I think that Robert Samuelson’s column in the Washington Post can be summarized in the four word title of this post. In the column he describes how public and private safety nets have eroded over time, how our expectations in what services government would provide and what we’re willing to pay for them have not been fulfilled, and how the implications of the choices we’ve made for how we live our lives weigh on the society in which we live those lives. He characterizes those things as “entitlements”. I think that a better characterization would be foreseeable and non-foreseeable consequences.
I think he concludes the column on a not terribly realistic note of optimism. I think the lesson that is most likely to be learned from the experiences of the last several years is why work if you don’t particularly enjoy what you’re doing and the rewards will be determined not by your hard work or ingenuity but by your ability to secure benefits from government at some level.
” I think the lesson that is most likely to be learned from the experiences of the last several years is why work if you don’t particularly enjoy what you’re doing and the rewards will be determined not by your hard work or ingenuity but by your ability to secure benefits from government at some level.”
You should flesh this out. Govt benefits dont pay very well. Are we to the point where people would come out ahead to not work and go on the dole? Not many people would come out ahead, but we are certainly heading that way. If wages continue to stagnate, if productivity increases continue to not lead to wage increases, then I think it simply wont pay to work at some point for a significant number of people. Is the answer to completely eliminate safety nets? Might work, but if we look at countries w/o safety nets and look at what happens historically, it is not encouraging.
Steve
My, you have a limited view of rent-seeking, steve. I’m reacting to Samuelson’s quote of Bill Clinton:
I’ll give just two examples.
Presumably, you think that on average docs have incomes three sigmas above median because they’re smart and work hard. They are smart and they do work hard but they also have a monopoly on prescribing drugs and Congress has passed a “doc fix” every year for the last ten years. What would docs’ wages be in the absence of the “doc fixes”? Or their various legal monopolies and privileges?
The folks at the big banks don’t make big incomes because they’re smart and work hard. I’m sure they’re smart and that they do work hard. But they also have the Fed and the Treasury watching their backs to the tune of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
There are lots of other people who are smart and have worked hard and have played by the rules but are out of work right now. I don’t see how anybody can take any lesson from that other than that the key to success isn’t being smart and working hard and playing by the rules but rather getting government protection for what you do.
That is a fascinating argument to me, Dave. Perhaps you believe guys like me make too much money. I’m not making an assertion, just an inquiry. I’d appreciate your take.
I draw a distinction with rent seeking and obviously subsidized “docs,” and me. I could tell you a million stories. But I will simply say, in my business you put your money on the line, and there are no guarantees. Its a ballsy business.
Anyone who thinks its easy………the water is warm, come on in, m-effers.
I have no basis for knowing one way or another. If you’re putting your own money on the line and taking your winnings or losses without going whining to your Congressman for special treatment, I have no gripes.
“I have no basis for knowing one way or another. If you’re putting your own money on the line and taking your winnings or losses without going whining to your Congressman for special treatment, I have no gripes.”
We don’t whine to anyone……….but ourselves. If you are a whiner, go home. On the one hand, its a great profession, because if you know what you are doing you can make a lot of money, and actually also do social good as well. Cancer research institutes, policemen and firemen, college professors and so on and so forth benefit. I feel good about that.
If you don’t know what you are doing. Well, you are dead.
The reason I rail about Dodd-Frank and think steve is a mindless idiot on this is that we have a role to play. DF is putting people like us out of business, and doing the classic – absolutely classic – regulatory maneuver: only the big guys survive. The regulatory costs kill the little guy, and only the big guy survives. steve has no clue. Michael has no clue. They are just mind numbingly clueless.
Its too bad. I’ve got my pile. I argue from principle. I argue for the effort. For the people I’ve effectively worked for for 20 years. They argue from cheap and flawed ideology. “Liar loans?” Really? I mean, really. I’m not 15 years old anymore.