Subscribe: Welfare
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
basic income  basic  census  government  immigrants  income  new  nordic  people  percent  reason  state  welfare state  welfare 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Welfare


All articles with the "Welfare" tag.

Published: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:00:00 -0500

Last Build Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:30:21 -0500


Resolved: 15 Million Americans Would Be Better Off Without Welfare

Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:42:00 -0500

Fifteen million able-bodied adults on government welfare would have a better chance at economic betterment if they were taken off welfare.

That was the provocative proposition debated at the most recent Soho Forum debate, held on December 11 at New York's Subculture theater in the East Village. Sponsored by Reason and moderated by Gene Epstein, the Soho Forum is a monthly, Oxford-style debate series that explores issues of particular interest to libertarians.

At the December 11 event, the Foundation for Government Accountability's Tarren Bragdon defended the proposition while Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress opposed it. As an Oxford-style debate, the audience (including those watching via Reason's Facebook live stream) voted before and after the debate, with the winner being the person who moved more people to his or her side. It's a lively conversation that features audience questions toward the end.

The next Soho Forum takes place on January 16 and features the proposition that "selfishness is a virtue." Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will defend selfishness and Gene Epstein will move from moderator to debater in opposing the resolution. Moderating the debate is Fox News' chief legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. Tickets for the event are $18 ($10 for students) and must be purchased in advance. To buy tickets, go here now.

Produced by Kevin Alexander.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Watch a Live Debate on the Welfare State's Impact on the Poor

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:45:00 -0500

Fifteen million able-bodied adults on government welfare would have a better chance at economic betterment if they were taken off welfare.

That's the subject of a debate happening right now at the Soho Forum between Neera Tanden from the Center for American Progress and Tarren Bragdon from the Foundation for Government Accountability. Watch below, and submit questions in the Facebook comments. We'll read aloud a couple of the best during the Q&A session.

src="" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" width="476" height="476" frameborder="0">

Would the Poor Be Better Off Without Welfare? Participate in Live Debate Tonight!

Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:20:00 -0500

(image) Reason is honored to partner with The Soho Forum in offering monthly debates that take place on the cutting-edge of libertarian thought and policy matters.

Tonight, that means Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, and Tarren Bragdon, president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, will be debating the costs and benefits of welfare at New York City's Subculture Theater. Specifically, they will debate the following proposition, with Bragdon defending it and Tanden opposing it.

"Fifteen million able-bodied adults on government welfare would have a better chance at economic betterment if they were taken off welfare."

The doors open at 5:45 P.M. and the event starts at 6:30 P.M. There's a cash bar and food is included with admission. Tickets cost $18 ($10 for students) must be purchased in advance and are still available. A special bonus: You can bring a friend for free. Go here for more information and to purchase tickets now.

The Soho Forum runs Oxford-style debates, meaning that the audience votes before and after the conversation gets underway and the winner is the person who moves more listeners in his/her direction.

If you can't attend, Reason will be live streaming the debate on Reason's Facebook page, where you'll be able to vote for the winner and submit questions for Tanden and Bragdon.

For past Soho Forums, which also get released at our YouTube channel and as Reason Podcasts, go here.

Would the Poor Be Better Off Without Welfare? A Debate Next Week in New York City.

Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:00:00 -0500

"Fifteen million able-bodied adults on government welfare would have a better chance at economic betterment if they were taken off welfare."

That resolution will be debated by Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, and Tarren Bragdon, president of the Foundation for Government Accountability, on Monday, December 11 at New York City's Subculture Theater. The event is part of the Soho Forum, a monthly Oxford-style debate series that's sponsored by the Reason Foundation. Its mission is to feature "topics of special interest to libertarians" while enhancing "social and professional ties within New York's libertarian community."(image)

Doors open at 5:45 p.m. and the event starts at 6:30. There will be a cash bar and food that's included with admission. Tickets are $18 ($10 for students) and must be purchased in advance. You can bring a friend for free.

For those who can't attend, we'll also be live streaming the event on Reason's Facebook page, where you'll be able to vote for the winner and drop questions for Tanden and Bragdon in the comments. We'll take a couple of the best and read them aloud at the event.

