“Ohio have become decidedly right-of-center states is related to the fact that they are less educated than the country overall.” It may be related but most importantly the Democrats can’t form and deliver their message to this segment of the population in a meaningful way. It is not their lack of education but rather the inability of the Democrat party to identify in a meaningful way about basic kitchen table issues that effect these people’s daily lives. It is lazy to blame these voter’s education level rather than look deep into the issues of rural america, the uneducated and deliver effective policies this population can relate to.
America is too diverse for public pools. With crime the way it is and the youth of the clientele, I am also concerned about public pools as sites of violence. You just never know who will show up. You could get Central Americans blaring their music, or ppl eating in the pool, all of which are fine in the abstract and great within their own culture. But these behaviors would ruin the experience for other ethnicities. If we had to enforce rules against behaviors disparately favored by different ethnicities, people would complain about racism and would (rightfully) say that the rules systemically discriminate against them for barring their preferred cultural expression.
I agree with your point about contingency and dessert. But I think that point could support something like swimming lessons rather than public pools.
Because contingency supports our earnings, I agree that we should uphold the system that produced those contingencies. But I distinguish between (1) upholding the system and (2) redistributing to an underclass or a a group of people that would presumably benefit from a hypothetical set of different contingencies that the system might or might not produce under some other set of conditions. In other words, I agree that, as individuals, our earnings depend on (1) us as individuals and (2) the system in which we work. So, arguably, we and the system together have a claim of dessert to those earnings. But, the system as whole isn’t the same thing as a particular class of people who are worse off under its contingency. Indeed, by paying what the system it owed, we might have to transfer earnings to people who better off than us under its contingency, like perhaps, for example, a specialized defense contractor.
So, to bring it back to swimming pools, yes, the system would be better if everyone knew how to swim. As a system (or collective or nation), we are worse off pretty much when any one drowns because they fell into a body of water and can’t swim. (I don’t think it matters for, this case, whether we have a aggregative or non-aggregative concept of collective interest, also known as “the public good”. To me, it’s clear that we are, as a nation, lesser (idk compared to China) when ppl fall into a river and just drown because they can’t swim.) And, perhaps public swimming pools are the best way to achieve the systemic good of having everyone know how to swim. I’m open to that! But, personally, I would like to see the argument made in those terms. The system, and not some random member just by being a member, has a claim to my earnings.
Also, when you take non-dessert too far, you wind up mimetically undermining internal locus of control. You’ve written about the importance of an internal locus of control and cultivating a self of agency. A strong sense of “I earned this; this is mine” generally goes with an internal locus of control, not necessary but reinforcing. In cultures where people have to share everything, they don’t develop as individuals, either by investing in themselves or by saving.
Matt is exactly right to highlight what hinges on our willingness to share prosperity broadly. He’s also spot-on when he says this is a politically heavy lift, and about that I have some thoughts.
Our discourse teaches us that redistribution is about charity: we’re asked to consider someone else’s lot, hope we “approve” of their problem, and find their plight worth addressing via our largesse--in this case, taxes.
But I’d say redistribution is more like investment: one needn’t be immersed in the stories of those who produce the widgets to buy stock in the company; you’re looking for a return. Or, if you prefer: we share this big house. Spending on a floor through which none can fall, or a roof which stops any rain, means it’s well-built--and will appreciate. I think we should reframe our evaluations of social spending around this kind of language. In other words, tell me how a program benefits not only those directly enrolled, but each and everyone else. And be prepared to show receipts.
The problem is that we’ve focused on charity for so long, we lack information systems capable of producing such a prospectus; academic institutions to calculate the dividends, or even think tanks interested in new rhetoric. So we dear taxpayers hear none but the bleating calls to sympathy for others, and the projectors guess out how many fewer “poor people” program X will achieve. We’re left to our own devices to place that into context. Hasn’t the effectiveness of that strategy declined?
Imagine instead if we were trained not to discern between mooching loafers or deserving angels, but to see constant opportunities for returns on investment in the well-being of our fellow citizens. Whether it’s in future savings on reduced harms, or earnings from greater growth achieved via more citizens having the wherewithal to contribute their best, imagine if we had a better idea of how to follow that money.
Yet this is not just about purely monetary impact. Removing charity from the language around redistribution blunts its tendency to engender “otherness” over community. This kind of thinking could then encourage a broader sharing that builds societal infrastructure upon which we all trod, putting more oars in the water--whereby we all go faster. Or at least stay the course in a storm.
What I’m reaching for is a way to invoke not just our sympathy and pity, which are fickle and can increase hierarchical thinking, but also a shared solidarity of self-interest, the most inexhaustible of human veins.
