[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

> If I mischaracterized you, I apologize. Then tell me,
> in your Friedman-esque world, what will become of the
> poor? Will they be taken care of by charity? Will
> poverty be eradicated? If the guy across the street has
> a child that needs medicine, and he and his wife are laid
> off (but looking for work), what happens?

President Carter acknowledged the ineffectiveness of public welfare 20 years
ago when he said, "The welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable
in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers' dollars."  The
expansion of welfare spending has harmed rather than helped the poor.
Instead of serving as a short-term ladder to help individuals climb out of
the culture of poverty, welfare has deepened the culture of "victimization"
and trapped untold millions in it.  George Bush's budget plan doesn't call
for cuts in welfare spending, or even a slowdown in its growth.  Here are
the facts, according to the current spending proposals:

-- Total federal welfare spending is projected to grow from $316 billion in
2000 to $450 billion in 2006: an increase of 42 percent. The rate of
spending increase is projected at 6 percent per year.
-- Federal spending on cash, food, and housing aid is projected to grow from
$142 billion to $174 billion: an increase of 23 percent. The annual rate of
spending increase would be 3.6 percent, nearly 50 percent greater than the
anticipated rate of inflation.
-- Together, federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $438
billion in 2000 to $626 billion in 2006.
-- Altogether, the United States will spend $3.6 trillion on means-tested
welfare assistance over the next five years. This amounts to around $47,000
for each taxpaying household in the U.S.

According to government data, the typical American, defined as poor by the
government, has a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer, a car, air
conditioning, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo and a color TV.  (Half of the
poor own two color TV's; a third have telephone answering machines.)  By his
own report, the typical poor individual is able to obtain medical care for
himself and his family; he lives in a home that is in good repair and is not
over-crowded. His family is not hungry and in the last year he had
sufficient funds to meet his essential needs. While this poor individual's
life is certainly far from opulent, it is equally far from the popular
images of poverty conveyed by liberal activists and the press.

> What happens to Joe Schmoe who has a crate
> fall on his leg and has severe muscular damage?
> Since we don't have worker's compensation any
> longer (just like in the pre-1920s), and his income
> was such that he could not afford personal insurance
> (just like wages in the pre-1920s), and let's say he
> was a single dad of three small boys... what would
> happen? No welfare, no workers comp, no insurance,
> all to protect the wealth of the rich. Does Joe and his
> boys end up living on the street?  What?

Unless you are talking about federal benefits, I'm not aware that state
workers compensation has been voided, although I know there were some recent
revisions in California's program.  The best information I could find was
this statement from an insurance advice site:

"Each state has its own worker's compensation laws to handle claims from
employees who are injured on the job. These laws are strict liability -
fault and negligence by the employer need not be established in order to
collect benefits. However, the injury or illness has to be incurred in the
course of employment in order for the workers' compensation system to
provide benefits to the injured worker. Since workers' compensation law
imposes strict liability on employers, it is the exclusive remedy for an
employee's injuries or illnesses arising out of the course of employment.
Workers' compensation insurance is typically required by the state for every
employee -- although state law may provide for specific exemptions for
officers/owners, small companies (those with three/four/five or fewer
employees), domestic workers, farm hands, and independent contractors."

> Wealth brings power, and power exerts control. This is how it has always
been
> historically. Its not a conspiracy, its simple historical fact.

That's as right now as it was before the term Capitalism was invented.  Man
lives by his wits, skills, and talents.  Those with the initiative to apply
these attributes productively rise to the top; those who don't fall
somewhere in the middle.  You may call this the "law of the jungle"; I view
it as the struggle for survival.  In a land of freedom and opportunity for
all, it is absurd to plan for a welfare state based on the premise that
average people are victims of the wealthy.

[Ham said]
> Yet, little guys rise above their humble roots
> and achieve greatness every day.

[Arlo]
> That's just myth. The statistics year after year show
> that the vast majority of people die in the same socio-
> economic strata into which they are born. And, more
> often than not, the risers and fallers are not doing so
> because of "skill" (or lack thereof), but out of happenstance.

Of course the "vast majority" never excel.  That would defy the normal
distribution curve.  Human beings are not equal in their ability to survive,
whether because of genetic deficiencies, lack of education or training,
inability to handle responsibility, insufficient  incentive, or whatever.
This is a reality of our relational existence.  The "myth" is to pretend
otherwise.

> What I call "inequality of value" is the belief that
> because Person A has more money than Person B,
> Person A is superior. Although untrue, I've found
> Person A tends to love to believe it.

That sounds very much like the statement of a person with an inferiority
complex.

> What I favor is opening as many doors as possible
> so that those with skill but without inherited wealth
> can have as much a chance as possible.

Fine.  I'm all for opening the doors of opportunity, so long as it doesn't
close the doors to those who advance on their own merit.

[Ham said]
> There always were, and probably always will be,
> slums and poverty; but the disparity between rich
> and poor in the U.S. is less than in almost any other
> country in the modern world.  If the government
> didn't rob the captains of industry to run its welfare
> programs, they would be far more likely to increase
> their contributions to the underclass.

 [Arlo]
> You mean like they did before the government
> stepped in? Seems to me the "disparity" you speak
> of has minimized greatly since the 1900s, when the
> government left it to the "charity" of the captains
> of industry. Indeed, when you look around at the
> world countries with the least disparity between rich
> and poor, it is also those with significant government
> intervention. In all historical cases I can find, when
> the government has not intervened, the rich-poor
> disparity was much higher. Can you point me to an
> example otherwise?

Personally, I think the rich/poor disparity issue is highly overrrated.
Socialism, as it now exists in the UK and the Scandinavian countries, gets
you a larger middle class and minimizes the "disparity".  But when you take
into account the exorbitant tax rate in these countries, you wonder how much
greater might be their progress had the achievers not been penalized to
support the non-achievers.  You can't reduce incentive without reducing the
standards of excellence.  Already we are seeing early retirement, extended
vacations, more "sick leave" time, and an exploding welfare population in
the Western European community.  This can only lead to less productivity and
a lower international standing.

As I said before, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Cheers again,
Ham