Later, we'll also run the event the event at Reason TV's YouTube Channel and on the Reason Podcast. For past Soho Forums, go here.

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage is Hurting the Workers It's Intending to Help

Wed, 05 Jul 2017 15:15:00 -0400

Three years ago, the city of Seattle voted to gradually raise its minimum wage to $15 an hour in the name of human decency and basic fairness. Several cities, including New York and Los Angeles, have done the same thing. Critics argue that boosting wages by bureaucratic diktat leads to fewer hours and jobs for low-income and low-skilled workers.

Now what The Washington Post calls a "very credible" study from researchers at the University of Washington finds that the critics are right. The Post calls this bad news for liberals. But the real victims are low-skilled workers.

(image) The study finds that when wages were increased to $13, employers cut hours by 9 percent. That means that low-skilled workers saw their monthly compensation decrease by an average of $125.

Studies that downplay the effects of minimum wage hikes have mostly focused on teenagers and fast food workers. But the study at the University of Washington paper looks at the impact on workers spanning all ages and all demographics.

The findings may surprise progressives who believe that the only limit to higher pay for workers is the greed and selfishness of business owners. But it doesn't come as a surprise to those who remain unconvinced that the law of supply and demand can be amended by city councils. Labor is simply another cost for any business, and when the price of something goes up, we tend to buy less of it.

Another takeaway from the study is that if you want to raise the income of low-skilled workers, taxpayers should pay for that burden through direct cash payments or other forms of welfare. Offloading the cost to employers has unintended consequences, even though it's a lot easier to demonize business owners for being greedy cheapskates than to build a consensus around raising taxes.

The lesson from Seattle that all cities should pay attention to is that forcing business to pay more hurts the very people minimum wage hikes are supposed to help. That such ordinances are usually passed in the name of low-income, low-skilled workers only makes that reality all the worse.

Edited by Todd Krainin. Written by Nick Gillespie. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Kevin Alexander. Still photos by SEIU Local 99 on a Creative Commons license. Seattle video by Max Seigal on a Creative Commons license.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The British Elections Are Turning Into the Revenge of the Elderly: New at Reason

Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:30:00 -0400

(image) British Prime Minister Theresa May tried to go after seniors' homes to pay for their welfare benefits, and the seniors are going after her today in the special parliamentary elections she called.

Ever since she proposed the so-called dementia tax to pay for long-term care, her double-digit lead in the polls has basically vanished and she is in a dead heat with her Labor opponent. Even the dastardly Manchester attack hasn't helped her tough-on-security party.

England's welfare state is running out of other people's money, notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia. And the Tories, instead of trying to roll it back, are turning themselves into tax collectors for it. But they'll learn today that that is not a winning election formula either.

