Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Jacob]

The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist

Yeah, redistribution alone is not sufficient. There needs to reason to succeed as well. Personally I think that has much more to do with removing barriers to entry and success than punitive measures.

- what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".

And here's the bogeyman.

[MadImmortalMan]

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

I think real world data contradicts that. The societies with the best social mobility are more redistributive than the ones that aren't.

There is definitely correlation. As I said earlier, the ones with the best infrastructure, rule of law, etc. tend to be able to provide more redistribution without limiting growth as much. And do so. As they should.

[garbon]

I haven't heard from anyone who saw the protests that they saw lots of average hardworking people participating. I haven't seen them either in the stragglers that are all over the place now nor in portrayals in media photos. Perhaps I'm doing a bit of self-censoring and the media isn't helping - but I'm just not seeing it.  And give me a break, if it was mainly or even 10,000 "regular" people to one "silly hippy" - my viewpoint would be different.  That's not what I'm seeing or hearing though.

That said - Jacob, I'll let you know. Apparently the park near me is the next goal for the occupiers is the park a block from me.  They can get a bigger effect there as they won't be allowed to stay there overnight so arrests will be higher.

[Jacob]

And both are equally important. There is no confusion. There is no social mobility in an environment where taking a business risk will mean you lose everything if you fail and the government takes everything if you succeed. Just as there is very little if you have no access to education to acquire the skills you need to try the thing in the first place. Same coin.

The US is much further away from your first scenario than from the second, it seems.

[crazy canuck]

Damn, envious. Toronto hasn't solved this particular problem - it allowed alternative food vending, then apparently created a bureaucrasy to regulate it so stifling that alternative vendors coundn't make any money. 

It is pretty amazing actually.  Within one block of me there is a guy who serves grilled free range chicken (on a charcoal grill done right there) on a freshly baked nan bread bun; a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork); and a fish sandwich place which serves fish caught from their own boat.

Its all fresh, locally produced and really really good.

[MadImmortalMan]

And both are equally important. There is no confusion. There is no social mobility in an environment where taking a business risk will mean you lose everything if you fail and the government takes everything if you succeed. Just as there is very little if you have no access to education to acquire the skills you need to try the thing in the first place. Same coin.

The US is much further away from your first scenario than from the second, it seems.

Yes.

[Malthus]

The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist

Yeah, redistribution alone is not sufficient. There needs to reason to succeed as well. Personally I think that has much more to do with removing barriers to entry and success than punitive measures.

- what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".

And here's the bogeyman.

Not a "bogeyman" so much as an observation. I imply no moral inferiority to being poor and supported by welfare.

Point here is that what is required to avoid the poverty trap is twofold:

(1) a cultural perspective that it is honourable to support oneself if one can, even if it is to your short-term disadvantage; and

(2) a realistic opportunity that, if one actually strives to support oneself, it will in fact *be* to your long-term advantage. 

Naturally, these two are related. If working only gets you minimum-wage, without a realistic hope for better, and welfare is reasonably generous, eventually all but the hardest proponents of self-sufficiency are going to give it up.

[Malthus]

Damn, envious. Toronto hasn't solved this particular problem - it allowed alternative food vending, then apparently created a bureaucrasy to regulate it so stifling that alternative vendors coundn't make any money. 

It is pretty amazing actually.  Within one block of me there is a guy who serves grilled free range chicken (on a charcoal grill done right there) on a freshly baked nan bread bun; a pulled pork cart - which raises their own organic pork); and a fish sandwich place which serves fish caught from their own boat.

Its all fresh, locally produced and really really good.

You *want* me to hate you, don't you. 

[Jacob]

There tends to be a "chicken and egg" paradox on that though, isn't there?

No, I don't think so.

[Jacob]

Unfortunately for this one the protestors have caused a significant drop in his business.

[Jacob]

Oh really?  Consider a single mother on welfare trying to figure out whether it is better to stay on welfare or take a job which in the end, once transportation costs, day care and extra expenses are factored in will actually net her less income.

Where is the rhetoric in that?

It's right there 

Edit:  then consider the improvement in her life if we created a system that did not penalize her for getting that job.

Is that also rhetoric?

Yup.