While I'm clearly not the first person to touch on this, public pools were at the center of 1950s-era conservatism's gambit to reframe their anti-integration politics into race-neutral sounding, anti-tax politics. Your ability to not reduce every political problem to white supremacism is refreshing, but it does a disservice to your audience, which includes a fair share of "anti-woke" conservatives, to gloss over the racial context of Erickson's tweet.
Again, I understand that "playing the race-card" here will turn off parts of your audience and won't help persuade them that it's important to invest in public goods. It's also a good thing to not be in thrall with your existing audience.
If this were the 1950s, then I would agree wholeheartedly with you. In the absence of evidence, though, I am reluctant to accuse Erik Erickson of racist intent in choosing public pools as his example. I think the argument against his thinking doesn't depend on examples from 70 years ago or on attributing his view to racial animus.
This column is a dog's breakfast of contradictory idea fragments. I don't even know what the point is supposed to be. Taxing and spending is good, unless it's too much, then it's bad. Equality is good, except when it's not. Economic growth is always nice. Not exactly breaking any new or interesting ground here.
The book "Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America" is really interesting, especially if you are a lifelong swimmer, as I am. It focuses mostly on the Northeast, which is too bad, but I understand that he needed to limit the topic or it would expand into many volumes. The racism and sexism went back and forth over the decades; sometimes all the men, black and white, could swim together, but the girls/women were shut out. Sometimes the girls and women were included, but then the Black women and especially Black men were shut out. Sometimes the value of the pools was seen by the public to be cleanliness, especially in the 19th century when people didn't have indoor plumbing. Sometimes the value was seen to be fitness -- our youth need to be strong in body and mind! It's very fluid (ha!) and not at all simple. The book reads a bit like a dissertation, which it probably was, but it's still very interesting.
The US has the most progressive tax system in the world....we also have the highest avg. household income of the major economies, best GDP growth outside of China for the past 15 years, etc. And yet, most Americans do not pay income tax. In fact, a significant percentage actually have negative taxes in the form of tax credits and wealth transfers (food, housing aid).
The egalitarian societies being compared to the US in the chart are far more regressive in comparison. They have 40-50% payroll taxes AND 16-20% sales taxes. And the universal health care is rationed like crazy. And the EU has had stagnated GDP growth at around 1% for a decade and a half.
This is why people are for higher taxes and services rhetorically until they hear the details.
He's saying taxes are low, but progressive in that the rich pay the bulk of the taxes that are collected. He's saying Euro taxes are shifted more towards the lower end of the income spectrum due to high payroll and sales taxes. I don't know how true it is, but it's something I'd now like to see data on.
Pools, libraries, parks, and schools are municipally funded services. I don’t think anyone proposes raising property taxes to mitigate inequality - it’s always federal income tax. The things federal income taxes get spent on are at best quite remote from the taxpayer.
1. It will be good for society if for any given job the person hired is the one who could perform it best out of the pool of candidates AND we should aspire to reach the point that all who can and wish to be part of that pool are part of it (my definition of “meritocracy” but not the one commonly used in these discussions).
2. A decent society ought to guarantee minimum standards of living
3. It would be good for democracy and for the health of our civic life and social fabric that the gap between rich and poor doesn’t become too excessive.
These goals seem to me to be mutually reinforcing (and all served well by redistribution and good broad public services) but many here I suspect consider them contradictory and much of the debate stems from that.
Erickson's tweet read as a joke to me. I grew up in a city (in Texas) with public pools, and thought they were the norm. I live in a city in a purple state now with public pools.
We have many positive examples from the Nordics at how better tax policy leads to better health and transit, but nobody has cracked the birth rate problem as of yet.
Is it even possible to increase births via tax policy? It really does not seem possible, which might make it unique among societal problems that rich countries face.
An interesting point that "lots of Americans currently have their nominal earnings propped up by occupational licensing rules or other weird franchises like the laws that protect car dealership owners and liquor distributors." - these things provide job security in a society where the lack of a secure job is much more of a problem that there is when there is a welfare state.
Big improvements in efficiency can be accessed by allowing innovation, but there are always losers to any sort of big disruptive change. Having a society where there is a good safety net makes it more politically acceptable to push through disruption, which can help keep up innovation and productivity improvements.
Good points. I think the additional lubricant to assuage disruption and permit reform is rapid overall growth, at least in activities adjacent to the disrupted ones. The disruption from containerization/international communication on many importable goods outputs hit when macroeconomic policies (deficits) had led to low savings/investments and an overvalued exchange rate so goods exports did not take up the slack.
“Ohio have become decidedly right-of-center states is related to the fact that they are less educated than the country overall.” It may be related but most importantly the Democrats can’t form and deliver their message to this segment of the population in a meaningful way. It is not their lack of education but rather the inability of the Democrat party to identify in a meaningful way about basic kitchen table issues that effect these people’s daily lives. It is lazy to blame these voter’s education level rather than look deep into the issues of rural america, the uneducated and deliver effective policies this population can relate to.
