"If You Don't Want to Pay for Other People's Health Insurance...

...You Can't Live in a First World Nation."

Title says it all, but the text explains it to assholes (i.e. Republicans who think Obamacare Medicaid and Medicare should all die).  Unfortunately, the evidence shows that said assholes won't have their mind changed by the facts presented which run counter to their beliefs.

Income Mobility

Since the news came out that income mobility in this country, while crappy, has actually been pretty bad for a while, there's been some changing to the inequality debate.  Mostly not in a good direction.  It shouldn't need to be pointed out that mobility and inequality are very different issues.  It is possible to have very high mobility with simply insane inequality.  Imagine a country where the .01% owned 99% of the wealth, and everyone else was pretty much equal.  There could be a lot of mobility (it could be very easy for someone to move from the 10th to the 85th percentile if it only took an extra 20% of income to get there), but that level of inequality is still a major problem.

So these are two different issues and should be addressed as such.  It's great if people have the same chance as ever of making it to the top tier in this country, but it is pretty disgusting for that top tier to be so far separated from normal people (even upper middle class) as they are.  Two separate issues.  Not really even linked.

Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Guaranteed Income

I used to be very much on the side of raising the minimum wage to something "livable", at least $10 and maybe as much as $15/hr ($20k - $30k/year).  I still think we would be better off as a nation (and with many much better off than now) if we doubled it, but I am starting to come around to minimum guaranteed income (this has come up again regarding the civil rights movement, radical socialists that they were).

Minimum guaranteed income does a lot of lifting on a lot of issues--it would have to be set appropriately, but it could be used to eliminate most welfare programs, from cash payments to snap to housing (section 8), and would make useless some of our tax code complexity (we would need to seriously overhaul the tax code to do this anyway).  It also takes a lot of the perceived burden off employers, where we could let the free market reign: if people are willing to work for an extra $2.50/hr, then employers could pay that, but if, as I suspect, people who had more freedom to pick and chose, decided that their time and effort was worth more than it is when they have to take some job, any job, to survive, then employers would be forced by teh markets to pay higher salaries. 

People at the bottom of the income ladder would be far more free, and have greater opportunities.  At the top end: no bitching because they get that money too (well, less, all taxes would need to go up in this scenario).
On top of that, if you look to discussion about the hollowing out of the middle (automation now taking middle class jobs away) as a phenomenon that is likely to continue and expand, then this becomes the best solution.  Technology and enhanced productivity make us wealthier as a society, but the distribution becomes more unequal and the price to pay is that we must transfer some of those benefits down to the people who lost out because of them.  Having a minimum income does just that. 

As for the level...$16k is a fair starting point: it covers bare basics (well, not health care but so long as we're fixing things, we have single payer here) but there is still lots of incentive to work and pull that up.  Probably it would be something along the lines of [GDP/total population/x] where x is some age dependent scaling factor, maybe in the in the 3-5 range for 18+, and 10-20 for under 18 (money to parent/guardian). 

MLK Jr: NOT a Conservative

This has really been ongoing for sometime, and it is more than just MLK, but Republicans like taking popular figures and trying to own them.  Martin Luther King Jr. was a radical socialist liberal, the points below come from the rude pundit and are things we should all remember...

1. Martin Luther King was against prayer in school and thought that Christianity meant that you had to help the poor.

2. Martin Luther King thought America's use of military power was immoral and that protesters loved their country.

3. This is not to mention that Martin Luther King thought that money spent on useless wars would be better spent on anti-poverty programs.

4. Unlike today's Democrats, Martin Luther King believed that radical activism, even at the risk of arrest, was more important than moderation and compromise. Principle over popularity.

5. Martin Luther King believed that a janitor was as important as a doctor and that the government had the duty to ensure that the janitor was taken care of as well as the doctor was, including a guaranteed wage, health care, and more.

6. Martin Luther King believed that the rich needed to pay their fair share to help lift people out of poverty. They should, you know, spread the wealth, especially through taxation.

