Jack,
I think you're right. I think that I need to respond very directly to the points that you made several posts ago and I can see that I've left you unsatisfied. Perhaps we actually agree on more than we think we do since I actually do consider myself a capitalist and believe it to be the best way to generate wealth. So this response will be divided into two sections. First, I will pull some quotes or points from your most recent e-mail, offering a brief response and then, second, I will return to the post of your blog dated September 5 in order to respond directly to the seven answers you gave.
Part 1
First, you claim, "the level of poverty is stunningly low in our nation."
My response: Of course American poverty is low if you compare it to underdeveloped or so-called "third-world" countries! And I am sure you'd attribute the difference between the "first world" and the "third world" to the form of capitalism that has dominated in Europe and North America. In part, I'd agree (although I'd also point out that our systematic exploitation of native peoples -- both in North America and in the subaltern world -- might have even more to do with our modern prosperity and their poverty).
Yet in our own nation I'd hardly call poverty "stunningly low" in light of the facts. According to the most recent census data, 16% of Americans currently live at the poverty level and 20% of children do. These are our highest poverty levels since 1993. In fact, 1 out of 6 children live in homes that cannot provide consistent access to adequate food. And without government programs such as SNAP, WIC, subsidized school lunches, etc. these children might literally have nothing to eat. Astonishingly, most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year in poverty between the ages of 25 and 75. And currently there are an estimated 643,000 homeless people living in the U.S. These are not "stunningly low" numbers; I'd call them "stunningly high."
Yet in our own nation I'd hardly call poverty "stunningly low" in light of the facts. According to the most recent census data, 16% of Americans currently live at the poverty level and 20% of children do. These are our highest poverty levels since 1993. In fact, 1 out of 6 children live in homes that cannot provide consistent access to adequate food. And without government programs such as SNAP, WIC, subsidized school lunches, etc. these children might literally have nothing to eat. Astonishingly, most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year in poverty between the ages of 25 and 75. And currently there are an estimated 643,000 homeless people living in the U.S. These are not "stunningly low" numbers; I'd call them "stunningly high."
You also said, "In order to find even the small amount of poverty we do, and to make it seem large enough that we would need government's forceful hand to correct it, we have to keep on redefining poverty upward. Where once it meant widespread lack of food and shelter; today it means not feeling confident that these will continue, or receiving less material goods than others." I am not knowledgable enough to know if the standards used to define poverty have shifted as you say. But let me be clear: I am not calling for more than a minimal safety net to meet the very basic needs of those in the most desperate of circumstances. Yet I would ask, Jack, at what point exactly do you go from saying that there is a "stunningly low" level of poverty to an amount worth our collective attention? When the number of homeless tops a million? When the number of food insecure children rises from 15.9 million to 16 million? Because to me, our poverty already seems quite noteworthy.
Meanwhile, you praise the entrepreneur as the real hero of the story. Yet if we are to witness the emergence of those meritorious entrepreneurs from among said 15.9 million, is it not fair that we as a society ensure that the 15.9 mil are provided with a stable learning environment, quality education, basic healthcare, and similar (dare I say "equal"?) opportunity to that of their middle and upper class peers? Otherwise, the expectation that these unfortunate children (who simply, it would seem, lost the lottery at birth) will be able to participate in the free market at the same stratum and with the same wherewithal as their peers will be able is unrealistic. The game is rigged. The starting lines are uneven. I can't beat you in a game of Monopoly with an inheritance of one house on Mediterranean and Baltic while you inherit hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk, no matter who ingenious I may be. The proposition that seems so scandalous to so many laissez-faire libertarians is actually rather modest: Let's be proactive a making sure the game isn't rigged before it starts.
