The Social Safety Net

[billroper]

bedlamhouse posted here a link to an article by a liberal who is working hard to characterize the differences between liberals and conservatives in some way other than "What in the world are they thinking?" (And a hat tip to pbristow who was the one who found the article in the first place.)

I think that one of the places he gets into trouble is when he starts discussing the "social safety net", which he thinks that liberals see as a good thing and conservatives see as a bad thing. In my usual way, I'm not sure it's not both.

Let's pick an example. Some time ago, I was having a conversation with my friend, Sally, who has actually spent time working with unemployed single mothers on welfare. And she made the point that it's not an easy life. I had to agree with her. And simultaneously I was saying, "But I'm not sure that, despite that, it isn't too easy."

Now I don't think that the vast majority of unemployed single mothers on welfare say to themselves, "I'm going to become a single mother and collect some of that easy money." I think they mostly find themselves in that position by accident. But I also believe that the existence of the social safety net makes people more willing to make bad choices, because the consequences of the bad choices aren't as negative as they would be in the absence of the safety net. When you start playing the game of "What's the worst that can happen?" and the worst is, well, tolerable, then you're more likely to make the decision that produces immediate gratification in the hope that the worst won't arrive and the knowledge that the situation will be tolerable if it does.

Endpoint games are interesting. Let's go to economics and look at the Laffer Curve, which attempts to determine the tax rate that would maximize tax revenue to the government. If your tax rate is 0%, you collect no money. If your tax rate is 100%, you also collect no money, because no sane person would work under those circumstances. (Well, they might work, but I might be in my recording studio instead of producing computer software and you might...) What's hard to determine is what the shape of that curve is in the middle. But -- mathematically -- there's got to be one or more points along the curve of taxation where you maximize your revenue. (And please note that I'm not arguing here that taxes are too high or too low, just that local optima exist.)

So what are the endpoint games for our social safety net? If there's no safety net (and assume no private charity for the purpose of this discussion), then you'll do anything that you can in order to survive, which might include work or might include a life of crime. The latter, of course, is hard to figure as a benefit to society. And there are some people who will not survive in such a situation, which I believe is also a bad thing.

But what if the social safety net is really, really good? What if life on the dole was so comfortable that there was no real incentive to work? There'd be some people who would work, just because they love what they do. But how many folks out there really do love what they do? And how many people who do love what they do would love doing something else even more, except for the fact that they actually like eating regularly?

Now, how good does the social safety net have to be before it's better than a bad job? And what happens if you have multiple generations of a family that have become dependent on the social safety net, because it is better than the bad jobs that are available to them? Nothing good, I suspect.

I don't claim that there are easy answers here. If easy answers existed, we'd be able to solve all the problems of the world before lunch.

But I just don't think that it's as simple as "Our social safety net is a good thing" or "Our social safety net is a bad thing". It's a thing and it has both good and bad consequences.

I'd like it to work better.

Comments

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Very well put. But, then, I expect no less from you.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

If it's a safety net, it needs to be the best it can be. Ask a trapeze artist. If that causes problems with the employment situation, then maybe it's that that needs to be re-examined. As I have said many and many a time, the work-optional society is coming, sooner or later, whether we want it or not. We can deny it and hold it off to the last desperate hairsbreadth split of a second, or we can embrace the possibilities and be ready for it when it does come.

But in the meantime, you* don't deliberately leave holes in the net because otherwise people won't care about falling off. If that's the best incentive you can give them for doing their job, then maybe the circus biz is not for you.

*And of course I don't mean you personally...

[bedlamhouse]

I think the "trapeze artist" analogy is better served by where you put the net, not whether the net has holes in it or not.

The example would be - suppose the net is right beneath the swing of the trapeze? How worthwhile does that make the trapeze artist and how many people would bother with whether that trapeze artist was any good? At the other extreme, if the trapeze is so high and the net is so low then there might as well be no net at all considering you'll just hit the floor anyway when you hit the net (or hit the net at such a velocity it is like hitting the floor).

