The Core Problem
- The system rewards those who are behaving badly according to the values of the socialists themselves, and punishes those who are behaving rightly according to those same values.
- Marx’s famous dictum is a fair summary of a core socialist ideal: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” I.e., people should contribute to society in proportion to their ability to produce value for society; and people should receive resources from society in proportion to how much they need.
This sounds nice. But it contains within it the problem described above. The problem is that people have some degree of control over their own abilities and needs—and, even more so, over the abilities and needs that they appear to others to have. The people who are behaving well according to the socialist ideal are the people who are contributing to society as best they can. They will be developing their productive capacities, and revealing those capacities through their actual contributions.
These people are not going to be rewarded under the socialist system. They will just be expected to keep contributing, which would not be expected if they hadn’t made the mistake of revealing their ability, and they won’t get any reward for that.
The people who are behaving badly are those who are creating greater needs for themselves, or making themselves appear to have greater needs. They are behaving badly since they are putting greater burdens on society. But they will be in effect rewarded for this by the system—more resources will go to them because they appear to need more.
College Loan Forgiveness
- Actual proposal advanced by Elizabeth Warren while running for President (https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/student-loan-debt-day-one): We should cancel up to $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower, for almost all borrowers (in other words, the government should pay for it).
Not everyone who went to college has student loan debt. Some people worked extra hours, saved, and sacrificed to repay their debts. Others even worked their way through college without taking loans at all – again, at the cost of significant sacrifices. These people tried to be responsible, to carry their own weight and not burden others. These people would not get any “forgiveness” under the Warren plan – they would not get the $50,000 gift that Warren would give to those who took on $50,000 of debt and haven’t paid it back. Under Warren’s plan, the more you borrowed (up to $50k) and the less you’ve done to pay it back, the more you’ll be rewarded.
Unemployment Insurance
- Every U.S. state provides unemployment benefits – basically, if you lose your job, the state starts paying you money, until you find another job. The requirements to qualify for this vary by state, but in all cases, you’ll stop receiving the money if you get another job. Can anyone see any problem with this?
Again, that is rewarding the people who don’t mind being a burden on society, while people who contribute to society by working get no such reward.
- There are many other examples. Most, perhaps almost all, left-wing economic proposals create perverse incentives. The most charitable interpretation is that progressives can’t imagine that human beings are not all altruists already. Or perhaps they think it is only “capitalism” that creates selfishness – the inequality spurs people to try to compete with each other, rather than cooperating altruistically as would be their natural inclination.
The opposite is the case. Capitalism causes people to cooperate with each other, because it rewards people for benefitting others – more precisely, for giving others what they want and are willing to pay for. Socialism makes people more selfish and less cooperative, because it sets people’s interests against each other.
I went through two life-saving surgeries, and one that improved my quality of life so much I sometimes can't believe it myself. Have four degrees, currently doing a PhD that doesn't feel like a decade-long indentured servitude. Debt, medical or otherwise? Zero. And I worked shitty jobs through more than half of that education just to support myself. It was miserable despite all the safety nets I could get. Not even for a moment I thought "that person's life is nowhere as shit as mine, give me their social aid!" It's not collective responsibility or socialist indoctrination or whatever polysylabic name substacks crowd[0] made up for it. No, it's basic humanity and empathy. We can talk about those. We can talk about differentiating self-interest vs avarice, from ethics to economics (hell, you no doubt have means to school me on both). But having a talking point about how others not suffering through same burden is making you feel bad by diminishing whatever 'sacrifice' was made is some kindergartner-level problem the author has to grow through. Exercise for the reader: convince me I'd fare better, or at least not worse, under American conditions. [0] - EDIT: For the record, I don't particularly care for their political views. Or, for that matter, yours. Hell, I like you the same either way. This is just my new blanket term for their generally shoddy scholarship, from misapplying geology and biology to fumbling at basic modelling, they seldom speak with any of that reason or rationality they espouse.
