Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system. The issue are limited resources (potentially) not allowing for everyone to achieve the plateau where most people are content. What differs are the means of aiding less fortunate people. What doesn't is that there will always be a subset that abuses whatever system they're under. No, but delineation here is moot: both are required for continued survival regardless of behavior. The burden on one's life afterwards, however, shouldn't be predicated on accidents -- of birth or otherwise. To my knowledge, not everyone in the US gets health insurance at work. And $7400 per year is no small expense, regardless if it comes from tax to the state or private provider. I'll look more into this, but I do distinctly remember all US postdoc applications I've seen emphasizing you're gonna buy your own. This is a much, much broader topic, though I'd like to apologize if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic. For what it's worth, people contribute to WOŚP and our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so. Some will never. Most think it's enough, and prefer to give it to a reputable foundation instead of some by-cause. Many give money )often not insignificant money) to church, and that's another can of worms, but the distribution of this charity differs by parish. Not all are equal, so you'll see ones with shelters, soup kitchens, care and active programmes to help people get on their feet... and places sporting some bitchn' marble statues. As for helping people on the street, there was some study where they put a kid without shoes or coat outside in different countries and looked how long it took for someone to lend aid. Poland was also on some ludicrously low in that rank, but that's because I can guarantee you that most folks believed it's a setup for pickpockets or, what article argues, people believing that person probably already abuses social aid, doesn't contribute etc etc etc. Because that's the anti-social aid propaganda here, and has been so for years. We also have a 500+ program, where (skimming the details) you get extra 500 PLN per child per month and some extra perks/aides regarding school and daycare, and if the father can't pay alimony, the state covers the difference or pays some it's-complicated sum. There's been a huge stink over some couples abusing it that completely ignored tens of thousands legitimate cases, too. I prefer to help on the off-chance the person is in genuine need. I remember buying some extra food, giving them to a homeless man, and he just tossed them away after making sure there's no booze. So instead of writing a think-piece about perils of charity perpetuating abuse and laziness, I took it out of thrash and gave it to someone who used it. I wish to be able to offer some book that'd serve as a good introduction to Polish condition that's simultaneously in English and not utter garbage though.under socialism behavior which is praised is not rewarded and behavior that is condemned is rewarded. The cases provided support this thesis, and I think it's completely fair to debate whether they are representative or cherry-picked, or whether they represent unwanted side effects of policies that are overall a net positive.
A medical condition requiring surgery is not a behavior (if it wasn't something like a liver transplant for alcoholism), so it seems like a peripheral example.
The insurance from his job paid $28,920, leaving a debt of $10,092.
Perhaps when the state does more of the humanity and empathy work, people feel less obligated to contribute.
No need to apologize; I didn't get that message. I don't know if Americans are more humane or empathetic, that kind of thing is interesting to research but hard to measure. I suspect that having more wealth than most other nationalities enables Americans to be generous without feeling the same sacrifice. That's great, but if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it just suggests that they believe the organization will do more good with the money than the government. The U.S. version allows taxpayers to reduce their declared income by the amount donated to a charitable organization. So if you donate an old car valued at $500, and you are in the 15% tax bracket, you'll owe $75 less tax. Charity is hard to do well. Thanks for sharing your perspectives.if you thought I implied Americans are less humane or empathetic
our tax application includes an opt-in way to donate 1% of your returns directly to a cause or foundation. Many do so.
A government successfully working around its own (built-in) inefficiencies is a good thing, regardless of the message it sends.That's great, but if it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it just suggests that they believe the organization will do more good with the money than the government.
