it into conformaity with a preferred theory?Report

              7. Actually, after closer inspection of the data, I’m calling bullshit on the claim that there’s been any long-term downtrend in employee compensation.

                It’s technically true that wages are declining. But employee compensation is not. From 1963 to 2011, as a percentage of GDP:

                Wages: 51% to 44%
                Employer contributions for pension and insurance funds: 2.9% to 7.4%
                Employer contributions for payroll taxes: 2% to 3.3%
                Total employee compensation: 55.9% to 54.6%

                The all-time high for employee compensation was 59.4% in 1970 and again in 1974, but it was 58.2% in 2000, not significantly lower.Report

              8. From the other link I provided:

                The figures for wage and salary income arguably understate the cost of hiring, since they exclude both the employer’s share of payroll taxes and the cost of other benefits, like health insurance. Including those costs, total compensation of employees came to 54.3 percent of G.D.P. That figure is not a record low, but it is the smallest share for any period since 1955. Report

              9. Sure. The labor market is really slack now, so obviously employee compensation is going to be down a bit. But this is nothing like the nine-percentage-point drop in the other chart you linked to. In 2008, before the bottom fell out of the labor market, total employee compensation was 56.5% of GDP, three percentage points below its highest point since 1963. Add in the increases to Social Security and Medicare, net of payroll taxes, and the share of GDP going to wage earners is as high as it’s ever been.

                And all of this is tangential to my original claim, which is that union membership declined for 50 years with no long-term uptrend in corporate profits as a percentage of GDP. You’re not actually disputing this, are you? Unless you want to explain how the recent spike in corporate profits could have been caused by a decline in union membership that had already been going on for fifty years?Report

              10. Now, I’m not disputing that because all the evidence seem to suggest that corporate profits haven’t declined.

                What’s declined is the disposable income of people who earn wages. According to your hypothesis, it’s because of an increase in transfer payments. But the evidence seems to suggest that the increase has been funded entirely (in %GDP terms anyway) by the middle class.

                I mean, how else do you account for increasing government costs coupled with relatively static corporate profits?Report

              11. Also, notice that in your argument above you’re effectively confirming my suggestion that social programs have been funded by the middle class (or wage earners, generally) and not by the wealthy. So why all the griping about redistribution???Report

              12. social programs have been funded by the middle class (or wage earners, generally) and not by the wealthy.

                Wouldn’t that mean that money has been taken from the middle class and given to the lower income folks*

                *am I alowed to say “lower classes” without sounding like I live in the Hamptons?Report

              13. Not really, no. See my comment at 7:20. Social Security is the least redistributive of government transfer programs, and it’s somewhat redistributive. Medicare is very redistributive, and the means-tested programs even more so.

                Public schools are redistributive as well. Say public school costs $10,000/year. If we suppose that inflation and interest roughly cancel out, we can say that a student graduating from high school today owes a hypothetical $130,000 debt. At 5%, that’s $6500 for the rest of his life just to keep current on interest, to say nothing of paying down the principal. Most people don’t pay that much in state taxes, and that’s putting aside all the other things state taxes pay for.

                Also, my figures above aren’t for middle-class wage earners. They include compensation for all employees, including, e.g., highly-paid executives.Report

              14. Murali- Not exactly. SS benefits the elderly, some of whom would be dirt poor without it. However many elderly have other pensions or income/savings so it isn’t going to poor people entirely. SS goes to some well off elderly people.Report

              16. Murali, both your comments seem to be correct. Social programs are funded by the middle class, hence, there’s no “redistribution” from the wealthy to the poor via social programs. Also, it’s effectively a trasnfer from the poorer to the rich,since the wealthy get to exploit the system to their own ends ala Walmart without paying in their fair share to begin with.

                As to why we don’t eliminate it, I’d rather ask why we don’t require the wealthy to pay their fair share into the system and not exploit it.Report

              17. Public schools are redistributive as well.

                Ahh sure. But that’s not the topic at hand. One thing I’m becoming increasingly impressed by is the plethora of arguments libertarians can throw out, many of which are beside the point, in order to make their conclusions come out true. It’s amazing to witness.Report

              19. BB,

                However, education spending isn’t allocated equally to all students. Students with special needs may rack up spending of $130K in a year or more.

                It’d be interesting to see a more precise breakdown of money in the system. My hunch is that the students having the most money spent on them would hail from middle- or upper-class families, as these are often the ones best equipped to advocate for services. I wouldn’t be shocked if I was wrong, but that is what my anecdotal evidence indicates to me.

                So, while it is still redistributive on the whole, perhaps not as much as at first glance.Report

              20. Kaz,
                we already see that? Wasn’t rose talkign about how autism gets funded way outsize other disabilities? And autism is a middle to upper middle class disease… (epidemiologically speaking)Report

        2. Also this.

          Corporate profits after taxes were estimated to be $1.56 trillion, at an annual rate, during the quarter, or 10.3 percent of the size of the economy, up from 10.1 percent in the second quarter. Until 2010, the government had never reported even a single quarter in which the corporate share was as high as 9 percent, as can be seen in the accompanying charts.

          The government began calculating the quarterly figures on corporate profits in 1947, but it has annual figures back to 1929. Until last year, the record annual share was 8.98 percent, set in 1929. For all of 2010, the figure was 9.56 percent.

          Wage and salary income was only 43.7 percent of G.D.P., the lowest number for any period going back to 1929. That figure first fell below 45 percent in 2009. Report

  19. I imagine if I look into regulations I’d find roadblocks to small mom and pops creating an alliance in a NAPA like logistics arrangement by which they could attain buying power and costs savings through a superior logistics system. Each town could have a large store area like Super WalMart with different needs met by say a small local hardware store owner, a clothing piece to it, a sporting goods piece, with each section divided off to highlight the local owner and his/her specialty. The marketing could focus on local owners, a focus on employee satisfaction, maybe with a profit sharing plan to attract good workers, small fighting back against big, etc. — I’ll bet that there are regulations that make it almost impossible to put something like this together cost efficiently to compete with a WalMart type operator. This NAPA type arrangement could offer a buy-in to the local mom&pops that covers expert business support to help offset the waste of each small business owner having to hire an accountant or book-keeper. The NAPA-like association could offer centralized business support for each site, and the small business owners would have to worry only about buying and selling.Report

  20. I don’t accept the premise that labor and capital can be thought of only in terms of supply and demand.

    First, this premise assumes too many preconditions that can never possibly be met.
    Secondly, it assumes that labor is no different from a consumer good, like a toaster, to be traded subject only to market price.

    This is where libertarianism is radically different, at its conceptual root from traditional conservatism and liberalism. In order to place every transaction into an economic framework, other conceptual frameworks like the sacred need to be dispensed with.

    In most people’s viewpoint, work itself is sacred; notice how indignant people get when someone chooses to not work, and instead loafs, whether they are on the dole or not.

    We see that in the discussion about the Hostess bakers; Notice how many commenters assumed a moral tone, that it was not simply poor negotiationg, but morally repugnant for demanding higher wages and driving the company into bankruptcy; Witholding your labor is not a business transaction, but a moral failing.

    Negotiating over labor can never be a market transaction. The one holding labor has in all but the most extreme scenario, more incentive to close the deal than the holder of capital, because our labor is more important to us than it is to the employer.

    The exceptions to this prove the rule; for example, with medicine, the roles are reversed- the purchaser of labor has no bargaining power, because the service always means more to him than it does to the doctor.

    In both cases, the essential market preconditions can never be satisfied.Report

    1. Hostess is worth more dead than alive to its investors. That’s a market reality. The intellectual property [formula, brand name] will be sold to a baking company with better profit margins, cheaper [non-union?] labor presumably a factor. The union doesn’t seem to realize it’s in the buggy-whip business.

      Because Ward was right about the change in eating habits. The Canadian licensee for Hostess cakes took a big hit in the 2nd quarter.

      Canadian dairy giant Saputo has reported a fall in annual profits after recording a C$125m (US$121.5m) impairment charge on its small grocery products business.

      The charge, which Saputo blamed on “stagnating growth in market-wide snack cake sales”, led its net earnings to tumble 15.4% to C$380.8m for the 12 months to the end of March.

      http://www.just-food.com/news/cake-challenge-sours-saputo-earnings_id119379.aspxReport

      1. I have yet to weigh in on the Hostess thing.

        My thought is that management is responsible for the success and failure of a company, in a free world, this means they establish the wage rates and benefits, the products, the marketing, the distribution processes and so forth. their strategies must adapt to market realities of course, and these change over time.

        One problem with Hostess is that they lost control of their wage related costs. they got into a bad situation and did not have the freedom to re-establish alternative wage strategies.

        Yeah sure the union took a gamble and lost. The root cause of this failure though is probably related to regulations that prohibited hostess management from being free to change wages or replace the workers.

        For the first time in history, at exactly 3:10 PM Central Time, a libertarian blamed market failure on government interference. Mark your calendar.Report

            1. Especially when the commenter has been around a long time and received responses that suggest such snark misses the context and nuances of the subject — the commenter knows that he or she is being unfair by answering in the most superficial and uncharitable fashion, but the commenter does it anyway. Why? What purpose might the serial snark commenter have that motivates the behavior after knowing the comments do nothing to enlighten debate or further develope an intelligent discussion?Report

              7. You do understand that the nonsense words were meant to represent the opposite of incisive, because the criticism is that your one line snark attacks are not incisive at all, and after awhile they begin to read like nonsense words? So, attacking my nonsense words for not being incisive is not very incisive and makes my point.Report

              9. “I figured you were trying to call me a “statist” but you’d worn those keys out.”

                It’s getting more and more trite. Just give it up. You aren’t the sharpest tack — I get it. No problem. I see now, and I shouldn’t expect you to do any better. You obviously can’t. It’s okay, just carry on. (whew!)Report

            1. Well, sure. If the only way to run a company profitably is with 100% unpaid “interns”, and they can’t find enough of them, the problem is that people nowadays are lazy.Report

    2. LWA,

      Not trying to convince you, but just so you know how I think about it….

      I don’t JUST think we should think economically about supply and demand in regards to labor, I think there is value in doing so*. The value is that allowing it to play out leads to prosperity. I keep repeating the gag worthy phrase of “engine of prosperity”, but that is what I am convinced markets are. They are is discovery, or problem solving systems that figure out how to cooperate effectively to create prosperity. ( I feel you eyes rolling even as I write it). Welcome to the machine.

      The way I think about your bargaining power objection is simple. In markets of lots of employers and applicants, it pretty much doesn’t matter. The market rate still seeks the same point. This is because the real competition was never between the applicant and the employer, it was between employers. Similarly your real competition for jobs has always been other applicants. The worker solidarity thing is a myth the spinners of fables have spun to accomplish their own selfish goals. Have a cigar.

      I am of course probably wrong. I the mean time, shine on you crazy diamond.

      * I do not think we should ONLY think about labor in market terms.Report

  22. Walmart is the gorilla in the room. They got big by aggressively using imports from Asia/China. The pretty much started that game. And they got big by taking advantage of the relative wealth of the U.S. versus the low wage poverty of Asia. They don’t sell stuff as cheap as they could, only cheap enough to undercut their competitors. And they are agressive about keeping wages low. This helps to keep the profit margins high. But they set the bar. When they move into an area they put the local businesses out of business. And those out of work workers MUST work at Walmart or not work.
    If Walmart raised their wages it would have the effect of raising wages in all of the competing businesses. Those underpaid workers might move to Walmart and those other employers might have to raise wages to keep the help. Walmart still would have the advantage of it’s size and ability to import cheaper goods.
    And as far as the argument that the shoppers at Walmart need their low prices, the shoppers at Walmart ARE the Walmart workers. And all of the similar workers in the area. They all need a raise. The race to the bottom in wages is why there is so much consumer debt. Who can afford to buy a car with cash nowdays? Or even an appliance? School? Consumer debt interest is the same as payday loans. It is a constant tax on those trying to live. And to “get ahead”. Forget that.
    But it will take a change in the mindset in this country. We must get over the “what’s good for GM is good for America” mentality…..
    ghReport

    1. Let’s not let ourselves as consumers off the hook, trampling Mom & Pop on the way to Big Box.

      And what gregH writes here probably goes double for Apple and your iPhone.

      Wages make up just 2-5 percent of the iPhone’s sale price, while Apple’s profit is 57 percent of every iPhone sold. Keep these figures in mind when reading about the latest flare-up at Foxconn, which is a major manufacturer of Apple products including the new iPhone 5.

      …

      A report by several Chinese and Taiwanese universities published last October showed that nearly 28 percent of Foxconn workers have been verbally insulted by supervisors or security personnel, and 16 percent have suffered physical abuse. “Workers aren’t allowed to talk, smile, sit down, walk around or move unnecessarily during their long working hours, which require them to finish 20,000 products every day,” this report stated.

      The pent up anger of Taiyuan workers against this routine mistreatment exploded on Sunday night. A relatively trivial altercation between guards and workers returning to their dormitories seems to have set off the riot, which soon spread, with workers attacking police cars, metal gates and shop windows within the factory compound. Microblog postings stated that “factory guards had beaten workers and that sparked the melee”

      A worker told the South China Morning Post “Thousands of angry workers searched and beat up every security guard they saw.”

      Etc.

      http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1885/Report

        1. Hm. Mebbe it’s a proper conservatism, Aquinas and all, human flourishing. Perhaps a promising vein for the right—[the very Catholic] Bobby Jindal said just the other day of the Reps

          “We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

          So thank you for your observation. It’s really where the Thomism takes me, Just Wage and all that. I don’t love or hate Walmart; it does seem to hire some of the otherwise unemployable and in that way uniquely contributes to human flourishing, and on the money end, we bargain-loving consumers are all its enablers. In the eyes of many, it’s a good thing, even if it does leech off the public teat.

          Has a lot in common with Tammany Hall, come to think of it. Tammany Hall is very underrated.Report

          1. Playing the other side of the fence here for a minute, there’s an argument in favor of Walmart that I’m sure is out there, but I haven’t heard yet: Walmart isn’t leveraging wages against the safety net, it’s providing opportunities to labor pool that exists in any event, independent of the safety net – the elderly, the disabled, etc. Walmart is basically offering these folks the opportunity to earn wages and be productive, and importantly, Walmart will structure their compensation so that it doesn’t compromise their eligibility for government funds they already receive. It’s a win for the worker, a win for Walmart, and not a loss for taxpayers.

            I’m not sure I want to push too hard on that argument. But it’s out there.Report

    2. I’d be more impressed if he didn’t trot out idiotic strawmen like taking away the Walton’s fortune of give the CEO no salary. Those are silly points for silly people. I would be moved by his noting liberals pushed for uni HC if he and most every other galtian superman didn’t seem so invested in stopping uni HC.Report

      1. Yeah, the relevant quantity there is simply yearly operating profits; I wasn’t sure why he didn’t break that one down. It would make the same point using the relevant info.

        And I agree, I don’t get what the point is wrt health care. Rather than a universal system, we have a safety-net health-care backstop. It’s not meant to be desirable to have to rely on it, and we still have most of a consensus that health care should be paid for either as a benefit from employers or out of wages, rather than socially provided. So how is saying a that a major employer is failing to help make that set-up work inconsistent with having pushed for a moderate bolstering of the backstop system? At least as of yet, we still are looking for people to purchase their own coverage through employers or on the (improved by Exchanges?) individual market.Report

        1. Well i think there is consensus that providing HC socially for people over 65, under 18, Vets, the disabled and small groups who are really screwed like people with breast cancer is just fine. It’s everybody else people aren’t sure about, well the people who have employer provided HC aren’t sure about providing HC to those other people.Report

        2. It is worth saying that corporate profits is just generally a bit of an unconfortable topic for professional free-marketers like Suderman – actually an impolite phrase in those circles – and a considerably less strawmanable one than this or that personal/family fortune or CEO salary. (Which, to be fair, are to a great degree strawmen that the left seems to delight in joining with the doctrinaire Free Markets And Liberty intellectual industry in a ritual celebration that involves, on the one side, stuffing full of straw, and then on the other, setting ablaze. They get together afterwards with bags of marshmallows and stare into the fire. I love staring into hot fires late at night. I can feel my brain melting.)Report

          1. I am all for higher wages, but am torn between where best to fund these raises. I am playing with two alternatives.

            1) Take it out of the owners/investors/entrepreneurs that create these jobs to service consumers.
            2) Take it out of a unicorn’s ass.

            Considering the pros and cons of each, I am leaning toward the unicorn’s ass. The reason is that if we take it out of profits, we reduce the entire frickin’ reason for them to create the jobs and service the consumers in the first place. The unicorns at least stand still while we dig for goodies.Report

            1. If we take it out of profits (and I’m not saying we must – I meant to provisionally concede that the amount would be marginal like the other amounts Suderman calculates), the reason for them to create the jobs would still be the profits. The rest of them. No one is suggesting assigning all profits to wage increases/bonuses. OTOH worker-owned co-ops do exist and tend to feature motivated workers and management in my experience.Report

            2. BTW, this is maybe the most obnoxious comment I’ve seen you make here yet, Roger. You’re essentially saying that you are axiomatically against above-labor-market wages (inasmuch as higher-than-market wages will decreases job creation and therefore are socially inefficient, which is a perfectly great argument!), while either trying to somehow also say you’re for them (you’re not saying you’re for rising market wages bc you suggest whatever it is you’re talking about would need to “come out of” somewhere, and that’s not a qualification that applies to market rates, as that’s just simply the cost of acquiring the labor, taking human considerations of generous compensation over and above that rate out of the mix) — or you are just giving the most convoluted sarcastic, and therefore condescending in keeping with your general mien but taking it to another new level, statement of the aforementioned very legitimate argument that I frankly think is conceivable (okay, maybe that’s an overstatement).

              If I’m understanding your “argument” correctly and your view is the one I describe, you do have the option of just saying so directly. And incidentally, you’ll notice that in my appraisal of Suderman’s argumentation, nowhere do I even raise the question of whether WalMart ought to immediately (or gradually) voluntarily raise their retail wages above the rate necessary to procure the labor they’re interested in. I was simply questioning whether Suderman actually examined the numbers necessary to make his fundamental point that there isn’t enough productive margin in WalMart’s operations to substantially increase wages while even just breaking even (which no one is suggesting they ought to even consider, as far as I am aware). On the contrary, he seemed to do everything he could to avoid making the apt calculation. That was my point, and frankly it didn’t advance the view you’re so patiently yet cleverly aiming to rebut here.Report

              1. Michael,

                I was being silly and obnoxious, and though I tacked it onto your prior comment, I was aiming broadly, and not as a retort to any position of yours.

                For the record, there was a point in it, one that I actually have made more directly through these threads. That is that there is an element of wishful thinking going on with this higher wage hope. A kind of “wouldn’t it be great if everyone could make a living wage and be above average in looks and intelligence,” kind of argument.

                We convince ourselves of the reasonableness by taking a favored group and paying for it by pretending it comes out of an unfavorable group. This just sounds right to some of us, and even if it didn’t accomplish it’s goals of helping workers, is probably just, because there is a grand struggle between workers and capital, and those of us that are good are for the little guy.

                My argument throughout is that this is an incorrect way to evaluate the situation. The employer and the worker are cooperators. It is other workers who compete for jobs, and other employers who compete for applicants.

                It seems like higher wages come out of profits, and higher profits come out of lower wages, because that is how the accounting works. And if one firm did choose to pay double the going rate wages, it would pretty clearly be less profitable. But this is all distorting what profits really are. If all employers raised salaries by double the necessary rate, the system would not necessarily take this out of profits. It would come out of unicorns. All we are really doing is making the system less efficient. Prices would go up, employment would go down — especially for the less skilled, we would have misallocation of resources, higher skilled workers would be drawn to less skilled jobs, and the net prosperity of us, our kids and our grand kids would be lower. Sure, employers would be getting less too, but that is because they are getting a slice of a smaller pie.

                If we really care about prosperity for all and for the less skilled, it is really important that we come to grips with this dynamic. There is a bill to be paid in artificially raising wages, and before we pat ourselves on the back for helping the little guy, we need to work through how the system actually responds.

                I would recommend we not mess with the market rate, and instead build institutional safety nets for the less skilled that encourage them to work their way out of poverty by investing in hard work, education, long hours and such.Report

              2. In the future, if you’re going to make an incredibly sarcastic, condescending response to an argument you see being made here, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t locate it as a direct response to a comment in which I didn’t make said argument. Doing what you did here is quite literally nothing other than a public display of disrespect or even contempt directed at the commenter to which your comment responds, and whether or not some of the arguments you see being made here justify such a response (and your behavior would be equally as I describe it even if they did), in any case if I haven’t made any such argument, then the response you’ve given is not only not on point, which is bad form in itself, but is further a completely unwarranted public display of disrespect from you to me.

                If you want to email me messages detailing your lack of respect for my capacity to think through problems, I can be reached at drew.mike@gmail.com. I’d prefer we keep such messages in the private sphere, as, in my view, nothing I’ve said in this thread (nor frankly anything anyone else has argued in my view, but that’s between you and them) warranted the level of disrespectful, sarcastic condescension that you inexplicably attached to my comment here. There are definitely relationships between intelligent people here at the League that have deteriorated into little but uneasy toleration punctuated by almost competitive displays of mutual contempt. These tend to be characterized, though, by either deep differences in world views or repeated violations by one party of the other’s (though not the League’s) expectations about standards for discourse. Neither between you and I, nor as far as I can see, between you and most of the other liberals who comment here, is there a any such kind of wide rift. We don’t have to go down that road (and in any case, I won’t). All that’s needed to preserve quality dialogue here is basic respect. You often show it, but display frequent rather stunning breaches.

                I’m not sure why you don’t realize how quips like suggesting that people repeat the tenets of your ideology like a Zen koan until they get it and all becomes clear, or misdirecting sarcasm involving unicorns at comments that don’t even raise the question the sarcasm is meant to address come across. But you need to figure it out fast.Report

      2. I like this one:

        Erase the entire Walton family fortune and you get an average $1/hour boost to Walmart workers.

        He’s equating a quantity and a rate, which is the kind of units failure that gets you either a C in middle school math or an editorship at Reason.Report

        1. He is. Though really,who knows what he’s doing? Including the fortune’s earning power present value/not? Comparing to a years worth of WalMart’s retail staff’s wages (i.e inventing a rate)? Who knows.Report

          1. To be fair, I’m confident he is consciously doing some version of this in a reasonably intelligent way, not just doing a single division problem on the desktop calculator with two poorly related numbers he pulled of the internet. Perhaps I give him too much credit, perhaps not.Report

        2. I did the math, got the same result, posted upstream. Take the family fortune and set it in a bank account to fund a perpetuity for all current and future employees (assuming no growth in their numbers, no inflation, etc.). Divide by number of hours worked per week. Standard actuarial mathematics, though highly simplified to get an order-of-magnitude answer.Report

    3. Suderman is making a pragmatic argument in support of a situation inconsistent with his principles. He’s appealing to the benefits of a “redistributive” arrangement whereby social programs lead to socially beneficial outcomes. He hit on all the points libertarians have hit on here: that requiring Walmart to pay healthcare and increase total compensation would force half of its current labor force into unemployment, that the customer base hardest hit would be the poor, that Walmart brings good things to life to small towns so the mechanisms by which that’s made possible don’t really matter. He even implied that liberals are to blame and/or are hypocrits for criticizing Walmart’s labor practices since liberals support the program – Medicaid – that Walmart is leveraging compensation against! So Shaddup!!!

      It’s an entirely consequentialist argument, it seems to me, the type of argument that conservatives and libertarians criticize liberals for making. Where outcomes are what matters most, mechanisms be damned.

      And if it’s not consequentialist, then the underlying principle is simply that corporations get to do what they want and need to do to ensure maximum profitability.

      It’s an amazing string of tweats, really, since they’re completely incoherent except as a defense of principles that Suderman has made a career out of criticizing liberals for holding.Report

      1. “It’s an entirely consequentialist argument, it seems to me, the type of argument that conservatives and libertarians criticize liberals for making. Where outcomes are what matters most, mechanisms be damned.”

        I am still not aware of when I have ever made an argument that wasn’t consequentialist*. And when I criticize progressives it isn’t based upon the consequences, it is based upon the fact that they justify actions on intentions and first order effects rather than long term, widespread, actual consequences.

        *the natural rights/divine rights conservatives/libertarians might make such an argument, but I have no idea what they are talking about, either.Report

        1. Yes, you’re a bit different than most on that score, so maybe my above comment doesn’t apply to you.

          I’m also quite sure that everyone else will argue that it doesn’t apply to them, as well. Even Suderman, if he were to show up.Report

          1. So your argument is that we think we are consequentialists, but you know better that we aren’t (even though we keep arguing as if we are)? Pretty cool rhetorical trick, that.Report

            1. No. My argument is that everyone who the above argument is directed at will reject that it applies to them, ie., that their adopting a consequentialist argument that violates the principles they advocate and which they use to criticize liberals with.

              You’re a bit of a tricky situation as far as that goes. That you reject that above analysis is expected (unless you were to say that Walmart ought to pay people a living wage, which you haven’t) but I also concede to you that you’re fundamentally a pragmatist about this stuff. Not a “best outcome given the situation” pragmatist, but a pragmatist nonetheless.

              But come to think of it, even the most strident ideologue thinks he’s a pragmatist. He’s so convinced that his principles will lead to (logically entail!!!) the best outcome that, in his mind, it’s obvious that any rejection of his view is based on ideology.Report

        2. ,I.I am still not aware of when I have ever made an argument that wasn’t consequentialist*.

          Thru all these threads, you’ve argued that NAP ought to be the necessary condition on all transactions, whether exclusively private or openly public or involving government. The conclusion you draw from that, is seems to me, is that acting in accordance with NAP will lead to the best outcomes. That duality, I think, is where the distinction between a first-principle approach and a consequentialist approach breaks down.

          Recall what I wrote yesterday. Something to the effect of: libertarianism is an ideology in which maximizing freedom leads to the best actual outcomes. There’s a tension there, of course, since if outcomes are suboptimal but consistent with NAP, then which criterion takes precedence? All too often, at least in my experience, libertarians will say that the suboptimal outcomes ought to be rejected even when that outcome is consistent with libertarian first principles.

          So in that sense, I’ll concede that at least your understanding of libertarianism is pragmatically justified.

          But I also think that at that point, pragmatic justifications rely on a calculus that libertarians and conservatives generally reject. That is, the balancing of values as they reveal themselves in actual practice (and not apriori).

          {{And I agree that your critiques of liberalism are mostly about intentions, and while that’s one issue that we’ve disagreed about I don’t think it’s significant enough to belabor.)Report

          1. First thing in the AM before coffee, it was hard for me to follow all the double negatives, and that was after I figured out what the heck NAP was.

            But I think I broadly agree. I am against coercion(such as forcing higher wages) because it tends to lead to worse results. Where coercion leads to better results long term I am for it. And where outcomes can differ based upon various courses of non coercive action, then I am for the path that leads to better results.Report

      2. Just because Suderman may not himself hold consequentialist beliefs doesn’t mean that he is being incoherent when he makes consequentialist arguments.

        It is perfectly legitimate to point out that a certain belief does not have the implications that a certain group of people who hold that belief think it does.

        His point is that even if you are a liberal consequentialist, you should not be coming down on Walmart because that would be counterproductive.

        That Suderman is not a consequentialist is not the point. The point is that many people who are consequentialist are angry with Walmart because they think that it is contributing to bad consequences by paying their workers so little. But Suderman says that they are mistaken about the facts. He is saying that as consequentialists they shouldn’t be angry with Wallmart. This is still a valid argument to make. And it doesnt consist of a defence of consequentialismReport

        1. Just because Suderman may not himself hold consequentialist beliefs doesn’t mean that he is being incoherent when he makes consequentialist arguments.

          You’re right. For example, an appeal to consequences can be used as evidence that acting on the first principles leads to desirable outcomes. That’s fine.

          His point is that even if you are a liberal consequentialist, you should not be coming down on Walmart because that would be counterproductive.

          Maybe. That’s one of the arguments he made. A pretty poor one, it seems since it assumes that since liberals support medicaid they can’t criticize Walmart for exploiting that program for their own personal profit.

          But how does the situation square with his principles? He criticizes liberals for redistributing income in support of social programs, yet in this case, he’s defending a practice which not only relies on those programs, but seems to be leveraging against those programs to increase profits. How is that consistent with libertarianism? Or even right-conservatism? Unless, of course – it seems to me – the principle in play is that corporate profits are the main value our societal institutions should promote.