The Indestructible Idea of the Basic Income

Sat, 03 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0400

Andy Stern is a former president of the Service Employees International Union. Charles Murray may be America's most prominent right-wing critic of the welfare state. So when they appeared onstage together in Washington, D.C., last fall to discuss the basic income—the idea of keeping people out of poverty by giving them regular unconditional cash payments—the most striking thing about the event was that they kept agreeing with each other. It isn't necessarily surprising that Stern and Murray both back some version of the concept. It has supporters across the political spectrum, from Silicon Valley capitalists to academic communists. But this diverse support leads naturally to diverse versions of the proposal, not all of which are compatible with one another. Some people want to means-test the checks so that only Americans below a certain income threshold receive them; others want a fully universal program, given without exceptions. Some want to replace the existing welfare state; others want to tack a basic income onto it. There have been tons of suggestions for how to fund the payments and for how big they should be. When it comes to the basic income, superficial agreement is common but actual convergence can be fleeting. In Stern's case, the central issue driving his interest in the idea is the turmoil he expects automation to bring to the economy. In the future, he and Lee Kravitz predict in their 2016 book Raising the Floor, tens of millions of jobs will disappear, leaving much of the country stuck with work that is "contingent, part-time, and driven largely by people's own motivation, creativity, and the ability to make a job out of 'nothing.'" A basic income, he hopes, would bring some economic security to their lives. Read Murray's first detailed pitch for a guaranteed income, the 2006 book In Our Hands, and you won't see anything like that. Its chief concern is shifting power from government bureaucracies to civil society. It doesn't just propose a new transfer program; it calls for repealing every other transfer program. And automation isn't a part of its argument at all. But onstage at the Cato Institute in D.C., Murray was as worried as Stern about technological job loss, warning that "we are going to be carving out millions of white-collar jobs, because artificial intelligence, after years of being overhyped, has finally come of age." Meanwhile, Stern signaled that he was open not just to replacing welfare programs for the disadvantaged but possibly even to rethinking Social Security, provided that people still have to contribute money to some sort of retirement system and that Americans who have already paid in don't get shortchanged. He drew the line at eliminating the government's health insurance programs—but the other guy on the stage agreed that health care was different. Under Murray's plan, citizens would be required to use part of their grant to buy health insurance, and insurance companies would be required to treat the population as a single pool. The Murray/Stern convergence comes as the basic income is enjoying a wave of interest and enthusiasm. The concept comes up in debates over everything from unemployment to climate change. Pilot programs testing various versions of the idea are in the works everywhere from Oakland to Kenya, and last year Swiss voters considered a plan to introduce a guaranteed income nationwide. (They wound up rejecting the referendum overwhelmingly, with only 23 percent voting in favor. I didn't say everyone was enthusiastic.) This isn't the first time the basic income or an idea like it has edged its way onto the agenda. It isn't even the first time we've seemed to see an ideological convergence. This patchwork of sometimes-overlapping movements with sometimes-overlapping proposals has a history that stretches back centuries. It Usually Begins with Tom Paine Just where you pinpoint the start of that histor[...]

Britain Is Turning Into a Welfare State Dystopia

Wed, 31 May 2017 11:30:00 -0400

Across the pond where our former colonial rulers live, British Prime Minister Theresa May triggered a maelstrom of protest that threw the Tory(image) Party in a crisis ahead of special elections June 8. What did she do? She proffered the heretical idea of scrapping a proposed cap on the out-of-pocket expenses of seniors who need long-term care. Her Tory predecessor David Cameron had promised to implement the cap by 2020 and May's suggestions was a breach of faith, not just for her Labor opponents but even her Tory friends.

She beat a hasty retreat on that plan, but the problem for England's welfare states is that it's fast running out of other people's money, to use the immortal words of another British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. And to deal with that situation, May is now proposing something even more intrusive, I note in my column at The Week.

She wants to be able to collect the state's share of spending on the long-term care of seniors' against the sale of their homes after they die. This might strike most people as defeating the whole purpose of a welfare state, but it does demonstrate the truth of the old adage that a government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take away what you've got.

Go here to read the whole thing.

