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.