Globalization and the shrinking middle class

[Renton]

Vulgar seems a bit extreme. I think the fact that we appreciate things outside of their monetary value is beautiful.

Beautiful to think about. Hurtful economically. Really awful stuff happens to things when you ignore their monetary worth. We've discussed this already.

I think the fact that we offer special care for babies, children, and people in general with abnormalities, diminished cognitive fucntions, etc. is a big part of what makes us modern humans. That's the extreme, but you can see that these people aren't contributing their fair share-- at least I assume they're not in your view. But in my view, they are. Taking care of them allows us to live in a world in which people don't die in a ditch because they don't flow with the current ebbs of the market.

I resist the urge to discuss the welfare of the disabled in context like this because those are extreme cases which would be pretty well taken care of in ANY rich society regardless of enacted egalitarian measures. There's just gonna be enough do-gooders and philanthropists among us to take care of the these few people, and even if we state-subsidize them its such a tiny amount of money (relatively to say the defense budget or the rest of medicare) that I don't care about it one way or the other.


The true welfare argument needs to be made where the money is significant: low-income people who have made poor decisions or just have had bad luck in life. And these are cases that helping these people is hurting the economy many times more than it helps them. And it often just straight out hurts them by giving them warped incentives. If I can work at this low-income job and gain experience and potential mobility for 900 dollars a month, or collect this disability or welfare check for 1100, I will probably choose the 1100, even if it gives me no chance of improving my state in life. Decisions like this are made constantly in the U.S.


Also, a shit load of the supposed egalitarian measures we enact are a subsidy to the middle class at the expense of the poor, not the rich as intended. Social Security, for example, is a regressive tax. The poor usually enter the workforce earlier in life than the middle class (often at age 16-17 as opposed to college grads who often wait until 23), and die younger, thus they pay more into it and receive less. State higher education is also stealing from the poor to give to the middle class and rich. Taxes collected by the states are almost always regressive, often coming from sales taxes. The poor pay a greater percentage of these taxes per their income and are far less likely to go to state colleges.


So what you have aren't egalitarian measures, instead you have a special interest group, the middle class, voting for policies that help them at any cost to others. It's the same concept as corn subsidies and its wrong for the same reasons. It's just harder to recognize this because we're hardwired to think that its all about middle class people and no one else matters.

I think that you ignore the potential destabilizing effects of wealth disparity. When there is a smooth gradient of wealth, and a thick buffer of a middle ground between the absolute destitute and the filthy rich, society will be most stable. The more egalitarian the society, the smoother the transition will be from rich to poor, again having a stabilizing effect. While I like the idea of your endgame, I don't think it can be reached without hitting the critical point of disparity.

I think I can draw the faith argument on this one just like you do with my stuff. I think that society is more stable when it is rich, when resources are distributed to their most valued use, when people are allowed to make their own decisions about their money, and when they have more of it to spend.


I don't think its all about sculpting a middle class that is 90% of the population. And even if I did, I think collectivist thinking would be just about the worst way to achieve that feat.