Second, you state, "The process of hiring the labor puts more income into the laborer's pocket than he could earn elsewhere, and so his wealth has increased. That is how people escape poverty, and there is no other way." I agree with that statement. But why are there so many who are willing to work in the inner cities who have no businesses willing to hire them? I'll answer that. Because those who live in impoverished locations are oftentimes unreliable, difficult to work with, untrained in the etiquette and basic manners of the middle class, sometimes mentally ill, and even tend to be felons, etc. So we have a quandry: 1) Poverty is alleviated when laborers are hired, but 2) those who can hire chose not to hire in the places of the greatest poverty. The only solution that I can see is that profits must not be the primary goal of the businessman and businesswoman. Of course, we do see some examples of this taking place, but they are precious few. The truth is that, left to self-interest alone and the guidance of the invisible hand (and when we say "the invisible hand," do we not mean basic human nature?), the businesses go elsewhere. What proposal then, based upon the free market, do you offer that will help people "escape poverty" since "there is no other way"?
As for point three, you point out to me that hospitals were originally created by Christians -- which is why so many bear the names of saints and biblical characters. Yay! We're finally on my turf. I am a church historian. And you are exactly right. The irony in the context of our conversation is that these hospitals you point to were not created for the generation of profit. In fact, the idea that someone might profit from the care of one who is ill would have been considered unthinkably immoral. Hospitals were originally set up as agencies of Christian hospitality, a tradition dating back to Abraham which demanded care for the guest because the guest her/himself is an end in and of her/himself. To treat the guest as a means to another end (i.e. profit) was inconcivable to early Christians yet it is the reason the modern medical-industrial complex exists. If only we had some Christians today who were more committed to treating people ends in and of themselves as opposed to putting profits first (whether in the insurance industry, the medical field, or all those jobs in between). But the system has made us all guilty and made it impossible to treat individuals as ends in themselves. In other words, I believe Capitalism has offered an alternative religion.
As for your forth point, which states, "There are two kinds of compassion: one which speaks compassionately and likes to persuade or compel others to behave benevolently but gives little personally; and the other which actually gives, from their own means, to those who suffer. The first we call "liberal Democrats"; the second "conservative Republicans." Wait now, that sounded snarky, you're thinking. It comes from a recent census study by economist Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University, currently president of the American Enterprise Institute; published in his recent book, 'Who Really Cares.'" Yes, I do think it is snarky. And, worse, I think it falls into the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, I won't argue with you on this. Republicans are generous. I know many who are -- including most of my family. I'll just points out that it is logically possible to hold the position that for the sake of the poor it is necessary to BOTH give generously from your own wallet AND also advocate for a progressive tax. I, and many I know, fall into that category. I think these dichotomies (and stereotypes) are unhelpful.
Fifthly, you state, "When I say government is inefficient I mean that government has wasted resources that could have done far more for these poor had they been left in the hands of those who created the resources. The government action, in the big picture, has left the poor worse off than they would have been." My response is quite simple. Those resources that would have been saved would simply not be in the hands of the poor. To claim that they would have been is a tremendous leap of faith. Such resources would be in the hands of those who control the means of production. Without "directed" distribution of resources, we know that the bottom 40% of the people control only 0.2% of the wealth while the top 5% of the population controls 61.9% of the population. So when you talk about how the social safety net "wastes resources," you're right. But it just wastes the resources of the top 5%. (Link to the academic paper -- it is from 2007 so things may have shifted a bit: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf). It is far more likely that dollar X would go for a yacht for someone making six figures than it would go for a childcare payment for the single mother trying to make ends meet on about $20,000 per year, and given the extreme wealth disparity in our nation, it seems disingenuous to me to suggest that the "waste" caused by reallocating funds for the poor actually damages the poor by, in essence, "wasting resources that could have done more for [them]."
On your last point you say, "[P]oor families, over spans of a decade or two, cease to be poor. Only a few of those in the lowest quintile of family income--maybe 3-5% of them--remain there after a US census or two. And that fact does, in fact, come from the US census." Now that's odd. First, because it doesn't line up with my experience at all (or the that of my many, many friends who work in the inner city), but, hey, if you have the data, then who am I to argue? But secondly, it seems strange, in light of that data, for you to make the claim on Sept. 5 that when "poor people come to depend on government support, they sometimes set up multi-generational behavior patterns and forget what it might be to be a productive, self-supporting person." After all, you can't have it both ways.