Clickbait title aside, this 1400-word essay argues for one thesis: under socialism behavior which is praised is not rewarded and behavior that is condemned is rewarded. The cases provided support this thesis, and I think it's completely fair to debate whether they are representative or cherry-picked, or whether they represent unwanted side effects of policies that are overall a net positive. A medical condition requiring surgery is not a behavior (if it wasn't something like a liver transplant for alcoholism), so it seems like a peripheral example. Of course I am very happy you were able to get the care that so improved your life quality, whatever the source. Cool, I prefer better/worse discussions to binary good/bad. Searching for the nearest parallel story available, I found the story of Matthew Fentress: Heart Disease Bankrupted Him Once. Now He Faces Another $10,000 Medical Bill Three years later, in 2017, Fentress' condition had worsened, and doctors placed him in a medically induced coma and inserted a pacemaker and defibrillator. Despite having insurance, he couldn't pay what he owed the hospital he went to in Louisville, Ky. So Baptist Health Louisville sued him, and he wound up declaring bankruptcy in his 20s. This starting point seems no better than your situation: working a shitty job that doesn't pay enough to cover health care. Getting sued by a hospital is clearly a low point in life, but at least bankruptcy offered a way out. Personal insolvency is fairly generous in the United States, allowing a fresh start with forgiveness from most obligations. Your credit score (which determines your ability to get loans at a favorable rate) is trashed for 7-10 years, then the bankruptcy is supposed to be off your record. Bankruptcy is relatively popular in the United States, and it promotes risk-taking in business. For individuals, it's a concern that so many people rely on it, but I suppose it's better than debtor's prison or being saddled with debt forever. Poland only recently allowed personal bankruptcy. Back to Matthew. The insurance from his job paid $28,920, leaving a debt of $10,092. $5,000 of debt from his 2017 hospital visit was discharged in bankruptcy. Another hospital visit a year later was covered by hospital financial aid. Matthew believed he would not qualify for more financial aid, so he arranged a payment plan of $500 per month to pay down the $10,092, a significant hardship on his cannoli-stuffing salary. Later, "A hospital representative suggested Fentress apply for financial assistance. She followed up by sending him a form, but it went to the wrong address because Fentress was in the process of moving. In September, he said he was finally going to fill out the form and was optimistic he'd qualify." "I don't have hope for a financially stable future," he says. "It shouldn't be such a struggle." [Cherry-picking disclosure: I found this story yesterday, looking for something parallel, and just now found the update below.] Moved by plight of young heart patient, stranger pays his hospital bill A retired college professor in Las Vegas saw Matthew's story on TV and donated $5000 toward his medical bills. The hospital (which claims it "consistently has encouraged Mr. Fentress to apply for financial assistance") then covered the rest of the bill after he sent a copy of his paycheck. So comparing outcomes, both you and Matthew got life-improving treatment, though he may have had more headaches and paperwork. In the end, it doesn't sound like he actually paid a lot out of pocket (but a full accounting would include tax payments and pay withholding for insurance). His credit is wrecked for a few more years. There's a lesson that money was available if he just asked for it, so self-advocacy helps. And of course, getting your story on TV makes a difference. That probably makes Matthew's story very atypical, but we would need some careful research to see how much this kind of "basic humanity and empathy" makes a difference. I'll note that "The U.S. is the No. 1 most generous country in the world for the last decade" and it probably helps that wealth-building capitalism is promoted in the U.S. The source puts Poland at #86 of 126 on a survey about helping strangers, donating money to charity, and volunteering. Perhaps when the state does more of the humanity and empathy work, people feel less obligated to contribute.convince me I'd fare better, or at least not worse, under American conditions
Matthew Fentress was just 25 when he passed out while stuffing cannolis as a cook at a senior living facility six years ago. Doctors diagnosed him with viral cardiomyopathy, heart disease that developed after a bout of the flu.