          Look, I’ll concede that he’s making an argument against liberal here, but contained within that argument criticizing liberals is a complete refudiation of the principles he ostensibly holds. So it seems to me his argument is incoherent. Except insofar as it’s a criticism of liberals and liberal principles. Principles he suddenly accepts in order to make his argument go thru.Report

          1. but contained within that argument criticizing liberals is a complete refudiation of the principles he ostensibly holds. So it seems to me his argument is incoherent

            Not necessarily. Consider what I would do if I were arguing with a conservatie about gay marriage. Now, why I think gay marriage should be legalised is really because the government should not be basing legislation on some particular conception of the good. And there will be lots of times that I will argue against basing other kinds of legislation on some conception of the good. Nevertheless, I am not incoherent when I tell the conservative that if he cared about family values and preserving the family and encouraging responsible, monogamous norms, he should be in favour of accepting gay marriage so that gay cuples are accepted in wider society and brought into the fold so to speak. I will argue that whether or not they approved of homsexuality, if they thought that two men living in a long term stabe relationship was better than men engaging in all sorts of risky behaviour, they should be in favour of gay marriage.

            Now, it may be that in the larger picture, we should not concern ourselves with what consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom, but if I advance an argument that basically says that given your premises you should agree with me, that doesn’t mean that I am being inconsistent even if I don’t agree with your premisesReport

  24. Regarding the dispute between moderate libertarians and liberals on equality of opportunity: I recommend everybody read the excellent piece linked below in Foreign Affairs.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138368/lane-kenworthy/its-hard-to-make-it-in-america

    The author argues that there is substantially less equality of opportunity in the U.S. now as opposed to decades ago, and that other wealthy, western countries are now much more likely to offer equal (or soewhat equal, anyway) opportunity to succeed to all people.

    The most damning stat, IMO, is that only 9 percent of lower class Americans go to college, while it’s closer to 54% if you are not lower class. Brutal. things are not this bad in Canada, Norther Europe, and elsewhere.

    The author also explains that other countries provide more benefits to poor parents (much larger child benefits), to poor students (free university in some places), much larger minimum wages in some cases, more maternity leave, etc. (No country offers everything, but most countries offer more help to ensure an equal opportunity to succeed. In short, they offer a lot of “welfare” (construed very broadly) to the poor and the middle class, especially to families, and we in the U.S. don’t. As a result, they are the land of opportunity and the U.S. isn’t.

    So, a question to all moderate libertarians (and R’s more generally): if we don’t offer much more “welfare” (which will have to be paid for by the well off) and higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for it to ensure an equal opportunity so society and not an oligarchy, then how do we do it?Report

    1. Oh, and I’d absolutely love if someone did an OP on this article and how we can provide equality of opportunity without some sort of redistribution of wealth that is larger than what we do now.

      I think this would be a cool topic for any conservative or libertarian. This is where liberals disagree on policy IMO, we see certain kinds of directed benefits for the middle-class and lower-class, paid for by the upper classes, as essential to equality of opportunity.

      I’m also worried that some logically possible libertarian attempts to create more equality of opportunity are going to be unrealistic in terms of what is actually acheivable. (The liberal solution is to do more of what we know works -as it works in Europe and Canada- as a solution to the problem of inequality of opportunity.)Report

      1. Ugh. I was hoping someone would respond, but not Mfarmer.

        I adressed the tillion dollar dishonesty elsewhere in conversation with Roger. In brief you only get to 1 trillion dollars if you include medicaid, the EITC, Pell Grants, School Lunches, Adoption Aid, Work Study, and other programs that do 3 things:

        1. Help primarily middle class kids go to go school (Pell, work study, etc.)
        2. Pay basic medical costs for the non-working poor and the elderly (from lots of different backgrounds) in nursing homes through medicaid
        3. Give middle class people with kids a very small break on the EITC

        Those are laudable goals and indeed these are all necessary programs. They help minimize equality by keeping the non-working poor from dying, helping the middle class through the financial hardship of college a bit, etc.

        The link I cited makes a simple point. We will need to spend significantly more (or use regulations like minimum wage, union protections, etc.) to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor to create equality of opportunity betweej the children of rich kids and the children of poor kids. We don’t have that equality of opportunity here in the U.S., but they do have it in Europe.

        Why?

        I assume you will say that the problem is that America has too many blacks and hispanics, and they will fail in large numbers, so we will always see a higher degree of intergenerational poverty in the U.S because of race. And then I will accuse you of racism. If you say that.Report

        1. Shazbot,

          I agree, you should write up a summary of it and send it to Erik,

          The data I have seen (Scott Winship) is that mobility has not gotten worse in America, nor is it worse than other developed nations with one very notable exception… bottom quintile males. In addition, when we look at consumption data, there are few places better to be poor than America.

          I agree that we are seeing the effects of positive and negative feedback loops. Educated, high earners with long time horizons are marrying each other and having kids with long time horizons that get parents that will do anything to see them succeed, as that is what these types of parents do. On the other hand, those with shorter time horizons, low earning ability are now able to have kids without marrying their crummy, short time horizon boyfriends because we step in with aid. Thus we get low time horizon kids, with ignorant, low time horizon moms and no dad. This is problematic for little girls and catastrophic for little boys.

          Add in to this bureaucratic school monopolies which run schools not for the kids, but for the unions, bureaucrats and rent seekers. In communities with educated parents that have long time horizons and lots of resources, they pay the rent seekers off and add whatever is necessary to still get a good education for their darlings. In the neighborhood where parents have neither the resources or the time horizons, the monopoly runs amok.

          Recommendations?
          1) Listen to conservatives and libertarians on the long term effects of
          master planning on incentives. The statists built these institutions and then are shocked that they created a world which leads to exactly what conservatives told them would happen. We subsidized having kids without husbands and we handed the education of our kids to rent seeking monopolists.
          2). Break up school monopolies and replace it with a subsidized market based system. Provide larger education subsidies to the poor, and smaller to the well off.
          3). Experiment with improvements in safety nets which penalize having kids out of wedlock, and which discourages dropping out of school and which requires that those getting aid work forty hours a week.
          4). Encourage the creation of free colleges using modern technology that can compete with paid colleges.
          5). Shame parents that don’t read to their kids, help them with homework, or invest in their kids future. Shame people for not doing all they can do to help themselves, before expecting others to help. Shame the wealthy that don’t give back to others.Report

          1. And please quit calling the Cato study dishonest. If you read the study it clearly lays out exactly where the money goes. The point is that we are already spending about a trillion dollars on support. The obvious questions…

            1). Are we giving some of the trillion to the wrong people?
            2). Since we do give them a trillion, shouldn’t we include this in our evaluation of their standard of living?
            3). Is our giving contributing to bad incentives and bad institutions?Report

            1. It isn’t a trillion on welfare for the poor. Much of that trillion is spent on the middle class (e.g. previously middle class seniors in nursing homes) and much of it is necessary. Some of it is spent on the poor, true.

              None of it is enough or as much as they spend in other countries that have real equality of opportunity.

              I do not think there is much of any incentive to be poor and live off welfare in the U.S. or elsewhere. Only in very rare cases.Report

              1. Shazbot,

                The point again is that we are doing a boatload of redistribution. If a significant fraction really is going to the middle class, then we need to ask why we are not directing it at those most in need. In other words, if only “some of it is spent on the poor,” this supports my point number 1.

                The next point, is that as I stated above, class mobility is the same in the US as other wealthy nations and the same as the past except for lowest quintile males. Refences available on request

                In addition the standard of living of the poor in the US is as good as anyplace in the world. Arguably it is too comfortable, and this is part of the problem. I could go in for hours on how are destroying good cultural incentives and propagating bad ones. The solutions are going to be difficult.Report

          2. “Add in to this bureaucratic school monopolies which run schools not for the kids, but for the unions, bureaucrats and rent seekers.”

            http://www.edexcellence.net/ohio-policy/gadfly/2012/november-14/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do-the-edison-story-in-dayton.html#body

            TBF, a conservative outfit in favor of school reform, now admits that for-profit companies like Edison, using business models to improve education, are a big fat failure. The bureaucrats and unions who dedicated their lives to teaching (and not to profit) turn out to know a thing or two.Report

              1. The article I cited claims it is unclear how much money they made even while the schools they ran were failing. It might’ve been a lot. We’ll never know, even though it’s taxpayer money.

                Grifters gonna grift, as Atrios says.Report

              2. Shazbot,
                I am not even sure what your argument is. The data on private schools is that they outperform public schools by a long shot on most or all measures. The argument is not that every private school succeeds. Indeed, the reason the Private schools do better is because those that don’t, fail. An example of these failures doesn’t make your case, it points to how capitalism and creative destruction are supposed to work absent government interference.

                Here is the worlds most comprehensive study on the value of privatized, competitive schools…

                http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/coulson_comparing_public_private_market_schools_jsc.pdfReport

              3. Selective cherry-picked data and confusing correlation with causation.

                What are the most important causative factors for a child’s success in school?
                1. Socioeconomic status
                2. Involved parents

                Those come naturally for private schools because they can select out kids who don’t have factors 1 and 2 going for them. Private schools don’t “succeed” because they are private, they show success that they simply couldn’t succeed if they weren’t allowed to pick and choose kids who were already on a better track.

                I didn’t really expect any better from Cato, mind you.Report

              4. This is 100% on target.

                Public schools must take all comers. Private schools select their students first. And then students who don’t fit in or are troublesome are asked to leave.

                Which is also something parents should really focus on before opting to enroll their children in private schools; for you surrender your rights at the door. There is a legal process to suspending/expelling students in public schools; the family is entitled to legal council. No such rights exist in private schools; if your child gets in trouble, you may not even be allowed to attend the disciplinary hearing, and you have no right to council. And if your child’s kicked out, you likely also have no right to a refund of your tuition.

                The other consideration should be learning differences. Public schools must meet the needs of children with special requirements. Private schools are under no such obligation; and often charge significantly more for supports for students with learning differences.

                Full disclosure: my husband teaches at a private school. For students who thrive there, it’s a wonderful experience. For students who find trouble or fail to learn well in the school’s environment, it’s a disaster; and in the tight-knit community of the school, these students simply ‘disappear.’Report

              5. There are a few exceptions for public schools: magnet schools get to pick and choose. But this only goes to M.A.’s point about the reality of School Choice: the parents might choose but the good schools get to pick.

                Which isn’t to say all public schools are bad. I’ve previously shown how parents can make even a take-all-comers public school into a great school: they keep property taxes high and raise money for the school. This benefits their bottom line by keeping property values high. But at the end of the day, such efforts only drive off the families who can’t afford that zip code and school district.

                The poorly funded public schools become dumping grounds for everyone else.Report

              6. Read the study and feel free to reply or counter that, but please stop making up arguments clearly refuted by the study.

                “The superiority of market over monopoly provision of schooling revealed by the econometric literature thus does not, in practice, depend on the share of students enrolled in the private sector, as would be expected if that superiority depended on the consumption of private schooling only by a small, especially committed elite. When the majority, sometimes the vast majority, of schoolchil- dren enroll in the private sector, and when market schools still significantly out- perform their public sector counterparts, it is no longer reasonable to ascribe the market’s advantage to some special indefinable quality of a parental elite.”

                This is the most comprehensive study I have ever seen, and it overwhelmingly supports market bed schooling. The burden of proof is on the progressives to refute this. I am still waiting.Report

          3. The bottom quintile is likely the problem. But that’s 20% of all Americans.

            The problem with your placing the blame on bureaucracies and negative incentives from welfare-style programs is that the countries that have higher taxes to pay for more help for the poor are doing better on equality of opportunity, not worse. You want to fix the problem by making us less like the places that are solving the problem. By analogy, imagine if someone proposed shrinking the school year to make us more educationally competitive with Asia and Europe while they already have a longer school year. Space Madness!

            I think some of your incentive programs sound nice in theory, but they might suffer from all the problems that the war on drugs as an incentive to stop (primarily the poor) from using drugs failed. Beating people down with penalties for bad behavior doesn’t usually work. It makes them beaten down failures.

            But I am open to more specific suggestions.

            Have you seen ypur proposals succeed in another country? If not, what is your evience that they will work?Report

          4. penalize having kids out of wedlock

            Maybe channeling Helen Lovejoy here, but how does one go about imposing such penalties without harming the children involved? I understand there are subsidies to single-parent headed households, but as far as I can tell these benefits don’t even approach the difficulty involved in successfully raising a child in the US under those circumstances.

            (Not to mention the many reasons I’d suggest assigning blame – and penalties! – in this area isn’t constructive: abusive relationships, spousal deaths, or plain vanilla relationship breakdowns.)Report

            1. Creon,

              That is why I said experiment, as in we should be trying lots of things and seeing how they work. The full sentence stands on its own better than this phrase. In the end, we are not going to change their behavior. They will have to change. If they don’t change, then we will continued to have lots of young boys without fathers stuck in poverty. We aren’t likely to buy our way out of this one.Report

              1. Roger,

                When Shazbot5 posed the question, moderate libertarians where are your policy prescriptions, I expected things like negative income taxes, maybe responses on voluntarism and civil society. But I am not familiar with what wedlock-oriented interventions you’re suggesting we experiment with. The nearest thing I can imagine is potential disincentives, in the form of withdrawing benefits, due to marriage similar to the welfare trap. And even that doesn’t quite fit what you’re describing. Did you have something particular in mind?

                As for whether we can buy our way out of the problem, as a liberal I have a long wish list of state interventions in this equality of opportunity area: nurse home visits during pregnancy and after childbirth, paid maternity leave, a mandatory minimum of paid sick days, expanded head start and early childhood care/education, that whole spiel about sensitivity to vulnerable populations, etc., etc. I’d also agree with the arguments Shazbot5 ably makes elsewhere in this thread regarding comparing the US to peers on intergenerational socioeconomic mobility. Those countries with more social welfare provision appear to be successfully buying their way out of quite a few problems.Report

              2. Creon,

                Could you substantiate your final claim please? Please show me these countries that have as high or higher standards of living living on average, better mobility and higher standards of living in terms of consumption than America. Then let me know how their level of means tested income transfer compares to the US. Is it higher per poor person, lower or what? Them let me know what they do with their programs that we don’t. Also, please highlight any major differences in cultural diversity compared to the US. Specifically, do they have problem subcultures, and if so what are the sizes and nature of their issues?Report

              3. How do you want your standard of living denominated? In a GINI coefficient? That would be sorta recursive, being a measure of income inequality and I suspect you’d reject it on those grounds. But maybe you wouldn’t.

                Thing is, how would you go about measuring a standard of living? Awful lot of intangibles in such a measure.Report

              6. There are arguments for different methods, but the most solidly measurable is GDP per capita expressed in terms of purchasing power parity. I usually turn to the CIA’s World Factbook to get that info.

                GDP based measures aren’t perfect, and I’m not going to pretend they are. But other measures aren’t perfect, either, and at least it actually measures standard of living, unlike GINI. (A country where everyone has exactly nothing has a great GINI score, while a country where everyone lives comfortably but there are some Bill Gates’s and Sultans of Brunei would have a worse GINI score.)Report

              7. Shazbot and fellow progressives are the ones claiming that we are worse off than someplace else. I am asking them to define their terms. What is the problem and who does it better and what do they do different and how much do they spend compared to us?

                I have made my point crystal clear. The glaring inadequacy in the US is lack of upward mobility for lowest quintile males. Once we define the problem, it narrows the range of explanations and cures.Report

              8. If someone wants to argue for using the Human Development Index, that’s less straightforward, but might be even better. It is composed of three variables:
                1. Life expectancy at birth;
                2. Education (measuring a combination of school enrollment and adult literacy);
                3. Standard of living as measured by GDP per capita on a purchasing power parity (in U.S. dollars) basis.Report

              9. GINI coupled with GDP: that’s really what HDI is, after all. Saudi Arabia has some shocking poverty, though it’s got pots of money. I look at GINI numbers, not on a national basis, but with extreme locality.

                Take northern New Jersey. What you get in some of these places is millionaires and their maids. In other places, rural Louisiana, you have extensive poverty across the board. There are ways of looking at this situation but you can’t evict the GINI coefficient quite so easily. It appears in the Lorenz Curve. The magnitude of inequality matters: no economy can do well when it’s got extremes of wealth and poverty.Report

              10. Life expectancy and education !=GINI.

                Again, if none of us have anything, we have a high GINI score. If our society has $1 and I have it and you don’t, we have a horrible GINI score. That’s not to say GINI’s meaningless; just that it doesn’t actually tell us anything about how well off we are, only about how whatever wealth we have–weather zilch or a lot–is distributed.Report

              11. I didn’t say they were. I said HDI is GINI + GDP and that’s been congruent and have been for a long time now. Where they’re different, I have reasons to discount the differences.

                GINI only confirms everything else. We have a great deal of wealth, also a great deal of poverty in the USA. Those distributions vary by location. Same holds true in other countries. Different countries, different reasons for inequality.

                I contend we shouldn’t worry about skinning the very wealthy. Robin Hood economics is bullshit. To affect the Lorenz Curve, do I really have to do the math for you to explain why a steep Lorenz Curve is bad for a country? Here’s the Lorenz Curve for the rest of usReport

              12. I said HDI is GINI + GDP

                But HDI is Education + Life Expectancy + GDP.

                Formally, that would mean GINI = Education + Life Expectancy.

                And that’s false.Report

              14. Well, if you reject GDP out of hand, then you can’t accept the HDI since it’s based partly on GDP.

                And I never said GINI had no correlation with life expectancy. You said HDI was GINI + GDP, which would mean GINI _is_ Life Expectancy + Education. Which it’s not, despite the correlation. If you want to say they’re correlated, then say they’re correlated, don’t say one _is_ the other. You and I both know those don’t mean the same thing.

                Look, this is getting stupid. Let’s just move on. I’ve rejected GINI; you’ve rejected GDP per pop on a PPP basis. HDI’s currently still on the table: do you agree we can use that as a standard, or do you propose another alternative for consideration?Report

              15. Will you read what I wrote? You have a really bad habit of this, James. When you’re paying attention, you’re good company and excellent discourse. When I’m pointing out the obvious here, that all these statistical measures are easily poisoned and there seems to be a fresh crop of statisticians ready to inflict more upon us, that the GINI coefficient is an excellent predictor of what’s going on in such measures as life expectancy, you’re like a pig looking at a wristwatch. I don’t like HDI because it’s only a re-examination of what GINI already tells us. I don’t like GDP because it doesn’t reveal the true extent of the problem, that is to say, income disparity.

                If capitalism is to be a viable mechanism for lifting the poor out of poverty, and it seems to be the only one remaining, what with the demise of Communism which promised much and delivered nothing but tyranny, the poor must earn their way out of poverty. And that only works when there’s somewhere Up to go. In terminal capitalism, the whole thing collapses in a pile, wheezing its last as the Lenins and Maos and Hitlers all find reasons to behead the capitalists. Eliminating poverty is in a nation’s best interests and that progress won’t be measured by Gross Domestic Product.Report

              16. Oh, that Blaise decided to answer. Joy.

                Look if you want GINI to be the standard, just say it clearly (you’ve done anything but that). But you asked what would be acceptable, and I already rejected GINI. You can’t ask someone else what standard they would like and then demand they take the one you want. So I still say no to GINI.

                I’m not interested in playing those games with you.Report

              17. I think I’m going to coin a new unit of measure and submit it to SIU: the hanley. It’s a deterministic unit of differential overpressure measuring the combined forces of misunderstanding and vehemence.

                I’ve already said GINI doesn’t work unless it’s seen in context, often in very small contexts, hence that business about New Jersey and Louisiana. I’ve outlined the troublesome parts of GINI: it obscures as much as it reveals. Wealth and poverty are simple nouns extracted from troublesome assertions about the role of the wealthy and the lot of the poor.

                Your own example reveals how poorly you understand this problem: in a world where you have a dollar and I don’t, say, maybe I can sell you a dozen mangoes for that dollar. Now you have the mangoes and I have the dollar. That’s capitalism, money moving down into the hands of some poor man who went out and gathered them and brought them to you, so you don’t have to.

                In New Jersey, with millionaires and maids, precious little of that money’s moving down, not that it ought to or even could move down. The rich don’t need servants any more: it’s gauche. What with labour saving devices and luxury cars, maybe some rich guy who has to go from Bergen County to Manhattan might want a limo driver.

                There was only so much lace required for a nobleman’s neck in 1793 and the sanculottes made sure there were fewer such necks. When the poor get poor enough, there’s always a Robespierre.Report

              18. Heh, you’re insulting me on precisely the point where you’re most like me. Classic.

                But to the issue at hand; you still haven’t answered the question. We’re looking for a measure of standard of living. Do you agree with using HDI? If not, what do you propose?Report

              19. Let’s not have any of that, Hanley. I already put forward what I proposed.

                But let’s make this clearer, since you don’t seem to grasp this: let there be a three dimensional GINI map, with a multivariate calculus to describe income inequality. We can thus see Bergen County as high-income but also high-homelessness. GDP doesn’t reveal that problem. But the GINI coefficient predicts such things are a natural by-product of income inequality. Helps you spot trouble hiding in plain sight. But GINI tells you less and less, the larger the sample size becomes. Poor places are also cheaper to live in, like rural Louisiana.Report

              20. A) I think we ought to use a method that’s actually already out there, so we can all be pulling the same numbers. If we’re going to answer Roger’s question about comparing European countries to the U.S., we need to do that–however imperfect–instead of trying to devise a new system nobody else is using.

                B) If that system gets less useful as our sample size increases, then it’s not going to do much good for comparing European countries to the U.S., which was the question that was asked.

                If this debate isn’t ultimately going to focus on the question Roger asked, then I’m not interested. And maybe to you it still seems focused on that, but to me it doesn’t. Our analytical styles are clearly radically different, and I think that’s what leads to a lot of our disagreements.Report

              21. Not to imply I’m a fan, but a suitably Rawlsian metric might be “average income of the bottom X%.” Rawls would want X to be very small, but data limitations and statistical stability considerations might make X=10 a good compromise. If the actual stats weren’t available, and you were willing to make assumptions about the common shape of the income distributions (e.g., they are all Pareto), then you could use the Gini index to allocation per-cap GDP to the deciles.Report

              22. Roger,

                I’d refer you to Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility or Immobility across Generations? A Review of the Evidence for OECD Countries by Anna Cristina d’Addio (pdf), from the summary,

                Intergenerational earnings mobility varies significantly across countries. It is higher in the Nordic countries, Canada and Australia but lower in Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom….

                Early and sustained investment in children and families can help. A key role is played by early childhood education, care and health. Financial transfers and in-kind services to parents are also important as they provide them with the resources to better rear and care for their children. Overall, a strategy based on a greater investment in children holds the promise of breaking the cycle of intergenerational disadvantages because of its effects in reducing child poverty and contributing to child development.

                OECD web stats portal appears to be down at the moment, but the more detailed answers can be found there, but offhand I know that social welfare provision by the US lags behind many OECD peers.

                Lastly, this subcultures cul-de-sac, I get the impression from the discussion that there are somehow these singularly unique situations in the US: immigrant populations, households where the dominant language isn’t spoken at home, child poverty, single-parent headed households. These are not challenges that are unique to the US and it hasn’t been beyond the wit of policymakers in OECD peers to design intervention that yield more successful outcomes. Not even leaving the anglosphere, Canada and Australia spring to mind as exhibiting better performance than the US on important metrics (see pages 55-57 of the linked report, figures 7-10, charts on performance gaps in math by economic background, single-parent households, and first generation or non-native students).Report

              23. Creon,

                On your question, the issue is this. We created a dependency trap. For the last few generations, we created a monolithic bureaucracy which paid women to have kids without dads. And this is what we got, in abundance. We paid people who claimed disability to stay home, and we got them in abundance. We allowed poor schools to be captured by rent seekers who worried about themselves rather than the kids. So we got several generations of a subclass of people who are poorly educated, don’t work and have kids that are raise by stay at home uneducated moms that never learned to read to their kids and invest in them.

                As we warned, institutional bureaucracies that are established to address social problems usually become parasitic on the problem. The institution thrives by NOT solving, and even worsening the problem, as long as the cause and effects aren’t blatantly obvious. Thus they thrive on creating these webs of dependency. And thisi s what we got in abundance.

                The statists created this with perverse incentives and good intentions. Now they want those of us that opposed them to offer suggestions on how to get out of it? Am I allowed to suggest time machines where we get to reverse the perverse incentive systems we established back in the 60s when things started spinning out if control?

                I assume no. So the question becomes how do we dismantle this monster in such a way as to avoid harming the people that depend on safety nets, and simultaneously change safety nets so they discourage dependency rather than encourage it?

                The answer to schools is easy, and you know what I will say. On the issue of aid to kids and moms, the answer is to experiment with local, bottoms up solutions. The communities need to find ways to encourage finishing high school, not having kids before marriage unless they can afford them, holding the dads accountable for child support, encouraging contraception and requiring work for benefits. The details will depend upon the culture.

                The measures of success are not money spent, but progress over time at accomplishing the critical three steps to get out of poverty. Finish school, get and hold a full time job and don’t have kids out of wedlock. How might they address these? Some may experiment with paternity requirements for aid. Moms will get substantially higher benefits if they disclose who the father is, so the father can be held responsible to supplement this money. There are hundreds of bad ways to do this, and potentially a few good ways. When a good way is discovered, it can spread to other communities. Moms can be required to do a full time job, with some of the moms employed educating and attending to the kids, including reading. Some of the communities will establish expectations for good motherhood.

                My suggestion though is not DO THIS. It is create a decentralized system that is rewarded for discovering how to solve the problem. Failure to do this just means we will continue to throw away a class of humans.

                The only way to solve this is to help the communities to solve it themselves.Report

        2. “I assume you will say that the problem is that America has too many blacks and hispanics, and they will fail in large numbers, so we will always see a higher degree of intergenerational poverty in the U.S because of race. And then I will accuse you of racism. If you say that.”

          And you assume this why?

          So, how much more money needs to be spent and how will extra amount spent make improvements? If you will tell me this, I’ll take you seriously. Liberals always say more needs to be spent, but spending more doesn’t do the trick, so they say spend more.Report

    3. The author argues that there is substantially less equality of opportunity in the U.S. now as opposed to decades ago, and that other wealthy, western countries are now much more likely to offer equal (or soewhat equal, anyway) opportunity to succeed to all people.

      The most damning stat, IMO, is that only 9 percent of lower class Americans go to college, while it’s closer to 54% if you are not lower class. Brutal. things are not this bad in Canada, Norther Europe, and elsewhere.

      More lower and middle class Americans go to college now than decades ago. It used to be the province of the elite, and has continually trickled down to the masses. Community colleges are ubiquitous, so almost everyone has the opportunity for some college (and some only need some college, and others may not benefit from any amount college at all).

      What’s changed is the decline in high paying manufacturing jobs for those without a college education. And those aren’t coming back. They only existed in the first place because a) much of the industrialized world was rebuilding the world after WWII, b) most of the rest of the world hadn’t begun industrializing yet, and c) the U.S. imposed tariffs on imported goods.

      None of those are good things, even though they collectively benefited America’s uneducated. And those times aren’t coming back. When people focus on the blue collar past, it’s important to remember that it was a only very short period of time, post WWII to early-mid 1970s, about three decades, and was based on a unique set of circumstances that won’t return (nor should we want them to).

      So if we want that greater opportunity–and I imply no argument in any direction on that point–we will have to build it on a very different model. Perhaps something more like a European model, but let’s not over-romanticize those and fool ourselves into thinking there isn’t a significant underclass in Europe, too.

      I’m sorry I won’t be able to follow up this discussion (family duties dominate the day), but that’s my two cents.Report

      1. Thanks James,

        I agree with some of this, I think. But this claim seems false or exagerated: “More lower and middle class Americans go to college now than decades ago. It used to be the province of the elite, and has continually trickled down to the masses.

        The author of the articled I cited claims the following: “The economists Martha Bailey and Susan Dynarski have compared the college completion rates of Americans who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s to the rates of those who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. The share of young adults from high-income homes that got a four-year college degree rose from 36 percent in the first group to 54 percent in the second group. The share from low-income homes, however, stayed almost flat, rising only from five percent to nine percent. ”

        I get that some people only need some community college for their career, but on average pay and a completed college eductation are correlated and there is a causal connection. So the lower classes do not have much acess to college at all. Not like they do in other places.

        I agree that unions won’t work to solve our problem, long term. (They can help.) Unions that would have the levelling effect of old manufacturing unions would have to be very different. (Maybe if every retail worker in America belonged to one union, they could threaten to strike and have a lot of power, but that is fantasy land, IMO.)

        I think the liberal solution is borne out in Europe to some degree: more benefits for the poor, more education subsidies, strong unions (helps a bit), etc.

