Entitlement
Mar. 26th, 2006 08:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynOver a decade ago, I was entertaining the idea of writing a story set on a long-term colony ship. The ship would travel at sublight speeds and would take decades to move from its origin planet to the one its colonists planned to settle.
What would life be like aboard that generation ship? How would you guarantee that enough trained personnel were available for any given job? How would you handle a shortage, or a surplus of labor? How does the government treat the unemployed?
That last is a particularly interesting question, because on a starship, everything has a human cost. Everything is made and ultimately maintained by human hands. Not just food and clothing, but the ship that shelters you, the air you breathe, the water you drink. On Earth, the basics of human life exist even without human intervention. There was water and air and ground to walk on before there were any people to use it, and it'll all still be there when humans are extinct. We regard them as entitlements. No one manufactures the air I breathe, and no one charges me for it, either.
Now, to some degree, homelessness in this country *is* a crime: it's called "loitering". All of the land in America is owned by someone, whether individual, business, or government. None of it is free, no strings attached. But in practice, if I give up working and renounce money, I'm not going to be immediately executed. I might starve to death, but that's not quite the same as being shoved out an airlock.
What about being on a spaceship, where space and air are at a premium? There's no place to go where your presence is merely neutral, of no help or hinderance to anyone. You are taking up valuable and limited resources just by existing. How should society treat you if you don't give anything back?
"Shove them out an airlock" is one possibility. But I think that would only be implemented if the cost of air or space is comparatively high. If the ship just can't afford to have non-productive people around -- if the strain on the system from a non-contributor is so great that it threatens the whole -- then society might grit its teeth and execute anyone that couldn't provide for themselves.
But that's an unlikely scenario for a colony ship. I'd expect sufficiently advanced technology that the marginal cost of basics would be low. Not non-zero; everything would still need occassional maintenance and other human intervention. But most of the work would be done by machines; one man's labor would provide air for thousands if not millions. Food would likely also be inexpensive. These things are too important to be costly, because the costlier they are, the more
likely the whole venture would be to fail. How many people would get on a colony ship if they thought there was a good chance the food would run out or the air would fail?
Once I made the decision that these the basics of life should be comparatively low, it became harder to argue that the basics of life shouldn't be an entitlement. If it's cheap, am I really going to shove the bankrupt out an airlock? And if I'm already supplying the impoverished with air, water, and space to occupy, I might as well supply food too. Medical care? Well, maybe. But the question had become not "Are the colonists entitled to get anything for free?" but "how much are they entitled to get for free?"
The truth is, it's the same way on a planet, too. We all benefit from entitlements: "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No one seriously argues that we need to earn the right to breathe, or that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to take up space on land. The harshest of penalties imposed against the homeless is prison -- and that's actually providing them with a far more expensive form of shelter than a park bench. You get fed in prison, too! Minors net the largest range of entitlements: free education through high school, and the state will provide free room and board if the parents do not (or cannot).
My point in saying all of this is to explain why I'm not opposed to the concept of "an existance wage", of government providing a certain amount of money and/or necessities to all citizens. I don't think getting a handout is intrinsically bad; the world and our country offers a lot of handouts already, and getting free air and water doesn't seem to be harmful to me. What I like about Charles Murray's plan better than traditional welfare is its simplicity, and its comparative lack of disincentives to work. Yes, all forms of entitlements offer disincentives to work, but one that provides the same benefits to all citizens does so less than one that only benefits non-workers.
What I am concerned about is that such a handout would be too expensive for our society. My hypothetical colonists could provide everyone with free room and board on the assumption that the marginal cost of these things was low.
Mr. Murray proposes a $10,000 entitlement per adult citizen. Is that amount too high? Would it be too burdensome for the collective of those paying more tax than they're receiving in entitlement to cover? Would the disincentive it offered to work be too powerful, and lowering the number of net taxpayers to a point where it couldn't be sustained?
Is it too low? Are there beneficiaries of our current entitlement programs who need a higher level of assistance due to medical conditions, and would they be unable to receive it under Mr. Murray's flat-rate plan? (Perhaps the mandatory health insurance would cover such costs long-term, but I'm not sure how well the transition would or could be managed.)
