The Incredible Shrinking Incomes of Young Americans

[Jacob]

Great story Jake.

However...I am going to cut across the grain a little. While I do not disagree with any of what you are saying here, or even what CC is saying, I do think there is an element here of wishing for the world to work in a certain way, and assuming that it would, if only society could make it so...

In other words, it is certainly the case that there are people out there who can benefit from an educational system that does a good job of making it clear what opportunities are available, and even do a better job of communicating those opportunities outside the "typical" comfort zone for many people.

However, I do not think it is the case that doing so, if we could do so perfectly, would somehow mean that everyone would then achieve their potential. We should strive for this anyway, since the concern is that there are still people who could, but that is not the same as saying that this is a solution to the problem of poverty.

The simple reality is that there are people out there who are relatively poor because they lack drive, ambition, and/or intelligence. And no matter how well we adjust the system to make more opportunity available and visible, not everyone is going to take advantage.

Indeed, I think we can look at western liberal advancement as a continuing (hopefully) opening up of opportunity across social boundaries. In an ideal world, the lack of opportunity would simply not be a variable in the calculus of success. I think we are much closer to that now than ever before...but I don't think the end state is one where poverty has been eliminated (at least not for this reason). Because the simple, harsh reality is that there are people out there who are "poor" because they deserve to be, and simply do not care to work at being not poor.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that a specific educational approach will automatically solve the disparity in perception of potential across the board, in all cases. The point of the anecdote was merely that I personally agree that there are signficant differences in perception, skills, and networking based on background, and that those have a real impact on the direction of people's lives, individually and based on socio-economic groupings. I'd go so far as to hold that that's a basic factual description of reality, and however you may wish to approach that philosophically/ ideologically/ politically, you (general you) ought to take that fact into account whatever your approach is. There are inherent benefits that come from growing up in a stable family, with people who can provide contacts, examples, advice, guidance to succeed, with access to frameworks and roadmaps to success; and the fewer of those elements members of a particular socio-economic cohort has, the fewer of them will succeed (whatever metric we use for success).

Now, moving on to the philosophical approach, I personally don't think "deserve" is a particularly useful concept to be applying whether we're speaking of poor outcomes (so we don't have to feel bad about them) or services (so we must provide X, because everyone deserves that). I take it as a given that increasing the frequency of good outcome is desirable (though some may disagree on political grounds, which is legitimate); I take it as a given that one of the obstacles the people from less advantaged backgrounds have is the lack of frameworks to easily apply (which I think is a description of facts). What remains, IMO is to prioritize the amount of resources dedicated to alleviating that (a political question), and continual attention to improvements in outcomes from specific programs to use the resources the best possible way (partially a fact based issue in determining what works and what doesn't, and partially a political question in terms of valuing some outcome over another).

[Richard Hakluyt]

One point to make about the "bad outcomes" is that in a modern democratic state these people can be very expensive to support. In the UK the ("evil tory") government identified 120k "troubled" families that were costing the state £75k per annum :

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/troubled-families-programme-turning-117000-lives-around

[Martinus]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

Yes.

[Eddie Teach]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

Yes.

[Berkut]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

I think the answer to that is dependent on how much safety net can be afforded. As there is more resources available, it makes sense to extend that safety net to more and more people who might need it for various reasons. That extension should, IMO, be driven by the realization that for many people, their "drive" is dependent on necessity, and hence it makes sense to maintain that pressure when contrasted with reasons for potential need that are not related to that a lack of drive.

[Berkut]

However, I do not think it is the case that doing so, if we could do so perfectly, would somehow mean that everyone would then achieve their potential. We should strive for this anyway, since the concern is that there are still people who could, but that is not the same as saying that this is a solution to the problem of poverty.

The simple reality is that there are people out there who are relatively poor because they lack drive, ambition, and/or intelligence. And no matter how well we adjust the system to make more opportunity available and visible, not everyone is going to take advantage.

Indeed, I think we can look at western liberal advancement as a continuing (hopefully) opening up of opportunity across social boundaries. In an ideal world, the lack of opportunity would simply not be a variable in the calculus of success. I think we are much closer to that now than ever before...but I don't think the end state is one where poverty has been eliminated (at least not for this reason). Because the simple, harsh reality is that there are people out there who are "poor" because they deserve to be, and simply do not care to work at being not poor.

I agree, there is always going to be people who do not take advantage of opportunity as well as others.  Those people populate all socio-economic levels of society.  There are also people in all socio-economic levels who will pursue those opportunities.  I think we are in agreement that it is important to do what we can to provide that opportunity as equitably as possible.

Yep, we are certainly in agreement.