        Is there a moderate libertarian solution to the problem of inequality of opportunity? Is it politically feasible? Has it ever been tried such that there is evidence (as Europe is evidence that the liberal solution will work) that it is likely to work?Report

        1. Shaz,

          Going from 5% to 9% is not flat at all. In fact, it is an 80% jump in the number of college attendees from low-income homes. Is 9% still too low? Probably. But that is certainly not flat.Report

          1. It is flat relative to the growth of college attendance rates for the upper and middle class here in the U.S. and relative to growth rates for all lower, middle, amd upper classes in many other 1st world countries.

            In brief, a move from 5 to 9% completion rates over decades sucks butt. It is a total failure, especially compared to what has been done elsewhere.Report

        2. Shazbot,

          You are not being comprehensive in your analysis.

          http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/123566

          “America’s economy has outperformed all other industrialized nations. The vast majority of Americans have fared well over the period of the cbo study. In fact, the U.S. economy has been the best-performing large economy in the world as measured by per-capita gdp and median standard of living. According to the oecd, per-capita gdp in the U.S. in 2010 was $46,600, which is 47 percent higher than the $31,800 average per-capita gdp in the eu nations in that year.

          In addition to substantially higher gdp per capita, the U.S. has a significantly higher standard of living than almost all of the most advanced economies. According to “The Luxembourg Wealth Study,” the data source used by the oecd for international comparisons, in 2002 (the latest year for which results were available), median disposable personal income in the U.S., adjusted to reflect purchasing power parity, was 19.3 percent higher than in Canada; 68 percent higher than in Finland; 45 percent higher than in Germany; 59 percent higher than in Italy; 31 percent higher than in Norway; 73 percent higher than in Sweden; and 31 percent higher than in the United Kingdom.10

          The figures for gdp per capita and median income understate America’s economic performance advantage because the median age of the U.S. population (36.8 years) is about four years lower than the average median age in the European Union and almost eight years lower than in Japan. Age, as a proxy for experience, is a significant contributor to income until individual earnings peak sometime between age 50 and 55. In addition to higher median incomes, Americans also have higher median net worth, a further contributor to the difference in standards of living.

          On a per-capita basis, the U.S. once again outperformed, albeit by a smaller margin. During the comparable period, real compound annual gdp per-capita growth in the U.S. was 2.1 percent, higher than the 1.8 percent weighted average growth of other members of the g-7. Again using per-capita numbers, in 2009 the U.S. economy contracted about 4.3 percent, which was less than the 5.1 percent contraction recorded by the other g-7 members. And in 2010, the U.S. economy grew 2.1 percent, 31 percent higher than the 1.6 percent growth of non-U.S. g-7 countries.

          Further evidence of the superior economic performance of the U.S. economy comes from a comparison of unemployment rates. The average unemployment rate in the United States from 1982 to 2007 was 6.0 percent, compared with 9.0 percent in France, 8.3 percent in Germany, and 7.7 percent in the United Kingdom.”Report

          2. There is no doubt that the U.S. is a wealthy country. (And we aren’t comparing the U.?s to all E.I. countries, only the wealtheir ones, but even there the U.S. is on top.)

            I am not disputing that. I am disputing that the U.S. is a society woth equality of opportunity. It clearly isn’t, not at least in comparison with other wealthy countries.

            Perhaps you mean to suggest that if we create equal opportunity for our citizens, we will cease being the wealthiest. I have 2 responses: 1. What evidence is there that the U.S.’s great wealth is caused (in a significant way) by the same policies that create an inequality of opportunity (e.g. not making university free)

            In other words, how do you know that the U.S.’s wealth isn’t caused by factors other than low taxes and a minimal spending on equality of opportunity, e.g. it’s natural resources (especially oil), large free trade zone that has existed for centuries, large fiscal union, succesful open immigration policies that have drawn the worlds best, succesful public and private investment in univesrities, a headstart after the devastation of WWII, etc.?

            2. Isn’t some tradeoff of equality of opportunity for wealth worth it? (Harder question.) If so (I think you will say, yes, some tradeoff is worth it) then how do we go about determining how much tradeoff is worth it? (Serious question for all of us, I think.)Report

        3. Shazbot,

          First, I find high vs. low income categories unclear. Is there no middle group, or are they excluding the middle group?

          Second, an increase from 5% to 9% is an 80% increase, whereas an increase from 36% to 54% is only a 56% increase. So not only is 5% to 9% not almost flat, it’s a much greater rate of increase than for the high income group–42% higher.

          Yes, I get that you’d like even more lower income people to go to college, and I’m not criticizing that. But looking at 5 to 9 and thinking it’s not much isn’t the proper way to look at numbers. A 4 percentage point increase doesn’t tell us much, because at that low end it’s an 80% increase, while if the increase was from 95 to 99%, it would only be a 4.2% increase.

          Third, the numbers support what I said; more people of lesser means are going to college now than in the past, so whatever the causes of our possibly increasing inequality, access to college isn’t it.

          Finally, as to a moderate libertarian (and I did notice and really do appreciate your use if the phrase) approach to reducing inequality… I won’t claim this is complete on its own, but reducing the red tape and restrictions to starting one’s own business could go a long way toward that I think. Despite our image of ourselves, the U.S. has a smaller percentage of small businesses, as a fraction of total number of businesses, than does Europe. As Roger and I, among others, have frequently pointed out, licensure laws often create unnecesary barriers to entry that limit opportunities for the less well off, and one of my personal pet peeves are municipalities’ restrictions on the number of taxicab medallions.

          That may seem off target, but I have a vivid memory of my 20th high school reunion, when several people wanted to see me because I was the only one of my high school class who’d earned a PhD.* I was more impressed by how many o f them had started their own businesses, from the cute girl who bought a used dump truck and built it into one of the area’s largest fleets to the guy who owned a couple of used pieces of earth moving equipment and did excavation work. They weren’t college types, so that wasn’t what they needed. There’s a lot of people like them. Let’s not make it so damned hard.

          At this point a predictable response is, having national health care would help with that. I’d say that’s not enough by itself, but I agree it would help.

          *Funny thing was, I was never the top student in my class. At the reunion I ran into Gary, who had always been a better student, and much quicker, than me. He’d followed his dream of becoming a golf pro and felt like he got paid to play games every day. Which persuaded me that he always had been and still was a lot smarter than me.Report

          1. Hi James,

            Yes, I do recognize you are a moderate and we agree on more than it sometimes seems.

            There’s a lot here in your comment. Let me ssay a few things and forgive me for not addressing more.

            I think this way (and it isn’t me who wrote the quote, but Bailey and Dynasrski) of seeing the numbers on college completion is correct. The numbers are awful for the U.S. The problem is that at this rate (a 4% increase over decades) we will have to wait centuries for the to be equality of opportunity (in college completion) between the kids of the different classes. The upper and middle classes are already at 56% and climbing (and climbing faster than the lower class kids).

            By analogy, imagine if the same were true of U.S. kids test scores versus the rest of the kids in the world. Suppose we used to have 5%nof kids succeed at attaining some high score in math and science and decades later it was 9 %. And imagine during the same time period kids around the world went from scoring that same high score 36% of the time to 54% of the time.

            Would the proper response be, “Don’t worry, our kids improved 80% while the kids around the world improved much less?” No, we would never be educationally equal with the rest of the world at that growth rate, so it would be a big cause for concern. (Unless you don’t care about test scores. But by analogy, I’m assuming we all care about equality of opportunity.)

            I think killing some red tape and taxes on small startups is a great idea. I also think that the government should have a program that covers the interest on loans for people starting their first small business and a program that guarantees those loans, just like first mortgages and student loans. I think the Clinton’s had a similar idea. (To limit the program, we could offer it to people who hadn’t gotten a subsidized student loan or something like that.)

            But with both killing red tape and subsidized, guaranteed small business loans, as you surely know, the devil is in the details.

            And thanks again. I am enjoying your comments greatly. I hope you will do an OP about equality of opportunity at some point.Report

            1. Shazbot,
              at this rate (a 4% increase over decades)

              No, that’s looking at it wrong. Think about an 80% increase over decades. The next increase gets you 7 percentage points increase, not 4. And the one after that gets you 13 percentage points increase. And then you’re at 29%. And the one after that gets you a 23 percentage point increase, and then you’re at 52%.

              If you focus just on a 4 percentage point increase, you’ll understate the actual rate of increase at the current rate. Now, do we want to bend that curve up even more? Perhaps so, but to know how much more we want to ratchet it up, we need to be sure we’re analyzing it correctly.

              The upper and middle classes are already at 56% and climbing (and climbing faster than the lower class kids).

              No, that’s incorrect. The more well off increased at only a 56% rate, less than the rate of increase for the less well off. This is a really important point to get right. The poor increased their frequency of college attendance at a greater rate than the more well off did.Report

              1. Hmmm…. We seem to be at an argumentative impasse here.

                Let me ask a question. The study cites that the college completion rate amongst the poor has gone from 5 to 9 percent over decades. Assuming that we know only that fact in the study, do you expect the rate of growth of college completion to increase exponentially instead of steadily.

                It seems to me, if you’re reading of the numbers is correct, we will see exponential growth as follows:

                From 5-9 percent in the first time period (80% growth), from 9% to 16.2% in the second time period (80% again), from 16.2% to 29.16% in the third time period (80% growth), from 29.16% to 52.488% in the fourth time period (80% growth), from 52.48% to 94.4874% in the fifth time period.

                Well, I can see why you think that isn’t flat. It’s a boom!

                But why do you assume the exponential growth of 80% growth from the prior period instead of a flat 4% overall increase in college completion every time period?

                I admit, we might see evidence for the exponential growth if we had the numbers. That would be interesting.

                However, the authors of the study (peer-reviewed and by trained social scientists) don’t look at the data and see exponential growth and signs of encouragement. Moreover, Kenworthy is a social scientist, has seen the data, and he describes the rate of growth as “flat.” Not me.

                I don’t have access to pay-walled journals (I’m guessing as a Prof, you do.) So, I can’t look at the data in the Dynarski paper to look for evidence of exponential growth (i.e. that recent years in the past few decades have seen greater growth in college completion rates than prior years).

                The Times also explains the data on rates of college completion and poverty over time in the U.S. as extremely discouraging and, so to speak, flat:

                http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

                If you are right, the Times, Dynarski and Kenworthy are all wrong about these numbers.

                Maybe you are, but we will need to see the numbers to prove that so many reliable sources are so wrong.Report

              3. I don’t expect it to continue at an 80% rate, because easy gains come early and later gains get harder. So I’d expect the rate of increase to diminish. How much, I don’t know. It could fall to 70%, or 60%, or maybe even less.

                But why do you keep talking about a 4% increase? There’s been no 4% increase. That’s a misreading of the numbers. There’s 4 percentage points, but that is not a 4 percent increase. A 4 percent increase would have increased the poor’s college attendance to only 5.2%.

                It’s critical to distinguish between percentage points and percent–they’re not the same, and confusing them makes for a confused argument.Report

              4. I forgot about this dispute. I get that you think the exponential growth will slow as the low-hanging fruit disappears. No dispute about the low hanging fruit.

                But why would you expect exponential growth (even minus the low hanging fruit) instead of steady growth (which the social scientists looking at the numbers describe as flat)?

                Suppose there are 1000 people in Shaztown. in 1999 1 is on welfare. But over 1 year, 20 more go on welfare. How many should we expect to go on welfare the next year? And the next year?

                A.) We could say that the percentage increase in the past year is from 1/1000 to 20/1000, or a 2000% increase of the population on welfare. Assuming that the rate will continue to increase at 2000%, we should assume that 400 people will go on welfare.

                B.) We could assume, other things being equal, that since 19 new people went on welfare, 19 more will go on welfare this year.

                Model A.) is exponential, while B.) is not.

                Why should we assume A.) is correct (it seems insane) even if we adjust expectations for low hanging fruit.

                Shouldn’t we only assume A.) if we have evidence that the rate at which the number of people are going on welfare is going up, not just evidence that the number is going up?

                By analogy, in the case of Dynarski’s claims about education, we do not seem to have evidence that the rate at which the poor are completing college is increasing. So we should not assume the exponential model for future projections.Report

              6. I don’t expect either exponential growth or steady growth or even growth at all. I don’t have expectations because I am very uncertain about what the public policies will be. I was only using the exponential as an explanation of why you needed to look at the 80% increase instead of the 4 percentage point increase.

                But if 5% to 9%, an 80% rate of increase, is not an increase, then everything I was ever taught about math must be wrong. Now if you’ve not given me complete information, and Dynarski is claiming that we had an 80% increase, but we’ve stalled at 9% college attendance rates, that’s a different story. But if Dynarski is saying an increase from 5%- 9% is flat, then he’s mathematically illiterate. If he’s a social scientist, there’s an unfortunately high probability of that.Report

              7. James you said:

                “Think about an 80% increase over decades. The next increase gets you 7 percentage points increase, not 4. And the one after that gets you 13 percentage points increase. And then you’re at 29%. And the one after that gets you a 23 percentage point increase, and then you’re at 52%.”

                And you said:

                “I don’t expect either exponential growth”

                The claim of the social scientists in the paper is that the growth of college attendance rates amongst the poor in the U.S. are very flat in that they only grew from 5-9 percent over more than a decade and are thus only likely to increase to 13 percent in another decade and 17 percent.

                Granted, the rate is surely increasing slowly. So they must mean “nearly flat” or “flat relative to the growth of the wealthy in the U.S. and the poor and the wealthy in other countries.”

                It seems to me you want to pick nits and say that there is an 80%, exponential growth rate and so the rate is not flat and so the authors are wrong. But the rate is flat (or almost flat or relatively flat) once we recognize that there is no reason to believe that the growth, going forward, is exponential. Rather the evidence shows a slow growth from 5-9 percent, and then likely 9-13, and then 13-17. That growth is very flat compared to the growth of 34-56 amongst the wealthy.

                Please be charitable.Report

              8. Last point: Suppose the college completion rate had gone from 0.00000001 percent in 1980 to 0.001 percent in 1990 in one population.

                I characterize that growth as flat, especially relative to the growth from 25 percent to 100 percent, a (difference of 75 percentage points) in the other population.

                But by your logic, the college completion in the first population is not flat; it has gone up by 1000000 percent!

                This suggests to me that you are using the word flat in a way that growth, no matter how small, can never be characterized as flat.

                Moreover, what counts as flat, by your logic, will depend upon how small or big the number we started with is. If the growth in Dynarksi’s example had been from 20 to 24 percent, that would not be an 80% growth, i.e. it would be pretty flat, but the same amount of growth, starting at a lower level, i.e. from 5 to 9 percent, is not dest described as flat, by your logic.

                You can use the word flat however you want. But it is clear that there is a very common use of “flat” that is correct to use in the case of Dynarski’s numbers.Report

              9. But it is clear that there is a very common use of “flat” that is correct to use in the case of Dynarski’s numbers.

                You’re welcome to tell that to all my stats profs. I understand why you’re looking at percentage points, but that’s not the approach generally preferred by people who work with numbers for a living. I’m not choosing to focus on percentage increase for any partisan purpose. There’s no argument I’m trying to make look better. I’m choosing to focus on percentage increase regardless of how it affects my argument because I was trained to a) focus on percentages rather than percentage points, and b) stick to the data regardless of whether it helps or hurts a particular hypothesis.

                You can do as you wish, but until persuaded otherwise by people whose mathematical expertise I respect, I’m sticking with what my stats profs said.Report

              10. Let me qualify that a little bit. If your tax rate is 1%, and it gets raised to 2%, it’s pretty stupid to complain that your taxes doubled. But if you can expect regular increases, you sure as hell better hope they’re going to use the percentage point increase rather the percentage increase, because there’ll be really wide divergence in just a couple of years. So when we’re looking at change across multiple time periods, it’s usually wiser to look at what the rate of change (percentage) is.Report

              11. James,

                I am glad you qualified this, as for the first time in 1042 comments, I was almost ready to side with Shazbot.

                To quote Jack Burton, That would have really rocked the pillars of hell.Report

              13. Here’s the deal, from someone who does work with numbers. James is right to say the number of students has increased by 80%. But it’s a shockingly low total percentage, which has only increased by 4%. Every employer wants to see at least a two year college degree these days. That being the case, yes, more poor kids are graduating from four year schools. Why are more graduating? Nobody’s laying that out. It could be more scholarship money. It could be that colleges aren’t as tough as they used to be and grade pressure is therefore lower. None of that’s brought into the picture.

                I hate percentages anyway. It’s far more direct to express such things as ratios.Report

              15. Oh stop it. Total percentage. Another thing I hate, those graphs which only show you from 1 to 10 when the total range examined goes to 100. Big increase in total graduates, looky here, almost doubled !

                That’s wilful distortion of the evidence. Seen in context, we’ve gone from 95% to 91% of non-graduates.Report

          2. He’d followed his dream of becoming a golf pro and felt like he got paid to play games every day.

            That’s kind of how I feel; they pay me to solve puzzles. And I suck at golf.Report

        4. Is there a moderate libertarian solution to the problem of inequality of opportunity?

          It’s important to acknowledge here what “inequality of opportunity” actually means. Leftists often talk about this as if any correlation between a parents’ and children’s income were due to the parents buying advantages for their children, or to the presence of huge material barriers to the children of the poor succeeding, and this really isn’t the case at all. It’s impossible to have any sort of intelligent discussion of these issues without acknowledging the role played genetics, upbringing, and peer groups.

          This is not to say that material factors don’t play a role. But they’re not the only factor, and probably not even the biggest. And between thirteen years of free public schooling, libraries, heavily subsidized community and state colleges, student loans, and need-based financial aid, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot left for the government to do to mitigate material barriers to socioeconomic mobility.Report

            1. Cites for what, exactly? I didn’t really make any specific claims about the weights of these factors. Are you saying that those aren’t factors?Report

              1. Specifically this sentence: “But they’re not the only factor, and probably not even the biggest.”

                You say “leftists” ignore the things that you believe are more important, so I’m wondering if you have evidence that they are more important. If not, I’m not sure we can have an “intelligent discussion of these issues” with you.Report

          2. Well, other countries do much better with intergenerational socioeconomic mobility. Presumably, they face similiar situations in terms of ” genetics, upbringing, and peer groups” (especially Canada, which is culturally very similar).

            Unless, by “genetics” you mean racial diversity and you want to pin the lack of intergenerational socioeconomic mobility on blacks and hispanics being black and hispanic. That would be racist, IMO.

            Not accusing you of racism, just pointing out that you need to explain how “genetics” are more of a problem (i.e. more of a cause of inequality) here in the U.S. than places where there is less inequality of opportunity.Report

            1. Immigration patterns will do ya. IQ is more class based than “race based” but in America that means “race based” because not all of our races came here as equals.

              Not that I’m defending his other points, as I think we’ve got a long way to go…Report

        5. Allow me to repeat myself: I don’t think we have the stomach for the conversation about the level of paternalism required to start changing certain sub-cultures.

          I don’t think that I can discuss whether some types of parenting are better than others without lighting a fuse.Report

          1. And allow me to repeat myself: parenting and SES do not have a one-way, linear relationship. There are ways to influence parenting in a direction more compatible with upwards SES mobility than simply governing people’s parenting.Report

            1. Remember the “If I were a poor black kid” column by Gene Marks and how absolutely obtuse it was? How we all knew that it just “wasn’t that easy”?

              Culture does a lot of things and, for the most part, culture does a very good job of… “protecting” isn’t the right word… “embracing”, maybe? Its members. There are rewards for fitting in, punishments for not fitting in, and a lot of little things that are done to perpetuate itself.

              These things are the results of millions of choices, made by millions of individuals. To change a culture, with its attendant carrots and sticks? I’m uncomfortable even talking about it.Report

              1. Yeah, I’m not even talking about changing cultures directly. That is, I’m not talking about legislating culture. I’m talking about opening up options, so parents have time to read to their kids (to run with one of your favorite examples), or so that there are after school programs that are easy for parents to utilize (which means, among other things, that they have transportation) in which someone else reads to their children while they work their second jobs, or their second shift jobs, or run a friggin’ household. Even offering subsidized adult education that is easily accessible can help, because educated adults are more likely to read to their children (or otherwise encourage education in their children).

                Having lived in poor to very poor neighborhoods and middle class neighborhoods, and being close to people in upper middle and upper class neighborhoods, one of the things that strikes me the most is the difference in options. Sure, there are cultural barriers that are going to be a problem, particularly in certain areas where hope is fleeting, but I think you’d be surprised at how quickly and easily those barriers can overcome if options are available, if people have clear paths in front of them that suggest even the possibility of something better at the end.Report

              2. Opening up options is something I’m always going to be in favor of.

                With that said, I suspect that the time horizon problem is one that will need to be addressed before the options that have rewards sufficiently deferred won’t be seen as realistic options by a significant portion of the community. Sure, there might be enough that they will be measurable changes at the margin rather than statistical noise… but I don’t know exactly how much bang for the buck we’re hoping for.Report

              3. I’ve got a piece I’ve started about a half dozen times and can’t really get anywhere with that touches on this. The premise is an explanation of why I generally focus on the roles and actions of white people when discussing racism in America. A big part of it is the idea that cultures can only meaningfully change from within; as such, while I have thoughts and ideas on factors within other cultures/races that contribute to the various gaps we see between and among different cultures/races, there isn’t much use in me focusing on those since those factors are not mine to address. I probably will never get that piece done, not in a way that I am comfortable to put out there, but suffice it to say that it (and I) would very much agree with this sentiment.Report

              4. And that’s the exact problem I have.

                If we can’t bear to talk about it, I doubt we’ll have the stomach to put our shoulders into any changes we actually propose.

                If I may mix my metaphors.Report

              5. For me, it is not so much that I am unwilling or uncomfortable talking about it. It is more that I’m not sure anyone would or should listen. If black folks collectively came to me and said, “Kazzy, what should we do?”, I’d be willing to offer a very non-expert opinion that I would remind them was likely to be wrong. But I haven’t been asked that.

                More importantly, (on racial issues) white folks have to get their own house in order before we starting lecturing other groups on what to do with their own houses.

                On these broader “culture” issues, well, I think the same holds true: those of us within the culture of power have our own work to do from within our culture to address the imbalances that exist before we start lecturing anyone.Report

              6. While I would never wish to watch a culture-specific hoarders marathon (ugh, I’m nauseated just thinking of such a thing), I’m not sure that the whole “get the speck out of your own eye before you help the people with the beam” is likely to result in either beams or specks being removed…

                Especially if you take into account the fact that not enough people are good at economics to see helping other cultures as something that would raise all boats rather than seeing it as something that would result in er jerbs being took.Report

              7. Do you mean to imply that if we offered impoverished black parents and young people European-levels of subsidies, we wouldn’t solve the problem of inequality of opportunity, because black people wouldn’t take the opportunities and run with them in the way impoverished white Europeans do?

                You seem to believe that black culture is preventing blacks from succeeding socioeconomically.

                If so, what do you believe is causing black culture to be so awful in this respect?

                I would say the cause of any problem in black culture (and I think the problem is much less severe tha you are implying) is intergenerational poverty and the lingering and ongoing effects of institutional and personal racism. Take away the poverty (and weaken the racism implicit in drug laws especially) and you change whatever negative problem there is in the culture.

                Sorry to use bold, like a jerk, but I need to emphasize what I think is important in my comment.Report

              8. Do you mean to imply that if we offered impoverished black parents and young people European-levels of subsidies, we wouldn’t solve the problem of inequality of opportunity, because black people wouldn’t take the opportunities and run with them in the way impoverished white Europeans do?

                I’m not talking about “black people”.

                I’m talking about “cultures”.

                If you cannot distinguish between “people who have a particular skin color” and “sub-cultures”, perhaps you’d be happier speaking with Republicans.

                You seem to believe that black culture is preventing blacks from succeeding socioeconomically.

                You’re the one using the phrase “black culture”, as if it were monolithic.

                If so, what do you believe is causing black culture to be so awful in this respect?

                I don’t believe in such a thing as “black culture”. The way that I would use the term, it’s broad to the point of nigh-uselessness, the way you seem to be using the term, I find it inaccurate to the point of dishonesty.

                I would say the cause of any problem in black culture (and I think the problem is much less severe tha you are implying) is intergenerational poverty and the lingering and ongoing effects of institutional and personal racism. Take away the poverty (and weaken the racism implicit in drug laws especially) and you change whatever negative problem there is in the culture.

                Oh. Well then.

                Let’s just take away poverty. Glad we cleared that shit up.

                Who’s hungry?

                Sorry to use bold, like a jerk, but I need to emphasize what I think is important in my comment.

                If I acknowledge your moral superiority, will you have enough warm fuzzies to actually read what I’m saying or will you continue talking like a Republican?Report

              9. Do you think impoverished Appalachian culture is the big problem here or are you thinking of, primarily, black and hispanic (sub)culture(s). (I put the plural in their to make you happy.)

                I agree that poverty is a problem in rural places, too. BTW. I just disagree that “culture” is the culprit. There are numerous subcultures across the places that have done better increasing equality of opportunity. Local subcultures react to the newfound equality of opportunity quickly when the equality is present.

                The cultural pessimism (in minority communities and rural communities with intergenerational poverty) that you see as a cause of inequality of results is actually the effect of an absence of equality of opportunity.Report

              10. Do you think impoverished Appalachian culture is the big problem here or are you thinking of, primarily, black and hispanic (sub)culture(s).

                I’m thinking that the overlap between impoverished cultures is far more interesting than the color of the skins of the people involved… and I’m interested in where they overlap, why, how, and, insofar as the cultures themselves reward shorter time horizons than longer, what might be done to change those incentives.

                Would you like to talk about skin color instead? Would you like to say something that someone moderately well-versed in the debate might find novel?

                Or, hell with it. Talk about racism. That’s always fun. What do you think should be done about racism, Shazbot? Do you think it should be addressed?Report

              11. Look, I’m sorry that I pushed too hard on the race issue. You clearly think culture is the problem. Got it.

                But my question still stands: What is it about Appalachian culture (and -presumably- cultures in cities where there are lots of African Americans too) that holds people back that isn’t oresent in the many and varied cultures and subcultures of much of the rest of the wealthy, western world?

                My hypothesis is that the U.S. does a shitty job offering help to poor people to give them and their children equality of opportunity, and this is the cause of the relatively high degree of inequality in the U.S. I cited a respected sociologist arguing the same thing in Foreign Affairs.

                What reason is there to believe my hypothesis is wrong and that the cause of inequality is culture? Indeed, isn’t it quite plausible that cultural problems that we see in places like Appalachia are caused by a lack of equal opportunity (and not the other way around?

                I assumed that someone would take the race route, because there are conservatives (Murray) who believe that intergenerational poverty in the U.S. is caused by IQ disparities across race and the relatively high number of people from lower-IQ race groups in the U.S. IMO, the Murray view is racist, but it at least offers an explanation of why the U.S. does poorly in terms of equality.

                So far, no one has explained to me why Europe does such a better job on inequality of opportunity. What is it about the cultures that experience intergenerational poverty that is the putative cause of the intergenerational poverty. The vague claim “It’s culture” is untestable and empty as an explanation, at least without more detail and specifics.

                I am glad that we all agree that the Murray view is racist. But what does the alternative look like? Liberals think government doesn’t do as much to help create equality of opportunity in the U.S. as Europe. What is the conservative or libertarian explanation of relative inequality in the U.S. if not race?

                I’m curious. SEriously.Report

              12. My solution to racism is to do a lot more: school busing, requiring private schools that receive any government benefit even indirectly to racially integrate, enact European-levels of social spending to achieve subsidized schooling for impoverished black and hispanic neighborhoods, and moderate amounts of affirmative action, especially in schools and the professions. Lots of things won’t work. When that happens, retool and try slightly different programs. Nothing is easy.

                Also, end the drug war, which has taken the right to vote and work from millions and created millions of broken families. That is probably the biggest thing, IMO.

                In short, be more like Europe and Canada, plus school busing and a little affirmative action.

                It will never happen, though, sadly. So I hope for a little more social program help (the ACA, reversing the tuition problem, holding the lone on SS benefits, etc.) and tiny amounts of affirmative action, which will soon be entirely illegal.

                I think much of this could be used to help the rural white poor who should also benefit from affirmative action.Report

              13. Shazbot,

                None of that will solve racism. It might solve racial gaps, but not racism. Where in your suggestions are steps that white folks should take to be less racist?Report

              14. Sorry Kazzy, you’re quite right. I was trying to say what would end racial socioeconomic inequality, not racism as an attitude.

                I will say, though, that once there is socieconomic equality, that should lessen the attitude of racism, too. I’m Not sure about that at all, but I think it is sort of borne out in the case of the slow decline of anti-semitism and anti-asian attitudes in the U.S. As those groups achieved socioeconomic equality, they intermixed socially with the Christian white majority and familiarity and socieconomic equality bled away some of the animosity (though too much still remains).

                I’m willing to be corrected on that.Report

              15. Hm. Second time tonight Tom Sowell’s “Black Redneck” thesis is apt, basically that the Scots-Irish/Appalachian lowlife culture infected Africans as they became “African Americans,” during, after, and after after [the 1900s] era of slavery.

