Author
|
Topic: When universality is regressive
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 02 August 2006 04:04 AM
I’ve noted before that some policies that are popular among progressives are in fact regressive: free tuition and free daycare are the ones that have kicked up the most dust on babble. AFAICT, no-one seems to dispute the point that these policies end up favouring rich households over poor ones. Instead, various babblers claim (or seem to claim; I don’t want to put words in peoples’ mouths) that since these policies are ‘universal’, they are still progressive.I don’t understand this point*. There are universal programs that do have progressive effects – health insurance is an obvious example – but that doesn’t mean that all universal programs are progressive. I think the key distinction to be made here is when making use of a good or service that the govt has decided to provide at a zero price is (at least partly) a matter of choice. People don’t choose to undergo most medical procedures, and parents don’t have a choice about whether or not their children are taught certain basic fundamentals, so making these services available at a zero price doesn’t provide an advantage to any particular group. But once the service being discussed is one that people are free to use or not, then there’s no reason to think that a so-called ‘universal’ policy will in fact benefit all people equally. The people whose welfare will be improved are those who choose to make use of that service, and that decision may well depend on characteristics that are not equally distributed across society. In the case of daycare and post-secondary education, the evidence is pretty clear: those who are most likely to make use of those services are those from upper-income households. In case you’re not persuaded by the evidence (and let’s not get into that in this thread), consider an extreme example: would a universal, publicly-funded program for providing free yacht maintenance be progressive? There are of course counterexamples where those who make use of a given service are more likely to be from low-income households: public transit would be a good example. In the former case, universality is regressive; in the latter, it is progressive. My point is not that universality is always regressive; it’s that universality is not always progressive. *Of course, my use of the word ‘progressive’ may be the issue. I consider a policy to be progressive if it helps to reduce inequality; that is, if it reduces the gap between those who are (relatively) well-off to those who are (relatively) less well-off. I make no claim that this is the One, True Apostolic Definition; I offer it only as a point of clarification.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 02 August 2006 04:13 AM
I don't care if it benefits everyone as long as it's available to everyone. Right now, mostly rich people go to university because right now they're the only people who can afford it. Poor people go into debt to go to university.Yes, a much higher percentage of rich people go to university than poor people. A couple of generations of free tuition might change that. Yes, at first the people it will benefit are people who go to university now - a higher proportion of rich people. The goal of universality isn't to instantly change society so that every poor person partakes immediately. Of course not all poor people will make use immediately of a free child care program - if they're not employed for systemic reasons (e.g. can't afford child care) they're not going to get jobs tomorrow if child care is offered tomorrow. But they will have that option. It's having the option that is important. I don't give a damn whether it benefits rich people. I want it there for poor people. What you're not getting is that poor people right now can't access certain services at all. As a formerly poor person (and not so very well off now either - certainly not well off enough to be able to afford to finish my degree, for instance), I couldn't have cared less if someone in Rosedale were benefitting more from free day care than I was. If I had free day care, I wouldn't have cared who else got it as well. That's the benefit of universality. Those who need it get it for free, no matter who they are. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 02 August 2006 06:07 AM
used books for one semester - $600 dollarsrent and KD for a month - $850 eight courses repeated after partying in Europe with your spoiled friends - $1700 total cost of an education because you're a trust fund kid ? - priceless!
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 07:26 AM
This is an interesting discussion, I'm going to make an attempt to follow.Stephen is pointing out that universal daycare benefits rich people more than poor people, because use of daycare is skewed toward people with higher incomes. Michelle is responding, in essence, that it is equality of opportunity that counts, not equality of outcome? (Am I right about that?) I suppose that sort of fits. The same thing does work with university tuition. I'm sorry to say that even with free tuition and equal access to high quality public school education, rich kids will always go to university in higher proportions than poor kids (if nothing else, because of the correlations between genetics and intelligence, and intelligence and success). But it is perfectly valid to say we aim for equality of opportunity, where here equality of outcome is unlikely. The simple goal is that no person is denied entrance to university because of inability to pay. So it comes down to the easy question with a difficult answer: When is the provision of equal opportunity worth the inherent costs? Michelle's objection to the Universal Yacht Maintenance program missed the target. Suppose for a second that precisely one poor person has a yacht. Does that make the program a good idea? What about if a thousand poor people just happen to be given access to yachts by some eccentric billionaire? I think not. The point is that yacht maintenance has no importance at all to society at large, so you can't justify spending tax dollars on it. It can't be about people wanting things they can't afford. We live in a world of limited resources, so we can't all get what we want for free. Sad fact of life. My chocolate pudding waterslide will likely never be built. The answer, in my mind, is that you have to weigh the network externalities* against the cost. This might even be a bit of a non-answer, because how the hell do you attach value to an externality? These are the questions that give economists bad dreams. This