Now, at this point, Jack, I just want to say that this debate is not personal. I may sound very passionate and that I because I am and it is because I care very deeply, but it is not because I am angry at you or at any other of my conservative family or friends who genuinely believe that the government should not have a role to play in poverty alleviation (beyond what you have suggested such as enforcing private property laws, etc.) That said, I will move on to the second section and try to address, very briefly the points you made in the blog of September 5.
Part II
1. The primary point here seems to be that 1) welfare programs de-incentivize people from working and 2) it wastes valuable resources. As for the first, I believe that is entirely untrue when you consider who very low the standard of living is for the person who lives off of the system. This is why I believe that welfare and unemployment benefits should remain low (as they are) so that there is still plenty of incentive for such people to find work. (SSI and Disability is different and I think those should be higher since those are people who CANNOT work even if they wanted to). It boils down to the question of how much incentive you think is appropriate. Let's take two scenarios. In the first, if you don't work, you starve and your kids starve. End of story. In the second, you don't starve, but you also don't enjoy the delicious foods you see others eating around you; you don't get to clothe your children in new, quality clothes for schools so that they avoid insults; you don't get to s occassionally plurge and celebrate a birthday or vacation; you don't get to buy that car you've always dreamed of. Now, in my opinion, the first scenario is just plain cruel. Does it provide incentive to work? Of course it does! It provides very strong incentive. The second scenario also provides incentive though. Does it provide as much as the first? Perhaps not. And yet I believe it provides plenty of incentive for any able-bodied man or woman to try to find work and become a productive member of society.
As for the wastefulness of resources, I believe I've already discussed that earlier. In my view, a somewhat wasteful program that cares for the vast needs of the poor is better than no program at all. You counter that it is wasteful and that this actually hurts the poor because the resources that are wasted could actually end up back in the hands of the poor themselves. I counter with that: yeah, right. When the top 5% of the population controls 61.9% of the wealth and the lower 40% of the population controls 0.2% of the wealth, I'm highly skeptical that much of that those "wasted resources" are going to "trickle down" to the lowest of the low. Those facts, combined with the church's pitiful efforts at poverty alleviation in our own nation -- let alone around the world -- leave me gladly accepting the crumbs that fall from the government's table. I believe it's the best option that the poor have right now.
2. You write, "It was good for both sides, since the business owner got low priced labor and the new workers got the best pay they'd ever had. They're both exploiting each other; but for some reason only the employer is accused of 'exploitation.'" First off, I think you misunderstand me terribly. I never have and never will accuse a businessman or woman who deliberately enters the inner city to create jobs of being an exploiter. Yet your answer baffles me since I was involved in many conversations for many years, trying (begging) businessmen to set up shop in the inner city, but to no avail. The last sentence of this quote aside, this investment in the inner cities simply is not happening at all in our nation today. And where it IS happening, it is happening by Christians who are deliberately setting aside the pursuit of profit as their number one agenda (a violation, I might add, of capitalism's rulebook). Either that, or the businesses are being built in areas of cities that are being gentrified, which is an entirely different endeavor.
The first part of your answer though, I agree with. I think you are right that the ability of people to set up their own businesses and begin to sell and trade is a wonderful solution to poverty. One problem: As you know, setting up a business requires capital. Where does that come from for a typical inner city family? Problem 2: You must have consumers: Where do they come from? And where do they get the money to buy your product? In other words, I really like your answer in theory, but what does it look like in practice on a large scale in modern urban America?
Now, at this point, Jack, I just want to say that this debate is not personal. I may sound very passionate and that I because I am and it is because I care very deeply, but it is not because I am angry at you or at any other of my conservative family or friends who genuinely believe that the government should not have a role to play in poverty alleviation (beyond what you have suggested such as enforcing private property laws, etc.) That said, I will move on to the second section and try to address, very briefly the points you made in the blog of September 5.