                Before you laugh it off—it might not only be accurate, it’s comforting to both the Politically Correct and the God Bless America crowds: It speaks to neither IQ nor an intrinsic failure in African culture itself; nor does it blame previous and current dysfunctions in Black America on slavery or institutional racism per se. [The trailer park and the urban ghetto have much dysfunction in common, do they not?]

                http://www.redemptivethoughts.com/2007/12/quotes-and-facts-from-thomas-sowells.htmlReport

              17. If i remember correctly the Appalachian whites were never large slave owners. Most slaves were kept in good cotton country which was the deep south. In any case how could the SI infect AfAm’s from all over the South? That doesn’t make any sense. If he wants to seriously contend that they he needs to spend a few decades worth of social science research to prove it.

                I read though some of the quotes ( not even one coherent essay). He doesn’t really explain much of anything, just throw out ideas, some of which are easily answered and weak. How you seriously claim to understand the situation, whatever that is, with AfAm’s without mentioning the WOD and the systematic oppression of them after the Civil War. Its trite beyond belief for him to say the CW was over a hundred years ago so how can it be the cause of anything. Oh and starting with derogatory quotes about Southerners from others, even some Southerners, doesn’t prove squat and is likely more about the upper class looking down on the lower class. In other words bias against poor southern whites doesn’t make him more honest or upright or believable.Report

              18. I have no time for those who reject Sowell’s thesis without understanding it. Please, gentlemen, stand aside.

                For the rest of you who don’t shout down every new idea without entertaining it first: It was the Scots-Irish who were the “slavedrivers,” not the slaveowners. You can look up their history in America for yourself, and you need to. And Sowell goes beyond just the slavery days: he begins the essay with evidence from the early 1900s that the upper Midwest [Chicago, Detroit, etc.] was far more prejudiced against the hillbillies than the blacks.

                Try this for a Google Books preview

                http://books.google.com/books/about/Black_Rednecks_And_White_Liberals.html?id=JMxpBOnQIH8C

                Read him in his own words. If you couple Sowell’s thesis with that of Herbert Gutman, who found that the Black Family hit the skids not as a result of slavery but many years after [pardon my Wiki]

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Gutman#The_Black_Family_in_Slavery_and_Freedom.2C_1750.E2.80.931925

                The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750–1925, published a year after Slavery and the Numbers Game, is a detailed study of black family life under slavery in the U.S. The book draws on census data, diaries, family records, bills of sale and other records, and argues that slavery did not break up the black family. Gutman concluded that most black families largely remained intact despite slavery. Gutman further argued that black families also remained intact during the first wave of migration to the North after the Civil War (although he remained open to arguments about black family collapse in the 1930s and 1940s).[2]
                Gutman’s work was widely praised. It not only constituted an excellent example of social history for its focus on individuals but it challenged long-held conventional ideas about the slavery’s effects on black families.[2] Oddly, this came just as Gutman had argued a year earlier for the relative harshness of slavery in Slavery and the Numbers Game.

                …we might be able to get a handle on this. As Pat Moynihan tried to tell us on the 1960s, it’s not that there’s anything wrong with black people or the African American sub-culture, it’s that the truism is true: When America catches a cold, black folks get pneumonia. White and Hispanic America are now catching up…Report

              19. Greg, you’re right. That’s why we have a West Virginia, it’s why Kentucky didn’t secede, and it’s why Tennessee almost didn’t: large Appalachian populations that might not have been opposed to slavery, but which didn’t benefit from it, and therefore didn’t want to fight a war over it (or which felt like slave owners got all the power while they got screwed within their states).

                What we have here is another case of Tom finding something he agrees with and deciding it’s right without thinking about it or doing any research on it. Which is to say, same shit, different day.Report

              20. My ancestors (Kentucky) referred to The War as “The War Between Brothers”. While they weren’t barbaric enough to refer to it as “Mr. Lincoln’s War”, they weren’t civilized enough to refer to it as “The Civil War”.Report

              21. Tom if you want to have a conversation getting immediately insulted and PO’d when you are challenged is not the way to start. Re: Gutman, has anybody argued the black family was torn apart in the slave period or in the years afterwards? Well other then when slave owners sold family members away which is pretty damn big thing. It would be really hard to compare things like out of wedlock births between the last few decades and the 1800’s. They didn’t really keep that data back then, the massive social stigma would have led most women to hide the pregnancy and plenty of the out of wedlock births would have been due to rape by their owners.

                If you want to hang part of this argument on Scots/Irish being slavedrivers then show your data that they were used in large proportion throughout the south. And even if that were true, you or Sowell really needs to show some convincing mechanism how blacks were corrupted by the “low” class of the people whipping them. How does that even make sense?

                Tom i went and read your first link instead of just immediately dismissing it since i think little of Sowell and the thesis doesn’t make much sense and , as was noted above, does rest quite a bit on thinking the SI are just plain old lesser beings. Plenty of people have thought that of them before. Your touchiness doesn’t help your argument, i read your link to give a chance. I found it wanting. Deal with it , preferably without getting all pissy.Report

              23. “You seem to believe that black culture is preventing blacks from succeeding socioeconomically.”

                Without conceding some of the flaws with this line of thinking that JB has pointed out, I’d frame it very, very differently.

                Within this country, there exists a “culture of power”. For people and groups outside this culture of power, it is far harder to succeed than those within the culture of power. That is not to say that the culture of power is objectively better; it is simply better positioned because it writes the rules, which reinforce various aspects of that culture.

                The example I like to use is greetings. In America, we shake hands. A good firm handshake is considered to be something of value. In other cultures and in other countries, other greetings are used. Bowing, fist bumps (terrorist or otherwise), etc. Is a hand shake really objectively better than a bow or a fist bump? Of course not. But in our country, it is seen as better. It signals, “I am part of the in-group.” If you grow up shaking hands, this is second nature. If you grow up bowing or fist bumping (terroristicly or otherwise), you have to learn this and adapt.

                Now, multiply that by the millions of other ways cultures vary and you can see why being from outside the culture of power can make success so difficulty to attain.Report

              24. I’d say networks of friends and family members with power are the bigger problem than cultural cues like handshakes.

                Jobs and opportunities that lead to jobs are often handed out to friends and family members and peers of some sort. This means that if you are born into a network (the right neighborhood, school, family, etc.) that you will have more opportunities than someone born into a network consisting of poorer, less powerful people.

                Mitt Romney was surely a smart guy, but he had a network of people around him who gave him tremendous opportunities. We in the middle class likely have less of a great network, but it is still likely better than the truly impoverished.Report

              25. Depends. I read a study on Spanish Harlem where gender roles were an active and pretty extreme barrier for Hispanic men taking “normal jobs” (much more manly to take a drug-dealing job)Report

              5. What is it that causes poor Appalachian culture to be different from poor people’s cultures across Europe amd Canada that makes poor Appalachians immune to taking advantage of equality of opportunity?Report

              7. It isn’t. There are differences between Saskatchewanian (?) culture and Appalachian, but none that cause intergenerational poverty.

                Relative poverty in Sask. doesn’t lead to as much inequality of opportunity because Canada offers more help to the poor in rearing children and in paying for college. That was the point of the article that I cited.

                The U.S. has low equality of opportunity and that has nothing to do with culture. The idea that Europeans and Canadians have a more “success inducing” culture (or set of subcultures, as none of these places is entirely homogeneous) is completely unsubstantiated.Report

              8. Shazbot5,
                They’re English. Nuff said, ain’t it? (if not, reference why the English went bed-hopping within their own towns, and nobody else really did — instead preferring the next town over).

                Jay,
                Sascatchewan has much more to do with Austrailia than with Appalachia. Lot more criminal migration there.Report

              10. One thing that Warren Buffet said that struck me as INSANELY wise was “At Berkshire, our time horizon is forever.”

                While I do not believe in the existence of a soul, I do think that he’s onto something… now, we can discuss whether a 50 year old should have the same time horizon as a 15 year old, of course, but I think that a healthy culture would have the 50 year olds try to cultivate 15 year olds with forever time horizons. When they’re 50? Then you can show them where we hide the weed, whites, and wine.Report

          3. I think we can all agree that beating children unconscious or to death is bad.
            As this was the reason certain folks got exiled from the Qaker state, I think we can start from there, and maybe ratchet down to this century, neh?Report

  25. I am said this got sidetracked onto issues about race.

    The question is: what causes relative inequality of opportunity in the U.S. as compared to the rest of the wealthy west? My hypothesis is that it is a relative lack of help for the poor, especially poor families amd poorer potential college students. (Thus, I favor a loberal solution of making the U.S. policies look more like Scandanavia or Europe or Canada or whatever.)

    What are the conservative and moderate libertarian hypotheses. Hopefully not race, a la Sowell and Murray? That’s a different topic, so let’s not go there. My bad entirely for driving it there preemptively.

    Jaybird says culture. So what about American cultures makes them so inclined to poverty? (In other words, what are the testable details of the cultural hypothesis.) What evidence is there for the cultural hypothesis? And finally, how do we solve the problem, if it is cultural? (Or are some of you nihilists on this?)Report

    1. If culture is an issue i think its more an issue of culture being part of stew of problems in certain areas. I can’t see culture as a sole answer. Culture, WOD, drugs (even if the WOD is bad, and it is, drugs still have had a terrible effect in some places), holes in the social safety net and the course of history has not been kind to some areas ( i’m mostly thinking of inner city areas where industry left over the last few decades). Some places like reservations and Appalachia are short of natural resources or have had most of the riches from those resources leave the community.

      I think some people who have grown up in poor neighbourhoods can speak with authority and detail about the negative aspects of culture which were problems. Do you read Ta-Neishi Coastes at The Atlantic? He is great on many topics and has written about this. I don’t think many people would deny there aren’t unhelpful aspects of culture that can drag people down. The hard part is specifying what those are without denying that racism/sexism can actually exist. To many conversations are poisoned with blaming poor people and asserting if they just acted better everything would be fine.

      There is certainly plenty of reason for optimism. Affirmative action is not popular nowadays, certainly on the conservative/libertarian axis. While i would be for moving AfAm towards being class based now, AfAm has been hugely important to building up the black middle class and the success of women in the work place.Report

      1. I guess we all agree that culture can cause and be caused by social problems.

        I just don’t see what there is about certain American sub-cultures that makes them immune to the benefits of social programs that do create equality of opportunity all over the world. What anout these cultures makes them so immune? What evidence is their that this immunity exists?Report

        1. Regarding poverty and culture, one thing that marks places with intransigient poverty is an extremely small time horizon, whther this be in apalachia, Inner cities or The streets of Madras. One thing that has been noticed is that even when reforms are introduced, the poor don’t respond to incentives like the rest of us. The thing is, small time horizons are not just this little bit of irrationality that keeps various groups poor. If we dig deeper, it can start to look like a rational response to the situation.

          I don’t know what happens in inner cities or appalachia, but the book I read (Poor Economics) details what happens in India and southeast Asia. The reason the poor remain poor is that it is difficult for them to accumulate capital. If they do accumulate capital, they have very strong social pressures to share it with their neighbours when their neighbours come knocking. If they do not they get ostracised and they themselves will be refused help when they need it. So, they use extra money they get from welfare programs or from any surplus they sell to buy themselves better tasting, but not necessarily more nutritious food, or they “save up” by expanding their house 1 brick at a time*. Because, if you are not going to be able to keep the money anyway, why not spend it on yourself on non-necessities?

          *Which kind of shows that it is not exactly time horisons which is the issue. Buying 1 brick at a time is an extremely inefficient way to plan for the future. You cannot liquidate the brick in a hurry when you need help. It nevertheless is still a kind of plan for the future. But if they did have a way to get their hands on quick cash, it wouldn’t stay with them for long. Your neighbour asking you for money may not be a case of government force, but the social pressure is still strong enough to make it effectively a 100% tax on savings. I’m willing to bet that all or most subcultures where there is extesive intergenerational poverty have something like this going on. Some kind of strong cultural norm which serves as a de facto 100% savings tax.Report

          1. The hallmark of intransigent poverty is failed government and intergenerational debt bondage. In a working regime, be it ever so resource-deficient or overpopulated, there’s some semblance of order and planning.

            The poor do have timelines. They just don’t look like ours. A poor man will take on debt for a dowry and wedding, only to work it off for the rest of his life. Inevitably this leads to girl infanticide and the view that girls are expensive burdens on a family. Because there’s no provision for the elderly and infirm, young families are also burdened with intergenerational obligations.

            Find me a community of poor anywhere in the world and I’ll show you a sudakhor loan shark. Debt bondage is a serious problem: it is the modern form of slavery, the ugliest avatar of capitalism.Report

            1. Sure there are loan sharks, but I doubt that actual debt is as big a contributor to inergenerational poverty as you seem to imply it is. It may exacerbate problems if the money so drawn from loan sharks is used for current consumption and not future investments (at least future investments of the kind which would pay significant enough dividends for the loan shark agreement to make sense) If we pressed a button and poor people’s future time preference resembled middle class or rich people’s future time preference (with the accompanying social changes so that there is no de-facto 100% savings tax) but there was still debt bondage and loan sharks, I think that there would be not so nearly as much intergenerational poverty.Report

              1. Debt bondage is far more serious than you admit. Moreover, the sudakhor system leads to a lifetime of servitude. For a trivial sum, a worker can be tricked into a system which refuses to pay her, locks her up, won’t allow her to call her relatives and prostitutes her. That’s the real world, Murali. Children are also so enslaved with promises of “education” in places like Nepal: those kids end up getting no education and no pay, either.

                Debt bondage is the number one obstacle to economic improvement in the third world. Want economic improvements? Give the poor access to small amounts of capital without enslaving them to the sudakhor system.

                There is an easy button to press to affect poor people’s future time preferences: educate children, especially girl children. Investing in a child’s future is the only route out of intergenerational poverty: this has been understood for centuries. Want to change the entire economic prospect for a country? Give an investor a reason to believe the population will be able to purchase things and not pay the sudakhor.Report

              2. Give the poor access to small amounts of capital without enslaving them to the sudakhor system

                Only, micro finance has been tried and the book sort of gave a post mortem on why it didn’t work nearly as well as we thought it would. Even if we give them money, there are still deep societal factors that make it difficult for them to accumulate capital. Debt bondage is at most symptomatic and is an exacerbator of a more intransigient problem.

                There is an estimated 18.1 million people living in debt bondage world wide (as of 2006. it would have decreased a bit by now) Let us suppose that all of those people are in India. There are 650 million people living in poverty in India, most of which has been intergenerational (a least till now. Maybe economic reforms will change things) Debt bondage accounts for just under 2.8% of total poverty in India. I don’t know that it accounts for poverty in the US or in Singapore or in any OECD nation.Report

              4. India has got a lot of low hanging fruit in terms of poverty reduction. It can do a lot of stuff to decrease poverty which has nothing to do with global demand for Indian produce. A lot of this is just improving basic institutions and basic industrialisation. But I was referring to debt bondage specifically, which has been going down primarily due to increased law enforcement effortsReport

              6. I would disagree with Duflo and Banerjee’s conclusions on the following grounds: first, my own years of experience with refugees and homelessness contradict almost everything they have to say about poverty. The poor are far more practical than their outlying examples suppose.

                I began my response by noting good government does manage even limited resources to far better effect. Take Rwanda for example, now shooting up like a rocket. Rwanda is encumbered by debt but has made substantive changes, attracting capital investments where other similar nations have not. Rwanda remains a poor country but its GDP is growing substantially and the percentage of poor people is going down. It’s got unemployment problems but it’s educating its people. It’s landlocked, without good roads to get things in and out but it’s building roads and putting in a fiber optic network so it can graduate to a cashless economy. And most importantly, it’s developing its own economy and avoiding the Foreign Aid trap.

                I won’t call Paul Kagame “good”. He’s a ruthless bastard. But a great deal of what he’s doing is good, insofar as he’s turning one of the most wretched nations on earth into something better. If he’s meddling in the Congo, his genocidal Hutu enemies remain unpunished over that border.Report

              8. I might add, the poor will sell their children into servitude to pay off debts. Really, Murali, trying to attenuate the scope and horror of the sudakhor system goes nowhere with me. More than 21 million people are in debt bondage and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

                Mao Zedong used to go from town to town in his truck. He would let down the tailgate and preach from it. And this is what he said:

                “People of China. You are poor and you are stupid. You are poor because you are stupid. Who owns your lives and owned your ancestors’ lives? Who crushes you down with debt? Is it not the usurer? Be rid of him and you shall be free.”

                Within minutes, the people had burned down the usurer’s house and murdered his family. And Mao would go on to the next village.

                Communism is still alive and kicking in the world today. It thrives where the peasants do not own the land they farm and are generationally indebted. Mao said the landless peasant is already a Communist. Nobody hates Communism more than I do: I’ve shot and killed Communists and would shoot a thousand more if given half a chance. You want a middle class mindset from people who have never known freedom from debt bondage.Report

              10. That’s a cogent observation. Yet it seems fair to observe the sudakhor is a parasite, and an intergenerational parasite at that. When the loan shark is the only option for even small amounts of capital and the labourer only has his labour to offer, debt slavery becomes a menace to the developing world.

                The Big Three, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all had prohibitions on usury but two would figure ways around these prohibitions. Only Islam never allowed loans at interest. The rise of capitalism was dependent on banking and loans, to be sure, but there is a difference between a bank and a loan shark.

                Though some people have criticised Grameen Bank and organisations like it, (especially Mises Institute, who view them as a form of welfare), the chief obstacle to microcredit in the Third World is the hypocritical Islamic prohibition on loaning at interest. The same imams who rail at Grameen don’t seem to have much to say in condemnation of the loan sharks. India’s tried to abolish the loan sharks, with varying degrees of success, Pakistan and Afghanistan have done nothing of substance.Report

          2. Phillipe Bourgeois research runs completely counter to what you’re saying, and exposes how you’re reaching for “what’s wrong witht hem” rather than conceding that your social behaviors and theirs are BOTH socially ADAPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE.

            GIVING money to your FRIENDS is an INVESTMENT. A significantly longer term investment than hoarding your money, as “white people do”, particularly if you’re feeding children or others not currently capable of paying you back when needed.Report

            1. As I said giving money to your friends absolutely makes sense in the context in which they live in. It just means that as a result they are never going to stop being poor. it is a vicious cycle and they are often stuck without options. Increased industrialisation and freeing up of markets is going to help. (People move out of their old neighbourhoods and move to places where they won’t ask money from you)Report

              1. Have you ever heard of a Free Loan Society? They were instrumental in getting the Greeks in America to be not-poor (ditto for the Jews). Giving money to your friends, investing in your community DOES work for certain communities.Report

    2. Shazbot,

      You keep repeating the same thing over again that America has a unique problem with poverty. Then the discussion is confusing the nature of the problem by morphing from absolute living standards to inequality to income mobility.

      On living standards, I would offer that our poor are not appreciably worse off than the average for Europe or developed countries of Asia. Are you arguing that they are significantly worse off?

      On inequality, the explanation for differences between quintiles is explained by the higher wealth of the US. As I detailed earlier in this discussion, the average is substantially higher than other nations. But we have the same zero point. Inequality has risen in the US, and it is due almost entirely to increased wealth at the top of the scale. If our poor are doing as well as ever an our rich are doing better, then I fail to see where the poor were harmed absent proof of coercion or fraud. This factor is reduced further when you consider that poor is an annual classification, and most people move up and town the income scale over life. On other words the life of the poor person of today starts as good as anyone anywhere and has higher upside potential and higher average potential than other wealthy nations.

      But this then gets to the REAL issue. Mobility. Here, the US matches up well with other wealthy nations and has not gotten worse over time except in one area, which I have noted repeatedly. Let me quote Winship’s congressional testimony…

      ” However, evidence on earnings mobility in the sense of where parents and children rank suggests that our uniqueness lies in how ineffective we are at lifting up men who were poor as children. In other words, we have no more downward mobility from the middle than other nations, no less upward mobility from the middle, and no less downward mobility from the top. Nor do we have less upward mobility from the bottom among women. Only in terms of low upward mobility from the bottom among men does the U.S. stand out. This distinctive pattern presents complications for accounts that explain American immobility by pointing to our policies or our economic system. Further muddying the picture is the complete lack of evidence on cross-national differences in the extent to which children outpace parents in absolute terms.”

      http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/02/09-inequality-mobility-winshipReport

      1. On living standards, I would offer that our poor are not appreciably worse off than the average for Europe or developed countries of Asia. Are you arguing that they are significantly worse off?

        Our poor live in slums, in decaying claptraps and eat food infected with vermin.

        “we’re just as good as everyone else, except for this one thing…”Report

          1. 1. The poor are better off now than in 1260, or even 1930, but the question is whether the U.S. has enough equality of opportunity. A capitalist system is great because it creates wealth which creates a tide that slowly rises all boats. On that we all agree. (Marx agreed too, of course.)

            2. I think it is hard to compare the socioeconomic status of the poor in the U.S. versus other wealthy nations for a lot of reasons.

            It is true that in the U.S. the poor have a bit more purchasing power to buy cell phones and appliances and restaurant food. That is a good thing.

            But a high quality education and healthcare are harder to obtain for the poor in the U.S. compared to those in many other wealthy first world nations despite the purchasing power of the U.S. poor. That is a really bad thing.

            Do the bad things outweigh the good things? Well, I would happily give up my cell and HBO and eating at restaurants in exchange for healthcare access and the ability to provide my children with the same education and the same opportunities as the upper-middle class.

            3. The point about the wealth of the U.S. and the purchasing power of the poor in the U.S. is a red herring. It is quite plausible that providing more equality of opportunity to the poor (like they do in Europe) would make America wealthier, not less wealthy. Roger seems to be operating under the assumption that wealth in the U.S. is somehow the result of our not giving benefits to the poor and (presumably) our relatively low rates of taxation. But this is highly controversial, as we all know.

            Moderately higher tax rates and better benefits (adjusted for inflation) in the U.S. in the past have not slowed economic growth. So there is every reason to believe that if we increased taxes on the wealthy (back to Clinton levels or moderately higher) to fund more benefits targeted at creating equality of opportunity would make the U.S. less wealthy. Indeed, it is likely to make the U.S. more wealthy and the poor more wealthy, even aside from benefits.Report

              5. So… 2000 calories a day, an efficiency apartment with a certain amount of square-footage per person, clean water, heat in the winter, decent sewage, training through the high school level for reducing, reusing, and recycling, oh… and let’s say a baseline of medical care for emergencies and other major medical situations… would that be enough?Report

              6. no. because putting everything on emergency care KILLS people. Smart people. And they can’t afford to get diagnostics to even afford cheap drugs. (however, a network of “free care” clinics where waits are sometimes long…)Report

              7. So a certain amount of preventative care as well. Perhaps some commercials from the Ad Council explaining that it’s important to go for a walk for 30 minutes a day, eat green leafy vegetables in addition to chicken-fried-steak sandwiches on processed white bread, and to quit smoking?Report

              16. Are you making some kind of fallacious line-drawing or slippery slope argument here?

                Or are you legitimately asking the question, not just trying to make an argument at all?Report

              17. I’m suspicious that there is not an answer to this question as much as an emotional appeal. I suspect that the answer to “how much are we, as a society, obliged to provide the needy” will always, and forever, be “MORE MORE MORE” and there will never ever be a point at which we, as a society, will be able to say “we have met our obligation”.

                Stuff that makes me more suspicious is asking the question and then having my motives for asking the question questioned.

                Do you have an answer to the question? Or an explanation for why it’s the wrong question to ask and instead provide questions I ought to be asking instead?Report

              18. As long as society progresses, the minimum standard will move up and that’s a perfectly good thing. The fact we’re subsidizing cell phones instead of land lines is a positive thing, not a sign of entitlement.Report

              19. I’m fine with that as well.

                I’m just wondering if it’s possible to say something like “as of January 2013, our obligation is to provide the things on this list” and then provide an exhaustive list.

                Perhaps that list will change and be different in January 2015. That’s fine. I’m just wondering if it’s possible to produce a list like that.Report

              20. Jay,
                I think that list should start and end with equality of opportunity. As we do more research, we can finetune what that means. I think we already know a lot about SES and health and what that does to futureopportunity…Report

              21. As long as society progresses, the minimum standard will move up and that’s a perfectly good thing.

                When everyone has a college degree, a yacht, a vacation home, personal in-home physicians’ visits within a half hour of making the call, and zero debt, what new thing will we be required to provide for them?Report

              22. Well, nothing’s easier than providing a list. Here, I’ll provide one for you: any person who cannot earn sufficient income to pay their own way will be thrown in prison for life.

                That’s a list of our obligations to the needy. (Loosely worded so the net is really wide.)Report

              23. While such definitions of Society are the only ones on offer, we may assume social progress is merely a justification for a maniacal clambering up the ladder, trampling everyone else trying to climb it.Report

              27. Does prison provide whatever our obligations to society require us to provide?

                Because that would be funny. Not in the “funny strange” sense but in the “dead baby in a clown suit” funny.

                (I think I ought to restate my opposition to prisons again, for the record.)Report

              29. Does prison provide whatever our obligations to society require us to provide?

                You missed the point, I think. It’s that anyone can come up with a list – arbitrary as all get out – including a list in which we have no positive obligations to anyone whatsoever.

                So … what the hell does a list have to do with anything when what’s at issue are the principles (apparently!) underlying the list. My hypothetical list is very principled: it denies that society as expressed thru government has any positive obligations to the poor at all.Report

              30. Besides the fact that society is an abstraction that can’t really have obligations?

                Besides the fact that I doubt someone can provide a compelling moral argument for why we should all be taxed to give everyone a 56″ HD TV and a yacht? Not to mention being taxed to provide hookers and blow for all?

                You’re having fun asking why not? Why don’t you try to answer why?Report

              31. My hypothetical list is very principled: it denies that society as expressed thru government has any positive obligations to the poor at all.

                Interesting. Let’s say I agree.

                It seems like our big problems are the negative obligations that we’re failing to meet… no?Report

              32. My hypothetical list is very principled: it denies that society as expressed thru government has any positive obligations to the poor at all.

                Not if you’re going to feed them in prison, provide them with clothing, and shelter them out of the weather.

                And of course nothing in the “society has no positive obligations to the poor” logically leads to throwing them into prison. That’s a totally ad hoc add on that may hit emotional cues, but has no logical connection to the basic principle. In other words, it’s a cheat.Report

              33. Why don’t you try to answer why?

                Because that’s what I was asking you to do: to provide a principled reason for why hookers and blow shouldn’t be part of society’s obligations to others? I mean, once we admit that we have positive obligations to others, in any event.

                I’m asking you and Jaybird to provide what you want liberals to provide: a principled reason to limit our positive obligations to 2000 calories a day and shelter?

                I can think of a whole bunch of pragmatic reasons. But I’m truly stumped on finding a principled one.Report

              34. Stillwater,
                There ought to be some sort of reward for ambition. This provides a moral reason for limiting how much we give to all, so that there is an incentive to innovate, to discover, and to be better than all the rest. So does our society progress, so do we reach the stars (I hope, at least).Report

              36. Because that’s what I was asking you to do: to provide a principled reason for why hookers and blow shouldn’t be part of society’s obligations to others? I mean, once we admit that we have positive obligations to others, in any event.

                Well, it seems to me that we’re back in classic Stillwater territory, where you demand that others provide the hard arguments while you avoid making any serious effort to do the same from your side.

                How about nobody fishing _needs_ hookers, blow, a big screen TV, or a yacht, and if–emphasis on _if_–there’s actually a positive obligation to provide someone’s basic needs, there’s no fishing obligation to provide any golldurn thing a person takes a fishing fancy to.

                Now, are you going to seriously tell me that you can’t come up with any principles that draw a line between feeding a starving person and giving _me_ all the hookers and blow I want on my own private yacht that society is obligated to give me?

                That seems utterly ridiculous to me. And it suggests to me that if the slope is that fishing slippery, you need to go back to the initial assumption and seriously question it. Because maybe, just maybe, society doesn’t have any positive obligations to you, to me, to Jaybird, or to the starving abandoned homeless toddler.

                You want there to be some positive obligations, but I don’t think for a second you really think society’s obligated to give me a yacht, so why don’t _you_ do the hard work on your own theory.

                Jesus, you’re always pushing hard with these types of questions, but any time I try to push you hard on these types of questions, you always have a dodge. Do some of the hard work for your own self for a change.Report

              37. The more interesting question, the one the Libertarians carefully avoid, is what happens when enough poor people get poor enough to start listening to Robespierres or Maos or Hitlers? It’s all fine and good until someone’s chateau gets looted.Report

              38. Libertarians carefully avoid, is what happens when enough poor people get poor enough to start listening to Robespierres or Hitlers

                Which ignores the fact that the League’s libertarians have frequently mentioned pragmatic concerns. I know I have, repeatedly.