is tantamount to the question of: How much value do I get if the number highly-educated professionals in my society increases by 10 percent? So I think we all kind of draw conclusions and fudge the reasoning to get there. Proponents of universal daycare say more kids will be in daycare, and this has a really big value twenty-five years down the road, and it's well worth the billion dollars (or whatever, I can't remember the cost) a year it costs to get it. Opponents of daycare say it's not worth it. Most on the right think the value of the benefit has to massively outweigh the cost in order to justify taxation, because they believe in strong property rights that have value in themselves. On the left, by contrast, people attach additional value on fairness. I have a slight problem with this, precisely because of the yacht maintenance example. The government shouldn't be trying to level the playing field beyond where it produces value to society at large. * If you don't know what that means Google it; or just try wikipedia
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511
|
posted 02 August 2006 07:30 AM
Stephen Gordon's comparision of free tuition to free yacht maintenance is invalid, as Michelle has pointed out. To benefit from yacht maintenance, one must own a yacht first. Therefore, the benefit of free maintenance is necessarily available only to those who are sufficiently wealthy.Free post-secondary education would be universal, at least in principle, in the sense that there is no necessary prior test of wealth to take advantage of the benefit: the poor can (in principle) use the benefit as frequently as the rich. That university education is actually used more frequently by the wealthy than the poor is partly due to its high cost which discourages qualified individuals from lower economic brackets from participating. This is a violation of basic fairness to individuals and is also harmful to society in that those who obtain university education are no longer the most qualified. On the other hand, the economic barriers to post-secondary participation are not the only issue: free tution is likely to reduce, but by no means eliminate, the differential participation rates by the disadvantaged and the over-advantaged. Another issue is that the middle class and wealthy are more likely to be successful in obtaining the credentials (i.e. high school marks) required for admission to university. This is due to the additional economic and social resources that the wealthy possess and can exchange for better educational creentials for their children, and due to the cultural bias of K-12 schooling in favouring middle class culture. To make post-secondary education universal, we would not only need to eliminate tuition, we would also have to have an "open admissions" policy that would require an end of artificial caps on enrolment. Even if this reform could be made, it would still not eliminate the under-representation of disadvanteged students in universities due to the inter-generational reproduction of culture: since socio-economic status is strongly correlated with educational attainment, middle class and wealthy parents are more likely to transmit pro-education values to their children than are the poor.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 02 August 2006 07:34 AM
I would also contest Stephen's assumption that post-secondary education will only benefit the upper classes. Education is a right, not a privilege, and as such, must be equally accessible. An education does not translate only in economical benefit, but is a good in and of itself. As Michelle points out, the yacht example is particularly assinine, in that it's difficult to see the social benifits of having a clean yacht. Education, on the other hand, will not only facilitate economical mobility for those who couldn't otherwise afford it, but will also benefit society in general: an educated country will find it easier to avoid social problems, react better to economic, environmental and social crises and just make life better, period.Cuban agriculture, for example, benefitted strongly from an over-educated population when they had to react to an unjust American trade embargo that denied them oil. They had the academic resources to revamp an entire system to feed a populace with new, creative, low-energy structures. Besides, to link inequality to the benefits education provides further ignores the numerous other factors that encourage unbalanced economic classes. It seems to me that the more people that can atend university, the better chance we have at fixing these other problems. Perhaps you could explain a little more thoroughly, Stephen?
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 02 August 2006 07:51 AM
One of the assumptions Gordon is making (note: it is not possible to say anythng without making assumptions) is that the value of the benefit is equal to everyone who recieves it. If the value of the benefit is higher to low income earners then the policy may still be progressive even if the uptake is higher amongst high income earners.In the absence of real numbers I would suggest that this is likely to be the case in the cases at issue. Tuition costs are more likely to be a deterrent to low income earners and the benefits of education are almost certainly higher for those children than for the children of high income earners. Similarly for child care, what is a convience for high income earners is a lifesaver for low income earners. Gordon is also being a little obtuse in his imputation of our decision making processes. We mostly don't simply say progressive good, regressive bad, but look at: is this policy good for society? Progressive, check mark, regressive, black mark. It looks like we are obsessed with progressiveness because that is a major issue in contention at the moment.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 07:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by MacD:
These "correlations" are typically over-estimated by right-wingers trying to make the argument that inequality is justified by "merit". "Intelligence" is influenced roughly equally by genetics and by environment (i.e. by both nature and nurture). The correlation between intelligence and "success" is rather weak, certainly much weaker than between success and ascribed (as opposed to achieved) characteristics. For example, in the U.S., differences in "success" based on race cannot be accounted for by differences in "intelligence" based on scholastic apptitude or intelligence tests (and differences in those test results can be accounted for by socio-economic factors.)
