Developments on the Minimum Wage and Health Insurance Fronts

Update: This commentary from the Financial Times provides a good lead-in for the New York Times Economic View and other articles that follow below:

Child poverty weakens the Anglo-American model, by Mica Panic, Commentary, Financial Times: For more than 30 years neoliberals have held up the US and, to a lesser extent, the UK as examples that other countries must follow to achieve economic success and high levels of social well-being. Yet, according to a recent Unicef report on child welfare, these are the worst two industrial countries in which to grow up. Is the Anglo-American model really as successful as neoliberals claim?

Two years ago another United Nations agency ... singled out the plight of many children in the US and the UK. Child poverty had doubled in the UK between 1979 and 1998... A major cause was “the impact of [Thatcher] government policies that cut taxes for higher earners and lowered benefits for the poor”.

The present UK government has reversed some of these policies and reduced the level of child poverty, though it remains higher than in the 1970s and the latest figures show an increase.

In the US the consequences of similar policies and the lack of universal healthcare (unique among advanced countries) have been even more serious. According to the UNDP report: “A baby boy from a family in the top 5 per cent of US income distribution will enjoy a lifespan 25 per cent longer than a baby boy from the bottom 5 per cent.”

Not surprisingly, when you consider the whole population, not just children, the two countries, especially the US, lag behind the nations of “old Europe”, whatever indicators of well-being are used. My own comparisons of economic performance and social well-being in seven countries, representing different models of capitalism, produce rankings that are very similar to Unicef’s – even though I use different indicators.

Swedes and Norwegians enjoy the highest level of social well-being, ­followed closely by people in the Netherlands. The US is well behind on almost every indicator. Germany and France are in the middle, with the UK between them and the US.

The importance of these comparisons is that they consistently show that countries with social democratic or corporatist models of capitalism have markedly higher levels of social well-being than those ... with a liberal free-market model.

Equally important, the reason for this is not that they have higher gross domestic product per head but that their social attitudes, objectives and policies are very different. ...

As they believe that there is “such a thing as society” rather than “only” isolated, alienated individuals in ruthless pursuit of self-interest, the aim of their institutions and policies is to improve both social and individual welfare. In other words, the goal is to promote a harmony of national interests – not social Darwinism – by ensuring that the whole society shares the benefits of economic growth as well as the costs of the adjustment process that makes it possible.

Consequently, social democracies in particular are committed to those institutions and policies that neoliberals want to change. Employers, employees and government co-operate to solve national problems. Taxes and social expenditure are comparatively high, making generous unemployment and other benefits possible. They spend much more than the US and the UK on retraining those who become unemployed. Inequalities of income are much lower; and so also poverty, economic insecurity, lack of trust in other people and levels of stress and crime.

If these achievements are, as neo­liberals believe, a sign of failure, what constitutes success? ...

In this Economic View from the New York Times, Eduardo Porter argues that social insurance programs for the unemployed in the US and Europe are converging:

A Bridge Over the Atlantic, in Labor Policy, by Eduardo Porter, Economic View, NY Times: ...From the perspective of Western Europe, American employers have a relatively free hand to hire and fire, coupled with meager and short-lived unemployment benefits. America’s deregulated labor markets seem to provide hardly any safety net when it comes to economic dislocations of workers.

Americans, by contrast, have found it hard to resist a touch of ... European governments’ intervention in labor markets, with rules on everything from wages to layoffs, on top of generous unemployment benefits. But global change is pushing Europe and the United States to borrow from each other’s playbooks.

Faced with relentless competition from workers in China and other poor countries, American policy makers are considering extending a little more generosity to the low-skilled and unemployed. In Europe, the debate focuses on pushing the unemployed back to work. ...

In the United States, after Democrats took hold of Congress, they increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade. Now Democratic lawmakers are considering a plan to extend unemployment insurance coverage, which excludes all sorts of laid-off workers, including those who had part-time jobs and those leaving work because of family needs.

Some Democrats are also proposing a wage insurance plan, intended to cover part of the difference between the wages a laid-off worker formerly earned and the wages paid in the new job, which are typically 16 percent lower. ...

Critics of the wage insurance proposal argue that it would subsidize employers who pay substandard wages. In addition, some say that it is inefficient to distort workers’ incentives this way. ... Moreover, many economists say, helping workers deal with the dislocations wrought by a fast-changing economy would help temper their fears about globalization and forestall a protectionist backlash.