                And it also ignores the fact that neither Hitler nor Robespierre arose from a libertarian society. In other words, it assumes that a libertarian society will necessarily result in the sort of desperate economic straits that will lead to people accepting a strongman leader, and it further assumes that libertarians themselves actually believe that, but just wish it away.

                Those assumptions are, of course, not actually reflective of what libertarians believe.Report

              40. Well, it seems to me that we’re back in classic Stillwater territory, where you demand that others provide the hard arguments while you avoid making any serious effort to do the same from your side.

                No, my man. But we are in classic James territory, I think.

                Here’s the argument your missing while accusing me of bad faith.

                The liberal view of this is pretty clear: there is no upper limit to what society is obligated to provide for “others”, except constrained by conflicts in other principles and practicality/pragmatics. {{That’s the definition of “liberalism” that I’ve provided to you, and that you accept when you’re criticizing us but then reject when I agree with!!)

                What’s the argument you’re making? To challenge the liberal on what’s entirely obvious!! And to top if off, you think you’re making a clever point by doing so!!!

                But on a deeper level, the argument I’m making is that you challenge the liberal for a principled reason to not provide hookers and blow while you simultaneously refrain from providing the principle which you think provides you the higher ground here. Namely, a principled reason for society to honor it’s positive obligations to the elderly and the poor – 2000 calories a day and shelter, etc – but limit positive obligations to only that.

                That’s it James! I’ve laid it all out – again! – for you!

                Christ a mighty dude, you lash out at people when you lose track of the thread. When you don’t understand the point being made. And I have to say, “James territory” is becoming increasingly clear to me: jump into a thread with a really confrontational attitude irrespective of what the argument structure is, be as adversarial as possible, and adopt the most dickish tone permitted within the guidelines of the commenting policy.Report

              41. You blow hot and cold on this, James. You’re the one rattling on about a lack of principled reasons for getting the poor out of poverty. Chief among those principles is the assertion that homelessness and bad schools and lack of health care are a disgrace to any nation.Report

              42. Stillwater,

                I’ve read this subthread all the way through. I don’t see where you make a principled argument in support of the claim that there is no upper bound on what society owes. You assert it, but don’t–so far as I can see–actually defend it. Why is it wrong to ask that you actually defend that claim, as you are asking others to defend their critique of that claim?

                Let’s say I agree with you. Society in fact does have an obligation to provide me with a yacht with a big screen TV and all the hookers and blow I want. Currently, I’m not getting any of that. Is society failing in its moral obligation to me? If not, why not?

                Let me try thisReport

              43. James, you’re still not getting it. Here’s the total point. It’s a question Jaybird seems to understand perfectly so I don’t know why you aren’t getting it. How does a libertarian concede that we – as a society! – have positive social obligations to the elderly and poor and limit our positive obligations to only the provision of 2000 calories/day and shelter? Is it a pragmatic argument or a principled moral argument?

                If it’s not a principled argument, then it’s presumably a consequentialist argument, or a pragmatic argument or some other non-principled argument.

                But if so, then why does the libertarian feel justified in challenging the liberal for failing to have a principled argument limiting social spending to only 2000 calories and shelter, especially if the libertarian concedes that there is no principled argument for that conclusion.Report

              44. Why is it wrong to ask that you actually defend that claim, as you are asking others to defend their critique of that claim?

                Because a) libertarians were the one’s asserting that three squares and shelter satisfied – as a matter of principle, I take it!! – the sum total of society’s obligations to the poor, and b) because libertarians can’t provide the very thing they’re accusing liberals of failing to provide: a principled limit on the positive obligations society has to the poor. And if so, then the argument is sophistic.Report

              45. So the problem is not that they’re providing limits, it’s that they’re not talking about the principles that lead them to saying that they only have to provide this, that, the other thing, the other other thing, this other thing over there, this other other thing over there, and free vasectomies?Report

              46. How does a libertarian concede that we – as a society! – have positive social obligations to the elderly and poor and limit our positive obligations to only the provision of 2000 calories/day and shelter? Is it a pragmatic argument or a principled moral argument? …But if so, then why does the libertarian feel justified in challenging the liberal for failing to have a principled argument limiting social spending to only 2000 calories and shelter, especially if the libertarian concedes that there is no principled argument for that conclusion.

                I don’t think the libertarian does that exactly. I think the question is challenging whether the liberal has some way to define a limit, or whether the obligation is in fact essentially limitless.

                You seem very strong on the problem of libertarians not being able to readily define a limit, but you don’t seem to think that liberals not being able to define a limit isn’t problematic. But the libertarian point, as I see it, is that not being able to define a limit is hugely problematic. And I’m asking why you’re harping on the libertarian for thinking there should be a limit, even if he has difficulty in defining it, while you’re unwilling to either make a case for how to define the limit or defend limitlessness.

                Do you think the libertarian is wrong in thinking there must be a limit? Then please defend limitlessness. Argue for my hookers and blow, even though I can’t.

                Do you think libertarians are right in thinking there must be a limit, and you’re just frustrated that we’re not clearly defining one? Then give us an example of how it’s done. Show us up by doing what we can’t.Report

              47. Utopia is always the place we cannot go.
                To argue against something in specific, simply marshal arguments.
                “It is too expensive for us to do this, it will require 50+% tax rate on everyone, or 95+% tax rate on the wealthiest”

                I feel that fiscal arguments are fine counters to moral arguments, particularly if we aren’t totally Kantian about everything under the sun.

                Yes, a parent beating their child to death is a Problem (of the rather Kantian variety). The same parent spanking/slapping their child is less of a problem, and a witchhunt may not in fact be the best/most cost effective way to catch him.Report

              48. Well, look, your preferred policy of providing 2000 calories a day and etc is justified by a positive obligation to the poorest amongst us. I mean, maybe you think old people will engage in some serious crime if we – as a society – don’t feed and shelter them, but you’ve conceded that you’re meeting all your obligations to them by (I suppose) paying taxes providing them with subsidies.

                So … you’re conceding that you have positive obligations to nameless, faceless others in our society. But once you’ve taken that step, the argument against any further obligation cannot be principled, it seems to me. The cutoff line will either be arbitrary, or determined by practicality and sustainability, or something like that, but ultimately it will be determined by balancing competing values in the fairest, most just, most effective, etc., way.

                Which is to say, I don’t think you can answer the question any better than your interlocutors.Report

              49. I can’t answer the question. If my interlocutors cannot answer it as well, that seems to me to indicate one of two things:

                1) It’s a question that indicates a fundamental flaw
                2) It’s an irrelevant question and I should be asking a different one

                It’s not obvious to me that I should come to the conclusion that it’s the second.Report

              51. OK, now we’re in some weird logical territory. What is more than “more than nothing?” I mean, “everything” is “more than nothing,” as is “every possible thing.” So “more than more than nothing” is really confusing.Report

              52. Jaybird, if you can’t answer it either, then it’s fundamentally flawed. At the very least, it isn’t a cudgel that beats on the heads of only liberals. It beats on your head too. So it’s not accomplishing what you want it to.Report

              53. But I’ve tried to answer it and, for the most part, I’ve answered it to my satisfaction.

                It’s the other folks who claim that my answer is not sufficient… and then, when I ask “what would be?”, I get told that since I haven’t answered the question, I shouldn’t cudgel them for not being able to answer it either.

                Perhaps the problem lies in how I don’t understand how I haven’t answered the question.Report

              54. Chris,

                The standard was set at “more than nothing and less than everything.” A penny for each poor person is more than nothing (and less than everything). So we’ve apparently met the standard that easily, and don’t need to provide more than that amount of “more than nothing.”Report

              55. No, Jaybird, you’re playing both sides of the fence it seems to me. You admit that you have positive obligations to others, then draw a bright line that limits it to “These Obligations and No Others!”. But you haven’t provided a principled reason to limit them where you have.

                I mean, you could move to practicality-based, and balance of social benefit, and competing values, type arguments, but you don’t. And haven’t yet.

                On the flip side, your asking liberals to provide what you haven’t: a principled limit on social obligations.

                So until you can provide a principled reason to limit positive social obligations as expressed thru government, your all square with liberals. That is, the limiting constraint on positive obligations expressed via government is determined by practicality, and consequentialism, and pragmatic resolution to competing values, and etc.Report

              56. Stillwater, here is a principle (or more of an argument) that limits the positive obligations we can demand from each other:

                There are a number of practical constraints on what a system of social rules can even in theory demand of us.

                Any social morality which consumes too much of our life is one that does not allow us the space to flourish. But, it is a basic part of how we conceive society that participating in it is conducive to flourishing.

                Any reasonable system of social rules cannot be too demanding or else we would not reasonably expect people who have their own projects and cares to accept it and live by it. And while a system without any kind of positive obligations would be one that was rather unpleasant (unacceptably so) to live in, A system which was too demanding would also be similarly unacceptable. Any system which does not place some limits on our positive obligations would be unacceptably demanding because it would require us to sacrifice too much of our projects. What kinds of positive obligations wouldn’t be unacceptably demanding?

                Well, we kinda know that rescuing the drowning kid when it will only ruin our expensive shoes is not unacceptably demanding. That’s because we presume that such occasions are rare. More than that, we presume that helping the kid won’t provide an incentive for other kids to pursue dangerous activities which lead to drowning.

                This means that there is a strong case for limiting our positive obligations when our fulfilling those obligations creates a tendency for there to be a greater need to fill those obligations.

                Another kind of limitating principle would be the amount and extent of change demanded of us. If some positive obligation demands too much of our resources or too much change from us it alienates too much of our projects and goals for us to flourish.

                This means that where helping may create bad incentives, we have to sharply and publicly limit how much we are willing to demand from eachother.

                A third cirterion would be if the basis of positive obligation is potentially infinite. For example, if we think that we cannot get true equality of opportunity unless we completely redistribute everything from generation to generation, then said putative basis probably isn’t (or at least not without some kind of obvious concrete and achievable limit)

                i.e. any positive obligation must be reasonably achievable. if it requires beings with inhuman motivation and willpower, even if there were actions that were technically within our capacity that we could take to achieve it, and even if some of us are sufficiently saintly enough to achieve it, it is not collectively achievable (which is an important consideration when you are looking at systems of social rules)

                If something is not colectively achievable, then it cannot obligate us collectively since ought implies can.Report

              57. I do find amusement that my quick snarky response of ” less then everything and more than nothing” has become the standard.
                I need to put less effort into responses.Report

              58. I admit that, if I have positive obligations to others, that these positive obligations are obviously not infinite. If I said that we should provide everyone with a yacht, for example, I think we’d all agree that I was making a strawman argument.

                So, given that we agree that our obligations, if they exist, are limited… I’m wondering where a limit might be and assuming that they limits are closer to “Spartan” than “Luxurious”.

                At what point am I making an obviously bad call?Report

              60. If I said that we should provide everyone with a yacht, for example, I think we’d all agree that I was making a strawman argument.

                But do we all agree with that? It seems like a strawman to me, but unless I’m really badly misunderstanding Stillwater, he’s claiming it’s not a strawman. That there may be some pragmatic reasons for not providing everyone with a yacht, but that in principle the demand is legitimate.

                And if I am misunderstanding Stillwater on that, I hope he’ll clarify for me. But that’s how I’m reading “there is no upper limit to what society is obligated to provide for ‘others’, except constrained by conflicts in other principles and practicality/pragmatics” (above).Report

              62. At what point are we making the distinction between “you have a positive right to (some stuff)” and “you have a positive right to dignity and self-worth”?

                Because I suspect that we can all get past the barriers to number one, except for some of the die-hard individualists. But we’re never going to be able to touch number two, because dignity and self-worth aren’t something I can give to anybody. They’re only things that people can discover for themselves.

                To the extent that some people tie their sense of dignity and/or self-worth into their ability to have stuff (or an income)…Report

              63. James, I want to say “arghh” right about now.

                I’m not saying that society has an obligation to provide a yacht to every man woman and child. I am saying that from a liberal pov, there is no apriori reason to reject the possibility. The reasons are consequentialist, and pragmatic, and etc.

                You on the other hand want to reject the possibility a priori, and that means based on principles, in particular moral principles (I take it), and that means the burden is on you to say clearly on what principled moral grounds society has no obligation to provide a yacht for people but does have an obligation to provide 2000 calories a day and shelter to poor people.

                I mean, I hate to keep saying the same thing, repeatedly, over and over, but until the libertarian can provide a principled reason to limit society’s positive obligations to, as jaybird called it, “a list”, then liberals and libertarians are both invoking the same types of argument to justify their policies.Report

              64. Perhaps we could produce trophies, medals, and certificates of participation (framed, of course) and provide these to everyone. If someone questions the worth of someone else, the someone else can hold up his trophy.Report

              65. I’m beginning to suspect that I’m being asked to argue against a position no one holds.

                Funny that. I mean, this whole thing started with you accusing liberals of not holding a view that you presumably did.Report

              67. then liberals and libertarians are both invoking the same types of argument to justify their policies.

                And by that I mean pragmatic and consequentialist and balance-of-value type arguments.Report

              68. Jaybird, is there a principle moral reason to limit – clear bright line – society’s social obligations to others to 2000 calories a day and shelter?

                If we have that positive obligation, what is the morally principled – rather than pragmatically justified – reason to limit the expression of that obligation to only those things?

                {{Criminy, it’s a philosophical point. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand.}}Report

              70. So “wants are infinite, stuff is finite” is not principled enough?

                No. Not even close. What you wrote is a description of things, a fact. And insofar as it informs your views on limiting the expression positive obligations thru government, it’s a consequentialist argument, it seems to me.Report

              71. Murali makes sense to me.

                It seems to me that some are assuming or implying that there actually is an objective, absolute standard of positive and/or negative obligation. I believe this is an illusion, and that anybody that wants to make this claim should support it with strong evidence.

                I make only the claim that we can evaluate some states as better or worse depending upon our values and contexts. These values and contexts are dynamic in nature, meaning that they can change over time and that our actions themselves interact and influence both out values as well as what is possible to achieve.

                Since our values and contexts are dynamic and differ by individual, then I will state that our assumed obligations also differ in similar ways. Social evolution or progress includes discovering ways for us to discover, explore, merge and share various interpretations of social obligations. We come up with various rights and see how these play out a they feed into our values and vice versa.

                One person can state that everyone has a duty to feed everyone else. Another can claim the right to kill anyone who tries to force them to feed others. Over time they need to work through their theories and see what kind of world this leads to. Through experimentation, sharing, competition of ideas and institutions, we can learn ways to improve our values and obligations and to provide mechanisms for people to explore their differences in ways which least interfere with others.

                This is of course a pragmatic and consequentialist argument.Report

              72. Dude, if you don’t like my clear bright line, let’s change it to a fuzzy one.

                “Food, shelter, water, sewage, heat, education, health care, internet, hand jobs, maybe a couple other things.”

                Can we agree that this list covers even *MOST* of what we’re obliged to provide? I’m not trying to say EXACTLY 1875 CALORIES PER DAY, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF CARBS, PROTEINS, AND FATS.

                I’m trying to establish that, sure, adequate nutrition might be one of the things we ought to provide. “Adequate” is a fuzzy, and not a bright-line, word.

                I’m trying to establish the stuff we need to establish before we start haggling… but, apparently, I have to talk about principles some more.

                How’s this? “Because I truly care about people, unlike other people.”Report

              73. And, Stillwater, I really am trying to understand you. If that results in an AARGH moment, I am sorry for that.

                And I’ll be honest, I just don’t get the idea that we can’t a priori reject the idea that society might owe me a yacht with hookers and blow (and I want to emphasize the hookers and blow part just as much as the yacht). You keep asserting it. I’m really sincerely asking you to argue for it (not for why society does, but for why society actually, potentially, might, if not pragmatic considerations intervene), because I truly cannot grasp on what grounds I might possibly have such a claim on that abstraction we call society.Report

              74. And insofar as it informs your views on limiting the expression positive obligations thru government, it’s a consequentialist argument, it seems to me.

                So two principles then:

                Wants are infinite, stuff is finite
                *AND*
                Ought implies CanReport

              75. Your claim on society is pretty solid. You obeyed the rules, you paid your taxes, you’re probably a pretty good investment as these things go: we all know you wouldn’t buy a yacht or hookers or blow. As Robin Williams observed, back when he was actually funny, “Cocaine is nature’s way of saying ‘You have too much money'” and with all due respect to David Ryan, a yacht is a hole in the water you throw money into.

                Look, you really have to come to terms with what society means. It’s everyone in context. Society doesn’t own you. It couldn’t. No sooner does it try, as in the case of Communism, where the State will care for your every need, you’ll go crazy like some sad demented leopard in a zoo, pacing back and forth. But in like manner, you’re not a leopard. You’re a human being, with intrinsic worth and dignity. That means we who behold you, hungry and begging, must also see ourselves in that sad place, as surely trapped by poverty as any leopard in any zoo. Report

              76. Jaybird:

                Wants are infinite, stuff is finite
                *AND*
                Ought implies Can

                How does this exclude provision of yachts from being a positive social obligation?

                I mean, really, the point is so simple: you a) concede that we have positive obligations, but b) limit them to only food and shelter without c) providing a principled reason for that limitation all the while d) accusing liberals of not having a limiting principle!!

                Now you’re offering the finiteness of resources as a principle limiting positive obligations to 2000 calories a day and shelter. That’s a pretty powerful principle, it seems to me, to provide specific answers to questions about positive social obligations. All it shows to me is that they can’t be infinite. But no one’s arguing that they can be infinite.

                James:

                Limiting positive obligations to need still doesn’t work, it seems to me. On a rights theory, I’m under no obligation to save your life, even if it costs me very little. Under a more expansive moral theory – utilitarianism, say – I do have an obligation to save your life, particularly if it costs me very little. But once we go down that road, positive obligations pop up all over the place, and limiting them to only the right kind of obligations requires argument. Which is my point.Report

              77. You’re still reifying “society.” I have no claims on society, even if I’m a good bet. I have claims on certain people in that society. The guys I’ve contracted with to put gutters on my house, my employer, the neighbor kid who agreed to watch our pets while we were gone over the weekend, etc. And they have reciprocal claims on me.

                To say “society” is obligated to me is to either remove that obligation from any individual person (even though individual persons are ultimately forced to pay), or to place it on every individual person (some of whom will not be forced to pay, and many others of whom will never have the remotest interaction with me, to the point it hardly makes sense saying we’re in the same society).

                It seems to me that “society” is a stand in for when analysis fails to provide an answer to the question of “when somebody is really in need, who is obligated to take care of them?”Report

              78. Stillwater,

                Limiting positive obligations to need still doesn’t work, it seems to me. On a rights theory, I’m under no obligation to save your life, even if it costs me very little. Under a more expansive moral theory – utilitarianism, say – I do have an obligation to save your life, particularly if it costs me very little. But once we go down that road, positive obligations pop up all over the place, and limiting them to only the right kind of obligations requires argument. Which is my point.

                The threading is becoming annoying. I’m moving this down below to start afresh.Report

              79. I’m really sincerely asking you to argue for it (not for why society does, but for why society actually, potentially, might, if not pragmatic considerations intervene)

                Not potentially might, but in principle possible might.

                If you think it’s in principle impossible, then you have a principled reason for thinking so.Report

              80. Roger, just wanted to say I like that comment, particularly the pragmatic/consequentialist part. That’s one aspect of your views I agree with.

                And Murali, sorry I didn’t respond to your comment sooner. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. I’d only point out that all the principles you mention are consequentialist, but even more than that, they’re (ostensibly) pragmatically justified (if I’m reading the comment right). Which confirms (albeit loosely) the point I’ve been trying to make all along.Report

              82. Stillwater,

                OK, my terminology could have been better.

                You’re still not arguing for it, or explaining how I could possibly have a right to have society be obligated to provide me with a yacht, hookers, and blow.

                Jaybird thought it would be a strawman argument if he had made it. I feel the same way, that if I said, “so this means in principle society might have to provide me with hookers and blow on a yacht,” a liberal would be totally justified in saying, “no, that’s a strawman, you dishonest jackal!”

                And yet you’re standing by this (apparently not a) strawman. But you’re not making it clear why it’s not a strawman.

                This is really a very weird situation.Report

              83. You’re still not arguing for it, or explaining how I could possibly have a right to have society be obligated to provide me with a yacht, hookers, and blow.

                The fact that I haven’t argued for it ought to mean something. The fact that I don’t think I could argue for it means another thing. And that fact that I can’t argue against the inprinciple possibility of it ought to mean something else.Report

              84. I suppose you’re right, and that all those ought to mean something. But what they don’t mean is that I understand what you think they mean. Please just tell me what you think they mean. I hope it means you’ve given up on believing in positive obligations, but I suspect that’s not it.Report

              85. It means that as a matter of fact, I don’t think there’s a positive obligation to provide yachts for everyone; and that I can’t imagine a scenario, in a world somewhat like ours, where that positive obligation could be justified; but that I nevertheless don’t have an a priori, principled reason to reject that such an obligation might be justified.Report

              86. And that’s why my question to Shazbot about whether Rawls can possibly get us to YHB was a serious one.

                My geometry teacher decades ago taught me that when your result is ridiculous, you need to re-examine your work. Concluding that YHB is unjustifiable but can’t be ruled out as a possibility seems ridiculous to me.Report

              87. Concluding that YHB is unjustifiable but can’t be ruled out as a possibility seems ridiculous to me.

                Well, for you it’s ruled out a priori: it’s inconsistent with your principles. But what principles are those? (I’m asking seriously.) What are the principles under which it’s logically impossible for YHB to be justified as a positive obligation?

                I mean, contingently, of course, say that our society would never permit it. That it goes against everything we believe in as a society. Etc and so on. But that doesn’t establish that it’s logically impossible.Report

              88. What are the principles under which it’s logically impossible for YHB to be justified as a positive obligation?

                1. Society is an abstraction, and as such cannot be said in a meaningful sense to have obligations (or debts, or beliefs, or preferences, etc. etc.).

                2. No positive rights, only negative ones.

                3. If positive rights, only needs.Report

              89. So on what grounds do you accept that income tax payers ought to subsidize the poor? That is, on what grounds so you justify violating those taxpayer’s negative rights?

                Or do you ….Report

              91. I’m mostly pragmatic about it. I don’t hold any principle as absolutely inviolable, certainly not if being inflexible about it produces the perverse result of the principle being violated even more badly in consequence (e.g., a “peasant revolt” that leads to even greater confiscation and redistribution).

                I hope you’re not still laboring under the assumption that every libertarian is a “you can’t violate that principle, even if the universe will be torn asunder and we all will die” libertarian.

                But when violating principles, whether because of conflict with other principles or out of pragmatism, I think it’s best to keep the violation to the minimum.Report

              92. Kim,
                Basic public choice theory. Only an individual can have a preference. What we call a “social preference” (America “chose” Barack Obama!) is only an aggregation of individual preferences, not a preference itself. And the problems of meaningful aggregation are legion.

                No, society does not have a preference order. You have a preference order, I have a preference order, and 300+ million other Americans have preference orders, and somehow somebody’s wins out in one case, and somehow somebody else’s wins out in another case, and so on. But to say that’s what “society” wants is just a shorthand; it’s not an analysis of the real world.Report

              94. James,
                And what of preferences that are not advantageous to most people? Societal preferences that serve to reduce birthrate, for example? All Societies that did not manage this, died out. Perhaps, in net, it is advantageous for the society — but for the individual who does not manage to outproduce his brothers? it is disadvantageous…

                A society is constructed of institutions, and it is within these institutions that we see the preferences of society writ large. Not all of these preferences are ones that folks would choose (55mph speed limit ought to ring a bell, right?).Report

              95. ” The wealth of an economy is not a fixed amount from one period to the next. More wealth can be produced and indeed this has been the overwhelming feature of industrialized countries over the last couple of centuries. The dominant economic view is that wealth is most readily increased in systems where those who are more productive earn greater incomes. This economic view partly inspired the formulation of the Difference Principle.

                The most widely discussed theory of distributive justice in the past four decades has been that proposed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, (Rawls 1971), and Political Liberalism, (Rawls 1993). Rawls proposes the following two principles of justice:

                1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.

                2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. (Rawls 1993, pp. 5–6. The principles are numbered as they were in Rawls’ original A Theory of Justice.)

                For (2b) Rawls uses an ‘index of primary goods’ to measure the benefits of people for the purposes of the second principle. Where the rules may conflict in practice, Rawls says that Principle (1) has lexical priority over Principle (2), and Principle (2a) has lexical priority over (2b). As a consequence of the priority rules, Rawls’ principles do not permit sacrifices to basic liberties in order to generate greater equality of opportunity or a higher level of material goods, even for the worst off. While it is possible to think of Principle (1) as governing the distribution of liberties, it is not commonly considered a principle of distributive justice given that it is not governing the distribution of economic goods per se. Equality of opportunity is discussed in the next section. In this section, the primary focus will be on (2b), known as the Difference Principle.

                The main moral motivation for the Difference Principle is similar to that for strict equality: equal respect for persons. Indeed the Difference Principle materially collapses to a form of strict equality under empirical conditions where differences in income have no effect on the work incentive of people. The overwhelming economic opinion though is that in the foreseeable future the possibility of earning greater income will bring forth greater productive effort. This will increase the total wealth of the economy and, under the Difference Principle, the wealth of the least advantaged. Opinion divides on the size of the inequalities which would, as a matter of empirical fact, be allowed by the Difference Principle, and on how much better off the least advantaged would be under the Difference Principle than under a strict equality principle. Rawls’ principle however gives fairly clear guidance on what type of arguments will count as justifications for inequality. Rawls is not opposed in principle to a system of strict equality per se; his concern is about the absolute position of the least advantaged group rather than their relative position. If a system of strict equality maximizes the absolute position of the least advantaged in society, then the Difference Principle advocates strict equality. If it is possible to raise the absolute position of the least advantaged further by having some inequalities of income and wealth, then the Difference Principle prescribes inequality up to that point where the absolute position of the least advantaged can no longer be raised.”

                http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Welfare

                The difference principle reflects the just way of organizing the basic structure of society to distribute goods. The exact levels and nature of how much will be spent and on what will be relative to facts about the particular society.

                You have no objection to the difference principle at all, just a question about how it will look in detail.Report

              96. Does Rawls possibly get us to hookers and blow on a yacht?

                That is, is there any way–in principle–that a focus on the absolute position of the least well off, rather than their relative position, would lead to providing the least well off with yachts?

                That’s a serious question. I guess it really goes like this; if 50% of society has yachts, hookers and blow (YHB) and we can provide YHB for the poorer 50% of society without negatively affecting the economy, would society be morally obligated to do so?Report

              97. That’s a serious question?

                Also, Rawls wants us to organize the basic structure to redistribute wealth (including office, opportunity for income, and not just income) fairly, not to go case by case redistributing individual things like yachts.

                There may be a serious worry about some situation where there is no more scarcity, such that the worst off -without any redistribution- would be very, very well off (no starvation or hunger, no educational inequality, excellent housing for everyone, no one without good healthcare coverage)

                But you’ll have to spell it out more carefully than a rhetorical question about hookers, which is a pretty silly attack on the most serious piece of political philosophy in the 20th century.Report

              98. It’s not an attack on Rawls. It’s a serious question about whether Rawls gets us where Stillwater’s gone (so far as I understand where he’s gone) with the positive rights argument.Report

              99. Rawls believes too much strict equality of goods could kill the capitalist system, (partially by killing incentives) which (when modified by the safety net and other measures) is the best system for the worst off. (Rawls is not an egalitarian socialist. He is a liberal who believes the worst off are best off with moderate help, especially in obtaining equality of opportunity.)

                And the redistribution of goods isn’t decided on a case by case basis from behind the veil. Rather, we choose a system of general rules for our society, a social contract, from behind the veil. That contract will spell out that the least off deserve certain levels of support, in order to achieve the best life for the worst off, but not specific things like yachts, or things that are plausibly bad for you like YHBs.Report

            2. Shazbot,

              Thanks for your replies and your defense of progressivism,

              On point 1, you agree that growth rates trump all, long term for the prosperity of the the average and of the let well off. Good. There are several data sources that measure and compare growth rates. In general they point to less government involvement in redistribution and regulation, not more.

              On point 2 you are now saying you find it hard to compare socioeconomic status even as you concede they have more purchasing power, yet this entire thread has been around your now baseless claims that our poor are worse of than theirs. I take it you are now retracting that statement?

              So your argument is now shifting to better health care and education? Ok. These are the two most over regulated monopolistic bureaucracies in America. I can show you how to fix these two. Easy breezy. An added plus, ass we solve for this we can also improve point number one. A twofer.