My understanding is also that intelligence is equally affected by genetics and environment. But 50% is a large influence, enough to provide a very strong correlation. The correlation between intelligence and success is also very strong. Once you remove socio-economic factors, I believe it becomes the primary predictor of future income. (I'm not 100% sure about that; I've never verified it.) That is relevant when talking about a hypothetical world where equal opportunity has actually been achieved.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: One of the assumptions Gordon is making (note: it is not possible to say anythng without making assumptions) is that the value of the benefit is equal to everyone who recieves it. If the value of the benefit is higher to low income earners then the policy may still be progressive even if the uptake is higher amongst high income earners.In the absence of real numbers I would suggest that this is likely to be the case in the cases at issue. Tuition costs are more likely to be a deterrent to low income earners and the benefits of education are almost certainly higher for those children than for the children of high income earners. Similarly for child care, what is a convience for high income earners is a lifesaver for low income earners.
This explanation doesn't quite jive with economics. First, the cost of daycare is equal to everyone. Say, we can all get daycare for $50/day. So how can the value be different? The value to the rich person (or, to generalize, any person who can afford daycare) is quite simply $50/day. He'd be paying it out of pocket if it wasn't free. So go now to the person who can't afford daycare. In a lot of cases the value could be less, because it maybe he was offloading his kid on grandma or something (so the value is actually to the poor burdened grandma). Alternatively, maybe the inability to afford daycare meant a parent had to stay home to take care of junior rather than working. Presumably that simply means the parent can't earn $50/day in income, because if he could then it would have indeed afforded daycare. Now that parent can go to work, but unfortunately is earning less than $50/day. So the value, again, is less. I know you'll tell me I'm missing something. So go ahead.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by Proaxiom: The correlation between intelligence and success is also very strong.
Evidence? quote: Originally posted by Proaxiom: Once you remove socio-economic factors, I believe it becomes the primary predictor of future income.
This is a meaningless argument. You are arguing that "Once you remove the major cause of inequality, minor influences appear more important." Tautologically true. Empirically meaningless. quote: Originally posted by Proaxiom: I'm not 100% sure about that; I've never verified it.
Evidently. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: MacD ]
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:19 AM
My god, I've found someone who admits they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!Given the marginal theory of value the value of something is not equal to its cost. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: jrootham ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:27 AM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: My god, I've found someone who admits they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!Given the marginal theory of value the value of something is not equal to its cost. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: jrootham ]
I understand theories of value. Here I reduced the value of daycare, indeed, to marginal utility and marginal cost, as marginal theory requires. If I missed something in the reduction, please feel free to point it out.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:39 AM
MacD: Here's a link. It references studies showing correlation between IQ among identical twins raised together is 0.88, and raised apart is 0.75. That's really high.It also mentions the book The Bell Curve, which is racist and discredited. Racists have a lot of interest in genetic correlations, and have done a grave disservice to the actual science. As a result, I believe, many (especially on the left) wrongly discredit legitimate research on this subject. The correlations are there, though. I have heard it said that genetic correlation to intelligence is to the left wing what evolution and climate science are to the right wing; they are well-supported theories that get thrown aside because of ideological blinders. On intelligence vs success, the correlation there is also strong. I don't know for certain that there aren't any stronger ones that are not socio-economic in nature, but I don't think there are. As I said, this is significant in talking about what would happen if we could achieve equal opportunity.
Interestingly, though not particularly relevant, I have seen studies basically saying that high IQ does not really correspond to high income, but low IQ does correspond to low income. So really smart people don't make much more than average intelligence people, but not-so-smart people make less.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:41 AM
The value of an incremental $50 to a low income earner is much higher than the value of an incremental $50 to a high income earner.In one case it may well be the difference in making the rent or not, in the other, a discretionary purchase. I think I'd like to ask Gordon to mark us on our relative understanding of economic concepts.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511
|
posted 02 August 2006 08:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by Proaxiom: It references studies showing correlation between IQ among identical twins raised together is 0.88, and raised apart is 0.75. That's really high.
Actually, it says that the variances are "as high as" 0.88 and 0.77, which I take to mean that most studies show lower correlations. Generally, "separated twin" studies over-estimate the genetic influence and under-estimate environmental factors for at least two reasons... 1) Separation occurs after birth. The environmental factors that occur during fetal development (mother's nutrition, access to pre-natal health care, tobacco and alcohol use) therefore get included (improperly!) in such studies' calculation of "genetic" influence. 2) Most jurisdictions have standards for adoption and foster care, such that twins raised apart would not experience as much variation in environments as unrelated children. The effect is again to under-estimate environmental effects and over-estimate genetic influences.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: So all poor people are on welfare? Day care won't benefit any poor people because they're all on welfare and don't work outside the home anyhow?Do you know any poor people? Like, any at all?