Global competition from manufacturers in poor countries, meanwhile, is driving some Western European countries in the opposite direction. ... [M]any are trying to coax the unemployed back into active work.

In Denmark, home to one of Europe’s most generous unemployment programs, ... the ... unemployed must now accept either a job offer or a place in a training program if they are to keep their benefits; the maximum benefit period has been cut to four years from five. In Germany, the former left-of-center government passed a package of laws in 2003 that cut benefits, pared the duration of unemployment insurance to 16 months from 32 and required workers on long-term benefits to accept any “reasonable” job offers. ... And the government set up a system to provide low-wage public jobs for the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Sinn, the German economist, said that if his country is to employ its less-skilled workers in the face of global competition, companies will have to be allowed to pay lower wages. ... “The minimum wages desired for social purposes are higher than the wages employers are willing to pay,” Mr. Sinn said. Europeans and Americans take very different approaches to the labor market... Still, a common perspective may be emerging...

This makes it sound like the minimum wage is already a done deal: "after Democrats took hold of Congress, they increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade." But of course the minimum wage legislation is still being held up in the Senate over demands for compensating tax reductions for small employers. Linda Beale of ataxingmatter is on the case:

Ransom Demand for the Minimum Wage Bill, ataxignmatter: Citizen for Tax Justice (CTJ) has just released its latest issue of its Tax Justice Digest (Mar. 30, 2007).  It begins with a great story on the Senate's absurd decision to expand even further the tax cut "bribe" to businesses for a much delayed and much needed minimum wage increase.  Excerpts follow.

On February 1, the Senate approved a bill pushed by Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) raising the minimum wage along with a tax cut package costing $8.3 billion over ten years. ...

Now the Senate says $12 billion in tax breaks are needed, an increase of around $3.8 billion from its original demand. BNA reports that the additional tax breaks were proposed by Finance Chairman Baucus, ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).  ...

The idea that businesses need to be "compensated" after they've received $276 billion in tax breaks since the last minimum wage hike (which was worth only about $13 billion to workers) is absurd. Businesses should not have to be bribed billions in tax cuts so that we can rescue the minimum wage from its lowest purchasing power in half a century.

Next, here's Jared Bernstein at Huffington Post with news about "three unfortunate developments on the wage front":

A Bad Week for Workers, by Jared Bernstein: While the business pages are freaking out over the possibility that the subprime mortgage debacle will bring down the macro-economy, there have been three unfortunate developments on the wage front. ...

First, there was a truly weird announcement Wednesday from the big electronics retailer, Circuit City. In a press release ... they announced that they plan to layoff 3,400 sales associates. That part's not unusual; restructurings often involve layoffs. What's weird is they said they're going to hire a new sales force at lower wages.

Talk about in-your-face management. ... CC graciously says the laid off workers can themselves apply for their old jobs at reduced pay after ten weeks... They say their staff is overpaid, but from my own poking around, they seem to make about the market average of around $11/hour. That's barely a living wage. ...

Second, remember the Federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 by 2009 that majorities in both houses of Congress claim to support? ...[S]till no increase.

Why not? Because they're wrangling over a wasteful package of tax cuts for businesses that the Senate (including Democrat Max Baucus) insist must accompany the wage bill. House Democrats want a clean bill, but Baucus et al won't budge. Worse, the tax cut addicts just added $4 billion more!

Meanwhile, a minimum wage worker earning $5.15 an hour is missing out on the ... increase. ...

Finally, over in the labor market, faster price growth is nibbling away at real wage gains that were looking pretty good there for a New York minute. Real hourly wages have been flat over the past few months, and given the softening job market and the resulting decline in weekly hours, real weekly earnings are down a few bucks so far this year.

So if you're wondering why consumer confidence took a dive in March, you don't have to look much past the pocketbooks and wallets of many working Americans.

Hey, I hear Circuit City is hiring!

Well, okay, we're stalled on helping low income workers partly due to an ideological battle, but surely we're willing to help children in need:

Expanded Health Program for Children Causes Clash, by Robert Pear, NY Times: The Bush administration says it will strenuously resist Democratic plans for a threefold expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, ensuring a clash with Congress over the most important health care legislation being considered this year.

Administration officials said that much of the new government coverage proposed by Democrats would simply replace private insurance, and they expressed concern about a sharp increase in the proportion of children covered by public programs in the last decade.