No, LGBT Rights Are Not and Should Not Be Dependent on Census Questions

Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:45:00 -0400

This week in ginned-up Donald Trump administration outrage that distracts from actual issues: The Census will continue to not ask questions that they haven't been asking about LGBT people. This in some quarters has been presented as some sort of LGBT "erasure." It's not. At least when activists within the LGBT and progressive community freaked out about the possibility of an anti-gay executive order coming from President Donald Trump's administration, there was actual documentation. It turned out that Trump was not interested in signing such an executive order and it never came to be. But at least there was smoke to be concerned about if not an actual fire. Such is not the case with this week's LGBT anti-Trump outrage, which turns out to fundamentally be less about gay and transgender rights and more about organizations who want a slice of the great federal spending pie. To explain: The U.S. Census put out a proposal earlier in the week for questions it may ask during the 2020 census. Sexual orientation and gender identity were among the potential discussion topics. This was not something the Census had asked previously, which you know if you've participated in a census, ever. Then, the Census quickly explained that it had not intended to include the questions about sexual orientation and gender identity this time and withdrew the topics. So the Census, which had never asked people if they were LGBT before, is not planning to ask in the 2020 census either. Cue the outrage. The first headline I saw came from Out Magazine, a top gay-targeted publication. The headline read "Trump Administration Omits LGBTQ People from the 2020 Census." My initial reaction was "Woo hoo! I don't have to participate in the census!" But even before reading I suspected that wasn't what the story actually meant. The Trump administration is not omitting LGBT people from the census, and a writer actually analyzing how the announcement played out notes that the Trump administration might not have even played any role in the consideration of the questions at all. Even Snopes has gotten into the act with an explainer. What actually happened is that the National LGBTQ Task Force, an activist group with an open, stated agenda of having these questions added to the census, put out a press release declaring their unhappiness in seeing the questions get deleted. I don't use "agenda" as a negative here, and I don't necessarily see an issue with the Census Bureau asking people their orientations for demographic purposes, as long as it's made very, very clear that answers are completely voluntary. But there is a deliberately misplaced outrage here that wants to trick LGBT people into thinking that their rights and equal protection under the law is dependent on whether the federal government knows that they're gay or transgender. This is a seriously unsettling proposition. Here's a quote from Meghan Maury, criminal and economic justice project director of the National LGBTQ Task Force: "Today, the Trump Administration has taken yet another step to deny LGBTQ people freedom, justice, and equity, by choosing to exclude us from the 2020 Census and American Community Survey. LGBTQ people are not counted on the Census—no data is collected on sexual orientation or gender identity. Information from these surveys helps the government to enforce federal laws like the Violence Against Women Act and the Fair Housing Act and to determine how to allocate resources like housing supports and food stamps. If the government doesn't know how many LGBTQ people live in a community, how can it do its job to ensure we're getting fair and adequate access to the rights, protections and services we need?" What does demographic inclusion in a study have to do with whether LGBT people are treated equally under the law? Nothing. The Supreme Court decision on same-sex m[...]

The Nativist Bias in the Welfare State

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:30:00 -0400

The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan. But the opposite has happened: Protecting the welfare state from foreign moochers has become the single biggest stimulus for nativism in the West. That's true in America, Europe, and, most surprisingly, the paragon of compassion to America's north, Canada. The more the welfare state has tried to elbow self-interest out of our accepted understanding of a "just society," the more this self-interest has asserted itself — and in ever-more vexing ways. In America, the notion that immigrants are a drain on social welfare programs is as popular as it is fallacious. Literally every credible study shows that compared to similarly situated natives, not only do fewer immigrants use welfare, but the average value of the benefits they receive is lower too, including for low-skilled immigrants (many of whom are undocumented). Indeed, the taxes and economic contributions of immigrants — including the low-skilled — dwarf what they consume in public services. This is partly because the 1996 welfare reform act barred immigrants from most means-tested benefits. But the bigger reason is that immigrants come to America for jobs, not welfare benefits. The labor force participation rate of foreign-born men in 2010 was 80.1 percent, a full 10 percentage points higher than that of native-born men. Furthermore, immigrants tend to gravitate to states with the lowest per capital welfare spending — maybe because they have more jobs. Nonetheless, the mere fact that the welfare state exists and that immigrants may theoretically become a drain on it has been enough to trigger a bad case of us-versus-them in this Land of Immigrants. It has become the gateway argument that seduces people to a more general nativist suspicion of foreigners — which is why nativist outfits such as the Federation for Immigration Reform and quasi-nativist ones such as the Center for Immigration Studies constantly pump out studies about immigrant welfare use. One of President Trump's leaked executive order drafts contemplated not only barring immigrants likely to use public assistance, but deporting those who do, perhaps even if no fraud is involved. The situation is even worse in Europe, where nativist politicians have made even deeper inroads — and this despite the fact that many European countries need immigrants even more than America, thanks to their below-replacement fertility rates and aging populations. Austria, Spain, and France — which have never been super-friendly to immigrants — are tightening up. And so are more open nations like Denmark and Sweden, which have introduced a complex set of measures to control their borders. The latest example of this anti-immigrant trend came in the recent Dutch elections, where the incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte defeated the ultra-restrictionist Geert Wilders — the Dutch Donald Trump — but only after promising to impose stiff restrictions on migrant benefits to stop alleged welfare tourism. Likewise, although Germany has been heroic in its commitment to absorbing refugees fleeing the war-ravaged Middle East, it is also seeking to expel EU citizens who remain jobless for six months out of fear that they are simply hanging around for welfare benefits — never mind that there is little evidence of mass welfare abuse. Sweden, which prides itself on its cradle-to-grave welfare social programs, is flirting with new restrictions on immigrant benefits — as is England. But the nation that takes first prize in welfare-state protectiveness is the putati[...]