Oh, don't jump all over me. It was just an example of how to distribute money to increase utility. Let's say increase the Canada Child Tax Benefit by the amount that would have been spent on daycare, then. The point I'm trying to drive at is simply that universal daycare can't really be justified if the goal is to assist low income earners who have kids.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:06 AM
quote: Originally posted by Proaxiom: On intelligence vs success, the correlation there is also strong. I don't know for certain that there aren't any stronger ones that are not socio-economic in nature, but I don't think there are. As I said, this is significant in talking about what would happen if we could achieve equal opportunity.Interestingly, though not particularly relevant, I have seen studies basically saying that high IQ does not really correspond to high income, but low IQ does correspond to low income. So really smart people don't make much more than average intelligence people, but not-so-smart people make less.
The second paragraph contradicts the first. If "high IQ does not really correspond to high income" then, by definition, one cannot argue that "the correlation there is also strong". If there is a correlation between IQ and income at the lower end, it does not follow that genetics is the principal cause. I find it more plausible that among low income populations, "IQ" is in fact measuring environmental rather than genetic factors (e.g. pre-natal nutrition and health care, educational and child care opportunities, etc.)
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:25 AM
I kind of think this whole debate about potential regressivity in daycare misses the point.My concern is that the daycare facilities will not be created equally. My concern is that there will be a strong pattern where the daycare that wealthier people have subsidized for them will be of a good quality and that the daycare poorer people have subsidized for them will be crappy and scary. I think it will be relatively easy for many to justify this kind of regressivity by focussing on problems poor children tend to have relative to wealthier children. Ultimately, I think there are better, more effective, less intrusive ways to do a wealth transfer from rich people to poor people than government provided daycare. The only reason I am for daycare is that nobody seems to be proposing any of these alternative ways. I think the best way is to shift sales tax to income tax (or better still a wealth based tax). I think the NDP would be more popular if they switched their daycare plank to that proposal instead. maybe the Liberals will get a clue if they are frozen out of power for a bit longer. a guy can hope. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire: Is that extra $50 to welfare, or, to give you the benefit of not being an idiot, to all people who need help to afford child care, guarantee that child care will be available everywhere for the price of fifty bones? Does it, in fact, do anything to ensure the accessability of child care? Does it make more spaces available? Does it provide assurance that all child care workers will be competent, responsible and trustworthy?I'll give you a hint: the answer to all questions is "No."
That's closer to the point I was aiming at with my first post. It's a totally different line of reasoning from the affordability approach. For your last question, that's not relevant to this. Provinces already set child care standards that providers must adhere to. If providers are not meeting the standards, it sounds like an enforcement problem that can shouldn't be too hard for provincial governments to address. But accessibility is interesting. I have long been curious as to why, exactly, there is a shortage of daycare spaces. I know that there is, though, at least in some areas. The question then becomes when and why governments should, in general, provide for people what the market is failing to create in adequate supply. The 'why' question is important here -- if there is demand, why is supply not keeping up? My position is that you can't justify government stepping in unless you can demonstrate it has a benefit greater than that to the consumer. Health care and education benefit everybody, even when we are not sick or in school ourselves. The benefit is clear, and it outweighs the costs. I think to really justify universal daycare you have to make the case that it is a merit good, and repeating what I said above, the value of externalities is greater than the total cost.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by MacD:
"Demand" is only effective if those making the demands have the cash to pay for them. Which is the entire problem! The market is doing a fine job in providing the supply for those with $ to spend, but it is not (and never will!) supply daycare spaces for those who can't afford to pay.
Catchfire's implication was that providing low income people with the means to afford daycare would not by itself serve to create adequate space. I suspect he may be right, since there currently aren't enough spaces for all the people who can afford to pay for them in some areas. This qualifies as market supply not meeting demand, and there is probably a reason. I don't know what it is.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by proaxiom: I think to really justify universal daycare you have to make the case that it is a merit good, and repeating what I said above, the value of externalities is greater than the total cost
Well, how about this 2003 essay by Judy Rebick: quote: Research shows that early childhood schooling is critically important to giving children a good start in their education, yet the myths of harm persist. The Cleveland and Krashinsky study takes on all the arguments used to undermine the case for a national program. It shows that adequate child care has a beneficial impact on children of all economic and social classes. And, while the report says that a caring, supportive family environment has a positive effect on a child's development, it is easier for public policy to regulate the quality of early childhood education than it is to affect the condition of family environments.Still, the U of T economists clearly demonstrate the financial benefits of child care. For every $1 invested, the economy gets back $2. This is a fact that governments interested only in their financial bottom lines can't ignore.