              You then in 3 shift to the argument that Europe has more “equality of opportunity.” could you define this claim please? Is this class mobility? Or does it revert back to education and health care and thus point 2?

              Let’s avoid tax debates until we agree what it is exactly you are suggesting we do with the poor, who seem to be doing better than before and better than anywhere else except with the caveat I provided on young males.

              Moderately higher tax rates and better benefits (adjusted for inflation) in the U.S. in the past have not slowed economic growth. So there is every reason to believe that if we increased taxes on the wealthy (back to Clinton levels or moderately higher) to fund more benefits targeted at creating equality of opportunity would make the U.S. less wealthy. Indeed, it is likely to make the U.S. more wealthy and the poor more wealthy, even aside from benefits.Report

              1. Thanks Roger. I should say that I feel bad for being too aggressive with you, because you seem really nice and very clever. But our disagreements seem really, really fundamental, which makes it hard for both of us to be charitable or get anywhere in conversation.

                My point is that the U.S. clearly doesn’t have as much equality of opportunity as other places. I say it’s harder to measure equality of outcome, but I suggested that the material goods that poor Americans have more of are not worth as much (never mind dollars but in terms of human well-being) as healthcare and equal opportunity for their children (and themselves.

                “On point 1, you agree that growth rates trump all, long term for the prosperity of the the average and of the let well off.”

                No. I don’t think that.

                “Good. There are several data sources that measure and compare growth rates. In general they point to less government involvement in redistribution and regulation, not more. ” I think this is false or at best highly controversial. I could cite a bunch of Krugman et al, but I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s for another thread.Report

  26. All people have a right to an income that allows them to buy food, housing (of the sort that is least expensive relative to their society), healthcare, and the ability to provide their children equality of opportunity (this includes money for equal education).

    People may forfeit this right if they do not attempt to work to benefit society. (This is the basis of the New Deal and welfare reform.)

    The basic structure of society should be set up to insure that level of goods for the worst off. The details of how this is to be done will have to be decided on a very messy, almost casuistic basis. That is, the details of welfare, food stamps, housing vouchers, education subisidies, etc. are tough to work out.

    But the fact that the details are tricky doesn’t imply that people don’t have such a right. To argue otherwise would be a sort of line-drawing fallacy: “If you can’t draw a precise line as to which things a person has a right to and which they don’t, then there is no such right.” Compare to: “If you can’t draw a line that determines how many hairs are required to be not bald, then there is no such thing as baldness.”

    Sometimes the details of a distinction are messy. So it is with the details of what counts as bald and what counts as a basic right.Report

    1. I’m not asking for a precise line. I’d be fine with a fuzzy list (my list, for example, was closer to “fuzzy” than “detailed”).

      People may forfeit this right if they do not attempt to work to benefit society.

      WOOOOO!!!! LOOPHOLE!!!

      Also: don’t pull the bald crap, hairist.Report

      1. I gave you a list. Society can provide benefits that ensure survival and a decent level of material goods for the worst off and not create disincentives to work.

        There is a balance between incentives and benefits, sure, but we’re nowhere close to creating those disincentives.

        The loophole is the basis of Clinton’s welfare reform and the New Deal.Report

    2. Just give everyone a decent income, say… $50,000 per individual, and you’re all doing alright.
      I reject that anyone that doesn’t work for society’s good ought to be pushed out of the system. Scorned, perhaps, but still entitled to the same as the rest of us.Report

      1. Cool,

        Give me and my wife each $50,000 a year and our collective income goes up, and we won’t work another goddam day in our lives. Early retirement, thanks to “society”! Woo hoo!

        And Kimmie’s so nice she won’t push us out of the system. That’s awesome.Report

        1. Yup. Of course, I don’t believe for a redhot minute that you’d actually do something like that. ;-P Sure, you might do it for a week, a month, maybe. Then you’d be itching to do something cool, something awesome with your life.Report

          1. Are you kidding me? With a combined 100k income my wife and I would spend our time tending the yard, reading, volunteering for local service organizations, and traveling. I’ve got a pretty good job, but the time does get in the way of what I’d really like to be doing. There’s all kinds of awesome things to do in life that don’t involve earning an income. In fact that’s the real pisser in my life–the activities I most enjoy are the ones that don’t actually have any financial remuneration.Report

              1. Say what? He wants to read, yo. Or his friend wants to watch TV. Why are these scarce goods? In fact, traveling needn’t be a particularly scarce good, provided he’s willing to work his way on an ocean freighter…Report

              2. traveling needn’t be a particularly scarce good, provided he’s willing to work his way on an ocean freighter…

                I’m not. But there’s only so many seats on a train, so many campsites at the KOA, so many canoes available for rental, so many entry permits to the BWCWA, etc.Report

              3. State forest lands are free. Pitch a tent more than 200 yds from the road, and you’re good.
                While it’s conceivable there might be enough people to burden NJ or CT… Pa’s still an awful big place.Report

              1. But none that contributed to the GDP–i.e., none that contributed back into that pool of money I’m taking from. In other words, _I_ am the reason your proposal is not sustainable.Report

              2. Not necessarily. by doing what you’re doing, you may be providing free time for other people to make stuff (aka the housewife thing). Or things that you currently do that are not contributing to the GDP may become stuff that does (like,s ay, blogging).Report

              3. Right now we have a lot of shitty jobs that people take because they have to. They aren’t actually contributing to world knowledge, to really improving people’s lives, and generally suck.
                Let’s leave waiters out of it, and talk about things that are reasonably robotic.
                At some point, you can automate most of the jobs away. We’ve already done that with manufacturing, after all.

                At some point, the best and brightest must sustain the rest of us. (well, I think i’m one of the best and brightest. I think you’re likely to be one of the folks who is still generating intellectual capital…)Report

        2. ” our collective income goes up, and we won’t work another goddam day in our lives.”

          Aren’t you TT? If so, you’re already living the dream of not working another day.

          🙂

          Seriously, once you get tenure (if you don’t already) will you do the minimum work to get by?Report

          1. Have you noticed how much time I spend commenting at the League?

            To the extent I do more than the minimum, it’s because I do enjoy what I do. Give me tenure and more money for working on a factory line and I would not switch jobs. But guarantee me the same income, or as Kim proposes, even more, and I’ll stop doing this job and do things I enjoy even more.Report

              1. Too late for them, although I do have review for my final step to full prof coming up in a couple of years. After that, it’s just don’t cancel classes too often, turn my grades in on time, and don’t fight or fish the students.Report

              2. You can probably fish the students as long as they aren’t actually in your class at the time, too.

                The wife might have something to say about that, but a fair number of universities let that sort of thing go.Report

      2. That seems like a high basic income.

        Do you mean including health insurance, public schooling subsidies, etc? Or do you mean 50 large on top of basic benefits like Medicaid, Medicare, Pell Grants, etc?

        You might be a socialist and not a liberal. IMO, there is a difference where socialists want so much equality, they might be in favor -where at all possible- of doing what Kimmi wants.

        Liberals (the terms are vague, I guess) want equality of opportunity (which may require some equality of outcome for parents raising children especially) and want benefits tied to some minimal level of effort, thus the New Deal: work hard and we’ll take care of you in retirement and unemployment, etc.Report

        1. $50,000 and that’s all you get. I’m not certain whether it’s actually more or less than what people get now.
          I think the title I’m claiming for now is libertarian, at any rate they’re the folks with the negative income tax jones.
          I believe that Americans (including Hanley) would continue to contribute to society even without getting paid.
          Perhaps they might not be doing so in the “most efficient” way possible. But hell, we don’t need half the stuff we think we do, anyhow…Report

      1. Well, all people have a right to life, and if life in a particular society requires them to earn an income of some sort in order to preserve their life, then they have a right to earn an income to sustain their life.Report

        1. Hmm, perhaps. Does society actually require use to earn an income? It’s not easy, but some people do survive by either begging or being self-sufficient in a rural area. Granted, those aren’t something we can all do (all of us at the same time), but they’re something any of us can do (if not too many others aren’t).

          But really, my problem with these arguments are not that, but who does the obligation fall upon? I think society is an abstraction, so I don’t think we can speak meaningfully about it being obligated. Only real live people can be obligated, and I’m still stuck on the question of why I am obligated to you, and vice versa.Report

            1. I say no. You’re a better person if you do it, probably, but you don’t have an obligation. (Unless you’re being paid to lifeguard, which I assume isn’t the case in your example.)

              I think to say “yes,” confuses goodness with duty.Report

              1. What if you see your uncle drowning in a bathtub. Suppose he is paralyzed and has been left unattended. Suppose you will get millions from him dying now that you won’t get if he lives (he is changing his will.) Let’s call this case 1.

                Imagine case 2 is where your uncle isn’t paralyzed, but hold him under the water until he dies.

                Would letting him drowned (in this case) be any morally different in terms of violating his right to live?

                The distinction between positive and negative rights breaks down in certain cases. This is a massive problem for all deontological rights views, IMO.Report

              2. Despite your protestations to the contrary, I believe there is a difference between inaction and action. I understand the difference is not a perfectly bright line, but neither is the line completely non-existent.Report

              3. Personally, I think there’s an initial inclination to help the drowning guy. It doesn’t mean you have to act on it to act morally, of course. But it seems to me that inclination needs to be defeated. That’s why the scenario is always cast as “little or no cost to yourself”.

                And it seems to me that the mere fact that the inclination needs to be defeated is enough to make it into a moral claim about positive duty. So, I’m curious about what you say here. It doesn’t strike me as descriptively accurate, on a psychological level, to say that you’d justify not helping the guy by recourse to a distinction between action and inaction, or negative rights!, or any of that.

                I think you’d help the guy. And not for self-serving reasons, but out of concern for him.Report

              4. Sure, I’d help the guy. I don’t think that’s enough to make it into a moral claim about duty, though. I’m really skeptical about turning human instincts into moral duties. I often have an instinct to kick someone in the nuts because they’re acting in an anti-social manner, and the inclination needs to be defeated. That doesn’t mean kicking people in the nuts as punishment for anti-social behavior is a moral duty, even if I’d sometimes like to pretend it is.Report

              5. But in that case, you have an otherwise sufficient reason to inflict harm on that guy, yes?, on which you don’t act on. That’s absent in the case of the drowning man.

                Do you refrain from kicking him in the nuts only because of social norms and fear the TehLaw?Report

              6. I am pretty sure that failing to help the man is as immoral as murder in this case.

                It surely is the case that there is a vague, imprecise distinction between action and inaction, but this also likely means that the distinction between positive and negative rights is vague and imprecise, too.Report

              7. Stillwater–Are you sure I have a sufficient reason to inflict harm on the guy? That’s putting too much reliance on the validity of my instincts. And that’s pretty much my point. I’m extremely dubious of moral claims, as I think most moral claims arise from desires, wishful thinking, rather than any really demonstrable basis. But instinctive reactions as a basis seem to me both a really weak and a very dangerous basis.

                Shazbot–I believe you, but I don’t agree.Report

              8. James, do you at least think there should be a punishment for both actions, e.g. murder and letting drown (as in the specific uncle case above.)?

                Or do think we shouldn’t punish the guy who lets his uncle die, even though all it took was a quick easy motion to save him?

                Morality is abstract and so disagreement is hard to resolve. Who we should punish is more concrete.Report

              9. I’m really skeptical about turning human instincts into moral duties.

                If that’s the case, then rights, duties, obligation are just pragmatically determined. Why arbitrarily restrict them to only negative rights, duties, obligations?Report

              10. Shazbot–do you at least think there should be a punishment for both actions, e.g. murder and letting drown (as in the specific uncle case above.)?

                No, just the first one.

                Stillwater–I’m not persuaded morals are a real thing. Just social constructs. If so, then why should I agree that we should have a social construct called positive rights?Report

              11. I’m not persuaded morals are a real thing. Just social constructs. If so, then why should I agree that we should have a social construct called positive rights?

                Well, rights are contained withing morality, yes?, so if you reject morals, you’re rejecting any interpersonal obligations – positive or negative – we have towards one another. That means our policies are determines by non-moral value judgments, or by happenstance, or the desires of the powerful.

                Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean.Report

              12. While I can appreciate that morals might be socially constructed in the same way that gender is constructed, I’d like to point out that that makes them pretty goddamn real and pretty goddamn inconvenient.Report

              14. James,
                Morals are real. It’s ethics that are merely social constructs, designed to keep society functional. And some believe they can break such at their own convenience.Report

              15. Contractarian thought can only take us so far. The problem starts with the word Contract. A contract implies enforceability, usually a contract specifies which governing authorities are amenable to both parties.

                The distinction between Positive and Negative Rights is tiresomely artificial. Sure, we have a right not be assaulted, that’s a clearly negative right. But all laws are positive rights. I have the right to call the cops and have the guy arrested and right there on his booking sheet, someone’s going to write the nature of his crime as enumerated in the criminal code of that jurisdiction. I have the right to interfere in that man’s life and sue his ass for in civil court and get a judgement and get the sheriff to enforce it. I could sue his employer, too, if he did it on the employer’s premises under the doctrine of vicarious responsibility.

                All laws are positive rights.Report

              16. Oh, sure, social constructs are real….social constructs.

                But they have no objective reality external to people’s beliefs in them. In contrast, the validity of, say, Arrow’s Theorem is wholly independent of whether or not we believe in it. I find that type of real thing to be a more fruitful avenue of study.Report

        2. Yes, we have the right to pusue happiness, so we have a right to earn an income — but earn means to go out get a job and work for the income. I have a right to pursue happiness, but that doesn’t mean I’ll find happiness. Most people will find a job if they pursue a job, but there’s no gaurantee. Some here are proposing being paid an income without pursuing it — it’s just given to us for being alive. Wealth has to be generated in order to give it away, so that means that some people would have to work and generate wealth in order to support others who don’t work, but no one here can say what moral obligation exists or why it exists that says I should work to support someone else who is unwilling to work, and most individuals will not do this voluntarily, only by force, so it’s not moral, it’s immoral — it’s enslavement of some in service to others. Even when Shazbot says that people have to put effort into something that benefits society in order to get the income — that could and would mean anything, so it’s just a cover for slacking while others do the hard work of generating wealth.Report

          1. so you’d rather we pay people to break their backs with manual labor, rather than letting the robots do it?
            Most people will say that a child ought to be supported, as ought a doddering old fool. Those who are too enfeebled in mind ought to be supported as well.
            Give people a chance to be ambitious, to have the money to create new businesses, and they will.
            Germany and NJ already have programs to create new entrepreneurs. I assume, because I know Americans, that if we’re given enough money, they’ll come about quite naturally.
            Hanley, above, would manage a decent living through blogging, I suspect — and possibly more practical research.Report

      2. My argument for the existence of these positive rights is Rawlsian. The worst off deserve a social safety net and equality of opportunity to wealth and office.

        The whole argument is pretty long winded, but I assume that you know it, so I won’t rehearse it.

        I find Jay Bird’s rhetorical question to be a pretty pathetic objection to Rawlsian liberalism. “Yeah Rawls, whatever. Exactly what is required for the basic structure to maximize the interests of the worst off. Be specific or you are wrong.”

        Line-drawing fallacy. 10 yard penalty, loss of down.Report

              1. There are only so many consistent sets of political principles that do a half decent job of accounting for some basic intuitions, i.e. there are only so many different political philosophies.

                You could be a hard core consequentialist, too. “No rights at all, except in so far as they lead to happiness.”

                You could believe in a natural law account: “X is just (a law or policy that we should pass) if X is natural.”

                You can go for virtue theory, feminist approaches to “care-based” accounts of justice.

                You can be an egalitarian socialist like Cohen.

                You can also modify Rawls of Nozick. But then you’re just a Rawlsian or Nozickean of a certain sort.

                I used to worry that you were a hidden Rawlsian.

                I now worry that you are a Nozickean (or a Lockean propertarian) who sometimes follows the utility principle even when it is inconsistent with your Nozickean principles.

                Maybe you want to be something other than a closeted Rawlsian or an inconsistent Nozickean. Not sure what that would be.Report

          1. I think you’ve already gotten decent responses, and given some yourself. 😉
            “reasonable equality of opportunity”:
            health care, housing, food, education… and a bit more? (crime prevention…?)Report

          2. Not specific. Okay…some level of food, health care, shelter, the basic stuff that prevents people from dying and will allow them to attempt to pursue happiness.Report

            1. the basic stuff that prevents people from dying

              So am I obligated to throw the life ring to the drowning person?

              Or is it just society that’s obligated to do so?

              These are not rhetorical questions. Nor are they necessarily directed to greginak personally.Report

              1. I think people are only obligated in the strictest sense to follow the law. If people want to go get a latte instead of doing something simple to save anothers life then they are free to do so absent a law saying “don’t be a selfish douchnozzle.” As a society we have the ability to provide many of the basics people need to eliminate basic wants and provide a solid safety net. Since we have the ability, as a society, to provide this safety net and that net leads to an increase in freedom and justice we should do that.Report

              2. Since we have the ability, as a society, to provide this safety net and that net leads to an increase in freedom and justice we should do that.

                So, as Jaybird asked above, “can implies ought”?

                Is the naturalistic fallacy itself a fallacy? (Again, serious question–I’m trying to figure out what’s involved in these arguments.)Report

              4. “We” obliterates any useful distinction between “society” and “government.” Here is the rub, since the former’s power is “soft” whereas the latter’s is coercive. Big diff.

                [As well as the use of “freedom” as a perversion of the concept of liberty, “justice” as a self-evident justification for the welfare state. The usual question-begging about what “we should do.” Why, it’s freedom and justice!]

                [It’s neither. It’s mercy. Unlike justice, it can neither be earned nor owed.]

                http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-03232004-164459/unrestricted/MoloneyDP042004.pdf

                Etc.Report

              8. I think Shaz is assuming an unstated “ought” here. The principle is supposed to highlight that if some action cannot be taken, then there’s no obligation (moral or otherwise) to do so. But if it can be taken, then it follows that people ought to, you know, actually do it.Report

              11. The fallacy generally arises when Bob is laying out the problem: Fred could easily (already we’re in Weasel word territory) save Alice from dying. The fallacy arises in what isn’t said: How did Alice come to be in mortal danger? Is Fred the only person who could save her? And if so, how?

                But let’s put all that aside for the moment. All such questions are begged, larded throughout with unspoken assumptions and judgements. Bob’s already said it’s easy for Fred to save Alice and he is going to tell us how to save her. He just hasn’t said it yet.

                The trap door opens on the fallacy when Bob tells us How. Fred’s assumed to know already.Report

              12. with all due respect to “ought” and “can”, i and others have put forward what we think is a good idea. We’re saying we think this is a good thing. Ought and can are pointless legalistic quibbling. That is not to say you do or have or even ought to agree. I’ve been in this conversation before and i know where it goes. We have disagreements, thats fine.Report

              13. It’s an important distinction, Greg. We can’t just say something’s good, that’s where it starts falling apart. Good is a judgement call. Even if all the world thought it was a good idea, it might not pan out as advertised.

                Plato said “Judge no man happy until he is dead.” I’m with you, we need a social safety net, not merely because it’s sound economics. It’s a matter of principle: beggars are a disgrace to any society. We do have obligations to each other, be they ever so consequentially justified or not.

                But that might imply certain base standards of human behaviour, ones not everyone finds philosophically satisfying. If, by a safety net, we made beggars wear a big sign “I am a failure as a human being” before they could get any help, some people might find that sign a social good. They’d say it would keep people from being lazy, I love that word lazy. Watch who uses it: people who don’t know any poor people. Nobody wants charity except grifters, who generally post big signs showing the faces of actual poor people so they can collect those donations and put them in their own pockets.

                When you say “there are things we ought to do”, however well meant, you’re opening the door to a demand for how such things ought to be done. That’s where the disagreement arises. It’s not enough to say we ought to do something abstract. Not everyone will agree with what’s “good”.Report

              14. We are all arguing for what we think is good. Arguing for freedom or safety nets are all judgment calls. I don’t believe there is a pure philosophical solution that says this is objectively right and wrong. I’d rather admit we are making judgment calls on many things. If something is possible then we can talk about our judgments about how it will work. Plenty of people from all directions will talk about having a safety net, the interesting questions for me are how to put a good safety net together; what works and what doesn’t. But i’m more interested in the practical then the philosophical. I’ve also worked in parts of social safety net for most of my career so practical is much more interesting to me.Report

              15. I’ll add on that much more of these arguments falls onto pragmatic concerns than the philosophically inclined would like to believe. Whether something is possible, unlikely or not all that hard can/should/ought to matter a lot to whether we do it. The example thrown about above was about a person throwing a life preserver to a drowning man. Distinctions have been made about whether throwing that LP would entail danger to the rescuer or almost no effort. Those are good distinctions in figuring out the problem. But the same concept applies to real world practical problems. How much does it cost? Is there proof X kind of program works? What will it take for it to work? etc are the mirrors of the various drowning man problem distinctions.Report

              16. The only sound approach to positive rights or obligations of any sort starts with the premise of defining the problem at hand. In the definition lies the groundwork for the solution.

                The Libertarians have some rum ideas about positive rights. They can’t quite get their head around the fact that a positive right has negative aspects. I ought to love my neighbour as myself, which requires some demonstration of that love, both to him and to myself. I’m not doing my neighbour any favours by letting him tromple on my rights: tolerate that sort of thing long enough, let your neighbour drive up your back yard to his property and he just might create an easement.

                I despair of do-gooders who think they can just drive into a refugee camp and throw things off the back of a truck: all they’re doing is wreaking havoc and sowing anarchy in an already-fragile society. The strong will take it all, pushing aside the women and children. Yes, the world ought to help refugees but that’s not the way to help them. You line the men up on one side, the women and children on the other, you make sure the women and children get fed first, then you go to the men. You have to keep good order in a refugee camp, that means armed patrols to keep armed bandits at bay. You have to expel strongarm bandits and you have to punish thieves: all in the name of a positive good.

                Understatement of the year goes to Jaybird “what could possibly go wrong?” And that’s where a meaningful safety net starts, with what’s already gone wrong, with the clear and present awareness that things are never so fucked up but what they can’t get worse.Report

  27. One other thing I’ve been wondering:

    If there is a level of provision under which we have to worry about The Poor voting in Maohitlerspheres and whatnot, is there a level of taxation above which we have to worry about The Middle Class voting in someone like a Romney or, shudder, a Palin?Report

    1. Heh. The poor will not vote the next Mao into power. On that you can bet your life. Some future generation will make that bet and lose.

      But yes, we’ve seen it before. When Jimmy Carter deregulated the Savings and Loans in a last-ditch effort to revive his moribund economy, Reagan enjoyed the benefits of all that capital melting out of the glaciers of capital. Of course, those lovely gurgling streams of capital dried up in the era of Bush41 and the nation elected another Democrat.

      These trends come and go, the pendulum seems to bang harder against the clock case these days. And one day, the clock will fall over in a mighty crash.Report

    2. Since Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class and it’s hard to tell what Palin wants other than to be rich and famous, I’m not sure I see your point. (The rich will want a Romney at any level of taxation that’s a positive number.)Report

    4. Seems unfait Jaybird.

      History tells us that there’s a floor standard beneath which the masses will rise up and overthrow the whole table. Example: See communism, origins of.

      Economics tells us there’s a soft ceiling on taxation where diminishing returns and feedbacks begin producing net losses for society.

      History tells us that there’s a hard ceiling at which no one owns anything and that ecnonomics goes underground and everything gums up into a huge maladjusted nightmare. See communism, outcome of.

      I don’t see where petty little grifters like Palin or Romney fit into the picture.Report

  28. @Stillwater,

    Limiting positive obligations to need still doesn’t work, it seems to me. On a rights theory, I’m under no obligation to save your life, even if it costs me very little. Under a more expansive moral theory – utilitarianism, say – I do have an obligation to save your life, particularly if it costs me very little. But once we go down that road, positive obligations pop up all over the place, and limiting them to only the right kind of obligations requires argument. Which is my point.

    Then under a rights theory, can’t we just reject the positive obligations claim? Let’s just admit it was wrongly made. Because a rights theory, as employed by you, the liberal, apparently doesn’t get us there. If I don’t have an obligation to unhook the life ring and toss it to you from the safety of the dock, then on what basis would _you_ claim I have an obligation to give you some of my money to buy food so you don’t starve?

    As to the utilitarian theory, we have to demonstrate that the benefit outweighs the cost. There’s your principle. It’s not so clear then that positive obligations actually pop up all over the place. That there would be a value to the recipient does not serve, in a utilitarian approach, to prove that an obligation exists. And, since value is subjective, I maintain that a utilitarian approach is impossible to employ. (I might be the kind of person that takes immense pleasure in watching another person drown, and the drowning person could be almost, but not quite, suicidal). So this also doesn’t seem to get us to positive obligations, at least not with any certainty.

    So, what is your basis for the idea that we have positive obligations?Report

    1. “under a rights theory, can’t we just reject the positive obligations claim?”

      No even Kant believes that you have a duty to charity if you have the ability to give and that others have a right to charity if they have a need. But your duty is “an imperfect duty” which is somehow weaker than a perfect duty in that it there are cases where it is okay not to live up to it. The corresponding right to be helped would also be, I guess, imperfect in the same way (i.e. it would have exceptions unlike negative rights like the right not to be lied to), but it would still be a right.

      So even a very deontological rights view is compatible with positive rights.Report

      1. If under a rights theory I’m not obligated to save your life–a huge benefit to you, presumably–when there’s very little cost to me (Stillwater’s scenario, not mine), then how does a rights theory get us to me providing less benefit to you at greater cost to me?

        I don’t think Stillwater’s taking a Kantian view.

        So even a very deontological rights view is compatible with positive rights.
        I’m less interested in whether it’s compatible with positive rights than whether it requires positive rights. Kant might, but do deontological rights views, as a class, necessarily require positive rights?Report

        1. Think of it this way. You’re an owner of a certain fraction of this society, (1/total pop). That’s your share. Might not seem like a lot, but it’s “not nothing”. In point of fact, unless you take yourself seriously and treat yourself as an owner, which does seem to be a deontological perspective, how can you possibly be a fit member of that society? And how can you expect anyone else to even carry their own weight and stay the hell out of your life, etc. so we can all live happy and productive lives — if you’re not pulling your weight as a co-owner of this proposition?

          So I fart in the elevator and everyone else has to smell it. Selfishness isn’t me wanting what’s mine, selfishness is me wanting it all and generally at your expense. Consult the metric buttloads of polemic the Libertarians are trying to foist off on us about how we ought to be responsible people.

          So a handful of people manage through their exercise of power to screw the rest of us. Where’s the Libertarian outrage upon that occasion? You guys are so naive it’s scary. Do you really think the exercise of power is limited to the government? The government is a complete figment of your imagination. Its power derives not from some old piece of parchment in a museum somewhere, and not from We The People, but from a handful of people who throw billions of dollars making sure the right people hold power in this country.

          And while a handful of people get to screw the poor, here come the Libertarians, scratching their heads like the scientists of Laputa, wondering if there are such things as Positive Rights. We have obligations to each other as surely as we have them to ourselves.Report

          1. You’re still assuming society is a “thing,” reifying it. I’m questioning that. Unfortunately I don’t know how to make that point any clearly, so we’re really talking past each other.Report

        2. It is logically possible that there are only negative rights.

          I would argue that extreme libertarians believe that such a possibility pertains. If you believe in a right to equal opportunity, you do not believe that such a possibility pertains.Report

          1. I don’t believe in a right to indoor plumbing, but I think everyone’s better off if they have it. Likewise, I don’t believe in a right to equal opportunity, but I think everyone’s better off if they have it. (Well, actually each person is better off if they have favorably unequal opportunity, but let’s set that aside.)

            No, I have real problems with these types of rights claims, because they assume some positive obligation on others, without making clear who has that obligation or just how it plays out. Negative rights are clearer. I have a right to not be hit on the head. Who’s obligated? You are, for every “you” that exists. What does that require of you? No positive action; you can fulfill the obligation by simply ignoring my existence.

            As I’ve said many times, where this gets problematic is with children. Kids may not have a right to a clean indoor toilet, but leaving them with no option but to shit in the gutter is too hard because they aren’t in a position to do anything about it themselves. So I’m willing to violate the principle for the sake of children.

            Once you’re an adult and you’ve received an education, though? That’s your opportunity. If you don’t take advantage of it, don’t ask for more. I’ve no patience with OWS types with a college degree asking for equal opportunity. And people who make bad choices as adults? Maybe give them enough to keep them from violating other people’s negative rights–a purely pragmatic action, not one of obligation. I’m willing to buy off the true scum (a very small percentage, I think) out of pragmatism.Report

              2. 1, 2, 3, 439 ! No it’s not pragmatism. It’s obligation to a society where your shit can give a thousand people cholera. You need to drum up something besides some metaphors to support your position.Report

              3. By your logic the homeless and abandoned child, or the homeless mentally disabled adult, has an obligation to society to afford indoor plumbing.