It's all hypothetical for now; political resistance to such a notion will be much too strong for decades to come.
But as America becomes wealthier and technology more advanced, I think the answer to the question "Is it too expensive?" will one day become a clear "No." But whether that's true today or not, I truly don't know.
What would life be like aboard that generation ship? How would you guarantee that enough trained personnel were available for any given job? How would you handle a shortage, or a surplus of labor? How does the government treat the unemployed?
That last is a particularly interesting question, because on a starship, everything has a human cost. Everything is made and ultimately maintained by human hands. Not just food and clothing, but the ship that shelters you, the air you breathe, the water you drink. On Earth, the basics of human life exist even without human intervention. There was water and air and ground to walk on before there were any people to use it, and it'll all still be there when humans are extinct. We regard them as entitlements. No one manufactures the air I breathe, and no one charges me for it, either.
Now, to some degree, homelessness in this country *is* a crime: it's called "loitering". All of the land in America is owned by someone, whether individual, business, or government. None of it is free, no strings attached. But in practice, if I give up working and renounce money, I'm not going to be immediately executed. I might starve to death, but that's not quite the same as being shoved out an airlock.
What about being on a spaceship, where space and air are at a premium? There's no place to go where your presence is merely neutral, of no help or hinderance to anyone. You are taking up valuable and limited resources just by existing. How should society treat you if you don't give anything back?
"Shove them out an airlock" is one possibility. But I think that would only be implemented if the cost of air or space is comparatively high. If the ship just can't afford to have non-productive people around -- if the strain on the system from a non-contributor is so great that it threatens the whole -- then society might grit its teeth and execute anyone that couldn't provide for themselves.
But that's an unlikely scenario for a colony ship. I'd expect sufficiently advanced technology that the marginal cost of basics would be low. Not non-zero; everything would still need occassional maintenance and other human intervention. But most of the work would be done by machines; one man's labor would provide air for thousands if not millions. Food would likely also be inexpensive. These things are too important to be costly, because the costlier they are, the more
likely the whole venture would be to fail. How many people would get on a colony ship if they thought there was a good chance the food would run out or the air would fail?
Once I made the decision that these the basics of life should be comparatively low, it became harder to argue that the basics of life shouldn't be an entitlement. If it's cheap, am I really going to shove the bankrupt out an airlock? And if I'm already supplying the impoverished with air, water, and space to occupy, I might as well supply food too. Medical care? Well, maybe. But the question had become not "Are the colonists entitled to get anything for free?" but "how much are they entitled to get for free?"
The truth is, it's the same way on a planet, too. We all benefit from entitlements: "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No one seriously argues that we need to earn the right to breathe, or that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to take up space on land. The harshest of penalties imposed against the homeless is prison -- and that's actually providing them with a far more expensive form of shelter than a park bench. You get fed in prison, too! Minors net the largest range of entitlements: free education through high school, and the state will provide free room and board if the parents do not (or cannot).
My point in saying all of this is to explain why I'm not opposed to the concept of "an existance wage", of government providing a certain amount of money and/or necessities to all citizens. I don't think getting a handout is intrinsically bad; the world and our country offers a lot of handouts already, and getting free air and water doesn't seem to be harmful to me. What I like about Charles Murray's plan better than traditional welfare is its simplicity, and its comparative lack of disincentives to work. Yes, all forms of entitlements offer disincentives to work, but one that provides the same benefits to all citizens does so less than one that only benefits non-workers.
What I am concerned about is that such a handout would be too expensive for our society. My hypothetical colonists could provide everyone with free room and board on the assumption that the marginal cost of these things was low.
Mr. Murray proposes a $10,000 entitlement per adult citizen. Is that amount too high? Would it be too burdensome for the collective of those paying more tax than they're receiving in entitlement to cover? Would the disincentive it offered to work be too powerful, and lowering the number of net taxpayers to a point where it couldn't be sustained?
Is it too low? Are there beneficiaries of our current entitlement programs who need a higher level of assistance due to medical conditions, and would they be unable to receive it under Mr. Murray's flat-rate plan? (Perhaps the mandatory health insurance would cover such costs long-term, but I'm not sure how well the transition would or could be managed.)