I agree this is true. Probably no society has operated on the principle of a single sentence, but in this kind of conversation there must be some simplification, so: Under capitalism, the natural human tendency to seek to improve one's life is compatible with the greater good. By producing more of value to others, one becomes better off. Under the Marxist slogan, the natural human tendency to seek self-improvement promotes antisocial behavior. Regardless of how much you produce of value for society, you will get the same amount—what you need. If you want to improve your life by increasing time spent in leisure or with family, the incentive is to conceal your ability to produce. If you want to improve your life by receiving more, the incentive is to exaggerate your needs. This article simply argues that both sides agree on the principles that hard work is virtuous and dishonest parasitism is bad, but only one side provides incentives in alignment with those principles. The issue of distribution, addressing poverty, will never be completely resolved, because no approach is perfect. But it's clear what generates poverty-relieving wealth. In the United States, capitalism runs rampant, and some people get wildly rich, leading to inequality. The fifty states can be ranked by GDP per capita and they range from New York at $90,043 and Massachusetts at $86,942 down to Arkansas at $44,808 and Mississippi at $40,464. The GDP per capita of the United Kingdom is $40,284. By this imperfect measure, half the countries in Europe are poorer than the poorest American state.Desire to improve one's life is natural, regardless of system.
this is a misrepresentation of both marxism and modern socialist theory derived from marxism - that famous slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was something marx said about the ideal communist society where work is no longer necessary to survive and is instead something people do because they want to do it - it's a biblical paraphrase and is not the entirety of communist theory - any more than any slogan sums up an ideology. if you divorce something from context and misrepresent what it's saying, again, you can make anything sound impossible and ridiculous. do you really think that comparing GDP, "this imperfect measure", is at all an appropriate way to compare the welfare of the people living in two areas? are you joking? does that pass the smell test for you?
Agreed, it is a misrepresentation, and there are comments on the article to that effect. Huemer may be wrong to represent that line as a "core socialist ideal." It still seems realistic to me that socialists and capitalists alike consider work that contributes to social welfare as virtuous, and dishonest parasitism as bad. In any case, I described the sentence as merely a slogan, with the qualification that it is a simplification. Marxism may be an unrealized abstraction, but the two policy examples are concrete and real. Is there no tension between these ideas? • Warren believes that it is good when people earn money and pay off their loans. • Warren advocates a policy that rewards people who did not pay off their loans. or • Self-reliance through employment is better than unemployment and dependence on aid. • Unemployment benefits reward unemployment and discourage employment. This is not a proof that student loan forgiveness or unemployment benefits are bad, that the costs outweigh the benefits. It's a concern, it's a problem, it's something advocates should address. "Most, perhaps almost all, left-wing economic proposals create perverse incentives." Loan forgiveness will benefit one set of people (university students who are generally more affluent already) and harm another (future students facing ever-higher tuition and debt promoted by the intervention). There is a lot of literature on welfare cliffs, where people will lose money if they increase their income by working more and therefore become ineligible for a public benefit. There are also efforts to address these problems. Perhaps some discussion is worthwhile? GDP is imperfect for a lot of reasons and has been widely criticized. It is not easy to compare happiness or welfare between countries. Can you suggest a better measure, rather than simply criticizing my efforts? It seems that greater income is correlated with greater well-being. Everyone quotes the famous Kahneman study showing that "there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000" in emotional well-being and ignores the previous sentence saying "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily." Another study shows increase in both measures without limit. People sure seem interested in getting more income, whether or not it solves all of life's problems. Even if bliss peaks at $75,000, that's slightly above the U.S. median income and well above the European average. I don't hear anyone arguing that socialism creates wealth, it is all about distribution. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, and we have an engine that works for that purpose.
All other considerations aside, methodologies of those studies were substantially different. One was an app that asked the same person 50 times on average, the other was an interview conducted by a human that called random people. Honesty of interviewee under those different circumstances aside: EDIT/Addendum: I wonder to what level the numbers in those studies are cultural. I'm not average by various measures, but I'm actually pretty content with my money and it's just a tad over $9k/year, below average even in Poland. Maybe it's because I still vividly remember living on less than half that, but most my needs are met and it's enough. Maybe the gauge isn't invariant here.It seems that greater income is correlated with greater well-being. Everyone quotes the famous Kahneman study showing that "there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000" in emotional well-being and ignores the previous sentence saying "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily." Another study shows increase in both measures without limit. People sure seem interested in getting more income, whether or not it solves all of life's problems.
Even if bliss peaks at $75,000, that's slightly above the U.S. median income and well above the European average. I don't hear anyone arguing that socialism creates wealth, it is all about distribution. Wealth has to be created before it can be distributed, and we have an engine that works for that purpose.