The Divisive Logic of the Welfare State

Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:00:00 -0400

The 21st C West is experiencing a 19th C worthy nativist spasm that few thought imaginable two decades ago. There are many reasons for it of course: The rise of global terrorism, the(image) alleged ravages of globalization etc. But one big reason is the welfare state. Indeed, protecting social programs from foreign moochers has become the biggest rallying cry for restrictionists in Europe, America and even Canada – the paragon of human compassion, I note in my column at The Week.

Whether immigrants really strain – rather than strengthen – the welfare state is debatable. (In America, where the welfare state is relatively smaller, all credible studies suggest that they strengthen it. The situation may vary in different European countries.)

But what is not debatable is that the welfare state has failed in its central project to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven not by parochial attachments to self, family, and clan – but a more cosmopolitan sensibility. In fact, far from making people more benevolent, just the theoretical possibility that foreigners may flock to these social programs is generating a fierce us-versus-them politics -- showing that the more you try and take self-interest out of politics, the more this interest asserts itself in ever uglier ways.

And this is the case not only in America and Europe but also in Canada. Indeed, the lengths that this sweet land of maple syrup goes to protect its social programs – especially its national health system – would give even Scrooge a sour taste in his mouth.

Go here to read the piece.

McDowell Is the Poorest, Sickest, Most Hopeless County in America. Why Doesn't Everyone Just Leave? (Reason Podcast)

Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:50:00 -0500

The short answer: Most did leave. In the last half-century, about 80 percent of the population of McDowell County, West Virginia, departed as jobs disappeared and civic life frayed, writes Reason's Ron Bailey in "Stuck," a story in our January 2017 issue. So why does the other 20 percent stay put?

Bailey's grandparents left McDowell County around 1950, at a time when the town of Welch was known to locals as "Little New York." When Bailey visited recently, he found only empty streets with the exception of a lone pickup truck.

Today, "nearly 47 percent of all personal income in the county is from Social Security, disability insurance, food stamps...and other federal programs," Bailey writes. Twenty-five percent of residents under 65 are considered disabled, and only 32 percent of those over 16 are part of the workforce.

In our latest podcast, Bailey talks with Nick Gillespie about those who stayed behind and what it says about American poverty. Part of the problem is that "at this point, the government is paying poor people to stay there and remain poor," Bailey argues.

The interview touches on the role of welfare, the federal disability program, and how Bailey's research relates to Charles Murray's Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980, and Hillbilly Elegy, J.D. Vance's blockbuster 2016 memoir of growing up in rural Ohio (which Bailey reviewed for Reason).

Click below to listen to that conversation—or subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

src="" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="0">

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.