America is too diverse for public pools. With crime the way it is and the youth of the clientele, I am also concerned about public pools as sites of violence. You just never know who will show up. You could get Central Americans blaring their music, or ppl eating in the pool, all of which are fine in the abstract and great within their own culture. But these behaviors would ruin the experience for other ethnicities. If we had to enforce rules against behaviors disparately favored by different ethnicities, people would complain about racism and would (rightfully) say that the rules systemically discriminate against them for barring their preferred cultural expression.
I agree with your point about contingency and dessert. But I think that point could support something like swimming lessons rather than public pools.
Because contingency supports our earnings, I agree that we should uphold the system that produced those contingencies. But I distinguish between (1) upholding the system and (2) redistributing to an underclass or a a group of people that would presumably benefit from a hypothetical set of different contingencies that the system might or might not produce under some other set of conditions. In other words, I agree that, as individuals, our earnings depend on (1) us as individuals and (2) the system in which we work. So, arguably, we and the system together have a claim of dessert to those earnings. But, the system as whole isn’t the same thing as a particular class of people who are worse off under its contingency. Indeed, by paying what the system it owed, we might have to transfer earnings to people who better off than us under its contingency, like perhaps, for example, a specialized defense contractor.
So, to bring it back to swimming pools, yes, the system would be better if everyone knew how to swim. As a system (or collective or nation), we are worse off pretty much when any one drowns because they fell into a body of water and can’t swim. (I don’t think it matters for, this case, whether we have a aggregative or non-aggregative concept of collective interest, also known as “the public good”. To me, it’s clear that we are, as a nation, lesser (idk compared to China) when ppl fall into a river and just drown because they can’t swim.) And, perhaps public swimming pools are the best way to achieve the systemic good of having everyone know how to swim. I’m open to that! But, personally, I would like to see the argument made in those terms. The system, and not some random member just by being a member, has a claim to my earnings.
Also, when you take non-dessert too far, you wind up mimetically undermining internal locus of control. You’ve written about the importance of an internal locus of control and cultivating a self of agency. A strong sense of “I earned this; this is mine” generally goes with an internal locus of control, not necessary but reinforcing. In cultures where people have to share everything, they don’t develop as individuals, either by investing in themselves or by saving.
How Slow. How Boring. How True.
Matt is exactly right to highlight what hinges on our willingness to share prosperity broadly. He’s also spot-on when he says this is a politically heavy lift, and about that I have some thoughts.
Our discourse teaches us that redistribution is about charity: we’re asked to consider someone else’s lot, hope we “approve” of their problem, and find their plight worth addressing via our largesse--in this case, taxes.
But I’d say redistribution is more like investment: one needn’t be immersed in the stories of those who produce the widgets to buy stock in the company; you’re looking for a return. Or, if you prefer: we share this big house. Spending on a floor through which none can fall, or a roof which stops any rain, means it’s well-built--and will appreciate. I think we should reframe our evaluations of social spending around this kind of language. In other words, tell me how a program benefits not only those directly enrolled, but each and everyone else. And be prepared to show receipts.
The problem is that we’ve focused on charity for so long, we lack information systems capable of producing such a prospectus; academic institutions to calculate the dividends, or even think tanks interested in new rhetoric. So we dear taxpayers hear none but the bleating calls to sympathy for others, and the projectors guess out how many fewer “poor people” program X will achieve. We’re left to our own devices to place that into context. Hasn’t the effectiveness of that strategy declined?
Imagine instead if we were trained not to discern between mooching loafers or deserving angels, but to see constant opportunities for returns on investment in the well-being of our fellow citizens. Whether it’s in future savings on reduced harms, or earnings from greater growth achieved via more citizens having the wherewithal to contribute their best, imagine if we had a better idea of how to follow that money.
Yet this is not just about purely monetary impact. Removing charity from the language around redistribution blunts its tendency to engender “otherness” over community. This kind of thinking could then encourage a broader sharing that builds societal infrastructure upon which we all trod, putting more oars in the water--whereby we all go faster. Or at least stay the course in a storm.
What I’m reaching for is a way to invoke not just our sympathy and pity, which are fickle and can increase hierarchical thinking, but also a shared solidarity of self-interest, the most inexhaustible of human veins.
There are also public pools in Atlanta, where Erick broadcasts from!
While I'm clearly not the first person to touch on this, public pools were at the center of 1950s-era conservatism's gambit to reframe their anti-integration politics into race-neutral sounding, anti-tax politics. Your ability to not reduce every political problem to white supremacism is refreshing, but it does a disservice to your audience, which includes a fair share of "anti-woke" conservatives, to gloss over the racial context of Erickson's tweet.
