Social Issues
Introduction
This is
the section where I talk about some domestic (government) type issues. Many of
the social issues should be discussed at the state level, not the federal
level. Social security, the current health care debate, abortion, gay marriage
and maybe more will be touched on in some way. There may be a slight economics
component to some of the sections. Some of this will include money, some of it
will not
The Minimum Wage
I was
debating exactly where to put this post, social issues or economics. Ultimately
I chose to park it here. First let’s get some things straight – a job is not a
right and neither is a “living wage”. Surprisingly, I am not a fan of the
minimum wage. This is the government setting up a price floor (a little more on
that in the Economy section). So what is the goal of a minimum wage? My answer
would be delusion. Think of minimum wage of a transitory wage – many people
start their working lives earning minimum wage then go from there. There aren’t
really a ton of people who are trying to live on minimum wage (and minimum wage
jobs are mostly part time anyway). This is just a deluded way for people to
think that they are somehow helping the downtrodden lower class less skilled,
less knowledgeable workers. These are exactly the type of jobs that should pay
the least – jobs where workers are easily replaceable. The larger the
population is, the higher the pressure for stagnant or declining wages exists.
Wages (and total compensation) should be determined solely by free market
conditions. There is no better way to reduce these kinds of jobs than to
increase the amount paid for them (you can actually reduce the available minimum
wage jobs by increasing the minimum wage).
Social Insecurity
I know this may come as a surprise to some
who have read any of my “manifesto”… I am a fan of free market capitalism with
very limited government intervention. So, how does social security work its way
in to all of this? Maybe because it is a government mandated program that under
the guise of saving is just a tax and a transfer program. The first recipient
Ida May Fuller paid a whopping total of $24.75 into the system and only got a
measly $22,888.92 out of it. That is an insanely good return on investment.
Part of the problem is that the politicians sold the citizens that somehow this
was some kind of savings plan (though the bill never used the term “saving”).
Basically this is just a tax that puts money in a fund then pays it out (pay as
you go). For some reason it was required that the surplus funds would have to
be lent to the government in the form of government securities (like treasury
bills). Unfortunately, for the US population the surplus social security funds
have amounted to a huge national debt (over $4 trillion). Forcing a tax surplus
to be put into interest earning devices (read further debt and taxpayer cost)
does not seem like a good idea.
So,
social security as a savings plan has been debunked – then what is it for. This
is one of those so called safety nets. For some retirees (namely the depression
era ones) this is a safety net that is about 2 centimeters off the ground, for
people like me in their 30s it is like the “safety net” is at the bottom of Mt.
Everest (and I’m at the summit). It is nothing more than another tax (a tax in
safety net clothing). Really it is a transfer programs that borders on being a
Ponzi (pyramid scheme). The more workers at the bottom to support the retirees
at the top, the better it works. However, there is talk of the baby boomers
retiring and inverting the pyramid. What happens when the current system does
not support the level of retirement sure to happen? Bad things, none of them
any good. We are talking about the worst parts of the bible: increased tax
rates (that will disadvantage the US worker in a competitive global economy),
higher cost for the employers (I never got why they had to pay, it’s not like
you benefit from it), increasing retirement age – 150 sounds about right.
The
bottom line here is that social security is a raw deal. There is no better way
to encourage savings than for the government to step in and lead people to
believe that they will do it for the individual (I’m being sarcastic here –
social security is a direct disincentive to saving/investing). Not only does
this seem to be a tacit discouragement, it takes away money that people have to
invest. I only have an obligation to myself; I should not be subsidizing others
who did not have the foresight to invest or save. This is intergenerational
theft (and vote buying) at its finest. The mandatory feature of this is
off-putting also. Social security should have a complete opt-out provision
where the person would not be punished for working and neither would the
company
So how do
I recommend fixing this incredibly expensive spending behemoth? End the
employer paid portion of the tax (they actually pay all of it, but the part that
is stated for them). Without that built in penalty for hiring a worker, maybe
they could pass some of it on to the worker (obviously they wouldn’t pass it all
on) in the form of higher wages. The worker sees no direct benefit from this
forced government matching anyway. I would then make it completely optional
(you could opt out if you wanted to and here is a strange idea – use it for what
you want to). One of the problems with social security is that it is a
perpetual program (I will probably discuss this more in the last section of this
manifesto). Basically, it is a bad thing when you have such a large liability
that is partially funded. This has the capability to lead to massive
borrowing. The less people involved, the less liability (also less funding, oh
well).
Health Care
There has
been much coverage recently of the government taking on health care “reform”.
Most of this is really talking about finding a way to reduce the cost of
insurance (and their massive 3.9% profit margin). The goals of health care
reform are not clearly stated. Do they want to reduce total costs (that can be
done in three main ways: increasing cost – pricing care out of the market,
limiting or rationing care, and reducing inefficiencies and capitalizing on
economies of scale)? Do they want to increase coverage percent – another
thinly veiled form of income redistribution? It is not responsible to cover
everyone. Another question being; why does the government think they can spend
this money now when the country has such large (soon to be crushing) debt?