Child care is not simply glorified babysitting. It's about establishing early social integration, early childhood education and about facilitating the independence of single mothers. If men are encouraged to "keep" their wives at home supporting their child, this privileges an out of date, patriarchal structure. Stay-at-home parents, should they be offered the free choice, are certainly valued, but choice is key. A woman should be allowed the choice of independent means of subsistence, should she so desire. Edited to add link. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 10:00 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire: Child care is not simply glorified babysitting. It's about establishing early social integration, early childhood education and about facilitating the independence of single mothers. If men are encouraged to "keep" their wives at home supporting their child, this privileges an out of date, patriarchal structure. Stay-at-home parents, should they be offered the free choice, are certainly valued, but choice is key. A woman should be allowed the choice of independent means of subsistence, should she so desire.
Thanks for the link.
Cleveland and Krashinsky appear to be making the argument soundly. I want to know if we've somehow answered Stephen's original question.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879
|
posted 02 August 2006 10:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: *Of course, my use of the word ‘progressive’ may be the issue. I consider a policy to be progressive if it helps to reduce inequality; that is, if it reduces the gap between those who are (relatively) well-off to those who are (relatively) less well-off. I make no claim that this is the One, True Apostolic Definition; I offer it only as a point of clarification.
If I agreed with you on this definition of "progressive," then I would agree with you on daycare. But I interpret the word differently. I am not concerned with eliminating inequality -- I am concerned with ensuring that the bottom rung is high enough. Given the material wealth of our society, I consider it progressive to use some of that wealth to establish a minimum set of needs that will be met for all people. It is progressive to make higher education available free of cost, because it ensures that even those with the lowest incomes will be able to attend college (if they get in, I suppose, which is another set of questions). I don't care if such a policy puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy, because I am not concerned with inequality. I am concerned with access, and making something available to those with the lowest incomes. Some university students will be wealthier than others. I have no problem with that. Some university students will eat out every night, and some will be strictly budgeting their grocety bill. I have no problem with that. The point is that all people have access to a university education. I don't think we have a responsibility to eliminate the wealth differences between students, but I do think we have a responsibility to ensure that lack of wealth does not preclude access to University. Likewise with childcare. I don't really mind if that puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy, as long as every family has access to free childcare. Some kids will be from wealthier families than others, and that's fine, as long as every child is getting his/her need for quality care met.
From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 02 August 2006 11:37 AM
Stephen Gordon, I think one of the key issues here is mythologies and the role they play in shaping people's belief. Belief systems often begin with their foundations on facts and then derive conclusions. However, when the facts are wrong to begin with, the conclusions are naturally likelier to be regressive.A year ago in a class, for example, a teacher showed us global university rankings, and pointed out McGill's reasonably good rank. Harvard was near the top. One of the NDP activists in the class shouted out "but you need fifty thousand a year to go." I corrected him and pointed out that in fact their president had recently passed a rule that if your family income is below 60, 000 US$ a year, tuition is waived fully for undergraduate, and then rises slowly. And the median student aid there is half the tuition. Meanwhile at McGill the poorest people graduate with 20, 000 - 30, 000 in debt. In fact, I don't know of any Canadian who went to an American university and graduated with significant debt. That could be due to the fact that most Canadians who get accepted to the IVY's are star students and as such are more likely to receive scholarships. American schools though, universally, have better aid for graduate students. Personally, I would favour a system where tuition is raised significantly and the majority of that money put into student loans and bursaries. The remainder would be for reinvestment in education.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879
|
posted 02 August 2006 11:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: Why is that 'fine' if it worsens inequality? Why not just make the service available for those at the lower end of the income distribution?
It's more important to me to ensure access than to eliminate inequalities, so I am going to err on the side of ensuring access through universality even if that might worsen inequalities. I am assuming that we have to err on one side or the other, but I take the point that in a perfect world we would not have to do so. As for the why, there's a philosophical answer and a practical answer. Philosophically, I'd prefer to make the service available at all income levels if it is something that I think should be available to everyone. The fact that some people are able to pay for the service does not deny their right to the service. I think that free childcare for everyone, for example, is philosophically consistent with a belief that all children deserve quality care and all parents deserve equal access to the workplace, regardless of income. I also think that the children of upper income families are more likely to receive the benefit and be placed in childcare if it is free, because having a high income doesn't necessarily mean that you are actually, in your day to day expenses, likely to pay for the service. Practically, it seems that whenever a benefit is tied to income level that income level is rarely raised along with inflation, etc. so that as time passes, more and more people are denied the benefit. Maybe that is cynical of me. But if I imagine childcare being tied to income, I imagine that 20 years down the line childcare will once again only be affordable to those in the upper incomes or those at the extreme bottom end who qualify for the benefit based on numbers from 20 years ago. I'd rather just see it made available to everyone. It seems to me that those in the upper incomes are paying for it, in the form of increased taxes, so it doesn't bother me to think that they may be getting a free ride.