Dennis G. Smith, the federal official in charge of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, said 45 percent of all children were now covered by the two programs, up from 28 percent in 1998. ...

Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, who is leading House efforts to expand the program, said he was aware that Medicaid and the children’s insurance program covered nearly half of all children.

“It’s a great investment,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “One of my problems with this administration is that there are people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.” ...

The Bush administration says it wants to “refocus the program on low-income uninsured children.” Mr. Bush has proposed reducing federal payments to the states for coverage of children with family incomes exceeding twice the poverty level. ...

While opposing any major expansion of the program, Mr. Bush has proposed a new tax deduction to help people buy private health insurance. In the past, he proposed tax credits. ...

Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, said he was distressed to see Democrats pursuing what he called “a huge expansion of government-sponsored health care.” ...

Republicans senators like Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and John H. Chafee of Rhode Island helped create the program. Some Republicans, like Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, are working with Democrats to expand the program, a goal supported by many governors of both parties.

Yes, it would be terrible if in trying to help children in need we end up insuring a kid who's parents are able to afford health insurance according to some government calculation that gives this expenditure a high priority, but practically in the day-to-day fight to survive make other choices leaving the child without coverage. Government intervention of one form or another is unavoidable and somehow those parents will need to be forced to purchase coverage or allowed to participate in programs such as these. Simply creating incentives through tax deductions or credits will not be enough, particularly since most know that help is always available for catastrophic illness, broken bones, etc. We can try to induce parents to take out coverage through tax reductions and other means, but many will choose to address other pressing needs first and children will remain uncovered.

It's too bad that ideological battles have to hold up progress in this area. Children, not ideas, are the biggest losers.

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

The real issue is that our trade policies are increasing income inequality at a rapid rate, and economists do not want to admit that, so they nibble at the edges.

[Manco_Dollars]

Another irrelevant story about wage slaves. You raise the minimum wage all you want, it means the market will adjust by laying of wage slaves to compensate. So a few McDonalds will close... SO what? The real issue is how to bring up people rather then keep them stagnant. Democrat policies keep people stagnating. The best evidence of that is the welfare state in the black urban areas since the late 1960s. Those people have voted Democrat 95% since 1964.

[robertdfeinman]

This is when knowing some history is useful. Some would say that the turning point in organized labor happened with the "Bread and Roses" strike in Lawrence Mass in 1911. The strike was brought on by management's use of speed-ups and wage cuts.

There is a recent book out about the strike, but a quick summary can be found in the Wikipedia article:
Bread and Roses

The essential point was that things were so bad that the children of the strikers were sent to foster families in other cities so they wouldn't starve. The sight of all these malnourished, ill clothed children had an effect on public opinion similar to what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

The difference was that there was public outrage at the time which led to better support for worker's rights. This time not only haven't the plight of those in the Gulf Coast not caused any sustained changes, but neither have the roll backs against labor.

Also in today's NY Times is an article about how the working class in Detroit has been destroyed by the collapse of the auto industry.

Where's the outrage? Where's the pushback? Where are the people organizing for their rights?

[Manco_Dollars]

robert:

What rights are you talking about? No one has a right to a comfortable living, you have to work for it. Your rights are enshrined in the US Constitution, the right to be unfettered in your pursuit of prosperity. That pursuit doesn't involve courts and government.

[Manco_Dollars]

Another thing this study doesn't mention are racial differences. I bet it's heavily weighted by how horrible the minorities have it. I'm pretty sure lily-white Sweden doesn't have the same issues.

[robertdfeinman]

Manco:
The rules of society (at least in a nominally democratic one) are set by the people. So what the "rights" of the people are is whatever they decide.

We could, for example, decide that health care was a right and set up a mechanism to ensure that everyone got it. This is the case in some European countries, for example.

Similarly we could decide that a minimum standard of living was a right and do something about it.

The belief that it is a dog-eat-dog world and that the only rights that people have are the right to starve if they don't work are not absolute, they are a product of historical political choices.

Without getting into a discussion of the libertarian outlook again, just let me say that selfishness as a guiding principle for society appeals to the worst in people instead of the best.

It's also funny that libertarians feel it is alright to use the power of the state to preserve accumulated wealth and private property (regardless of how obtained originally), while they regard using the power of the state to promote social equality is an infringement of personal liberty.