Sat, 10 Dec 2016 07:00:00 -0500

I last visited McDowell County, West Virginia, over 40 years ago. Even then, I was already an outsider, a visitor to my family's past. Sometime around 1950, my grandparents and all six of their grown children pulled up stakes and left McDowell behind. My grandfather bought a dairy farm 100 miles away in Clinchburg, Virginia, and my father joined him after he left the Air Force in the mid-1950s. The house I grew up in didn't have a bathroom until I was 5. My sisters and I bathed in a zinc washtub using water warmed on the chunk burner in our kitchen. Since our house was heated entirely by two wood-burning stoves, I spent a good portion of my summers chopping and stacking cordwood. My upstairs bedroom was unheated, so I slept in a cast-iron bed beneath three heavy unzipped U.S. Army canvas sleeping bags to stay warm. We got a telephone when I was 13 years old; it was a five-party line. But it was the folks in McDowell—including many of my relatives—whom I thought of as poor. To my eyes, a huge number of the houses we drove past in hamlets like Squire, Cucumber, English, Bradshaw, Beartown, and Iaeger on our way to visit my father's hometown of Panther were little more than shacks. Many were covered with tarpaper. Indoor bathrooms and running water were luxuries. The houses that did have bathrooms more often than not simply ran a pipe from their sinks, tubs, and commodes directly to the nearest stream. My grandparent's old home was a nice and pretty spacious white clapboard house, but they got water from an outside hand pump and resorted to a first-class outhouse to answer nature's call. The water tasted distinctly of iron and sulfur. Except deep inside Panther State Forest, where the Bailey family held our annual Labor Day reunion, coal dust coated most buildings and automobiles. I do not long for the chilly, dusty, impoverished life I remember—my experience of the past is whatever the opposite of nostalgia is—but in retrospect, I was witnessing the tail end of McDowell's golden era. Mechanization, especially the development of continuous mining machines, enabled coal companies to mine much more coal with many fewer workers. Out of a population of nearly 100,000 in 1950, 15,812 worked as miners. By 1960 that number was just 7,118. Today there are only about 1,000 employees working for coal companies in the county, out of a population of less than 20,000. The county's dwindling economic prospects were further devastated by massive floods in 2001 and 2002 that destroyed hundreds of houses and businesses and killed four people. In recent years, McDowell has attracted attention for the worst possible reasons. It consistently shows up at the bottom of rankings, with the lowest levels of employment and the worst level of overall health in West Virginia, and the shortest male life expectancy in the nation. But it sits very near the top of lists of counties with the most drug overdoses, obesity, and suicides. The rather unsentimental question I set out to answer as I made my way back this autumn: Why don't people just leave? Bad News One sign things are not going well in your county is when the kids in the social service programs know to do pre-emptive damage control with the press. "Don't you focus just on the negative," warned Destiny Robertson, a spunky African-American senior at Mount View High School and a participant in the Broader Horizons program for at-risk kids devised by the Reconnecting McDowell task force. But it's hard not to focus on the negative when it can seem like that's all there is. Asked about their hometown, the kids shout out the usual list of woes with a world-weary attitude: bad schools, no jobs, drug addiction. They're right to worry: McDowell County has been the iconic symb[...]

Does Socialism Work for Sweden? That's the Wrong Question

Thu, 01 Sep 2016 08:30:00 -0400

When outspoken socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders was in the presidential race, he often expressed his dream to turn the United States into a Nordic-type social democracy like the one in Denmark. Hillary Clinton dismissed his comments by claiming that the United States isn't Denmark. But the truth is that at the center of her political platform is an extensive set of Nordic-like government interventions, including paid sick leave, paid parental leave, subsidized child care, and a more generous safety net—and higher taxes. So what's the appeal of Nordic democracies for U.S. Democrats? Writing in The Atlantic, Anu Partanen (a Finn living in the United States) claims that Nordic nations "offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble." Partanen admits that Sanders' socialist framing of the policies does the model a disservice. As "a proud Finn" with an American passport, she insists that these policies aren't socialist in nature, saying they don't go against free markets and they aren't about big government; they're about smart government. We're to believe that Nordic government programs—such as free college, free graduate school, and nearly free health care, all paid for with higher consumption taxes—don't involve trade-offs in the form of lower wages as they do everywhere else. Don't believe it, says Nima Sanandaji, a researcher who grew up in Sweden. His new book, Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism, is a balanced and comprehensive analysis of Nordic public policies, including their home runs and failures. In particular, it nicely lays out the human and social cost of the welfare state. Welfare policies have the same effects in Nordic countries as they do in other countries. As Nordic people have been asked to pay higher and higher taxes in exchange for the welfare payouts, their incentives to work less and capture government or mandatary company handouts have evolved to the point of undermining the countries' economic foundations. Sanandaji has a lot of data, including some showing how Nordic workers have a stronger tendency to call in sick during sporting events. Maybe the most extreme example is a 41 percent increase of sickness among men in Sweden during the 2002 World Cup, up from 7 percent during the 1988 Winter Olympics. Work ethics and a higher tolerance for collecting undeserved benefits have developed slowly, but the data show that over time, "Nordic people have changed their attitudes as social democratic policies have made it less rewarding to work hard and more rewarding to live off the government." To be sure, Nordic countries are at the forefront of gender equality, as we're often reminded, and government programs such as paid family leave for both men and women and generous child care handouts help women balance their home life and work life. However, as Sanandaji asks, why are there so few Nordic women at the top? Data from the International Labour Organization show that in the United States, the share of female managers is 43 percent, as opposed to 28 percent in Denmark, 30 percent in Finland, 32 percent in Norway and 36 percent in Sweden. Though it's true that Nordic women participate in the labor force at higher rates than other countries, studies show that broad-based welfare policies tend to limit their ability to reach the top. That's partly because they're overrepresented in public-sector monopolies where wages are flat and rise based on seniority rather than individual achievement. The truth is that Nordic nations were always leading in the fight for women, long before the welfare state came along. They also became comparat[...]