Goals of
health care: the government has proposed health care with an eye mainly on
insuring the uninsured. This is a horrible tactic to take. Sure, some of the
uninsured people can be added, but attempting to add all would be foolish.
Especially with a public option that will most likely undercut private
concerns. Not everyone can be employed and not everyone should have health
insurance. Most of the things on health care I see are trying to spend near a
trillion dollars to cover an additional 10-15% of the population. Sure the raw
numbers look huge 30-50 million people, but when you consider the US is a
country of about 310 million people, that doesn’t sound horrible. Some factions
of the government want to force health insurance coverage. I am definitely not
a fan of the government mandating that a consumer must purchase a service (even
if it were privately or publically provided).
My idea
of health care reform is a little different. I want medical malpractice tort
reform. Lawsuits, settlements and the insurance against them are costly and
have spelled the end of some private practice doctors. Furthermore, I want
health insurance to be sold across state lines. Getting access to a larger base
of potential customers can help insurers diversify risk and potentially reduce
premiums (through economies of scale). There are health insurance companies out
there being propped up by being shielded from competition. This isn’t good for
the populace. I also believe that there needs to be some consolidation in
insurers that is being prevented by the state by state regulations. I want as
much cost as possible (like overhead) to be taken out of the system (provider
level, medicine and medical supply level – but never interfering with free
market interactions). The timing and interactions between insurers and medical
care providers need to be better implemented also. This is another example of
the government stating it wants to fix something when the current system is not
broken (though it does have its problem and there is room for improvement in
operations) in order to potentially control votes in the future.
Government Dependence/ Addiction
What is
one of the biggest problems with government spending programs (other than
irresponsibility)? Dependence. Spending programs are often started under the
guise of a short term fix to a specific social problem. Unfortunately,
government spending is kind of sticky (the Pringles way: once you pop you can’t
stop). In other words, once a program (especially a social one) in enacted,
cutting it becomes difficult. The risk of any government program is that people
will depend on the program or alter their behavior because the government will
somehow solve their problem. We have seen this with welfare
programs. Every government social program has an
inherent dependency potential. Though, maybe that is the point. I know this
may seem jaded, but wouldn’t it be in a particular party’s best interest to have
people depend on programs (as if they depend on your program they are more
likely to have your vote). Of course this would be a failure condition for
democracy (vote buying through the usage of taxpayer dollars).
Abortion
Now I get
to weigh in on some of the big social issues. The first one is abortion. I
believe that abortion is dereliction of personal responsibility. A woman has
the right to chose before she participates in the reproductive act. Admittedly,
she can do almost everything right and still get pregnant. The point is that
you have to acknowledge that there are consequences for your actions (and
pregnancy is a possible result of participating in the act). Abortion is a cop
out and an unnatural act (medical procedure). I find to be ethically dubious at
best. Abortion is not a right. I am not sure when life begins. That is an
issue best left up to the people of the states (never the courts). So my
official stance: I dislike the barbaric and irresponsible practice, i view it as
wrong an unethical. However, ultimately it should be left up to the voters of
the state without any intervention from the judicial branch.
Gay Marriage
Marriage
is a societal convention, not a right. Furthermore, marriage has strong ties to
religion. At the state level (where societal convention such as marriage should
be decided/defined) most of the codified definitions of marriage deal with
reproduction and raising children. In this context, marriage would have to be
defined a certain way (after all, would you want siblings to reproduce).
Changing the definition of an institution like marriage is not easy and can open
up a floodgate. If gay marriages are allowed, why isn’t polygamy? I would
prefer that marriage would have no real legal standing. So, another topic where
I say that it is really up to the voters of the states (never the courts).
Civil Rights
Now here
is the area where I may be called racist or sexist. I believe that civil rights
laws as they currently exist have led to problems and are not necessarily
written with true equality in mind. Programs that led to open discrimination in
hiring policies like affirmative should never have happened. However, civil
rights laws will typically lead to some form of discrimination in the name of
equality. You shouldn’t have laws saying that a high school can’t accept a
donated football field because a female team doesn’t get something similar. A
school shouldn’t even be forced to carry female “athletics”. The guise of
equality can lead to more discrimination than you had before.
Feminism
This is probably the wrong area for this, but here goes anyway. Feminism is a movement that largely sprung on an unsuspecting world (in the modern sense) as a result of the wild 1960s (WWII helped it too). This was largely a rejection of the traditional (and might I add evolutionary) role of the female of the species. Earlier in the country’s history females were seen more as housewives and mothers (though I guess they could have been nurses, secretaries and teachers).
Speaking
from more of an evolutionary perspective this is what the females were supposed
to do: gather food, have and raise the children, and clean the cave. This shift
in the 60s and on has complicated matters between men and women. Does a guy
hold a door for a woman, or will she see that as some sexist gesture? The rules
seemed to have changed (and who knows what they are now). Ostensibly feminism
was supposed to be about choice, but ironically it lead to the opposite. Now
you have some women who wish they could provide the traditional roles who cannot
afford to. I am sure that this has led to the increase in the cost of living
also (though child care is becoming a more evening issue).
Original Post Date: 03/17/11
No comments:
Post a Comment