[Manco_Dollars]

robertdfeinman:

Explain how libertarians support the power of the state to preserve accuulated wealth? If a person has money and property, there's no need for anyone to be involved to keep it. It's only when government steps in to TAKE it away that power of the state is involved. Your "unselfishness" is really state coercian on individuals. True unselfishness comes from an individual, no matter what Orwellian doublespeak you come up with. Forced charity is an oxymoron.

[Noni Mausa]

Manco_Dollars says...

"Explain how libertarians support the power of the state to preserve accuulated wealth? If a person has money and property, there's no need for anyone to be involved to keep it."

Police.
Armed forces.
Contract law.
Patent and copyright protection.
Fraud investigations.
Et cetera.

While it may be true that if people have enough money and power, they don't need these things supplied by the government, it is simply because they recreate all these things in miniature, using their own money with no help from the rest of society. Surely this is less efficient than having a government, supported by all, to do the same job.

Noni

[donna]

No big deal if kids starve, eh Manco Dollars?

I bet you're glad your parent's didn't feel that way.

So, did they have you laboring at age two, or what?

[mrrunangun]

"In 1990, no European country had a fertility rate less than 1.3; by 2002, there were 15, with six more below 1.4. No European country is maintaining its population through births, and only France - with a rate of 1.8 - has the potential to do so, according to a recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." ...from an article by Elizabeth Rosenthal in IHT September '06.

If your country is producing few children, child poverty ought to be less of a problem. More euros to go around neh? A disproportionate share of that low fertility may be attributable to muslim immigrants and first generation muslims in the EU countries and what child poverty they have is probably concentrated there. If being a kid in the EU is so great, why aren't their mommies and daddies making more of them?

[dale]

Children have the same mythical status as do the soldiers during time of war. But it's not just children who are vulnerable and suffer. There is something about the inherent right and dignity of each and every person, whether young, old, in between, that needs to be kept in mind.

And as to that lead in statement in the article about how child poverty weakens the Anglo-American "model". How long would such a list be? All the things that weaken our "model" would take quite a while to list.

[Gil]

Government intervention of one form or another is unavoidable and somehow those parents will need to be forced to purchase coverage or allowed to participate in programs such as these.
We can try to induce parents to take out coverage through tax reductions and other means, but many will choose to address other pressing needs first and children will remain uncovered.
I am not sure which is worse...Government intervention (and decreasing individual liberties) or uncaring parents who would prefer the new car rather than purchasing true health insurance and caring for their own children. These choices are even possible only because the government is too involved already...

[anne]

Huh??? What is always amazing about the lunacy of libertarian types is that all they ever object to is decency. Mentioning Iraq is thoroughly beyond the moral ken of the George Mason crowd. The heck with children, war is lovely. Huh???

[evagrius]

mrrunangun;

You should know that the birth rate in the U.S. is comparable to that of Europe once the Hispanic population is taken out of consideration, ( as well as the other immigrant population that's less numerous but also fruitful).

If that's true, and if the child poverty rate in the U.S. can be blamed on Hispanics and other immigrants, then why aren't decent, upstanding Americans of European descent having more children?

[mrrunangun]

Eva,
American college-educated whites have a current rate of 1.6 and American college-educated blacks an even worse 1.5. Thank God for all those good Catholic Mexican immigrants. They keep the aggregate American rate at 2.1. 2.15 overall for blacks, higher for Hispanics and lower for whites. The European rates below 1.4 for each of 21 countries are aggregate rates. One shudders to think what the college-educated non-muslim white European rate is. Our best educated young men generally regard themselves as above military service and our best educated young women believe themselves above child rearing. Such a society may yet have a long and happy future ahead of it, but the numbers give pause.

[Robinia]

Gil's comment shows a real lack of direct experience with the situations of parents who have a difficult time paying all their bills and also keeping up with the cost of health insurance in the private market. It is surely not a matter of choosing luxury goods over basic needs in most cases. It is, more typically, a matter of variable or inconsistant income due to such things as layoffs or reduced hours offered by the employer, late or missing child support payments, pay diminished by the necessity of taking unpaid days off when oneself or one's child is ill... The idea of including children whose parents make up to, say 400% of poverty level in a public insurance program is that these children can be kept in a consistent insurance program, rather than being bumped off the first week their mother manages (by working 2 jobs, receiving a child support payment when due, and not having to take any unpaid days off to care for ill children) to reach the modest income level that many take for granted.... Allowing a sliding scale for parents to pay into such a program can make it more equitable.... but, of course, a single-payer universal coverage system is both most efficient economically and also most certain to assure needed medical care to all children.