                No. They don’t. That’s a stupid moral burden to put on them. And that’s why it’s pragmatism that leads us to try to provide them with indoor plumbing, not because of their duty to us, but our self-interest.

                As for me, I don’t have a duty to society not to shit in the gutter. I have a duty not to harm other individuals. It’s built into the non-aggression axiom. There’s no need to invoke society at all.Report

              4. Make up your mind. You brought in this example of shitting in the gutter and now I shall hold you to it. Shitting in the gutter is a public health menace and we used to punish people who did it in Jalozai. We’d hand them over to the elders and let them deal with them, which usually involved stripes. We kept people alive that way, people who are now dying because no such discipline is being enforced. The City of London put in the first great sewers since the Romans after an epidemic of cholera and they made laws against shitting in the open.

                You have an obligation to your fellow man not to give them cholera. Self-interest my ass, we’ve still got those Guatemalan women in their lovely traditional skirts coming in from the countryside and shitting here and there and everywhere. And cholera still sparks up here and there and everywhere it’s done.Report

              5. Or I could filter my water and boil it. Or ship in bottled water.

                What, I’m supposed to assume that society’s going to subsidize my personal desire to drink from the tap?Report

              6. Why don’t you just titrate a few cubic centimetres of your own feces through a coffee filter and drink it, Duck? Therein lies a great educational experience for you. Let’s see if you survive it.Report

              7. What, I’m supposed to assume that society’s going to subsidize my personal desire to drink from the tap?

                Desire? Of course not. Only those who can afford it get to drink clean water out of a mere desire. The poor, on the other hand, are allowed to die of horrible disease – maybe even caused by the wealthy shitting in their well!!! – and complain with their last hep C breath that society has an obligation to provide pure drinking water.

                Yours is a much better scenario, Duck. It maximizes the spread of disease and crime and general decay and loss of life, but it doesn’t violate anyone’s negative rights!Report

              8. You know, when I was working at a Jalozai refugee camp, one of the things we did was to dig latrines and fill in full ones. It was a constant and ongoing effort.

                Now, nobody’s really in charge at Jalozai. And it’s full of of cholera. So much for your voluntary society at work, James. Sometimes I wish I could take a few of you Force and Frauders and rub your precious noses in the reality of human civilisation when it breaks down. It’s so bad with you guys, you’ve made “Somalia!” into a triumphant sneer, if anyone points out just what happens when mankind is given the freedom you think will solve the world’s problems.

                He doesn’t shit in the latrine, that’s what he doesn’t do. And people die of cholera.Report

              9. Funny, the Hutterites don’t have a problem with cholera.

                Maybe the problem is that you’re an idiot for thinking that the only model for the non-government managed world is a refugee camp.

                Or maybe you’re an idiot for thinking–despite repeated rebuttals–that libertarians don’t believe in any government.

                Maybe you’re an idiot because you can’t actually listen to what the other person’s saying, and work off what they actually say instead of what you fantasize that they’re saying.

                Or maybe you’re just an idiot. Period.

                Once again, as long as you’re unable to focus on what I’m actually saying, and what I actually believe, I’ll not bother responding to you again.Report

              10. More of your Cleaner Fish thinking. The Hutterites are not quite as democratic as they seem: they have internal authority structures, as do the Amish. And as with the Amish, they’re adopting the flush toilet and internal plumbing, yes, even toilet paper.

                You want to make this personal? When you’re pushed, you want to say the Libertarians aren’t opposed to government, it just has to be voluntary. Well humankind doesn’t work that way. We have laws which apply to all of us. You want to bring in some dumbassery about flush toilets being a human right, well it’s not a right so much as an obligation to society, public health is a meaningful science, though you clearly don’t think this is a matter where society ought to intervene. You want a Cleaner Fish World, where it’s all simple and obvious. But your examples are so much babbling idiocy. A metaphor isn’t congruent with reality: it always breaks down when it’s pushed. And that holds true for you.Report

              11. I’d like to propose a new fallacy.

                I will call it the sacrosanct fallacy. It is the act of objectifying a behavior or principle which is so important or sacred that it is best not interfered with. In essence the fallacy assumes that things that are best treated like they are absolutes really are absolutes.

                Example. It is best never, ever to poop in the gutter, therefore it must be our objective duty to not poop in the gutter and people have a right to be free from others gutter poop.

                Pooping in the gutter is pretty much an absolute no no. But the argument is still consequentialist, even if the justification of each incidence isn’t.

                Definition. 

                A principle or behavior which is too important or sacred to be interfered with. Inviolable.  Holy. Report

              13. Roger, there’s a closely related and somewhat well studied phenomenon in the psychology literature: taboo tradeoffs. I sometimes suspect that much of political rhetoric is designed to make relatively small tradeoffs seem like taboo ones to particular groups.Report

              14. I sometimes suspect that much of political rhetoric is designed to make relatively small tradeoffs seem like taboo ones to particular groups.

                Dayum! That’s a good comment.Report

              16. …”Somalia” isn’t a “sarcastic rejoinder”, you smarmy git. It’s a cynical comment about the kind of prima-facie fallacious arguments people throw at Libertarians.Report

            2. Do you think laws that create equality of opportunity are unjust?

              I thought that you thought (unlike extreme libertarians) that such laws are just.

              If you believe that such laws are just, then you either:

              a.) Think utilitarian concerns trump rights
              or
              b.) Believe in a limited positive right to equality of opportunity.

              Would you say the same about black adults in the days immediately following the end of Jim Crow segregation? Do they not deserve help in achieving equality of opportunity?Report

              2. I’m very dubious about their justness, and I really hate having to talk in the language of “justice,” which I think is largely a pure social fabrication. But to the extent I think they can be counted as just, I’ll let you decide what my concern for children counts as. I honestly don’t know.

                As for blacks after Jim Crow, I find it irritating that liberals always focus on the “what can society/government do for them after that terrible thing that society/government ended,” rather than doing some serious soul searching about what society/government did to them in the first place, and asking if maybe society/government as conceived by liberals isn’t such a great thing after all. Not that liberals supported Jim Crow, but that they are so overwhelmingly supportive of the institution that created and enforced Jim Crow. Maybe without that institution having that much power in the first place the question of what to do afterwards would be moot.Report

              3. What a pantload. The state governments instituted Jim Crow and it was the Federal government, you know, that institution which we Liberals have always been blamed for supporting, which sent Federal troops to Little Rock to desegregate those schools.

                Try again, only this time, do try to confine yourself to the truth.Report

              5. That’s nonsense. Brown v Board of Education was decided the same day. Bolling was given a writ of certiorari, which sent it back to the lower court. Clearly you don’t understand what happened in Bolling. Bolling went to a writ because nobody knew how to implement a solution. Eisenhower did come up with a solution: the 82 Airborne Division.

                Liberals believe in justice, if you do not.Report

              6. Way to miss the point, Blaise. The point was not how the Court handled Bolling, the point was that the federal government was running a segregated school system. Nice try at pretending that wasn’t the issue, but you didn’t pull it off.Report

              7. The District of Columbia was running a segregated school system. Let’s stipulate to everything you’re saying about the Federal Gummint being such a bad custodian of our Blessed Freedoms, etc. ad nauseam.

                Let’s return to your point about Liberals and what irritates you about us. We did some serious soul searching, not that you were around for it, but we did. For the pre-sixties Liberal, our concerns were chiefly about the excesses of J Edgar Hoover’s FBI and the Red Scare harum-scarum. The Conservatives looked down their noses at the racist rednecks: lots of prominent blacks advocated for strong families and the sorts of things which had lifted every other group out of poverty and discrimination.

                The Sixties were different. The lynchings had been covered in the press but television really pushed the civil rights struggle up America’s nostrils. The WW2 vets had endured discrimination but Liberals had sorta worked around that: case in point, lots of blacks from Bronzeville in Chicago came out west into DuPage County, beyond the racists in Cicero.

                Liberals never supported Jim Crow. Nor did the Conservatives. That was the province of the low-class uneducated types, the populist freaks who hadn’t quite given up on the Klan, which used to be a very big deal. Nobody fucked with the Klan but no intelligent person joined it after WW2. Most Baptist churches passed resolutions against the joining of secret societies like the Klan. They were the Tea Party of their day.

                Liberals knew the Federal Government had enforced segregation and it would take the Federal Government to stop it. Truman desegregated the military but the television reporting on the civil rights struggle is where America sat up in its armchair and yelled at the screen “By God, that is simply too much to tolerate.”

                You’re too young and far too doctrinaire in your opinions to understand what went down in those terrible times, how the Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party and how the Republicans shamelessly welcomed them in. I don’t expect you to know these things. I do, however, expect you to keep a civil tongue in your ignorant head about what Liberals like me thought about the powers of the Federal Government at the time. I served in desegregated units. The Federal Government, to wit, the US Army, informed us in no uncertain terms bigotry would not be tolerated and it wasn’t.Report

              8. Blaise,

                None of that has any actual relevance to what we were discussing. I agree with most of it, and that doesn’t change anything because it’s irrelevant. But let me address two points.

                Liberals never supported Jim Crow. Nor did the Conservatives. That was the province of the low-class uneducated types
                Richard Russell was not a low class uneducated type. He was an exceptionally intelligent and erudite senator from Georgia, who has a Senate office building named after him. He supported Jim Crow, along with a lot of other educated southerners.

                You’re too young and far too doctrinaire in your opinions to understand what went down in those terrible times, how the Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party and how the Republicans shamelessly welcomed them in. I don’t expect you to know these things.
                Well, don’t you think you’re clever? Not only am I almost 50 years old, but I teach this stuff every term. There’s really little doubt but what I’ve studied it more closely than you, simply because it’s a professional duty for me to know it. That’s the same reason I know that the federal government was so deeply involved in the segregation game for so long. So let’s stop this sad effort to proclaim some kind of spurious superiority on the topic, ok?

                I do, however, expect you to keep a civil tongue in your ignorant head about what Liberals like me thought about the powers of the Federal Government at the time.
                Funny, I didn’t say a thing about what liberals like you _thought_ about the federal government. So I could hardly have said anything uncivil. But you know, this whole, “I expect you to keep a civil tongue about things I care about” line is really old and tired by now. You’ve repeated it a thousand times, and nobody listens to you. Maybe you should give it up already, because nobody fucking cares if you want us to be civil or not.

                I served in desegregated units. The Federal Government, to wit, the US Army, informed us in no uncertain terms bigotry would not be tolerated and it wasn’t.
                Yes, because you served after 1948. Prior to that, for many decades, the federal government segregated the military. Why did Truman desegregate? Votes. It wasn’t out of the goodness of his heart or recognition of the evils of segregation. It was about getting votes. And I say good for that–I don’t particularly care why he did it, so long as the good deed was done. But let’s not pretend the federal government was doing it out of nobility. Hell, he faced serious opposition from Congress–his own party, even–for the move. Like society, the Federal Government isn’t some “thing” that has unity; it’s a collection of different parts, some of which supported desegregation and some of which didn’t.Report

              9. The wounded surgeon plies the steel
                That questions the distempered part;
                Beneath the bleeding hands we feel
                The sharp compassion of the healer’s art
                Resolving the enigma of the fever chart.

                Our only health is the disease
                If we obey the dying nurse
                Whose constant care is not to please
                But to remind of our, and Adam’s curse,
                And that, to be restored, our sickness must grow worse.

                The whole earth is our hospital
                Endowed by the ruined millionaire,
                Wherein, if we do well, we shall
                Die of the absolute paternal care
                That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere.

                You can rant about the Absolute Paternal Care which Prevents Us Everywhere. I’ll go on about “the whole earth is our hospital” and we’ll go on disputing for years and we’ll both be half-right.

                The Liberals did care, even when the government didn’t. You might remember we were trapped in those times and we did the best we could. I wasn’t particularly clever, nor am I now. But I will not have you gainsay me, you intolerable, simplistic cock-a-whoop, crowing from your Ivory Tower. I have the time in grade to have watched the world transform and give my fellow gay and lesbian citizens the right to marry where once they were arrested and fired from their jobs. I have outlived my enemies. I will not outlive you, and more’s the pity.

                The unpurged images of day recede;
                The Emperor’s drunken soldiery are abed;
                Night resonance recedes, night-walkers’ song
                After great cathedral gong;
                A starlit or a moonlit dome disdains all that man is,
                All mere complexities,
                The fury and the mire of human veins.

                You may disdain all those mere complexities. I was not afforded that luxury. You remain Yeats’ golden bird. You represent no living thing, no conscience. You live in a world I reject entirely, one you will come to reject in your turn. And when you do reject it, you will remember the pat certainty of your fatuous insistence, your rejection of those mere complexities. And you will smile and remember me. And I will smile back, ever your friend.Report

              10. The Liberals did care, even when the government didn’t.

                I never said they didn’t, you nitwit. I said Truman didn’t care. If you want to argue, why don’t you pick something I actually said to argue against? If you’re reduced to just making up claims I never made to argue against, then it’s just getting very fucking pathetic.

                I will not outlive you, and more’s the pity.
                The pity is that you care whether you outlive me or not. If I die at age 65 rock climbing, and you live another ten years and die in the bed of a beautiful young woman, it’s all good. I’m not about to base my happiness on whether I outlive someone else or not. All that matters is whether I get a kick out of the time I have.Report

              11. Is that so? Explain this, in context of what I’ve said:

                Not that liberals supported Jim Crow, but that they are so overwhelmingly supportive of the institution that created and enforced Jim Crow. Maybe without that institution having that much power in the first place the question of what to do afterwards would be moot.

                That’s pure-D bullshit. You can either retract that or not. It’s your call. I see that as a position which contradicts the evidence which I am living proof is not the way it was.Report

              12. What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, what is your goddam malfunction? That quote specifically says liberals did not support Jim Crow, and I’m comfortable with that quote because not once did I ever imply liberals didn’t care about the issue.

                Jesus buttfucking Christ, I’m one of the guys who rips the Republicans who like to sneer that the Democrats were opposed to desegregation, endlessly trying to point out to them that it was conservatives, Democrat and Republican, who supported it, not liberal Democrats, and that ultimately the conservative Democrats left the party and became Republicans, with the final big shift happening after the GOP took control of the House for the first time in 43 years back in the ’94 elections.

                I’ve made that argument on this blog numerous times, so I’m quite comfortable with my credentials on this issue. So get off the internet, figure out what the fuck is wrong with yourself, and just leave me the fuck alone you mentally defective pain in the ass.Report

              13. Richard Russell was not a low class uneducated type. He was an exceptionally intelligent and erudite senator from Georgia, who has a Senate office building named after him. He supported Jim Crow […]

                That’s an understatement. Unlike the George Wallace/Orval Faubus type of opportunist, Russell thought it was his sacred duty to keep the races apart.

                Why did Truman desegregate? Votes.

                I’m sure that didn’t hurt, but do you know for a fact that’s all it was? Branch Rickey was trying to improve his team’s chances by finding a new source of players, and it worked: the Dodgers were by far the best NL team of the late 40s and 50s. But at the same time he knew damned well what he was doing, and how important it would be. He’s not less of a hero because he had to find the right opportunity.Report

              14. Eh, Truman might have thought ultimately it was the right thing to do. But early 20th century Missouri didn’t breed lots of whites who cared about Negros, especially in the Democratic Party of that era. It was the party of Woodrow Wilson that he joined, not yet even the party of FDR, and FDR did damned little for blacks, despite the pressure from his much brighter cousin Eleanor.Report

              15. Oh, and as I said, ultimately I don’t care about his reasons. Like Branch Rickey, he made the move and is no less a hero for having less than a pure heart.Report

              16. While you continue in this continued choleric temperament, I must continue in my insistence upon reinforcing my testimony wherein the Federal Government was believed to be our last and best resort for justice. You have damned us for it, do not now deny it. And now I shall eat your proverbial lunch, whatever pathetic litany of profanity and screeching you can bring to bear upon the eating thereof. I shall smile grimly and devour your argument apace, all such pathetic bleating notwithstanding.

                We knew, then and now, that only SCOTUS could resolve the idiocy of Plessy. Congress was weak. The Executive could only address issues within its purview. Thurgood Marshall understood the argument you make now, as the segregationists made it then. He attacked segregation on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment.

                I will not get off the Internet. There is a certain gravitas which attaches only to the survivors of a conflict, one you shall never inherit. I have never pretended to the impartiality of the historian. Nor have you in your impudent conclusions about the articles of our faith as Liberals. You are no measure of us as Liberals. You are as blankly ignorant of us as of the Ming Dynasty, to say we trusted in the power of the Federal Government. We had no other venue for justice, the States denied us.Report

              18. Let’s vote on this. The hundreds of millions of words that have been written using States’ Rights to justify Jim Crow and segregation on one side, against the paltry few that might have been sincere on the other. No contest. Oh, and you on the losing side: if you’d made any complaint about how your principles were being misused by a purely evil cause, we might even have some sympathy for you.

                Next up: the people who opposed the public accommodations section of the ’64 CRA on pure libertarian principle.Report

              19. From what I can tell, the federal government has protected people from the tyranny of the states as well as having subjected them to it.

                Certainly, Congress did pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but the courts have since gutted it with respect to state action, which it was specifically meant to address.
                Justice Marshall’s dissent in Briscoe v. LaHue discussing that Act is particularly compelling.

                Likewise, there have been a number of restrictions on civil rights litigation imposing on them a class-based animus; which is to say that it’s A-ok to strip a person of rights, so long as it’s not as a group of people.Report

              20. Well, hypothetically if one group has suffered horribly from non-governmental discrimination, such that they have much lower rates of education, job skills, networks of friends who have power and influence, etc., could you imagine a case where the discriminated against have a legitimate claim (that’s all a right is, really) to get help, paid for by the government via its use of taxation?

                If you answer “No”, how are you different from the extreme libertarians?

                If you answer “Yes”, how do you determine when some disadvantaged group has a legitimate claim (right) to help? (I realize this is a hard question, and am not trying to say the lack of a precise answer is a reason to reject your position. But I can’t accept your position until I understand your principles.)

                —

                Finally, I am worried that you do not think principles matter in disputes about justice or rights. Is this the case? Are you some sort of hard core pragmatist, who just happens to think libertarianism is the pragmatic way to go for now? Or are you committed to certain principles (I’d call them principles of justice as is standard in political philosophy) that make you a libertarian, regardless of circumstance or what is useful?Report

              21. Ah, I’m tired of the third degree, Shazbot. You give a lot more credence to political philosophy than I do. Can you lay out all your answers to all these things with perfect consistency and clarity? I can’t. Nor do I care to try, nor do I care to spend the time trying to figure it out.

                If you want to call me a hard core pragmatist, knock yourself out. That’s probably about as close as it gets. As to your being “worried” about me not caring enough about principles, I’m just some guy in Michigan. Why should my positions be of enough concern to cause you worry? I think you’re taking all this far too seriously.Report

              22. I think Shaz’s issue isn’t that you don’t take political philosophy seriously, but that you seem to think that a particular view of political philosophy has more merit than others. Namely, a political philosophy which rejects positive rights and enforces only negative rights will lead to the best outcomes. And that’s not a crazy belief to hold, I might add. But that view is squarely in the strike zone of political philosophy.

                And maybe you have empirical evidence that a negative-rights-only approach actually will lead to the best outcomes. But that requires arguing that negative rights positive rights don’t lead to the best outcomes. Which is a consequentialist argument.

                And again, that’s fine. It just seems your sometimes taking an a priori approach to rights and sometimes taking a consequentialist approach. But in both cases, positive rights are excluded. And that sorta inclines one to believe that you have a theory of rights and good argument to justify making the distinction.Report

              24. I understood it. It just doesn’t move me. Damn near nobody has a very consistent position on this matter, so I don’t feel particularly compelled to. I don’t like positive rights on a pragmatic level for the very reason you demonstrated here–there’s apparently no evident stopping point. It doesn’t have to be a super highly principled one to satisfy me, but I’d at least like to see a “prominent solution” (ala Thomas Schelling), a point that everyone tends to cluster around as a point that signals here’s where we should stop. When the advocates of a position suggest they’re on a slippery slope, I think the pragmatic thing to do is to avoid stepping out onto it.

                And from a principled point of view, or so I suppose it is, I can readily see the basis for saying it’s wrong for you to hit me and take my stuff because then you’re gaining at my expense, whereas I have a much harder time seeing the basis for saying you have a claim on me, because like the hitting me and taking my stuff, you’re gaining at my expense. That seems very clear to me, and I puzzle that it doesn’t seem very clear to some others. The whole positive rights argument to me seems to come down to “can implies ought,” and that strikes me as a very bad philosophical argument.

                I short, I don’t think my need gives me any claim over you, whether a right to have some third-party force you to give me some of what you have or a right to hit you on the head and take it.

                I can see a pragmatic reason for saying we’re all in this together and committing to each other collectively, but that’s purely pragmatic and contractual. It’s about agreeing to an obligation, not that obligation being inherent.Report

              25. I’m not actually emotionally worried (about anything on a thread). I mean to say “I am confused and don’t see what principles that you accept that lead you to believe in the policies that you believe.”

                I think your avoidance of discussions of principles is too convenient. You clearly accept one principle: Violations of negative rights, especially rights over the body and property are inherently (or even “always”) wrong or unjust.

                However, you are not an extreme libertarian. You think that there should be equality of opportunity. You think that poor children have a normative claim to (a positive right) a level of support (not just from the parents but from others in society, if the parents can’t provide it) that will allow them an equality of opportunity. You seem to think that some of the truly worst off (the extremely disabled, the extremely handicapped) deserve help (i.e. have a positive right to resources from others in society) maintaining a basic quality of life. These are the moderate policy preferences that make you a moderate libertarian.

                I want to know what is the principle that you accept that causes you to believe that negative property rights should sometimes be violated to achieve your preferred moderate policies.

                It seems to me that you can give the following answers:

                1. You only accept the don’t violate negative rights principle. If so that means that you shouldn’t be in favor of moderate policies. But you are in favor of moderate policies, maybe because you are a bad person, or irrational, or unwise.

                2. You do accept some principle (maybe something like the utility principle, or some pragmatic principle, or some equality principle for children and the disabled) that implies that there are times when we should pass policies that violate negative rights (especially of the well off) to bring about a state of affairs that this second policy views as good or just.

                If you accept 1, you shouldn’t be a moderate libertarian. Maybe you only do so because you are weak willed and afraid of losing face in front of others. (Don’t mean to be attacking.)

                If you accept 2, you need to tell us what this principle is if you want to convince us that almost anything you say about politics and policy is true.

                After all, there are only a few things that we can discuss.

                A.) We can discucss which principles of justice or morality to accept.

                B.) We can discuss which policies are most likely to bring about a state of affairs that is good according to the principles that we mutually hold.

                C.) We can discuss factual claims about what is happening in the world around us, e.g. how well Europe is becoming equal.

                D.) Jokes

                But if we can’t even discuss your preferred (?) or my preferred (Rawlsian) principles, then we can’t discuss A. and we can’t discuss B. We could still discuss C., but if that will never lead to any new ideas or good arguments about policy, it is pretty boring.

                That leaves us with D., which is not so fun without something serious to joke about.Report

              26. Oh, for pete’s sake, Shazbot. You’ve got Stillwater who explicitly denies liberals have a priori principles, except perhaps for a fairness principle, and on this thread has categorically stated that he doesn’t know any principles that would say society doesn’t, at some time in the future under different conditions than today, have to provide me with YHB.

                And yet you’re not taking on your fellow liberal about not wanting to have a serious discussion about principles. No, it’s that other guy, the one who’s not part of your ideological club, that you want to badger. Get your own house in order, then maybe I’ll be willing to talk.

                As to the “negative rights are inviolable,” I’ve made it clear on this thread and many times in the past that I’m not an absolute stickler on that. My staunchest case in point on violating those principles is, as I’ve said over and over, apparently speaking to an empty room, children. I don’t think you can legitimately take my money to subsidize your business or to fix up your house or to invade countries that haven’t invaded us or to imprison people who haven’t harmed anyone, but I have no qualms about you taking my money to give children an education, clothes and food if they need them, and medical care.

                Is that “just” or “unjust”? I don’t know, nor do I care. You speak the language of justice, not me. 16 years ago I walked out of my theories of justice class in the middle of the class session, middle of the term, and never went back. I’d satisfactorily been persuaded that justice is a concept that is entirely socially constructed, so to talk about what it “is” is a pointless effort. We can only talk about what you think it is, or what our society has constructed it to mean, but not what it objectively is or is not.

                You want to keep all this in philosophical terms. I’m not that interested. That’s your ground, not mine.

                And I owe you no explanations. If you want to understand me, rather than just find points for critique and attack, don’t be so damned pushy about making me justify myself on your terms. That’s not a friendly act. My grounds are basically public choice theory laid over classic liberalism. Come talk on my grounds, if you’re really interested in a genial conversation.

                Look, you have your positions set. It’s not possible that I can justify libertarianism to your satisfaction, so what is your purpose here? Are you trying to show me that I can’t hold libertarian views (unless I adopt the extremist positions)? That’d be pretty damn pretentious and uninsightful. Or do you even have a clear sense of what you’re trying to accomplish?

                I’m happy to answer questions, as long as they don’t come across to me as a demand that I justify libertarianism on your grounds. You’ve set up parameters where that can’t be done, so it’s a dishonest game to play.

                End of story, end of discussion, as far as I’m concerned.Report

    2. I take it as a basic moral fact, myself, one that life experience and thought experiments and other appeals to moral intuitions make evident. How that intuition gets expressed, and the limits of it, and the role of government in fostering/hindering that expression are different topics it seems to me. As are technically refined moral theories that either try to provide an analysis of that fact or how the dynamics of it play out.

      I don’t think rights theory can capture the intuition without adding some other moral dimensions: human dignity, suffering, consequences of acting inhumanely, etc. I think utilitarianism comes closest to providing an intuitive account of why we care about others – because we care about their suffering/flourishing – but of course it has problems as well.

      On a theoretical level, I don’t think you can justify acting on positive obligations via government mechanisms without utilitarianism, tho (even if it’s a utilitarian – or consequentialist – calculus of competing rights claims). And part of the tension I’m trying to focus on is that a purely rights based approach is (to me) inconsistent with (what I view as the fact of) positive obligations while a purely utilitarian approach justifies too much. So there is no a priori answer as to what constitutes “just the right amount” of positive obligations enforced via the state. It’s determined by practice and by the values a specific policy advocate is trying to promote or achieve.Report

      1. OK. Let me just accept that as a statement of your views. I’m unpersuaded to adopt it myself, but that’s not relevant.

        Please let me run slightly off topic then, in regards to your very first clause. How is that not an a priori principle? I don’t mean that in a “gotcha” sense. We’ve gone round and round on this issue of a priori principles, where I suspect you have more than you say, while you say you don’t. That looks to me like an a priori principle. If it’s not, then I think–as I’ve begun to suspect–that I don’t actually understand how you define an priori principle, and much of our debate/argument about that may stem from just using the term differently.Report

        1. How is that not an a priori principle?

          Because it’s a) an observation, b) it’s a principle which is easily defeated (doesn’t necessarily hold), c) I haven’t endorsed an ideology claiming that acting according to only – or even primarily – that principle will lead to best outcomes, and d) it’s one of many other competing observations/principles I hold about human beings and complex systems, some of which are in direct conflict with it (eg, self interest).

          But I see where you’re going.Report

          1. I’m willing to accept that, but then I’m not sure libertarians have a priori principles in quite the way you say they do.

            The non-aggression axiom is held by most libertarians as a “basic moral fact,” and stems from an observation about the harm of aggression.

            But mostly I think we’ve been using the term in different ways. I just see an a priori principle as one that doesn’t itself derive from other principles. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t derive from something. But maybe I’m wrong in my usage. I never did like this philosophy business much.Report

            1. ” I just see an a priori principle as one that doesn’t itself derive from other principles.”

              I think you mean “axiom” not “a priori principle.”

              Many a priori principles are proven (a priori) by means of other principles.Report

    3. “your basis for the idea that we have positive obligations?”

      1. The Lockean proviso. I deserve a share of natural resource wealth. I have a right to it. Rich people have the natural resource weath. They have a duty to transfer some of it to me.

      2. We do not deserve to be born disabled, or blind, or to parents who abuse so badly that you become psychologically damaged and incapable of economic success, nor do we deserve to be born talented or into wealth. And so we do not deserve all of the resultant deserts or absence of deserts. (Which is the spelling for ice cream and is the moral concept?) We then need to figure out what we have a right to, which is what is a fair distribution of goods.

      In brief, we do not have a right to all of the wealth that we create because we do not deserve it anymore than we deserve to be born talented instead of into horrible circumstances.