Financial fears reignited this year when his cardiologist suggested that he undergo an ablation procedure to restore a normal heart rhythm. He says hospital officials assured him he wouldn't be on the hook for more than $7,000, a huge stretch on his $30,000 annual salary. But if the procedure could curb the frequent extra heartbeats that filled him with anxiety, he figured the price was worth it. He had the outpatient procedure in late January, and it went well. Afterward, "I didn't have the fear I'm gonna drop dead every minute," he says. "I felt a lot better." Then the bill came.
As Fentress tries to move past his latest bill, he's now worrying about something else: racking up new bills if he contracts COVID-19 down the road as an essential worker with existing health problems and the same high-deductible insurance.
Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system. The issue are limited resources (potentially) not allowing for everyone to achieve the plateau where most people are content. What differs are the means of aiding less fortunate people. What doesn't is that there will always be a subset that abuses whatever system they're under. No, but delineation here is moot: both are required for continued survival regardless of behavior. The burden on one's life afterwards, however, shouldn't be predicated on accidents -- of birth or otherwise. To my knowledge, not everyone in the US gets health insurance at work. And $7400 per year is no small expense, regardless if it comes from tax to the state or private provider. I'll look more into this, but I do distinctly remember all US postdoc applications I've seen emphasizing you're gonna buy your own. This is a much, much broader topic, though I'd like to apologize if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic. For what it's worth, people contribute to WOŚP and our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so. Some will never. Most think it's enough, and prefer to give it to a reputable foundation instead of some by-cause. Many give money )often not insignificant money) to church, and that's another can of worms, but the distribution of this charity differs by parish. Not all are equal, so you'll see ones with shelters, soup kitchens, care and active programmes to help people get on their feet... and places sporting some bitchn' marble statues. As for helping people on the street, there was some study where they put a kid without shoes or coat outside in different countries and looked how long it took for someone to lend aid. Poland was also on some ludicrously low in that rank, but that's because I can guarantee you that most folks believed it's a setup for pickpockets or, what article argues, people believing that person probably already abuses social aid, doesn't contribute etc etc etc. Because that's the anti-social aid propaganda here, and has been so for years. We also have a 500+ program, where (skimming the details) you get extra 500 PLN per child per month and some extra perks/aides regarding school and daycare, and if the father can't pay alimony, the state covers the difference or pays some it's-complicated sum. There's been a huge stink over some couples abusing it that completely ignored tens of thousands legitimate cases, too. I prefer to help on the off-chance the person is in genuine need. I remember buying some extra food, giving them to a homeless man, and he just tossed them away after making sure there's no booze. So instead of writing a think-piece about perils of charity perpetuating abuse and laziness, I took it out of thrash and gave it to someone who used it. I wish to be able to offer some book that'd serve as a good introduction to Polish condition that's simultaneously in English and not utter garbage though.under socialism behavior which is praised is not rewarded and behavior that is condemned is rewarded. The cases provided support this thesis, and I think it's completely fair to debate whether they are representative or cherry-picked, or whether they represent unwanted side effects of policies that are overall a net positive.
A medical condition requiring surgery is not a behavior (if it wasn't something like a liver transplant for alcoholism), so it seems like a peripheral example.
The insurance from his job paid $28,920, leaving a debt of $10,092.
Perhaps when the state does more of the humanity and empathy work, people feel less obligated to contribute.
No need to apologize; I didn't get that message. I don't know if Americans are more humane or empathetic, that kind of thing is interesting to research but hard to measure. I suspect that having more wealth than most other nationalities enables Americans to be generous without feeling the same sacrifice. That's great, but if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it just suggests that they believe the organization will do more good with the money than the government. The U.S. version allows taxpayers to reduce their declared income by the amount donated to a charitable organization. So if you donate an old car valued at $500, and you are in the 15% tax bracket, you'll owe $75 less tax. Charity is hard to do well. Thanks for sharing your perspectives.if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic
our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so.
A government successfully working around its own (built-in) inefficiencies is a good thing, regardless of the message it sends.That's great, but if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it just suggests that they believe the organization will do more good with the money than the government.