As far as the discussion on birth rates-- lower birth rates are associated with better education for women. That countries with better conditions for children (including access to education) end up with adult populations with both better education levels and lower birth rates is unsurprising, and hardly problematic, either.

[mrrunangun]

Robinia,
As long as you are not counting on your single-payer health plan to last very long, and are not counting on medicare or social security for your old age, below-replacement birth rates are no problem. If you would like to see them last for your own lifetime at least, a sufficient number of highly productive working taxpayers will be needed. Where will they come from in the EU if the working population is reduced by 25% in the next generation? Or here in the USA if we follow the EU pattern in the coming years?

[ken melvin]

Time to time compelled I am to ask the libertarian for an working example. Why none? Because the dog eat world is a violent destructive one that quickly disintegrates. You see, civilization itself depends on cooperation and mutual support. Oh, there was a time when tribes fought other tribes and civility and mutual support were only practiced within the tribe, but that was a good long time ago and man has slowly and painfully advanced. Why today some even go so far as to speak of the world community. Imagine that. 'Tis a far far cry from the primitive libertarian drivel, indeed.

[ken melvin]

Where is it writ that everything must be paid for by taxes upon wages. With ever fewer workers making ever lower wages, this doesn't extend. The money is going to have to come from profits.

[Gil]

No, I believe it is Robinia that has no direct experience with parents who make a perfectly rational choice to forgo purchasing health insurance (or health insulation?) to purchase other items (not necessarily luxury items). There is the increasing problem of purposeful uninsurance or underinsurance. Why pay for health insurance when "Uncle Sam" will get you some...what is indecent is that 15% of US GDP goes to health care and the results are third worldish...what is indecent is that wards of the state (AKA patients who are on government insurance) complain about the lack of choices they have in regards to formularies, allowable procedures, choice of hospitals, choice of physicians, etc. As far as single payer systems being effecient, I would think that regulatory monopolies are very ineffecient...

[ken melvin]

The idea we can populate our way out of this mess is ludicrous. So, any that immigrant labor is going to save our butts.

[dale]

Given the numerous comments on declining birth rates I suggest folks take a look at Katha Pollit's latest The Nation column on same: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/pollitt

"...while demographers fret about those unconceived second and third babies, every country on earth throws away plenty of children who are already here. Poor children, for example--why can't they grow up to be those missing skilled, educated people and productive workers? What about the children of France's Arab immigrants who rioted two years ago to protest joblessness and social exclusion? The Gypsies of Eastern Europe, whose kids are written off at birth and who have been sterilized without their consent in Slovakia and the Czech Republic? Vladimir Putin bemoans Russia's free-falling population, but babies are still being stashed in his country's appalling orphanages. Get those kids out of there, or stop complaining! The disabled, or older people who'd like to keep their jobs past the legal retirement age--there are a lot of would-be workers who just need a bit of accommodation. Instead of cajoling or bribing women into gestating the home-health attendants of the future, states should start treasuring the people--all the people--they have right now."

[RAC]

maybe of interest, why europeans are taller than americans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3625031.stm

[reason]

Noni Mauser...
"While it may be true that if people have enough money and power, they don't need these things supplied by the government, it is simply because they recreate all these things in miniature, using their own money with no help from the rest of society."
..
Well actually no they can't, there is no consent if it is unilaterally created. The reason we have a stable and peaceful society in the first place (as against say Somalia) is because there is a consensus agreement to abide by the rule of law, there are consensus arrangements for controlling that law and there are consensus arrangements for providing neutral referees for the process. The current corruption endangers all of that. I really fear for what might happen in the US if there is a severe recession.

[Isabel]

"The current corruption endangers all of that. I really fear for what might happen in the US if there is a severe recession."

Don't forget the general availiability of guns, too.

[Noni Mausa]

Noni said, in part "...it is simply because they recreate all these things in miniature, using their own money with no help from the rest of society."

and then Reason said: "Well actually no they can't, there is no consent if it is unilaterally created. The reason we have a stable and peaceful society in the first place (as against say Somalia) is because there is a consensus agreement to abide by the rule of law..."

The rule of law certainly helps; as a shared agreement to know and respect the law, it makes civilization more efficient and comfortable.

But the rule of law is, ultimately, rule by force of one sort or another. Follow the choices downwards (polite bill for rent, warning notice, notice of eviction, bailiffs, skilled negotiators, people with bullhorns, people with guns) and the end point is always "people with guns".