7. And, after a change of heart, Martin Luther King did not believe in owning a gun.

As dingby said (re: Jim DeMint's tweet):

If that's the platform of Jim DeMint's Republican Party, where do I sign up? If it isn't, then Jim DeMint should probably keep his mouth shut.

Damned Liberals

Go Sign It

Counter the austerian nut-jobs, and sign onto this petition for Congress to cosponsor a bill to strengthen Social Security.  I like it.  My favorite part is this:

• Improve the Long Term Financial Condition of the Trust Fund: Social Security is not in crisis, but does face a long-term deficit. To help extend the life of the trust fund the Act phases out the current taxable cap of $113,700 so that payroll taxes apply fairly to every dollar of wages.

It would be nice if they also severely restricted or eliminated the tax breaks for 401k's and to a lesser extent IRA's, and used that to make SS even more generous, but that's asking for the stars when you're offered the moon.

Marriage makes you less poor?

I understand the numbers and they are real, but something that should be pointed out in MattY's example is that his theoretical couple would likely be better off cohabiting while unmarried. Two impoverished cohabiting "single" parents would likely qualify for more benefits and breaks than one not-impoverished married couple with two children. 

It's not universal, but the way that we treat income with respect to marriage means that it is often better financially for dual income households to not marry than it is to marry (there are other benefits to marriage, mind you).  I think the simplest solution is to drop the entire section of the tax code.  Everyone who files is the same (so no single/married/married filing jointly/head of household crap).  Pick numbers in the middle and leave it at that.

Now that does seem to penalize single income families, but in reality it doesn't: you can have the traditionally working spouse pay the not-traditionally-working spouse half the income, and so split the pie lowering taxes all around...yes, I know that can be complicated, but since my fantasy tax filing would also drop lots of other crap, this would actually be pretty easy.

Inter-Generational Mobility is Confusing

When I read through posts and then comments on [wealth/income] mobility in society I get the feeling that lots of people don't understand that inter-generational aspect of it.  Mobility in society is less about me making a bit more or less over time and more about where I am compared to where my parents are.

If we really believe that wealth/income relate to achievement and ability then a high mobility is a defining characteristic of that.  Low mobility doesn't mean better off individuals are pushed down by up and comers, it means that the children of better off individuals do better than the children of less well off individuals.  Think of high mobility as a generational reset.  Each new baby will end up as successful as their talents allow, no more no less.

There is no reason to believe that the children in the Walton family are any more capable than the children of school teachers or janitors.  The reason the Walton children do well is because their parents have wealth, and the reason that the Walton parents have wealth is because Sam Walton had a lot of success.  Someone could be born to the Walton family without the mental facilities to tie shoelaces and that person will be a incredulously wealthy individual for his/her entire life.

On the other hand if a genius is born in inner city Baltimore to a way below the poverty line black family then that child will have to struggle to survive and even if he/she does "get out" and find success that success is most likely to mean a college degree and $60k/year.  Pretty good and remarkable considering the outlook, but in a "fair" society that strives for greatness then the Walton child would end up a janitor and the Baltimorian [?] would be a rocket scientist or CEO.

Now we can't have the level of mobility that resets everything...mostly because more successful people would never (nor should they ever) allow their children to be subject to such a system.  Society may have been better off if W had ended up failing out of state school and living the rest of his life as a drunk in a trailer park working as carnival operator, but George and Barbara would never have stood for such.

This is why people use the term "upwardly mobile".  We don't want to prevent parents from doing well by their children, but we do want to give children opportunities when their parents cannot afford to do so.

High mobility means that ability and drive can create success (and that sloth and idiocy can destroy it) even when mom and/or dad can't foot the bill.

Surprising Obliviousness

So I read through this story on college grads "kids" moving back in with their parents and how it is a good thing for them.  On the face of it: duh.  In a crappy economy with very expensive cost of living (housing and student loan debt in particular), the ability to move back in with mom and dad is a sensible thing to do and a very smart move from a financial/career perspective.

But the professor author, who should really know better, makes this seem like a good thing.  It isn't.  It's something that happens when the job market sucks, the rent is too damned high, and students (and their parents) have to take on crippling levels of debt to go to college...which is pretty much required as the job market for college grads is only crappy and not non-existent.