Wherever you choose to put the net, it needs to be as good as it can possibly be - if you have a safety net for those who are disabled and cannot work, it needs to cover all of those who are disabled and cannot work. However, it need not cover those who are simply unemployed (that would involve putting the net at a different level).

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Well said.

I honestly do consider myself wanting a label for those of us who do think that there are legitmate roles for the goverment in the social arena, while at the same time wanting those things it does in that arena to be more efficient and less wasteful. Liberals tell me I'm selling out the poor because I'd cut what appear to be ineffective and wasteful programs, and conservatives inheritly distrust me because I don't think goverment is ipso facto a bad thing.

What I really am is a pragmatist, and that's often a very uncomfortable place to stand when the opposing ideologies are clashing and taking no prisoners.

[madfilkentist]

The distinction between a private safety net and a government-funded one, which you chose to skip over for the purpose of the discussion (and it is necessary to make some simplifications when writing less than a book) is an important one. Rather than one going to zero as the other does, one tends to increase as the other decreases, assuming generally constant economic conditions.

With a private safety net, no one's property is seized and no one sent to jail for choosing not to support it. This means that people can decide how much support to give and where to give it. The decision-making process is also less centralized, and thus generally makes better use of localized knowledge (e.g., is this person really unable to work or just faking it?).

Legally, the benefits of a governmental safety net are entitlements rather than gifts. This creates a mindset of not needing to get onto one's feet. It also creates a relationship of antagonism between the provider and the recipient, since it's a relationship based on compulsion and not choice.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

This would be a private safety net like, for instance, all those corporate pension funds that somehow aren't there any more. The distinction between a private safety net and a government-funded one is that the government-funded one has to be there, and has to be there for everyone, whether the people running it like your face/skin colour/religion/politics or not...

And as I said up there, if the only incentive to get on to one's feet is that one will starve if one doesn't, there is something terribly wrong with the society one is living in. But this is one of those things on which we're unlikely to agree, since I'm a Negotiated Commitment person, apparently...

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

A private 'safety net' is by definition one that is free to decide whether it likes a prospective recipient of aid or not. Private safety nets will always tend to condition their aid on either already having innate factors they approve of (like having the right skin color or ancestry) or on behaving in ways they approve of (like being a member in good standing of the right church). If the government mandates they serve everyone equally, then it is no longer really private; I think even a libertarian such as yourself would prefer the government take the money in taxes rather than just mandate that the private sector do the government's bidding with its own money. (Or perhaps you see no difference at all.)

A private safety net is abhorrent both because it does not cover everyone and because it gives the private 'charity' enormous power over the people it 'helps'. A hungry person will do almost anything for the only person who will give him food. 'Almost anything' certainly includes surrendering his own moral and political judgment in favor of the agenda of the 'charity'. Next to that, taxes are a small price to pay.

But I'm not a libertarian.

[madfilkentist]

A private 'safety net' is by definition one that is free to decide whether it likes a prospective recipient of aid or not. Private safety nets will always tend to condition their aid on either already having innate factors they approve of (like having the right skin color or ancestry) or on behaving in ways they approve of (like being a member in good standing of the right church).

Your assumption is that people always (your word) act on the basis of innate factors. If that's true, why do you think it stops being true when they vote for political candidates to do the job for them? If it's not true of people when they elect their government, why does it suddenly become true when they can make their own choices?

If the government mandates they serve everyone equally, then it is no longer really private; I think even a libertarian such as yourself would prefer the government take the money in taxes rather than just mandate that the private sector do the government's bidding with its own money. (Or perhaps you see no difference at all.)

This carries further the assumption that people acting separately make irrational choices, and that these same people acting collectively will stop them from doing so, so it's irrelevant to figure out which of the two forms of compulsion is worse.