'Labor Unions Now Play a Particularly Boutique Role in the Economy'

Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:52:00 -0400

As president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) from 1996-2010, Andy Stern was called "the nation's most politically influential union president." Now Stern believes that labor unions are increasingly irrelevant. "Labor unions now play a particularly boutique role in the economy," he told The Atlantic in an interview about his new book, Raising the Floor, which advocates for a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI-type system, in which traditional welfare programs would be abolished and each citizen would get a certain yearly handout (regardless of personal income or worth), has been supported by libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike over the past few decades. As automation, globalization, and the information economy make many jobs obsolete, advocating for a UBI—also known as a "basic income guarantee" (BIG)—has been coming back in intellectual vogue.  "I believe that this is not our father's or our grandfather's economy, that the 21st century will not be employer-managed," Stern said. "It's going to be self-managed, because the growth in alternative work relationships—contingent, freelance, gig, whatever you want to call it—is clearly going to increase. Although the economy can grow in terms of GDP and productivity, it no longer means there will be wage growth or job growth, as opposed to the 20th century." Stern left traditional labor organizing because he "could not figure out anymore how a shrinking labor movement, a changing economy, a changing structure of work" could lead to economic security for Americans. "If you can't figure out where you're leading an organization, it's pretty hard to get up everyday and go to work. So I resigned," he told The Atlantic. And it wasn't just SEIU resistant to change, of course. "I would say that unions are not generally oriented towards thinking too far into the future," Stern said. We spend most of our time chasing the future and trying to understand it rather than finding ideas that put us where the future was heading and have it come towards us. We are spending, appropriately, a large amount of energy on $15 an hour wages, getting governments to promote paid family and sick leave. In the absence of unions being able to make changes in workers' lives, people are turning to the government as a solution to do that on a broad scale. But unions have rarely thought 10 or 20 years ahead, and universal basic income requires that kind of thinking. What I'm hopeful, somewhat from this book, is that unions can look up from the defensive crouch they're in, look into the future, and understand that so many of the things they're doing now that are enormously important could be very insufficient. And that they'll begin to think of universal basic income as they think of minimum wage, as an idea that becomes essential if we're going to end inequality, provide stability, and keep the American dream alive. It's interesting that while mainstream liberals and Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, push plans to shoehorn new on-demand-economy work into traditional employment and labor-union structures, someone straight out of the belly of the beast is saying no, no, no, that's the exact opposite of what we should do. Read the whole Atlantic interview with Stern here. For more on basic income proposals, see:  Making the Welfare State Less Intrusive  Finland Wants to Replace Welfare Programs With a Minimum Income for All Residents Greece to Test Minimum Guaranteed Income Program Time for a Guranateed Income? Libertarians Debate Basic Income Guarantee [...]