It's all hypothetical for now; political resistance to such a notion will be much too strong for decades to come.
But as America becomes wealthier and technology more advanced, I think the answer to the question "Is it too expensive?" will one day become a clear "No." But whether that's true today or not, I truly don't know.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 04:48 pm (UTC)The proper cost of food for one person is somewhere under $40/week, assuming refrigeration is available. I come out near $40/week on my "core plan" when purchasing 6oz packs of canned juice; a more unbalanced diet (still retaining adequate protein from block cheese and winter sausage) can be managed for about $25/week by substituting saltines for the juice. This is for 3,500 calories/day. I lose weight when sedentary on 3,000 calories/day. Assumption: access to Walmart, or a non-advertising grocery store that doesn't pack groceries (Kansas City examples: Food4Less, Aldi.)
And there are economies of scale when feeding 2-4 people. I believe the USDA low-cost plan still comes in at $160/week for four people, and is somewhat more diverse than my "core plan".
So food cost is controllable to somewhere between $1300 and $2080, assuming no use of food charities. If food charity is available (e.g., Harvester's in the KC area), only protein (meat and cheese) need be purchased.
The real problem with his proposed existence wage ($10,000/year i.e. $833/month) is that it precludes renting an apartment. The only option would be living in a used minivan or suitably large car (Cadillac). I'm not sure what the going car loan for that would be, but I know that the car loan (KC area) for more conventional cars is $80/week for those with a hellish credit record. Driving the value of the car low enough to not require replacement insurance would be far less...probably would need to finance only $2,000.
That's at most $320/month for housing, and at most $160/month for food. So we need a 24-hour parking lot to put the minivan or Cadillac in. For downtown KC, I've heard $2.50/day...which comes out to a bit under $195/month.
So yes, it's theoretically possible to live in a downtown urban area on even less than the proposed existence wage.
Health care coverage is more problematic...that $50/month for a competent $5,000-deductible catastrophic health insurance plan is going to hurt, but won't break the limit.
[HUD projects have a reputation of being a disaster in progress...forget that]
Incidentally: I really should check the prices for parking at the Plaza when discussing this. That would be really surreal: living in walking range of just about every luxury store of interest...
What constitutes "necessity"?
Date: 2006-03-27 12:53 am (UTC)But that's all right, because I think even in downtown KC you can rent a studio for less than $515 per month (utilities included). Eight years ago, I rented a studio in midtown KC for $365 per month, utilities included. I don't think rents have gone up that much. Monthly parking is lower than your estimate, too -- there are lots for $100 or less.
Moreover: you don't have to live alone. American estimates on housing almost always assume "you live by yourself". If you share a home, then you must have your own room. The assumption that privacy is a basic need for adults is a curious one, but it's there. Along with the assumption that plumbing and electricity are "needs". I'm willing to concede the latter as a "need", but I think if you want to live on your government handout, you can break down and share a room with another person if necessary.
Or you can move to somewhere with low rents, Or you can find some other source of income. The existance wage should function as a safety net or a launching pad, not a guaranteed comfortable life. You wouldn't necessarily be able to live in the area of your choice without getting another income.
Re: What constitutes "necessity"?
Date: 2006-03-27 01:36 am (UTC)As I mentioned, he didn't go without plumbing. (Shower alternative: a gym membership with shower. Nothing oddball with a light workout before work.)
I didn't say you couldn't drive the van or car during the day. [You should, to keep it from breaking down prematurely.] But you need a place to park it while you sleep, preferably with some security.
I wouldn't have thought of this otherwise.
Phone service is more interesting (many employers need a contact phone number). Nowadays, I'd probably go with cell phone.
Agreed, America is culturally weird on "need for privacy" and "live by yourself" as base case.
A more conventional alternative might be a motel/hotel, but it should have a kitchenette. One of my RL friends' brothers bankrupted himself (after his home was condemned for dry rot) by moving his family of four into a hotel...for a year. It worked out to about $600 a month in rent (without a kitchenette). Which would have been fine if he had known how to properly shop for nonperishable food.
It was his family eating out lunch and dinner every day that did him in fiscally, not the hotel bill or the car bills.
Re: What constitutes "necessity"?
Date: 2006-03-27 01:38 am (UTC)