From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 11:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: That goes back to the point about choice I made in the OP: I can see making services freely available if everyone had to use them.
I don't understand this point. Not everyone uses the education system equally. Parents with large families get a lot more benefit from it than couples who have no children. So universal education provides more for some than for others. You could extend that to say the groups with higher birth rates are unfairly benefited by it. I have always understood the argument for universal education is that it is a merit good: an educated population benefits everybody, even people who didn't get an education. The same argument can (maybe) be made for child care. I'm not as familiar with this specific topic as some others here, but I agree at least that a sound case might exist in this regard.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471
|
posted 02 August 2006 12:06 PM
I like Stephen Gordon's original post. And as some of you might know, I'm a staunch opponent of universal daycare.But I've become a little more wary than I used to be of the argument that is often raised about universal daycare: that is disproportionately benefits high-income families. I've read the studies on the matter Pierre Lefebvre's 2004 Policy Options paper is the classic article. But isn't it possible that the small differences in income of those who take advantage of daycare is a CONSEQUENCE of actually using the service, rather than a CAUSE? That is, it isn't that high-income families are disproportionately taking advantage of a highly-subsidized social program. It's that families who use the program probably end up earning more family income as a result. That doesn't necessarily increase income inequality, does it? Me, I think that's a problem, but for other reasons that I've explained elsewhere. Universal daycare is the state's way of saying that there is only one proper way of raising your children worthy of subsidy: insitutionalizing them.
From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 02 August 2006 12:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: I don't understand the 'should be accessible' part. How would they be not accessible? If the issue is that some people can't afford it, the real problem is that their incomes are too low - a problem that can be solved by simply providing them with money.
It is my understanding that in some areas daycare is difficult to find for those who can afford it. There are stories of long waiting lists. I don't know why that is.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2006 12:26 PM
Stephen wrote: quote: But once the service being discussed is one that people are free to use or not, then there’s no reason to think that a so-called ‘universal’ policy will in fact benefit all people equally. The people whose welfare will be improved are those who choose to make use of that service, and that decision may well depend on characteristics that are not equally distributed across society.
Of course it is true that when you drop one progressive policy into an unequal society, the inequality may have concequences for who may wish to access the programme. Free university will be accessed by those who have the social standing to do so. Those with huge pressure to make money for themselves and destitute family members immediately will tend not to go. So the society then has a choice. Do we take the present distribution of income and advantage as a given, or do we treat it as part of the problem? If it is part of the problem, then we do everything we can to get rid of barriers which prevent attendance. And some of those barriers go beyond the immediate provision of money through scholarships. They involve what people are taught to value, and what they grow up expecting for their lives. But Stephen's analysis looks at the individual programme, and tries to make it conform to the unequal social reality. So, if wealthier people will be the first to take advantage of a programme, he decides to give up on it. The real difficulty is that the programmes are not radical enough, and don't do enough to ENSURE fair access to all who may wish to use them. As with much of modern economics, this analysis fetishizes the "Decision" of the "consumer" at the moment he or she makes it, and turns its eyes from the social determinants of that decision.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 02 August 2006 12:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: Stephen wrote: Of course it is true that when you drop one progressive policy into an unequal society, the inequality may have concequences for who may wish to access the programme. Free university will be accessed by those who have the social standing to do so. Those with huge pressure to make money for themselves and destitute family members immediately will tend not to go. So the society then has a choice. Do we take the present distribution of income and advantage as a given, or do we treat it as part of the problem? If it is part of the problem, then we do everything we can to get rid of barriers which prevent attendance. And some of those barriers go beyond the immediate provision of money through scholarships. They involve what people are taught to value, and what they grow up expecting for their lives. But Stephen's analysis looks at the individual programme, and tries to make it conform to the unequal social reality. So, if wealthier people will be the first to take advantage of a programme, he decides to give up on it. The real difficulty is that the programmes are not radical enough, and don't do enough to ENSURE fair access to all who may wish to use them. As with much of modern economics, this analysis fetishizes the "Decision" of the "consumer" at the moment he or she makes it, and turns its eyes from the social determinants of that decision.
Hee. Can I haul this post out the next time someone accuses economists of finding fancy ways to enshrine privilege? I don't see how one can attain a goal by marching firmly in the opposite direction.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 August 2006 01:40 PM
Help yourself. Of course, it doesn't involve marching in the wrong direction, but rather insisting that the march in the RIGHT direction not be stopped halfway. Of course it's true that the unemployed won't make much use of a free childcare programme; only employed people will need that.
You seem to think that identifying this difference in use is an argument against the programme. I think the more progressive argument is one which considers this an argument for full employment, not for reducing daycare.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588
|
posted 02 August 2006 02:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
Everyone doesn't have to use public schools. Are you against universally free elementary and secondary school education too?