      The difference principle states how we should distribute goods and how we have a positive right to a fair (Based on the difference principle) share of goods.Report

      1. In many many cases successful people rise above poor, unfortunate circumstances. In a free society, there will be more people making their success by beating the odds than through some accident of birth. IN all areas of endeavor people have characteristics they are born with, then it matters what they do with it — the pretty boy actor has to learn to act in order to make it big — the ugly, natural math smarty has to work hard and learn math well enough to compete in a hi-tech market. The woman with business instincts has to compete with diligence to succeed in business. The young man who was raised in poverty but has an ear for music must apply himself to rise to the big time. You simply don’t understand people, just theory.Report

        1. For those who can’t help themselves, it’s a given we will help them. We have become that type of people, so it’s a red herring to bring the disabled into it, or the psychologically damaged — we’ll help those who can’t help themselves.Report

        2. In many many cases successful people rise above poor, unfortunate circumstances. In a free society, there will be more people making their success by beating the odds than through some accident of birth.

          This is true (and “free” is a pretty broadly defined, here: think of Thomas Cromwell), but only of a small minority, and upward mobility varies from society to society, and I’m not sure it correlates with “free” in quite the way you think, particularly given how I suspect you define “free.” Our country’s upward mobility is pretty limited when compared to some society’s that I suspect you would consider less “free” than yours (as Shaz has mentioned, I believe).Report

          1. “Our country’s upward mobility is pretty limited when compared to some society’s that I suspect you would consider less “free” than yours (as Shaz has mentioned, I believe).”

            And these countries would be?Report

            1. It depends on how people apply themselves. There’s nothing but government policies holding people from being successful in their endeavors and making a good life for themselves, regardless how they start out (and I’m not talking about the physically or mentally handicapped, but many of them overcome their circumstances too). When government doesn’t put up obstacles or perverse incentives to remain in dependence, most people will put together a decent life for themselves, with the help of others, of course.Report

              1. You hold a patronizing view of poor people. I grew up in poverty with none of the advantages of the middle or upper middle or high classes. Hell, my buddies who grew up in similar circumstances all did well. This is andectdotal, but it’s the way people do when they apply themselves — they overcome if they get an education (learn a trade), and they work hard to get ahead. Anyone can do it, even if they aren’t the naturally brightest, or best looking, or even if they don’t have rich parents, or even if they aren’t white or male. People do it all the time, so it can be done.Report

              4. Dude, your answer to my points, in each case, was to repeat a claim without supporting it. I’ve supported mine. If you can counter it, I’ll take back the fantasy bit.

                Your claims: freedom is the key to mobility. The only barrier to mobility is government.

                My claims: freedom and mobility aren’t perfectly correlated, particularly under your conception of freedom. In fact, they’re decoupled in ways that you wouldn’t predict. Plus, there are non-government factors that influence mobility.Report

              5. Of course I’m speaking in general terms. But in general if we live in a society in which we have a minimal government to protect our rights, this gives us the freedom to apply ourselves to learn and to put togther a good living for ourselves. There are so many avenues available due to what we’ve already accomplished, that opportunity is everywhere we look. There are ups and down, but we can live comfortable lives compared to the uneducated living under dictators. Our statist system has gradually blocked opportunities in different ways, particualrly through regulations, so that since the turn of the 20th century, a minute or so historically speaking, government has gradually hampered mobility in different ways, the welfare state being one in which people are captive to enclaves in large cities, until we see high unemployment for a long period of time.Report

              9. government/fed policies have created sugar-highs in the economy for decades while building up unfunded liabilities to the point that government is crowding out and scaring the private sector creating a situation that keeps the poor dependent on a government that’s becoming even less capable of providing for the poor. Duh.Report

              14. “Our country’s upward mobility is pretty limited when compared to some society’s that I suspect you would consider less “free” than yours (as Shaz has mentioned, I believe).”

                And these countries would be?

                M. Farmer, America sucks, the huge waiting list from OECD countries to get into America notwithstanding. And from the rest of the world too, needless to say.

                Actually, it’s needful to say. A Somalian gets a better break in the USA than in Sweden. You could look it up. Or: let’s save us all the trouble

                Somalier på arbetsmarknaden – har Sverige något att lära?

                My sentiments exactly.

                http://www.thelocal.se/44236/20121105/Report

  29. @James Hanley.

    I am not reifying society. You think Society is a cage at the zoo, with some sad leopard remembering his happy life on the Serengeti. You’re the one giving me all this Galt Guff and Nonsense about how you have no claim on society nor it on you.

    You asked for principles but now that they’ve been given to you, you don’t like them. Well let’s put this in perspective. You can’t avoid society and it can’t avoid you. But wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a minimum of interference on both sides of that problem?

    See, Rawls was wrong: we’re always peeking under his famous veil. And you’re peeking too, justifying those peeks by saying you’re not part of society. Of course you are, with every law you obey and person you help (at least educate!) and every act of kindness you perform, which I dare say are many and frequent. Selfishness and cruelty subtracts from that net total we’re all contributing toward: sowing fear and mistrust, the great enemies of society.

    Subtract everyone from society, one by one by one and you’re left with yourself, as surely imprisoned and isolated as any prisoner in solitary, or that miserable leopard in his cell. Even that fatuous old nanny goat Ayn Rand eventually went on the dole. The cage that locks others out also locks us in.Report

    1. You think Society is a cage at the zoo,

      How can I think society is a cage at the zoo when I don’t think society is a thing? That’s a failure to think about the meaning of what I actually said.

      Plus, claiming that we don’t have obligations toward each other does not mean that I think we should all be at each other’s throats. I’m not obligated to hold the door for the person behind me, but I can see that it’s a better world when I do, and I can take pleasure just in being nice to someone. Again, there’s a failure to think about the meaning of what I actually said.

      With your “cage” and your “Galt” nonsense, you’ve once again shown that instead of listening and trying to have a reasoned argument, you just want to claim the worst about another person. You’re tiresome, and I have better uses for my time than to continue a debate with someone who’s standard recourse is to go all strawman. Have a nice evening, but don’t expect any more responses from me.Report

        1. Haven’t even come close to reading all the comments here (too much Thanksgiving with too many relatives and friends). Skipped to the end and started to think of a take on Blaise and James’ endless loop problem.

          Is society a thing? Interestingly in the Bible we see societies (kingdoms) regularly referred to as “beasts”. That always struck me as somewhat odd back when I had religion classes every day for 12 years or so. Lately however, I’ve been having some health problems and have begun to analyze my body very carefully. At what point is my body, “me”? Is it the epidermis, the internal organs, fingernails, hair? My entire cellular structure has to be completely replaced every 10 years or faster, meaning I quite literally (and physically) cannot be the “man” I was a decade ago. And yet there is this persistence. All those disparate cells and organs are grouped into a “society” that makes up “me”. How much moreso are “we” the cells that make up the larger society?Report

          2. Saul Kripke had an interesting take on all that. Quoting Butler, he said “a thing is what it is and not another thing”. So even tho we can talk about the constituent part of a thing, we can still with all propriety talk about things that are constructed from constituent parts. A can in all propriety talk about a person – this guy over here (pointing at him) – without thereby referring to his molecules.

            Society is an organism. Unlike James, I think society’s have preferences. Certain society’s in the middle east prefer to Islam to Christianity. The converse is true here. So it goes.Report

            1. I think society is a social category, one created by a sort of mutual (generally implicit) agreement, and one which is so much in flux that it is difficult to delimit. But reification is a real problem, because society is just a social category, and it is difficult to delimit. Certainly we can, with research, find repetition within the “behavior” (which is definitely used metaphorically here, and unfortunately so, because it risks reification) of societies, and we can make predictions because of this, but we could arbitrarily define just about any collection of entities, find repetition in that arbitrarily defined collection, and make predictions about its future “behavior,” so the fact that society is predictable in some way certainly doesn’t suggest that it is a “thing” in the same way that a tiger is a thing, or a molecule of hydrogen is a thing.Report

              1. I was hoping you’d respond, since I think you’re the only one on this borad who’s read any Kripke. 🙂

                I resist circumscribing the designator of the term “thing” to some finite set of necessary conditions that defines it. Maybe I’m too loose about that, but it strikes me as the way the world is. And how we view things.

                I’ll grant that reification of an entity called “society” is not a beneficial way to go. In part because reification is always a bad way to go, but also because the analysis of any claim about society readily admits a deconstructive analysis. Nevertheless, there are properties of societies which permit referring to them as actual entities. It may be a demonstrable fact or a useful shorthand, but when I say “American society is predisposed to do X” or “prefers X”, or “is based on these particular ideals”I don’t think I’m speaking incorrectly.Report

              2. Yeah, I’m playing fast and loose with the word “thing.” If I were being more rigorous, I’d probably treat “thing” as the highest superordinate category possible, within which whatever it is possible to talk or think about (even unconsciously) falls, because “things” don’t have to be real in any sense. My caution is against treating society as an entity, or more specifically, as a real entity that exists in some way other than a useful concept. It’s like “nations” and “states,” but more fundamental, particularly given the way social ontology has evolved over the last couple centuries. Concepts are important, and society is a very important one. Concepts are how we define our existence, and society is a rhizome on which we exist (sorry, I couldn’t resist).Report

              3. “his borad who’s read any Kripke.”

                I haz read Kripke and am on the borad.

                I think you don’t need Kripke to make your point, at all.

                You want to say a society is a collection of individuals connected by certain social connections. When we say “Society is obligated to help the poor” that is an elliptical way of saying “The members is society who have wealth that can be transferred to help the poor are obligated to transfer wealth to the poor.” or maybe “Every individual in society is obligated (under a social contract or whatever) to ensure that the wealthy have some of their wealth redistributed to the poor.”

                In short, when we talk about society, our language can be translated to talk about all individuls or specific individuals. Thus, Hanley’s worries that “societies don’t exist” are entirely moot.Report

              4. Here’s one place where I think reifying society leads to problems.

                Back in late 2003, I was sitting in the bar with a group of 10 or 12 people, a couple of whom were friends and the rest of whom were just acquaintances. Looking at a TV over the bar, I saw that there was now a death toll for the Bam earthquake: 25,000. I found this incredibly disturbing, but when I brought it up, no one seemed interested. So I got all high and mighty and went off about how if one guy dies in fuckin’ BFE, Minnesota, we freak out, even if only for a few minutes, but 25,000 Persians die and we can’t be bothered to talk about it for 2 seconds. I was shouted down by several people, and needless to say I didn’t make any friends (I remember this well because one of my friends who was there brought the evening up for years).

                What connections do I have to a guy in BFE, Minnesota that I don’t have to 25,000 people in Southeastern Iran? What makes those connections more real? More obligation-conferring? In large part, a bunch of concepts that become so concrete in our heads that they define the depth, and even the boundaries, of our empathy. It seems to me that in a perfect world, we’d feel obligated to all of our fellow human beings, regardless of which “society” they belong to. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are practical limitations, and “society” as concept does a good job of defining the limits of practical obligations vs. impractical ones, but I worry that if we get too caught up in treating as real, existing entities things that are real, existing concepts instead, we’ll be much slower to expand the practical limits of our obligations.Report

              6. I think the claim “We have greater obligations to those in our society” is elliptical for something very complex, along the following lines: “Each individual in a set (called “a society”) is obligated to help others in that set in ways that the individual isn’t obligated to offer to those outside the set.”

                It is really unclear whether we should believe such a claim. There are practical reasons for it, too.

                I am with Singer that we have greater obligations to others around the world than we sometimes assume.

                But this a serious and tricky question for liberals and not so much Nozikean extreme libertarians who can say I have no fishing obligations at all, except to not violate others’ negative rights.Report

              7. I suppose it goes without saying that I haven’t spent much time hanging out with libertarians in bars (though I have spent some time hanging out with libertarians in bars). My social circle, particularly back in 2003, has always been pretty leftist dominated, and I don’t mean liberal dominated (not a lot of Rawls fans).Report

              8. It seems to me that in a perfect world, we’d feel obligated to all of our fellow human beings, regardless of which “society” they belong to.

                Certainly, if you’re defining your obligations to society in the terms of bedrock principles, you’re probably screwed into supporting a whole lot more of the world than you originally intended when you started off trying to justify your society.

                Also, yes, I’ve always been this insufferable (actually, in my youth I was infinitely more insufferable).

                If we had met in our respective youths, we probably would have got our collective asses kicked often.Report

              9. In short, when we talk about society, our language can be translated to talk about all individuls or specific individuals.

                But I notice that the ellipticality is always carefully employed, because almost never does anybody want to say, “you, Hanley, have an obligation to transfer some of your wealth to Chris, because you can spare some and he needs some.” Instead, we carefully pool it through government as the supposed embodiment of society so we can really obscure that individual duty and avoid talking about it in those specific terms. Because you know that as soon as you tell the guy next door that he has an obligation to give $50 to Joe Smith living on a street corner in Winslow, Arizona, you’ve lost any chance of persuading him.

                So it seems to me that “society” is used as a cheat, to avoid the real difficulties of talking about real individuals having obligations to other real individuals.Report

              10. Well, if that argument works, we’d never resolve a single collective action problem, would we. Even in a very small, minarchist society. If a single individual abstains from agreement to the general principle, then the principle can’t be acted upon. Hence, no cops, no courts, no nothing.Report

              11. James, I suppose if we were to think about this anthropologically, we’d come to the conclusion that society is just an extension of our kin relations via an extension of our tribal relations, and that those two things are so powerful precisely because both from a practical and from an ethical standpoint, living in a world (however big or small that world is, for the purposes of our anthropological exploration) in which people feel some sort of obligation both to look out for themselves and to look out for each other is just better. So we invent useful fictions (and promptly forget that they’re fictions — the leaf is the cause of the leaves) that help us to build a world in which it is possible to do so, practically, and in which doing so does not require a constant attention on my part to every single individual for and from whom I have that double obligation. For whatever reason, owing to our nature or to our history or perhaps to our fear, we’ve built or allowed to be built coercive structures that are supposed to facilitate our mutual obligations, but which often, perhaps more often than not from the perspective of the whole of human history, become co-opted by those who would use them to their own ends (or when these structures become so big, they essentially co-opt themselves to be used to their own ends). But the failures of our will and imagination don’t change the fact that world with mutual obligations are better, and we have to figure out some way to make and protect that world. Hopefully we’ll figure out progressively better ways, and maybe someday the sorts of structures that we seem to need to create and protect such worlds won’t be necessary at all (though I admit I’m doubtful, because power always finds a way to exert itself).Report

              12. Maybe somebody uses it as such. Most do not, IMO. Most use it elliptically as I have spelled out.

                I should point out that society may be more than a sum of imdividuals in some way. (Mill and Whewell fought like dogs over this.) At least in so far as admitting that you cannot derive every true claim (that we think are true anyway) about how societies will behave from only truths about individuals.

                I have no dog in this fight, but it may be that societies are more than just individuals; they are individuals arranged in certain relationships.Report

              13. @Chris,

                Very well put. I agree fully. Even the part about a world of mutual obligations being a better world. My qualm is not about mutual obligations, but how the claim to an obligation comes about.Report

              14. @Stillwater,
                Well, if that argument works, we’d never resolve a single collective action problem, would we. Even in a very small, minarchist society. If a single individual abstains from agreement to the general principle, then the principle can’t be acted upon. Hence, no cops, no courts, no nothing.

                Nope. That’s dead wrong. 100% wrong. Couldn’t be wronger.

                In a collective action problem, I do benefit. So there’s no taking from me without a corresponding benefit. Further, by trying to free ride, I’m actually trying to get that benefit on someone else’s dime, which really is just a clever way to steal from them. So requiring me to go along with the group in that case is non-problematic.Report

              16. it may be that societies are more than just individuals; they are individuals arranged in certain relationships.

                Of course. Individuals without relationships are just solitary animals. Society is the sum of our relationships.

                But that doesn’t give society a brain or a nervous system, so it is still not a “thing” in the sense of being capable of having a coherent unitary preference order, or desires, or beliefs.Report

              17. Society only takes on identity when we believe in it. In insurance terms, we call this the Life Pool. It’s an odd animal, the life pool, the truths about it aren’t immediately obvious. It takes a fair bit of statistics to understand how it behaves.

                The organism makes claims upon its members, hopefully for the good of all its parts.

                The free rider debate is specious: if someone’s truly getting a free ride, they’re getting something for nothing. A thief gets a free ride. In the context of someone getting more than they seemed to put into the pot and others pay more than they take out, that’s not a free ride. Someone’s paying for it. The Life Pool was set up for this reason and it does react. In a very small life pool, a large claim will raise the rates. In larger pools, it’s just a matter of probability, that sort of thing can be predicted with the Law of Large Numbers.

                Yes, a thief does get a free ride. But as we see in life pools, there is no such free ride. Insurance policies don’t rob Peter to pay Paul. So why all the frenzy about viewing society as an organism?Report

              19. Society is the sum of our relationships.

                But that doesn’t give society a brain or a nervous system, so it is still not a “thing” in the sense of being capable of having a coherent unitary preference order, or desires, or beliefs.

                In what sense are those features commonly, or nearly ever, thought to be necessary or distinctive features of things that need to present in order to be things? The absence of those features is surely enough to exclude society from rightly having some other descriptors attached to it according to common usage, but not “thing.”Report

              20. Michael,

                “Thing” was a poorly chosen word on my part. Let’s just leave it at, “without a brain or a nervous system, no thing can experience wants, desires, fears, etc., and can form no hopes, ideals, goals, preferences, etc.”

                To say “society believes” is a useful shorthand in some cases, meaning some undefined but sizable subset of the individuals that collectively make up society believe something. But it’s not ultimately a satisfactory claim, because it doesn’t tell us who in society believes that, or why. If 80% of a society’s denizens believes X is good, then “that society believes X is good” becomes our statement. But let’s say “X” is “the enslavement and ritual torture of the other 20% of society. They don’t agree that X is good, but their beliefs aren’t accounted for, they’re not granted status in that society, when we say “that society believes X is good.” On a less extreme scale, that’s what we say when we say, “America wants lower taxes,” or whatever our claim may be. No, America doesn’t, unless we are defining all opponents of lower taxes out of America.

                Even if we want to downplay that and say, “well, we know it’s just a shorthand, but it’s still a meaningful statement about what most of the members of that society want,” we still can’t overcome the aggregation problem, as expressed in Arrow’s and Black’s Theorems. Or in the case of public policies, the calculation problems that result from disconnecting benefits from cost. All of those things make it impossible to say, with anything but the most superficial meaning, “society wants…”Report

              21. Well said. The point from a public choice perspective is that a society doesn’t have a brain or a nervous system. So a society can’t think, can’t feel, can’t want. When enough individuals within that society think, feel, want about the same thing–like Christianity over Islam, or vice versa–we can, as a shorthand, say “the society thinks/feels/wants that,” but it’s just a shorthand for, “that’s the thought/feeling/desire of most of the individuals in that group.” Unfortunately it’s easy to slip over into thinking the society actually has the sort of living presence that _it_ can be said to think/feel/want. I think that’s not only logically inaccurate, but potentially very dangerous.Report

              22. We are not merely individuals though. Society, to a large extent, bears our collective wisdom and memory.
                In Russia, it took guns to get peasants to change their farming methodology. Did they have any prior reason to think that change was all that bad? No, because they themselves had never done such a thing. It was the communal memory of what had happened the last time some shmuck had a bright idea. The village died — and that happened over and over again.
                This is extelligence at work.Report

              24. The point from a public choice perspective is that a society doesn’t have a brain or a nervous system. So a society can’t think, can’t feel, can’t want.

                Which is how we distinguish societies from sentient creatures like markets, which can experience emotions like worry, fear, and distrust.Report

              26. My problem, I guess, is the idea of lumping together markets and societies in a rather dubious category called “things that have no meaning except what others give them”.
                The explanation for LIBOR being bubbly is very, very different from the explanation for why there are changeling myths worldwide.Report

              29. James,
                more than journalists talk about the enthusiasm of a market. Bear in mind that all stocks are “overvalued” vis a vis the present value of the corporation. Investor confidence, to a large degree, sets “how much more overvalued” they are.Report

              30. And it would be difficult to talk about markets in any manner at all if we were to resort to the naive reductionism that Mike’s asking for.

                The values that emerge out of the market process are the products of human action, but not of human design. That doesn’t mean that they are devoid of information.

                To propose that those who talk about the information are talking about some mystical or transcendent Market Entity or whatever is to attack a strawman. To say that “the market” is doing something, and particularly that it is assigning a thing a given value, is a shorthand without which we would be almost unable to speak intelligibly about the market process.

                If you want to get hung up about that shorthand, I guess I can’t really stop you. But all it does is get in the way of asking what might be going on among market actors, and why. As well as making you look very silly.Report

              31. So we can say that the NYSE is uneasy about the future as a useful metonym, but if we say that American society values a safety net we’re talking nonsense? I don’t see it. (Maybe because I’m you know, silly.)Report

  30. Let me continue this thread down here

    @Stillwater

    And Murali, sorry I didn’t respond to your comment sooner. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote there. I’d only point out that all the principles you mention are consequentialist, but even more than that, they’re (ostensibly) pragmatically justified (if I’m reading the comment right). Which confirms (albeit loosely) the point I’ve been trying to make all along.

    Really depends on what you mean by pragmatically justified. There are I think two broad approaches to political philosophy. One way starts with certain ideas about what is valuable, draws certain general ideas about what our obligations ideally are, then starts cutting down to size what is not practicable to leave a theory of practical relevance. Stillwater, if you have that model in mind, sure all I am doing is making practicality objections to hyper-ideal principles.

    The other approach starts with acknowledging that the question of politics is first and foremost a question of practical reason. It builds the idea of practicality deep into the theory and is in fact, one of the starting premises.

    For example, my third chapter of my Master’s Thesis basically tries to derive the original position from the idea that society is about coordination, that social coordination is in general to be to the benefit of everyone where by benefit, all I mean is some positively valenced basis for claims and that we are going to want a freestanding theory which makes the most minimal of assumptions and therefore is both the most robust to sustained scepticism about the content of substantive normative judgments and at the same time, the least unacceptable of all possible accounts of social rules. Of course one of the key coordination problems is how to resolve conflicts over certain kinds of goods. But the latter would not happen if there were no scarcity constraints. Acceptability would not be a criteria if it were not the case some system of rules could alienate too many of some people’s values. If this happenned, they would be unable to live by that set of rules. and the rules would not be able to perform it’s coordinating function.

    Practical concerns go all the way to the very foundations of the theory. In the latter type of theory, practical constraints are not easily separable from pure apriori value judgements because the whole project is to tease out what are the real implications of the constraint that our social rules must be practical.Report

    1. I’d love to read your thesis. I have a theory about consequentialism which goes along these lines:

      To achieve your desired cooperation, we might consider the principle of Least Unacceptability as a process of fine tuning. Take, for example, a control loop keeping a robot on an optimal path. Turns out the quickest route to training such a system is an expert system. An experienced operator makes the judgement calls and the expert system learns by emulation.

      But there’s a problem inherent in emulation: if there’s a transit beyond normal operating parameters, the robot needs to “scram”, get back to a known safe position. An experienced pilot can cope with an engine failure. There’s a great line in the film Apollo 13, the wife and mother of Jim Lovell:

      Blanche Lovell: Are you scared?
      Susan Lovell: [nods]
      Blanche Lovell: Don’t you worry. If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could land it.

      An expert system is the quick way to 98% of success. But it’s that last 2 percent which gets a control system in trouble. The route of Least Unacceptability is a trap. Without mandate to deal with emergencies, the system “scrams” and crashes. That’s not an acceptable outcome.Report

      1. “An experienced pilot can cope with an engine failure. ”

        Yes, by going back to a known good state. Which is what the expert system does.

        Note that the earliest jet engines didn’t have exhaust-temperature indicators, meaning there was no way to tell when one engine of a multi-engine aircraft failed. It didn’t matter how good the pilot was when he didn’t have he information to solve the problem.Report

        1. The jet engine had a wonderfully effective control vector, the throttle. An engine fire could thus be immediately be extinguished where a prop job required fire control systems. Fuck your lack of information situation, a simple thermometer gave the pilot immediate feedback.Report

      2. You should read The Right Stuff. The first chapter is about a horrific spate of fatalities among test pilots, all of whom crashed and were burned beyond recognition, The ability of the survivors to believe, beyond all reason or logic, that they would have figured out how to land those doomed planes safely is what Wolfe means by the books’s title.

        (But then Wolfe thinks El Cerrito is hotter than Danville.)Report

        1. As if I haven’t read that stuff? Or lived through it? They knew what they were doing, so did everyone involved. The guys who made it to the tops of those continuously exploding fireworks which propelled them into orbit and beyond, they weren’t beyond either reason or logic.

          I watched a pilot on final approach, a B-26 as he caught NVA fire and burned up on his inbound run. Flying isn’t a job for which I was emotionally suited. They were a different breed.

          Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
          Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
          A lonely impulse of delight
          Drove to this tumult in the clouds;
          I balanced all, brought all to mind,
          The years to come seemed waste of breath,
          A waste of breath the years behind
          In balance with this life, this death.          Report

    2. I’m not sure – well I am sure, actually, that I didn’t – understand what you’re presenting in that comment. I think I get the broad outlines of a distinction between set of a priori principles that get paired down by practical constraints as against … some other methodology. Not entirely sure what it is, tho.

      Maybe this could be an FP OP?Report

      1. I’ll see if can do something up. I’m still kind of busy with my third chapter. Have to work through a lot of stuff. Deadlines are coming up. But I’ll see if I can do something more programmatic.Report

  31. @Stillwater and @James Hanley
    When I have finished that chapter, I am thinking of doing either a series of posts that would justify Rawls’s original position (or at least the nearest approximation). This would hopefully show why you should take the original position (or at least my version of it) seriously and also how you could make the idea that social rules should be practical a deep foundational part of the theory. So, if I see enough demand here, I would seriously consider creating the blog series. Or else, I would just email James and Stillwater my third chapter when it is done. I still have a few major issues to tackle and I’ve already it 8000 words for the chapter.Report

    1. Murali, I’d love to read those posts. I’d vote for some (brief – less than 8000 word!) treatments of the views you’re arguing. Actually, upthread I was gonna make a comment to james about the original position and how it’s not so crazy as most people currently think it is.

      Now I’m curious what your arguments are. So please do!Report

    1. For the record we had at least three totally distant threads here. Walmart. Poverty in America. And the nature of obligation and duty.

      I wish we could separate them better.

      This becomes unmanageable.Report

      1. I’m putting together a theory about the best way to get comments.

        The first, of course, is also the secret to comedy.

        The second is take full advantage of Parkinson’s law of triviality.

        The third is to state a position strongly. A corollary to this is the following: if you are discussing facts, be wrong. If you are discussing matters of taste, brook no disagreement.

        The fourth? Profit.Report

        1. In the past, the key has been to post on a subject controversial enough to draw hordes of outsiders (Circumcision! Whether vaccines cause autism! Obscure Canadian rock groups!)Report

  33. Well, I’ve gotten through the first 336 comments. I’ll keep reading. But is a safe conclusion here that we still get to have Twinkies in Canada because we have national health care?Report

      1. The other night, my wife and I had the great idea to walk to 7-11 and get a bunch of Twinkies to celebrate Canada keeping them (munchies, ya know). Anyway, I got to say- they sure aren’t as good as they used to be. I don’t know what the heck they did to their cream recipe, but if you want to know why they don’t sell as well as before, that’d be my guess. Also, the cream is now injected in these tiny seeds, instead of running through the whole damn thing like before. So, before blaming the unions or the management, I’d blame the cream-injector!Report

          1. Those were, indeed, the days. Oh you never will believe where those Keebler cookies come from. Or how they’re made. You don’t want to know what goes on in that Hollow Tree, trust me. Chinese Elves, chained to rustic picnic tables and potbelly stoves, frosting those Animal Frosted Cookies, made with real animals.

            Can’t stand the heat? Get out of the sweatshop.Report

Comments are closed.

Related Stories

On Ad Hominems Part 1: The Messy World

gabriel conroy August 7, 2016 76

The Pain of Tradition

Mike Dwyer November 25, 2015 13
johndaquan

The Montauk Catamaran Company Chronicles 10/23/15: Well begun is half done…?

David Ryan October 23, 2015 5

You may have missed

word

Somebody is Always Taking the Joy out of Life

Clare Briggs May 12, 2025
dreamerphone

Danny Dreamer and those Newfangled Speaking Telegraph Machines

Clare Briggs May 10, 2025
Death Roads Tournament

Saturday Morning Gaming: Death Roads Tournament

Jaybird May 10, 2025
2025-05-09 TDoRS C5134 (05.18.13)

The End of the Bonfire

Clare Briggs May 9, 2025