A thousand people will obey the first rent notice, but tenant 1001 ends with an armed intervention. There may be a way to do it differently, but I don't know of it.

The downside is, the "people with guns" MUST be under rule of law, or sooner or later they will use their power to do and take what is not lawful or just.

Pratchett's police detective Samuel Vimes said, "The badge was important. Yes. It was shield-shaped. For protection... It protected him from the beast, because the beast was waiting in the darkness of his head.

Who knew what evil lurked in the hearts of men? A copper, that's who. After ten years you thought you'd seen it all, but the shadows always dished up more. You saw how close men lived to the beast. You realized that [psychothaths] were not mad. They were incredibly sane. They were simply men without a shield. They'd looked at the world and realized that all the rules didn't have to apply to them...They shook hands with the beast."

In Darfur, the men with guns, both governmental and Janjaweed, are men without badges, without shields.

Noni

[reason]

Noni...
True but is it relevant.

I just wanted to point out that even with a private army, police force whatever, your rule can only be locally enforced without substantial willing compliance (regardless that some force ensures compliance of the inevitable standout minority). The alternative to a functioning state is warlordism.

The Libertarian Utopia is based on false assumptions about default human interaction (or even more basically animal interaction). And the important bit is the political process that stands behind it all. When we started moving towards liberal democracy, the protection of the property of merchants started improving (in spite of the natural Libertarian suspicion of mob rule). But liberal democracy means convincing the majority that protecting those property rights is in their interests. Some sort of Rawlian deal is needed to make it work. Libertarians tend to forget that.

[Noni Mausa]

"The alternative to a functioning state is warlordism."

Exactly.

Okay, I see we are not in disagreement. But is warlordism not just government in its most crude and primitive form? In the absence of effective government, it would be the only choice to protect an enclave of people, territory and resources.

In the presence of effective government, OTOH, warlordism is organized crime.

Noni
very glad not to be arguing

[reason]

But is warlordism not just government in its most crude and primitive form?

I don't think so. Government depends on the consent (or at least acceptance) of the governed (otherwise there is no civil society). Warlordism is willcure. Government at it most primitive is the village council. I think you can tell the tell the difference when it is clear what a criminal is.

[social mobility?]

The first article, sadly, reminds me of a piece that Krugman did years ago, summarizing rates of social mobility in the "developed" countries.

I believe that the US was #19 of #20 -- almost lowest.

Anyone who loves this country, as I do, must be troubled about that. Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, we all must find ways to restore high social mobility, or the American "Experiment" is over.

Generation after generation, privelege, power, and access to resources just go parent-to-child -- it is worse now than it has ever been in my memory.

Things normally meant to "democratize" a bit, like the SAT? -- no problem, today's young son/daughter of wealth and education has been taking practice exams since their freshman year at prep school, topping that off with tutoring and Princeton Review. Oh, and when it comes to fluffing up the college application, first it was "coaching" on writing the application -- today, it is even worse, with "designer experiences" meant to appeal to Harvard and the like.

Even those poor souls who get accepted -- by some miracle -- then pay hyperinflated tuition costs with debt! So they come out handicapped for a couple of decades by that. {On a bright note, Harvard, recognizing this issue, now allows children from families with incomes <$60K to go tuition-free -- it is at least a start.}

...don't even get me started on this issue of inheritance taxes and "trustafundians"...

[Suvi]

Manco: "Another thing this study doesn't mention are racial differences...I'm pretty sure lily-white Sweden doesn't have the same issues"

1/9th of Sweden's population is foreign-born, which is a higher proportion than that of the US. A further 1/13th of its population have at least one foreign-born parent.

"Lily-white Sweden" indeed!

[Noni Mausa]

I said "But is warlordism not just government in its most crude and primitive form?"

to which Reason replied... I don't think so. Government depends on the consent (or at least acceptance) of the governed (otherwise there is no civil society)... Government at it most primitive is the village council. I think you can tell the difference when it is clear what a criminal is."

Wiki is our friend: "A government (from the Greek Κυβερνήτης kubernites - steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder) is an organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory. There are several definitions on what exactly constitutes a government. In its broadest sense, "govern" means the power to administrate, whether over an area of land, a set group of people, or an association."

A village council is small, but not necessarily primitive. I think your gov't is fairly well developed by the time you get to that.