1. Maybe public schools should be made compulsory. Maybe their quality would go up if rich people had to use them too. 2. To turn your question around on you, Michelle, do you think people should be allowed to buy private medical care (essential medical care) like they can in England and like some people are trying to do now in Quebec? I think what Stephen is essentially worried about is 2-tier daycare. A related concern is that it would put pressure on poor stay-at-home parents to work instead. 3. I am worried about 2-tier daycare, too. However, I think: (a) you can't make daycare compulsory; and (b) we would get 2-tier daycare even if it were compulsory (because rich and poor people live in different neighborhoods). Good daycare probably does mean, as some argue, a $2 return on every $1 spent. The other side of the coin is that bad daycare means a lot of sleepless nights wondering how your child really got that bruise and what you can possibly do about it. 4. I think daycare would end up a lot more 2-tierish than the public elementary schools because public elementary schools come out of long traditions established in a less selfish era. Just because public elementary schools are good -- as everyone seems to agree -- doesn't mean that daycare would be. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ] [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 02 August 2006 03:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Olly: I think one of the purposes of universality from a progressive perspective is essentially to obtain buy-in from a wider group of people for programs. It's much more difficult to maintain popular support for a program that benefits only the poor (say, subsidized child care targeted only to low income families). When the middle class have a stake in the program, they tend to support it much more strongly. Look at social assistance for example, which benefits only low-income people, compared to the National Child Benefit, that benefits almost every Canadian family with kids. I know, strategically, that is one of the reasons child care advocates are pressing for a universal program.That doesn't mean that Stephen isn't correct, but that any "non-progressive" function of universality is the price we have to pay to keep support for programs that benefit low-income earners.
That's a valid point. In principle, you'd want to make sure that a solid majority of voters benefit from the program, so there may be strategic limits about how progressive a program can be: you have to alway make sure that the median voter benefits. But this point can only go so far. In the cases I've made the most noise about (and no, I will *not* discuss them in this thread) the gains are concentrated at the top end of the income distribution, while the lower end benefits hardly at all.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 02 August 2006 09:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: used books for one semester - $600 dollarsrent and KD for a month - $850 eight courses repeated after partying in Europe with your spoiled friends - $1700 total cost of an education because you're a trust fund kid ? - priceless!
Just $1700 dollars for 8 courses. HA! and Double HA! Also, you forgot: Beer - I'm too drunk to add that up. [ 02 August 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 August 2006 10:10 AM
Yes, that was to check whether anyone is paying attention. I think we all realize how much more it costs now per course credit. What I was trying to say is that Stephen's claim that free tuition benefits the rich only is ridiculous, because he's ignoring the other two-thirds to three-quarters of students who are not financially independent and were previously able to access an affordable education - not because the cost of living ever goes down, but because free tuition makes getting an education for the poor all the more likely. For children of the rich, tuition fees matter little wrt accessability. Those with limited means can include everyone from single parent families to those Canadians who are now being denied access to student loans for credit reasons - and therefore, they are being denied access to higher education in Canada. It's like the American's denying black people the right to vote because they have a prior criminal record for marijuana possession. Of course, Stephen will never mention any of this because he's an economist and not an advocate for human rights. In fact, I don't think he's ever made such a ridiculous claim. A post-secondary education isn't the luxury that it once was and especially so in North America. Raising the cost of anything makes it less affordable and never the opposite as a rule. Any economist can tell you that raising the price of a particular good or service tends to discourage consumption of it and not the opposite. So unless Stephen wants to explain why he's saying that we need to make the rich pay more while the other 75 percent of Canadian students submit themselves to indentured servitude in exchange for the basic human right to an education, I have to wonder where he's coming from with his claim. Education is not a car or a European vacation. It's not possible categorize education as simply another widget that can be thrown on the capitalist scrap heaps of time when it wears out due to builtin obsolescence. Education is inseparably linked with human rights. The Cuban's and several important social democracies understand this to be true.There are other ways of making the wealthy pay for education without sticking it to the poor. Only a political Liberal or Conservative could be confused about the difference between widgets and human rights. [ 03 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 03 August 2006 09:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Dogbert: So tax higher income people more to compensate. Problem solved.The truly rich, btw, probably won't bother with the problem anyway since they can afford nannies.
I think the universality of many benefits is crazy. Here in the States, I don't think everyone should get a Social Security check when the reach 62 years of age. There are millions of people getting the maximum Social Security payments each year (about $12,000) who have no right to be getting that money. They don't need it. Social Security should be a welfare program for the poor elderly. Then, you would have more than enough resources for the program and you could give the truly poor something a lot more substantial than a meager $12,000 per year. I would imagine that Canada has something similar to Social Security? Are benefits paid universally, simply based on living to a certain age?