The bigger problem with the piece is this however:

Both parents and children understand that in a world where the young are saddled with debt and find it difficult to quickly enter a career, parental support — where possible — is indispensable. [my bold]

It isn't always possible.  In fact grads and students with more debt, with less family support and therefore with greater need to get a job (any job) as soon as possible are most likely to not have this family support available.

The entire piece seems to say "it's okay that your son/daughter is at home, they aren't loosers, they are clever and will have better futures as a result" but the "your" in this case isn't struggling families. It's families that can afford to have their adult children live in the house and sponge off mom and dad.  Yes, the economy sucks, and it sucks for the children of upper middle class and higher parents, but is this professor unable to comprehend that it may really, really suck for those of his students who don't have that luxury?!?

Rather than console those who don't really need the economy to pick up too badly he should use his post to educate those parents as to exactly how bad things are and encourage them to maybe do something about it.

Violent Nature?

After reading Bobo's latest bit-o-useless crap, I am posting something I've been thinking more about lately: the place of violence in human nature and society. It seems like I am hearing more about how violent and destructive people (yes, particularly men) are...

I was on the opposite side of a discussion over the weekend where violence [by men] against women was said to be remnant of a time when men would kill other men (for women), but since they only beat/abused/subdued the women, the female of the species was better off then the [dead] male.

Shows like Doomsday Preppers and the individuals who are akin to that mentality all assume that once something [very] bad happens that we will regress to a barbaric, violent culture pretty much immediately. It's a weird notion that a tiny slip from modern society would so quickly--in the minds of some--result in my willingness to kill someone for their canned goods. I really think it says more about the mindset of the preppers than it does the rest of society.

Really, though, that isn't the way humanity and society work. We are not so...fragile(?) as that. Violence actually makes little sense in most cases, and in reality the people who exhibit violence are either in an extreme situation or are mentally deficient or ill.

Individuals have families and societies have a sense of security and trust that are necessary for them to function and thrive. If one person injures or kills another that person should then expect others to do the same. It is a very isolated way of living. Because this further means living in constant fear of someone else hurting/killing you, it is also a much less productive way of living.

So we group together. This offers some security (if someone wants to hurt an individual in the group that person is far less likely to get away with it), and because of that it also allows for people to expend more effort on non-security related issues. There is still, however, the threat of group on group violence.

Minimizing the group on group violence threat can be accomplished by growing the group sizes. The larger the group the harder an attack would be, and the more resources it would consume (e.g. war). The better use of time and effort is directed internally. But that growth improves technology which, along with other benefits, will mean more effective possible violence.

Group size/technology mismatch is a back and forth that was, for large nations, pretty much resolved by the end of the cold war: the technology exist to utterly destroy human civilization, so no gain can be made. The trade off here is that the size of the societies that are necessary to avert this level of violence runs somewhat counter to the ability to deter individual violence.

In the US individual violence is deterred by local sub-groups of the overall society that is the USA. In descending size: federal police, state/park police, local police, neighborhood/community groups/organizations/residents, and family which could be a literal family or friends or a close-knit subset of a neighborhood. In countries like Afghanistan, where the top 3-4 levels are weak and/or corrupt internally, that leaves the last, but in the vacuum between the top and bottom exists lots of space for mid-group on group violence, and so a place for tribal warfare and groups like al qaeda.

Still, independent of enforcement, it is the case that violence is counter productive both from a societal and from an individual viewpoint. Even an event (war, solar flare, asteroid, disease, economic collapse) that would break down upper group levels would still leave a lot of social norms, because that will guarantee the best life for those remaining. This doesn't mean that there wouldn't be massive suffering, especially in the short run, but the people/groups who will do the best on a longer time scale will be those who help, not those that hoard.

Most Americans Actually Government Moochers

And they don't even know it. Really, though, even people who don't benefit from these specific programs benefit from roads and police and military. The fact is our society doesn't exist without a lot of government effort, from law and order to infrastructure to social welfare. Do the wealthy really think that they would have a more cushy life if it weren't for things like food stamps that help make sure everyone in the US has food to eat?