I agree this is true. Probably no society has operated on the principle of a single sentence, but in this kind of conversation there must be some simplification, so: Under capitalism, the natural human tendency to seek to improve one's life is compatible with the greater good. By producing more of value to others, one becomes better off. Under the Marxist slogan, the natural human tendency to seek self-improvement promotes antisocial behavior. Regardless of how much you produce of value for society, you will get the same amount—what you need. If you want to improve your life by increasing time spent in leisure or with family, the incentive is to conceal your ability to produce. If you want to improve your life by receiving more, the incentive is to exaggerate your needs. This article simply argues that both sides agree on the principles that hard work is virtuous and dishonest parasitism is bad, but only one side provides incentives in alignment with those principles. The issue of distribution, addressing poverty, will never be completely resolved, because no approach is perfect. But it's clear what generates poverty-relieving wealth. In the United States, capitalism runs rampant, and some people get wildly rich, leading to inequality. The fifty states can be ranked by GDP per capita and they range from New York at $90,043 and Massachusetts at $86,942 down to Arkansas at $44,808 and Mississippi at $40,464. The GDP per capita of the United Kingdom is $40,284. By this imperfect measure, half the countries in Europe are poorer than the poorest American state.Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system.
this is a misrepresentation of both marxism and modern socialist theory derived from marxism - that famous slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was something marx said about the ideal communist society where work is no longer necessary to survive and is instead something people do because they want to do it - it's a biblical paraphrase and is not the entirety of communist theory - any more than any slogan sums up an ideology. if you divorce something from context and misrepresent what it's saying, again, you can make anything sound impossible and ridiculous. do you really think that comparing GDP, "this imperfect measure", is at all an appropriate way to compare the welfare of the people living in two areas? are you joking? does that pass the smell test for you?
Agreed, it is a misrepresentation, and there are comments on the article to that effect. Huemer may be wrong to represent that line as a "core socialist ideal." It still seems realistic to me that socialists and capitalists alike consider work that contributes to social welfare as virtuous, and dishonest parasitism as bad. In any case, I described the sentence as merely a slogan, with the qualification that it is a simplification. Marxism may be an unrealized abstraction, but the two policy examples are concrete and real. Is there no tension between these ideas? • Warren believes that it is good when people earn money and pay off their loans. • Warren advocates a policy that rewards people who did not pay off their loans. or • Self-reliance through employment is better than unemployment and dependence on aid. • Unemployment benefits reward unemployment and discourage employment. This is not a proof that student loan forgiveness or unemployment benefits are bad, that the costs outweigh the benefits. It's a concern, it's a problem, it's something advocates should address. "Most, perhaps almost all, left-wing economic proposals create perverse incentives." Loan forgiveness will benefit one set of people (university students who are generally more affluent already) and harm another (future students facing ever-higher tuition and debt promoted by the intervention). There is a lot of literature on welfare cliffs, where people will lose money if they increase their income by working more and therefore become ineligible for a public benefit. There are also efforts to address these problems. Perhaps some discussion is worthwhile? GDP is imperfect for a lot of reasons and has been widely criticized. It is not easy to compare happiness or welfare between countries. Can you suggest a better measure, rather than simply criticizing my efforts? It seems that greater income is correlated with greater well-being. Everyone quotes the famous Kahneman study showing that "there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000" in emotional well-being and ignores the previous sentence saying "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily." Another study shows increase in both measures without limit. People sure seem interested in getting more income, whether or not it solves all of life's problems. Even if bliss peaks at $75,000, that's slightly above the U.S. median income and well above the European average. I don't hear anyone arguing that socialism creates wealth, it is all about distribution. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, and we have an engine that works for that purpose.