Again, I understand that "playing the race-card" here will turn off parts of your audience and won't help persuade them that it's important to invest in public goods. It's also a good thing to not be in thrall with your existing audience.
If this were the 1950s, then I would agree wholeheartedly with you. In the absence of evidence, though, I am reluctant to accuse Erik Erickson of racist intent in choosing public pools as his example. I think the argument against his thinking doesn't depend on examples from 70 years ago or on attributing his view to racial animus.
This column is a dog's breakfast of contradictory idea fragments. I don't even know what the point is supposed to be. Taxing and spending is good, unless it's too much, then it's bad. Equality is good, except when it's not. Economic growth is always nice. Not exactly breaking any new or interesting ground here.
Yeah but sometimes the simplest of concepts deserves another declaration. This was one of my favorite of Matt’s in a while.
The book "Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America" is really interesting, especially if you are a lifelong swimmer, as I am. It focuses mostly on the Northeast, which is too bad, but I understand that he needed to limit the topic or it would expand into many volumes. The racism and sexism went back and forth over the decades; sometimes all the men, black and white, could swim together, but the girls/women were shut out. Sometimes the girls and women were included, but then the Black women and especially Black men were shut out. Sometimes the value of the pools was seen by the public to be cleanliness, especially in the 19th century when people didn't have indoor plumbing. Sometimes the value was seen to be fitness -- our youth need to be strong in body and mind! It's very fluid (ha!) and not at all simple. The book reads a bit like a dissertation, which it probably was, but it's still very interesting.
The US has the most progressive tax system in the world....we also have the highest avg. household income of the major economies, best GDP growth outside of China for the past 15 years, etc. And yet, most Americans do not pay income tax. In fact, a significant percentage actually have negative taxes in the form of tax credits and wealth transfers (food, housing aid).
The egalitarian societies being compared to the US in the chart are far more regressive in comparison. They have 40-50% payroll taxes AND 16-20% sales taxes. And the universal health care is rationed like crazy. And the EU has had stagnated GDP growth at around 1% for a decade and a half.
This is why people are for higher taxes and services rhetorically until they hear the details.
Always mention only federal income taxes when talking about progressivity and how many people pay no INCOME tax.
Curious to know why you say the US has the most progressive tax system in the world?
He's saying taxes are low, but progressive in that the rich pay the bulk of the taxes that are collected. He's saying Euro taxes are shifted more towards the lower end of the income spectrum due to high payroll and sales taxes. I don't know how true it is, but it's something I'd now like to see data on.
Pools, libraries, parks, and schools are municipally funded services. I don’t think anyone proposes raising property taxes to mitigate inequality - it’s always federal income tax. The things federal income taxes get spent on are at best quite remote from the taxpayer.
I think there are three separate propositions
1. It will be good for society if for any given job the person hired is the one who could perform it best out of the pool of candidates AND we should aspire to reach the point that all who can and wish to be part of that pool are part of it (my definition of “meritocracy” but not the one commonly used in these discussions).
2. A decent society ought to guarantee minimum standards of living
3. It would be good for democracy and for the health of our civic life and social fabric that the gap between rich and poor doesn’t become too excessive.
These goals seem to me to be mutually reinforcing (and all served well by redistribution and good broad public services) but many here I suspect consider them contradictory and much of the debate stems from that.
Erickson's tweet read as a joke to me. I grew up in a city (in Texas) with public pools, and thought they were the norm. I live in a city in a purple state now with public pools.
We have many positive examples from the Nordics at how better tax policy leads to better health and transit, but nobody has cracked the birth rate problem as of yet.
Is it even possible to increase births via tax policy? It really does not seem possible, which might make it unique among societal problems that rich countries face.
The bit on the j-curve here is interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#Fertility_J-curve
This was brilliantly written.
An interesting point that "lots of Americans currently have their nominal earnings propped up by occupational licensing rules or other weird franchises like the laws that protect car dealership owners and liquor distributors." - these things provide job security in a society where the lack of a secure job is much more of a problem that there is when there is a welfare state.
Big improvements in efficiency can be accessed by allowing innovation, but there are always losers to any sort of big disruptive change. Having a society where there is a good safety net makes it more politically acceptable to push through disruption, which can help keep up innovation and productivity improvements.
Good points. I think the additional lubricant to assuage disruption and permit reform is rapid overall growth, at least in activities adjacent to the disrupted ones. The disruption from containerization/international communication on many importable goods outputs hit when macroeconomic policies (deficits) had led to low savings/investments and an overvalued exchange rate so goods exports did not take up the slack.