One thing that is very annoying, but of course there is little we can do about it, are people without drive who are convinced that their success is about their awesomeness anyway. Those people who happen to be born into wealth from the beginning, and think their lifestyle is based on their own efforts.

As someone once remarked, it is like someone being born on third base thinking they hit a home run.

However, one thing I do think we should all realize is that simply by being lucky enough to be born in the wealthy west, we have all, in a relative sense to other humans, been born on third base.

[Berkut]

There are inherent benefits that come from growing up in a stable family, with people who can provide contacts, examples, advice, guidance to succeed, with access to frameworks and roadmaps to success; and the fewer of those elements members of a particular socio-economic cohort has, the fewer of them will succeed (whatever metric we use for success).

Indeed. As someone who comes from a *relatively* terrible background, but not so terrible that I could not see the difference (and react accordingly), I am acutely aware of how critical those somewhat intangible resources are - and as I said in my reply to CC, I think you can extend this beyond our own cultural/societal framework to humanity in general. When you do that, you can't help but notice how huge an advantage we have because we are in cultures that have even more basic intangible resources, like stable governments, respect for the rule of law, basic economic security, etc., etc.

[Martinus]

One thing that is very annoying, but of course there is little we can do about it, are people without drive who are convinced that their success is about their awesomeness anyway. Those people who happen to be born into wealth from the beginning, and think their lifestyle is based on their own efforts.

*cough* inheritance tax *cough*

[Malthus]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

I think the answer to that is dependent on how much safety net can be afforded. As there is more resources available, it makes sense to extend that safety net to more and more people who might need it for various reasons. That extension should, IMO, be driven by the realization that for many people, their "drive" is dependent on necessity, and hence it makes sense to maintain that pressure when contrasted with reasons for potential need that are not related to that a lack of drive.

I'm not fussed so much about the inevitable free riders any safety net will attract. I agree that the greater problem is the impact a safety net has on motivations generally. The issue is how much that should be weighed against the harms caused by too stringent a screening for the safety net.

The problem is that much of what causes people to not become purely opportunistic free riders is intangibles like "pride" and "having one's self-worth measured by supporting oneself". We still lack much insight into what causes some people to think that way, and not others. The impact though is fundamental - if people lack that sense, it seems to me, no amount of social help can 'save' them - if you provide a safety net they will take full advantage, and of you don't, they tend to turn to sponging off relations, petty frauds and crime.

Conservatives of course tend to locate that sense in having good old conservative values, while Liberals tend to deny its importance, or claim lacking that sense is the result of historical traumas beyond the individual's control ... 

[Martinus]

I have never seen a country where the welfare safety net was sufficiently enticing I would consider abandoning my work for that kind of lifestyle - so I am not too concerned with the "motivations" argument...

[crazy canuck]

I have never seen a country where the welfare safety net was sufficiently enticing I would consider abandoning my work for that kind of lifestyle - so I am not too concerned with the "motivations" argument...

I suspect that is because you were raised to become accustomed to a life style that would not be possible if you lived off the safety net.  I can tell you from anecdotal experience that there are seasonal workers who think it works fairly well for them - ie work just long enough to qualify for unemployment benefits and then spend the rest of the year on those benefits.

[DGuller]

I have never seen a country where the welfare safety net was sufficiently enticing I would consider abandoning my work for that kind of lifestyle - so I am not too concerned with the "motivations" argument...

No safety net can provide you the lifestyle of a gay Polish lawyer.  Some of them could compete with actual employment on providing you the lifestyle of an unskilled laborer, however.

[Berkut]

I have never seen a country where the welfare safety net was sufficiently enticing I would consider abandoning my work for that kind of lifestyle - so I am not too concerned with the "motivations" argument...

That is just the kind of anecdotal response that isn't very useful though. You are an individual, and we know that you are very driven - you don't become a fake internet lawyer otherwise!

[Malthus]

I have never seen a country where the welfare safety net was sufficiently enticing I would consider abandoning my work for that kind of lifestyle - so I am not too concerned with the "motivations" argument...

It would have to be some net, to substitute for a lawyer's income. 

[Iormlund]

It seems like at some point you have to make a value judgment on everything that can make you poor.  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of having a serious and permanent disability?  Should the safety net protect you if you had the bad luck of losing your job?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born stupid?  Should it protect you if you had the bad luck of being born without a drive?

No one is born stupid. Many people just degenerate mentally after birth.

That's not true at all. There are tons of people who just don't get it.

That's a lesson I learned when I was 12 or so. One of my school friends was a really hard-working student, who would diligently study several hours every day. Yet he struggled in most subjects. It was a puzzling realization for me, since I aced most classes effortlessly.