"To protect", I believe, is the first and primary job of a government. It maintains a safe inside and a sturdy outside so a territory, and its population, is not subjected to chaotic predation and inward collapse. As such, it should maintain order, prevent theft and murder, expel or discipline free-riders, and foster foreward thinking and prudent use of resources.

See, in addition to being a confirmed left-winger, I am also a very conservative person. The mental image raised by the "village council" depicts elderly persons sitting around the campfire, wisely confering and making sober judgements. It does not immediately include the beach nearby where a hundred crazed Vikings come jumping off their boats to kill all the wise and sober villagers and take their stuff. The wise and sober stuff is the result of having effective enough protection on the perimeter so that there is time and space for deliberation, long-term planning, research, art, religion and literature.

Warlords and other criminals depend on being more savage than the surrounding communities, just as lions depend on cows not biting back. But they also need a protected territory somewhere, if only a line of lookouts around their camps. The wife and kids have to live somewhere, and even warlords have to sleep sometime.

This isn't what you and I would label a gov't, but I think it is the hierarchical structure that a group of humans surrounded by other (possibly hostile) groups, will assume if it is to survive long enough to develop anything we WOULD call a gov't.

Noni

says...

I remember when the big fear was OVER population, now the big fear is that the birthrate is too low to pay for the population bump. What happened in the middle ages after the plague hit? Apparently society survived.

Part of the problem is that this privitization worship of the entreprenuerial individual heroically taking on his own retirement and health needs because he is indistructable and exercised every day and ate veggies and never smoked, this idea that he who dies with the most toys/money wins mentality, has somehow hijacked our society. Too many not so well off, have been sold on the idea that some how, they may end up winners if they buy into the rampant elitism of the top 1%. If you look like the rich and successful, you will someday be rich and successful..... just try to get a decent job when you are older, and over weight, or have some other crippling factor like ill health.... you might as well crawl into a hole. Where did these nutty ideas come from? Take a look at some of the questions the well versed HR must now ask, to weed out the psychologically or socially unfit.

[BJ Feng]

Feinman and others are wrong when they claim health care or food as a fundamental right. How can you have a right that depends on someone else's work, that is obtained by forcing someone else to give up the product of his labor? Such a right cannot co-exist with freedom, so if health care is a fundamental right, then freedom cannot also be a right. What if everyone just demands their "right" to health care and food? Who will provide? Someone has to produce that food, give that care, what are his rights? How does he obtain his right to food and health care?

In the end, such a society can exist only by denying someone else their right, you create a subset with lesser rights, a slave class who cannot exercise their right to take someone else's labor as their own. Now you can say that this subset, these lesser humans (if you concede they are) don't need the same rights as the dominant class. You can state that they are rich, but the reality is that they are denied the same "rights". The "rich" must work for their food, must provide their own health care, their right to receive what someone else produces is denied. Yet they still must work to provide health care and food for the master class.

There can be no right that depends on someone else's labor to provide. What happens if no one produces, no one is willing to work? Does the right just disappear? To base a right on a material level of wealth or service is nonsensical. When we talk about rights, we talk about freedoms. They are related. You do not have the right to be a millionaire, you do not have the right to have a job provided for you. You do have the right to your own labor, to provide a job for yourself.

[BJ Feng]

"Part of the problem is that this privitization worship of the entreprenuerial individual heroically taking on his own retirement and health needs because he is indistructable and exercised every day and ate veggies and never smoked, this idea that he who dies with the most toys/money wins mentality, has somehow hijacked our society."

What does the latter have to do with individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit? I don't buy into the mentality that wealth makes you a superior being, or the accumulation of wealth should be a person's lifetime goal, I'm not sure why you do. But I do believe one should have the freedom to determine his or her own goals. If you want to pursue non-monetary goals, spiritual, social, or scientific achievements, you can. Money doesn't necessarily bring self-fulfillment, there are many rich folks who are miserable. But that doesn't entitle you to their wealth.

And there are many wealthy people who are generous, who will freely give you food or health care when you need it. Such interactions should be encouraged, but it's another to force it. Live your own life, I have friends who live near Berkley (close to San Francisco) and only work when they want to. They spend the rest of their time on long road trips, or hang out with friends. Their last big trip was to Costa Rica, I wish I could have gone with them, but I couldn't take that much time off. No, they don't live in a big mansion, and don't even have cable TV, but they're happy living that kind of lifestyle.