All other considerations aside, methodologies of those studies were substantially different. One was an app that asked the same person 50 times on average, the other was an interview conducted by a human that called random people. Honesty of interviewee under those different circumstances aside: EDIT/Addendum: I wonder to what level the numbers in those studies are cultural. I'm not average by various measures, but I'm actually pretty content with my money and it's just a tad over $9k/year, below average even in Poland. Maybe it's because I still vividly remember living on less than half that, but most my needs are met and it's enough. Maybe the gauge isn't invariant here.It seems that greater income is correlated with greater well-being. Everyone quotes the famous Kahneman study showing that "there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000" in emotional well-being and ignores the previous sentence saying "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily." Another study shows increase in both measures without limit. People sure seem interested in getting more income, whether or not it solves all of life's problems.
Even if bliss peaks at $75,000, that's slightly above the U.S. median income and well above the European average. I don't hear anyone arguing that socialism creates wealth, it is all about distribution. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, and we have an engine that works for that purpose.
Ayn Rand's advocacy of self-interest above all other considerations is absolutely right, IF you only care about fairness. If fairness is our only metric, then a pure capitalist system would be close to optimal. There is still the matter of rent-seeking behavior, but that is another discussion. The problem is, for most people, fairness cannot be the only metric. Some people are just worthless, and they deserve nothing. But we should give to them anyway, because people's fates, and character, are not entirely self-determined. Ayn Rand tries to gloss over this, but it's true, especially for children. Strictly speaking it is unfair and unjust to give to these people. But who cares? I don't want anyone to be homeless even if they deserve it. On the other hand fairness and justice does matter. It's just as much of a travesty, in my opinion, to make value created count for nothing. The person that provides more value to humanity should be rewarded in proportion to the value created for others. In capitalism, that ideal is realized much closer than in socialism. So any sane person will choose a mix of the two. And that is what we do. Then we squabble over the exact mix.
I think we agree that capitalism does a good (but not perfect) job of allocating resources to where they are most useful, and providing incentive for people who are good at creating things people value to create a lot of those things. What about the gaps? You allude to the awkward distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, the latter sometimes considered a myth. In the abstract, I find it hard to say there are people don't deserve help, though with limited resources I would want to help people who seem to have bad luck before those who have a history self-destruction. Some people have difficult family members who exhaust everyone's patience, who would use additional financial support to dig themselves into a deeper hole. Perhaps the best you can do is try to ensure that basics like shelter and food are available. At the same time, some people provoke us into debating capital punishment, so it's not a guarantee that simply being a human gives you a claim to compassion and aid. While we haven't found any better way to create and distribute wealth than capitalism, there are alternatives to reducing the gaps other than "socialist" redistribution programs. Charity is the most conspicuous example, and like public welfare programs it won't be completely effective. People can skim and get rich from an organization like the Red Cross, but its budget depends on keeping a good reputation, while a government program is more likey to continue business as usual even when opportunists find ways to profit from the guaranteed cash flows.any sane person will choose a mix of the two
Socialism bad/capitalism good is a conversation below my standards. Student debt is complicated. It's worth discussion. There are many facets that can be discussed. Loans may have enabled the price of education to increase, which may have led to more students needing to get loans for the same education. The fact that student debt is extremely difficult to erase, and almost never is by bankruptcy, may have caused lenders to give money when the risk of default was high. Liberal politicians may helped to create this problem in an effort to make college education more available. Warren's plan might not be the best approach, but the economic damage of the student debt might be greater than doing something to absolve it, so it might be worth considering in light of these factors. The argument against it above considers just one factor and would probably get Facebook some ad revenue. We don't get any ad revenue.
I agree with not touching the good/bad convo. As a public school educator, I exist in a system In which I am penalized for my effectiveness. I can identify with shortcomings of a socialistic system. For example, I happen to be able to connect well with the wayward middle schoolers, I’ve found success with good number of reluctant middle school math students. As a result,my middle school counselors direct increasingly challenging students to my schedule. My Strength in ability has been revealed. As a result, I am expected to then to provide more to with students that take a larger portion of my time and energy. I am expected to produce more and more with less This is our fundamental difficulty in public schools. There has to be another way to do this. I have yet to see a way out.