Provide this rhetorical single mother on welfare with access to education so she can learn the skills to get a decent job and provide cheap and adequate child care while she's in school and working and voila! Your welfare trap has been fixed through providing additional entitlements.

I understand how welfare traps work. I'm not disputing that welfare traps can be created and do exist (and it's definitely more of an issue in some communities than others, especially where culture and economic climate coincide in unfortunate ways).

It's not the welfare that creates the trap, it's external factors. As you yourself point out in your edit, the absence would make the situation worse, not better.

[crazy canuck]

the absence would make the situation worse, not better.

You assume some ideological bias which does not exist.  I am not sure why that is.  Did I anywhere state that it would be better to not have welfare?  I dont think so.  I merely observed that the welfare system can often end in a trap.

The solution is not ending welfare but ending the trap.

[Jacob]

Not a "bogeyman" so much as an observation. I imply no moral inferiority to being poor and supported by welfare.

Point here is that what is required to avoid the poverty trap is twofold:

(1) a cultural perspective that it is honourable to support oneself if one can, even if it is to your short-term disadvantage; and

(2) a realistic opportunity that, if one actually strives to support oneself, it will in fact *be* to your long-term advantage. 

Naturally, these two are related. If working only gets you minimum-wage, without a realistic hope for better, and welfare is reasonably generous, eventually all but the hardest proponents of self-sufficiency are going to give it up.

Can you point me at any welfare system in the developed world that actually works like that, doesn't recognize that it's a problem where it occurs and is trying to fix it?

Yeah, with certain marginalized groups there are people stuck in welfare traps due to significant clashes of cultures and social exclusion. Similarly, there are socially vulnerable people, the mentally ill for example, who may end up in some form of welfare trap, but again it's external factors at play.

Are there any welfare systems that trap significant number of people like you describe? I'd say that certainly the Canadian one doesn't, and neither does the Danish one.

Because I feel that the welfare trap gets a lot more play in rhetoric than it actually appears in the real world. And when it does appear in the real world, it's usually identified as a problem and a fix is attempted; and if the fix doesn't work it's due to larger social issues than simple economics.

EDIT: That said, as CC and you say, it's definitely worthwhile to be aware of the trap and avoid it. But the answer isn't to remove welfare (not that you're saying that).

[Jacob]

You assume some ideological bias which does not exist.  I am not sure why that is.  Did I anywhere state that it would be better to not have welfare?  I dont think so.  I merely observed that the welfare system can often end in a trap.

Not at all, I'm simply stating my preferred conclusion. I do not infer that you disagree with it. However, I'm sure someone on languish does, so I made sure to state it clearly for their benefit.

The solution is not ending welfare but ending the trap.

Agreed

[Malthus]

Not a "bogeyman" so much as an observation. I imply no moral inferiority to being poor and supported by welfare.

Point here is that what is required to avoid the poverty trap is twofold:

(1) a cultural perspective that it is honourable to support oneself if one can, even if it is to your short-term disadvantage; and

(2) a realistic opportunity that, if one actually strives to support oneself, it will in fact *be* to your long-term advantage. 

Naturally, these two are related. If working only gets you minimum-wage, without a realistic hope for better, and welfare is reasonably generous, eventually all but the hardest proponents of self-sufficiency are going to give it up.

Can you point me at any welfare system in the developed world that actually works like that, doesn't recognize that it's a problem where it occurs and is trying to fix it?

Yeah, with certain marginalized groups there are people stuck in welfare traps due to significant clashes of cultures and social exclusion. Similarly, there are socially vulnerable people, the mentally ill for example, who may end up in some form of welfare trap, but again it's external factors at play.

Are there any welfare systems that trap significant number of people like you describe? I'd say that certainly the Canadian one doesn't, and neither does the Danish one.

Because I feel that the welfare trap gets a lot more play in rhetoric than it actually appears in the real world. And when it does appear in the real world, it's usually identified as a problem and a fix is attempted; and if the fix doesn't work it's due to larger social issues than simple economics.

EDIT: That said, as CC and you say, it's definitely worthwhile to be aware of the trap and avoid it. But the answer isn't to remove welfare (not that you're saying that).

The problem isn't with welfare, it is with lack of realistic opportunities for advancement outside the control of welfare systems.

Welfare cannot create such opportunities.