Part II
1. The primary point here seems to be that 1) welfare programs de-incentivize people from working and 2) it wastes valuable resources. As for the first, I believe that is entirely untrue when you consider who very low the standard of living is for the person who lives off of the system. This is why I believe that welfare and unemployment benefits should remain low (as they are) so that there is still plenty of incentive for such people to find work. (SSI and Disability is different and I think those should be higher since those are people who CANNOT work even if they wanted to). It boils down to the question of how much incentive you think is appropriate. Let's take two scenarios. In the first, if you don't work, you starve and your kids starve. End of story. In the second, you don't starve, but you also don't enjoy the delicious foods you see others eating around you; you don't get to clothe your children in new, quality clothes for schools so that they avoid insults; you don't get to s occassionally plurge and celebrate a birthday or vacation; you don't get to buy that car you've always dreamed of. Now, in my opinion, the first scenario is just plain cruel. Does it provide incentive to work? Of course it does! It provides very strong incentive. The second scenario also provides incentive though. Does it provide as much as the first? Perhaps not. And yet I believe it provides plenty of incentive for any able-bodied man or woman to try to find work and become a productive member of society.
As for the wastefulness of resources, I believe I've already discussed that earlier. In my view, a somewhat wasteful program that cares for the vast needs of the poor is better than no program at all. You counter that it is wasteful and that this actually hurts the poor because the resources that are wasted could actually end up back in the hands of the poor themselves. I counter with that: yeah, right. When the top 5% of the population controls 61.9% of the wealth and the lower 40% of the population controls 0.2% of the wealth, I'm highly skeptical that much of that those "wasted resources" are going to "trickle down" to the lowest of the low. Those facts, combined with the church's pitiful efforts at poverty alleviation in our own nation -- let alone around the world -- leave me gladly accepting the crumbs that fall from the government's table. I believe it's the best option that the poor have right now.
2. You write, "It was good for both sides, since the business owner got low priced labor and the new workers got the best pay they'd ever had. They're both exploiting each other; but for some reason only the employer is accused of 'exploitation.'" First off, I think you misunderstand me terribly. I never have and never will accuse a businessman or woman who deliberately enters the inner city to create jobs of being an exploiter. Yet your answer baffles me since I was involved in many conversations for many years, trying (begging) businessmen to set up shop in the inner city, but to no avail. The last sentence of this quote aside, this investment in the inner cities simply is not happening at all in our nation today. And where it IS happening, it is happening by Christians who are deliberately setting aside the pursuit of profit as their number one agenda (a violation, I might add, of capitalism's rulebook). Either that, or the businesses are being built in areas of cities that are being gentrified, which is an entirely different endeavor.
The first part of your answer though, I agree with. I think you are right that the ability of people to set up their own businesses and begin to sell and trade is a wonderful solution to poverty. One problem: As you know, setting up a business requires capital. Where does that come from for a typical inner city family? Problem 2: You must have consumers: Where do they come from? And where do they get the money to buy your product? In other words, I really like your answer in theory, but what does it look like in practice on a large scale in modern urban America?
3. Perhaps we need to have a discussion about the word "free." I think we use it in different ways. The way that the word "free" and "freedom" is used by John Locke and the Post-Enlightenment thinkers such as those who drafted the American constitution (Jefferson, etc.) had a very different understanding of freedom than did the authors of Scripture. When Jesus speaks of freedom, he means something very different than the economic freedom you speak of in your posts. We should discuss this because we could easily start talking past one another and equivocating on our terms. That's not a response; just a reflection.
Know what? I think I'm going to stop here. First of all, because I'm tired and I think I've addressed a lot of material already, but also because as I look ahead I see some topics coming up that will take some posts in and of themselves. So I've tried to response more directly to your ideas. If I still am too indirect, I apologize. I'm not an economist and so you'll have to give me some grace for writing outside of my academic discipline. But, beyond that, I'm not a logical positivist not even a foundationalist. So perhaps were are dealing with some differences in our epistemological assumptions. I suppose any discussions of this nature must begin with defining the philosophical and epistemological methods, mustn't they? And perhaps that is part of our problem. I read history different than you. I imagine I have a very different theology than you. And I likely have arrived at a different idea of "the good" than you. And perhaps that is precisely what makes our conversations so interesting. Till next time...
- Greg
(And I really MUST stop neglecting my Ph D studies for this. Paul Ricour, Hamid Dabashi, and Achille Mbembe are calling my name and they won't stop until I appease them).
No comments:
Post a Comment