Upshot: Supply-Side Economics, but for Liberals

[Virginiá]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/upshot/supply-side-economics-but-for-liberals.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

The biggest challenge is the nexus between the social safety net (and yes, when it comes to kids, the case of it is particularly compelling not only because of efficacy, but as a matter of conscience), and the inducement for folks to work in those dead end minimum wage jobs. Locally, as the economy improves a bit, it is becoming difficult to fill those jobs, because the amount of additional take home income is so small as compared to what is available by not working (or working off the books), or because of substance abuse (which is now destroying the stability of large numbers of working class families).  The only way out of that box, is to improve people's skills, and the educational system that serves them, and far too many school districts in poorer zip codes still suck horribly. Thus we still turn out hordes of high school graduates that are functionally illiterate, and consigned to a lifetime of poverty or near poverty. I don't understand why all of this is tolerated.

Thanks for the links Virginia. That was most interesting.

[Person Man]

Makes sense. You actually have to teach a man to fish instead of just saying you will just so you don't have to give him a fish.

[Virginiá]

The only way out of that box, is to improve people's skills, and the educational system that serves them, and far too many school districts in poorer zip codes still suck horribly. Thus we still turn out hordes of high school graduates that are functionally illiterate, and consigned to a lifetime of poverty or near poverty. I don't understand why all of this is tolerated.

I wouldn't necessarily say its tolerated in most instances, it's just that there are so many impediments to reform, and even then, disagreements on what constitutes actual reform. In my opinion:

1. Funding - both in terms of waste and other cases, a shortage of funds. Administrative bloat starves other parts of the school of money they could better use.
2. Charter schools/vouchers - To me, this always seemed like a complete retreat, where interest groups and other folks have successfully lobbied lawmakers to effectively pull their dollars out of public schools and put them somewhere else, often to little or no benefit. I've yet to see a compelling argument that these ideas solve anything, and charter schools have their own issues with abuse, waste and discrimination even. IMO, these are not good ideas, at least the way they are being implemented now. And this doesn't touch on what I see as ulterior motives that are less than savory.
3. Unions sometimes protect crappy teachers (not saying unions are bad by any means, but there are some downsides)
4. Is it all about the school? Getting a good education is as much about what goes on outside of school than in. A child must have a stable home life that encourages education as well as provides necessary reinforcement and nutrition at that. This is where I see government as playing a useful role in poorer communities - by providing resources to those who otherwise can't.

[Torie]

The most compelling reason for vouchers for poor families is to give such families a choice, where their school system is a fail. If such systems start to lose students, and have empty seats, and teachers need to be fired, the internal resistance to reform will wane if for no reason other then their own survival. Teachers unions are toxic, because pay is based on seniority, rather than merit and performance, and incompetent teachers cannot be fired. In this environment, what we find is that "C" students tend to become teachers (many with marginal reading and writing skills), rather than "A" students. I find that totally unacceptable and disgusting. There is also this obsession about bricks and mortar, rather than about having talented personnel, that I find extremely irritating. Way back in the dark ages, I got a good education in Quonset huts build during WWII that were now used a classrooms. Discipline is a huge problem too, and it is hard to expel problem students.

[Hermit For Peace]

I like where it talks about "many elements of the social safety net are justifiable purely on moral grounds, regardless of whether they increase or decrease the labor supply."

This is where the Republicans tank. They only seem to care about what's good for business.

In some cases having a social safety net is simply the right thing to do. Period.

[Shadows]

My blood boils up when I see this supply side garbage used to justify any ridiculous policies. But anyways historically, welfare measures always had an economic positive too. They are what we call GDP stabilizers - When you lose a job, you have some basic stuff to fall back on, you still contribute to the economy. Likewise progressive taxes are in the opposite spectrum, you migrate to a higher tax bracket sucking excess liquidity.

They do what we call - preventing an economic system from over-heating or crashing. That is why the Consumption Function of GDP in the last many decades has barely gone to negative territory. In general they have economic & moral purpose - You support people when they have nothing so that in most cases they can go & earn a decent income & live a decent life. That is the economic purpose - To prove a safety net for people to fall back on. Otherwise you are giving up on the entire economic & non-economic potential of that person !