A private safety net is abhorrent both because it does not cover everyone and because it gives the private 'charity' enormous power over the people it 'helps'. A hungry person will do almost anything for the only person who will give him food. 'Almost anything' certainly includes surrendering his own moral and political judgment in favor of the agenda of the 'charity'.

What do you think is happening right now? Politicians transfer gigantic sums of money between groups of people. They explicitly campaign for office on promises to do this, and in Congress the stock-in-trade of stronger politicians is their ability to take money from other states and distribute it in their own state. The trade in votes and favors is a market in billions of dollars. No private charity, however rich and corrupt, could hold a candle to the power which Congress exercises over people's lives with its ability to give out money.

Next to that, taxes are a small price to pay.

That "small price" is close to half of my income, counting federal, state, local, and indirect taxes. Maybe you're luckier.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

It's precisely because people acting on their own sometimes make bad choices that we need a system that has multiple levels of protections. A Constitution that defines rights that must be honored even if a whole lot of people would rather not. Multiple levels of courts. Two chambers in the legislature and an executive with a veto. None of these mechanisms guarantee that mistakes won't be made, but the more levels where after one group decides something, another group has a chance to look at it and change it if it was wrong, the more of the mistakes we can catch.

I certainly agree that American democracy has never been perfect, and I think it's gotten a lot worse in the last few decades. I'd like to fix a lot of things, but I'm not ready to throw it all away.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The problem I see with a private safety net with local control is that it will tend to become a popularity contest. Pretty Polly gets benefits; Ugly Urma does not. Having been both popular and unpopular at different times in my life, and having no idea what made the difference, I strongly recommend against a "people giving aid to people they like" scenario.

The other problem I see (with local control) is that economically depressed areas will have more people who need aid and less aid to give.

[patoadam]

M.R., a software engineer I used to work with, had been a welfare mother after her husband was murdered. While she was on welfare, she put herself through college so that she could become a computer geek.

It's also necessary to realize that poor parents need to have enough money to feed and clothe their children, who are not to blame for their parents' poverty.

I agree that our social safety net has both good and bad consequences, but I think it has to be there to support children of poor families and people like M.R.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

The thoughts this triggered for me are too long to drop in a comment here, so I've posted them on my own journal.

[(Anonymous)]

Nice going! You got them riled up proper! :-)

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

Well articulated! I think you've left out some significant issues, but I admire the argument.

The omissions, which as others have pointed out, isn't really a fault of someone blogging a short piece: the way in which the majority of the federal "safety net" has benefitted the middle class (which has generally given back to society quite a bit in terms of economic benefits); the different configurations of "safety net" from income support to tangible goods (e.g., Food Stamps) and services (e.g., medical care for children) to negative income tax (the Earned Income Tax Credit is a variant of that), and the consequences of that; and the problems with how the 1996 welfare devolution law eliminated a lot of data collection that would allow us to figure out what happened to all those families who disappeared from support rolls; and some others.

Motivation is a funny thing: people tend to react differently to the same conditions in front of them. But social policy tends to be a one-size-fits-all approach.

And on that fragmentary note, ...

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

Interesting article, especially when I compare the polical analogy with my real world view as I'd have to say that both the "strict father" and "nurturant parent" family viewpoints as described are frankly dysfunctional unless you throw out a few points and replace them from the other side!

e.g. Kids are not "born good" - they're amoral and selfish and need education and discipline to be taught that in the long run there are better strategies. Equally, empathy and responsibility are key ways you use to teach them this. And both competition *and* cooperation are things which kids need to be able to master. And so on.

All of which by analogy says that neither liberals nor conservatives have it entirely right, and what you need is a liberal conservative. Which by a possibly not so strange coincidence is probably where I'd name my politics!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

More than half of new businesses fail. Perhaps a social safety net that makes the worst that can happen tolerable is part of what lets people start new businesses in spite of that risk.

