What if I’m wrong and lots of people are lazy?
September 24th, 2009 | Published in Economics idea | 2 Comments
There is a possibility that if people are provided with a way to live above the poverty line without working, they won’t work. They might choose to take the path of least resistance through life sitting on their butts watching daytime TV.
If this turns out to be the case, the idea of providing a decent minimum income would be unworkable. It may not be possible to raise people above the poverty line with handouts.
Instead, ways would need to be found to make sure that everyone can find a regular job. Ultimately, it is probably better to provide people with jobs than with handouts.
This makes me think of the English proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” What people really need is the ability to meet their own needs.
The role of the economy is to connect the things people need to actions they can take today, right now.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:39 pm (#)
A couple thoughts:
1. Are you differentiating between “good” handouts to help people through a tough time and “bad” handouts to people who could get a job but don’t try to? Where do we draw the line?
2. Lazy people are probably more of a continuum than an “on-off” problem. For any welfare system, there will be some people who are lazy as you describe them. Society can afford to support some number of lazy people. Depending on how the welfare system is set up, there may be more or fewer lazy people.
3. How much of an obligation is there for the economy to provide a job and how much of an individual obligation to find a job? If there are jobs out there, does the “economy” need to actively bring them to people and potentially relocate the people to the jobs? Or is it enough is there is a reasonable opportunity for people to get jobs?
September 28th, 2009 at 7:45 pm (#)
Eric.
1. I think the difference between good and bad hand-outs is an issue of incentives. If a hand-out leads people to idle away their time, it probably isn’t a good thing. If it helps them through a tough spot while they actively try to get their lives together, it is a good thing.
The trouble is that it is hard to tell the difference between these two cases.
2. I agree that there would be a spectrum of laziness. While society can support some lazy people, the risk is that the ranks of idlers would swell too large.
3. Your question about how actively the economy has to match people to jobs is a good one. I think the process should be much more active than it is. If someone earnestly looks for a job and can’t find one, I think that is a failure of the economy more than a failure of the person.
At a deeper level, I want the economy to be simple. I want to have simple connections between the things I want and the things I have to do to get them. In the old days, you would go hunting when you were hungry. What do you do now when your hungry?