Dumping more work on the best worker happens in many environments. It is a perverse consequence, and in the short term it may seem wise to work below your capacity and not draw too much attention. I think the private sector provides better incentives, however, to recognize and compensate talent. Public salaries are often fixed to a scale, but private salaries are often raised based on performance. And when a high-performing but under-recognized employee like WanderingEng switches jobs, the losing company pays a price in lost revenue and market share, feedback that is less common in the public sector.
|Dumping more work on the best worker happens in many environments. It is a perverse consequence, and in the short term it may seem wise to work below your capacity and not draw too much attention. I think the private sector provides better incentives, however, to recognize and compensate talent. Public salaries are often fixed to a scale, but private salaries are often raised based on performance. And when a high-performing but under-recognized employee like WanderingEng switches jobs, the losing company pays a price in lost revenue and market share, feedback that is less common in the public sector. Agreed. I have been finding myself concentrating on doing the basics of my job really well, and cutting out the "above and beyond" actions (calling more parents after hours) and scaling back to conserve my resources, while at the same time keeping my eye open to sweeter deals elsewhere (as a grade 6-8 math teacher), my position is in demand. I currrently work in a wealthy county, Oakland County, Michigan. My school district recieves the second lowest per-pupil foundation allowance in the county. We are spread thin for resources and serve students that come from very low socio-economic status (school performance is a low priority in the lives of many). I won't be surprised to be offered an opportunity to jump ship and work in a more affluent school district in the remaining six plus years of my career. Public Education, where unlimited demands meets limited resources. Other than that, I really do enjoy what I do much of the time. The Upside, I work in a place in which I feel needed.
The student debt situation is caused by the 1-2 combo of the loans being federally guaranteed, thus incentivizing the banks to lend almost unlimited amounts, and the loans not being dischargeable during bankruptcy. If you change those two things the problem will go away.
FYI the Federal Family Education Loan Program that guaranteed commercial student loans was discontinued in 2010, and credit is now provided directly from the Department of Education. Student debt can be discharged in bankruptcy by proving "undue hardship" but apparently it is difficult to do so.
It was just a dumb joke about how it's all dog-eat-dog when it comes to getting what you want then all "IT'S NOT FAIR" when it comes to paying any cost for anything that not an explicit fee-for-good/service agreement. Tear it apart all you want...not something I'm willing to defend :)
Market advocates talk about competition a lot, but a dogfight isn't the best analogy. It's more of a competition for opportunities to cooperate. Costco makes you an offer, Amazon makes you an offer, you choose who you want to interact with. Many critics who savage Amazon also shop there, suggesting a bit of virtue signaling in their criticisms.
The Warren example isn't presented as a comprehensive discussion of student loan forgiveness, rather it is one of two brief examples of the main idea: the "socialist" political type rewards the behavior they deem bad. Philosophy Bro assumes a progressive politician would praise a student who worked through college and took no loans, or else worked hard after graduation to pay debt off. Yet these students do not get the reward offered to students who rely more on credit. The conclusion is clear: "The progressives don’t think that it’s bad to repay your debts. They would agree that the people who sacrificed to repay their debts were acting well. But the Warren progressives would still reward those who acted badly, at the expense of those who acted well." Perhaps in practice many beneficiaries also worked through college but still have debt. Perhaps many with no student debt came from rich families, and Warren is consistent in not wanting to reward them. But the proposal did not consider these factors; the amnesty was only restricted when the graduates had a very high income.
this is embarrassing even by your standards - reposting ayn rand and the mises institute? you gonna post the mccarthyist take on socialism next too? louis the 16th's take on democracy? you can write a stinkpiece on anything if you only cite their intellectually bankrupt / financially motivated critics (and don't you tell me that one mention of marx makes this a well rounded critique) you should feel ashamed to support your belief systen this lazily
My first post was about a guy eating hot dogs, so my standards may be lower than you think. Philosophy Bro is what gets conversation going around here, so please feel free to chime in on the more serious articles.