[beige-alert.livejournal.com]

It's not just bad decisions but also risky choices that a safety net encourages. If everyone's health care was taken care of just by virtue of being here, maybe more people would try starting their own businesses. Would the good ideas now not tried by people fearful of being one accident or major illness away from disaster if they leave the corporation outweigh the harebrained business plans now similarly discouraged?

I wonder how many of the people who make really bad choices would actually make better ones if less help was available? The person contemplating starting her own business may be calculating the risk of bankruptcy and the health insurance issue, but would the alcoholic with a violent boyfriend make better decisions if she was well and truly on her own? Some might, of course, but how many?

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

It occurred to me that there ought to be some studies out there by now, tracking the effects of the welfare system. So the first thing I did was to Google on "multi-generation dependency on welfare". Interestingly, the first link I turned up was this article from the Journal of Family and Economic Issues, on a 1995 study. To my slight surprise, it directly addressed what you refer to as "bad choices". To quote from the Abstract:

Results do not support the hypothesis that higher welfare benefits provide an incentive that hastens sex or reduces contraceptive use. Analyses provide moderate support for a culture of poverty perspective among girls. Intergenerational welfare receipt has a borderline significant effect on the timing of first sex, and maternal welfare receipt predicts nonuse of contraception at first sex for girls. Strong support is found for a stressful life experiences perspective, in which both parental marital disruption and nonvoluntary sex predict earlier voluntary sex.

So it's definitely a complex topic, in which multiple interrelated factors need to be taken into account. But note that first sentence. The level of benefits, in and of itself, was not found to be a predictor of adolescent sexual behavior.

Getting back to the more general topic of the safety net, I'm guessing that you and I can actually agree on the most desired outcome - maximizing the number of adults who become productive members of society. If we start from that, the question becomes, how do you best achieve that goal? I'd say that the key is education, and a support system that makes it possible for people to get it. Here's a conference proceeding from the Department of Education, making the (to me, obvious) point that teenage mothers who stay in school are more likely to become self-supporting, and exploring ways to increase the number of teens who stay. And this study from the GAO had this to say:

Our synthesis of rigorous evaluations of five [programs for keeping teenage mothers in school] found that three increased high school or GED completions, and thus showed promise for increasing economic self-sufficiency in the long run. All three of these programs actively monitored school attendance and followed up on attendance with either financial incentives or sanctions and/or aided in resolving barriers to school attendance. In addition, they provided access to child care and transportation.

This is all consistent with other things I've read. An effective safety net isn't just about handing out money, and it isn't just about work requirements. Getting people off "the dole" on a consistent basis appears to require spending money on training programs, child care, and transportation. (And yes, I grant that it also requires having those programs staffed and run by people who know what they're doing, which isn't easy. But it's not impossible. Some government programs are well-run.)

One more link: This PBS story about a successful welfare-to-work program in Minneapolis shows how a little extra generosity can greatly boost the success rate. It also points up that a lot of the people on welfare need training, not just on job-related skills, but on the basics of how to be a good employee.

And a final note: Having a safety net is necessary because sometimes, there isn't a choice. If you live in an economically depressed area where there aren't enough jobs of any kind, don't have the money to move to a different area, and don't have reliable public transportation, what do you do?

Another perspective

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

I agree with Bill that I'd like our social safety net work better. However, I'd like to point out a practical advantage to a social safety net.

Consider Brazil, a country with a very poor safety net. The country has large numbers of people who are desperately poor. There are whole villages on the outskirts of every city which consist of people living in cardboard boxes.

Brazil has a violent crime rate several times higher then the US. Many of these shantytowns or "favelas" (sp?) are completely ungoverned. The Wall Street Journal had an article about one such, where the gang that ran the place only allowed two policemen in at a time. They could only drive to the police station and relieve the two cops on duty. No patrols, no arrests, just sit in the cop shop until relieved.

Please note, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with current practices, but the advantage of redistributing SOME income is more safety for all.