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogbert
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1201
|
posted 03 August 2006 10:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sven:
I think the universality of many benefits is crazy. Here in the States, I don't think everyone should get a Social Security check when the reach 62 years of age. There are millions of people getting the maximum Social Security payments each year (about $12,000) who have no right to be getting that money. They don't need it. Social Security should be a welfare program for the poor elderly. Then, you would have more than enough resources for the program and you could give the truly poor something a lot more substantial than a meager $12,000 per year. I would imagine that Canada has something similar to Social Security? Are benefits paid universally, simply based on living to a certain age?
And about 10 minutes after you do that, Conservatives will be foaming at the mouth to abolish it because of some "social security queen" making $50k a year. Oh wait, they're already foaming at the mouth to get rid of it. Nevermind...
From: Elbonia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 03 August 2006 10:57 PM
An economist I ain't. But I think if there is a reason not to support universal post-secondary education, it wouldn't be because it unfairly assists the rich (not in the way Stephen says). I can think of another reason however.First of all, many people can't get a post-secondary education simply because they don't have the academic requirements to (as in low grades) wouldn't universal post-secondary education unfairly penalize those who still can't get a post-secondary education, because they don't have the grades? Additionally, if universal post-secondary education would theoretically increase the number of people who could (and would) attend university, wouldn't that exacerbate the problem by driving academic requirements even higher? As much as you would like to believe that *everyone* can now get a post-secondary education, they can't, simply because there isn't the space. Universal post-secondary education doesn't open up more post-secondary seats. Sure, you may not need a huge income to go to Harvard, but you need to have a friggin' high GPA (unless you're Bush, that's another story). So, doesn't this unfairly punish those who can't get a post-secondary education because they don't have the educational requirements to do so? *They* are also going to have to pay for this, though taxes or cut social programs (okay, I'll assume that a government that would do this wouldn't cut social programs) Furthermore, those who complete thier post-secondary education do tend to have the means to pay post-secondary debt off. Take a student financing the bulk of his own post-secondary education. Even if he works intermittently over the summer. He could be up to 25 grand in debt after he completes his diploma, 30 grand when he completes his degree. But when he does graduate with a degree, he can get a starting job at up to $70,000 per year. As horribly expensive as university is, it's still worth it. The only real booby trap is if he's forced to leave university for some reason, then he's stuck with a large debt and no diploma. So now, those who get a post-secondary education are given a bigger advantage (since they have very little debt and a high starting wage), those who get some post-secondary education are given a huge helping hand, but those who get no post-secondary education, those with generally the least, are penalized. Let me stretch this whole thing a little further, perhaps drawing off of Stephen Gordon's point a little. Often, those from wealthier families will get a better education through going to better daycares and living in nicer neighbourhoods with nicer public schools or simply sending thier kid to a private school. These kids, who recieve the better education, will stand a better chance of making the academic cut to go to university, and will be assisted by the universal post-secondary plan. (Now directly talking to Michelle) As long as this condition exists, the rich will always have a better shot at going to university than the poor. Now, this isn't a problem in Cuba, but it is here. The focus should be on levelling this playing field first. So perhaps Stephen is right... sort of... (this coming from a self-financing post-secondary student) I think, if you want to make education more progressive, you have to go back to basics, more specifically, back to elementary school, and improve elementary and secondary school education overall, and especially in impovershed communities. Additionally, opening up more university seats in existing programs can help too. Good discussion by the way.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 04 August 2006 10:10 AM
A couple of comments:1) Claims to the effect that universal programs such as free tuition or free daycare are in fact progressive are beside the point. The question is: would you support any universal program regardless of its effect on inequality? I get the impression that people who would reply in the affirmative really don't believe it themselves - nobody seems to want to argue that a universal yacht-maintenance program is a good idea. 2) I'm not sure quite what to make of comments to the effect that it's okay if a program worsens inequality so long as low-income households get something out of it. That's setting the bar way too low: even Bush's tax cuts satisfy this criterion. 3) Comments such as this quote: Stephen will never mention any of this because he's an economist and not an advocate for human rights.
are ignorant horseshit.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 05 August 2006 07:19 AM
Again, I don't want to get into that here - I've done it elsewhere, and I'll do it again, but not here. The thing is that when I do make these sorts of points, I often get responses that don't actually deal with the data (and I agree that the real debate lies in the tricky business of tracking down and interpreting the available evidence), but instead make the claim that even though the policy may increase inequality, that's somehow okay because the program under discussion is universal. Obviously, I don't think that's a convincing response, and it would appear that you don't either.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 05 August 2006 10:22 AM
It is equality of opportunity that universiality is supposed to address, not equality of goods and services. And it is the lack of opportunities that must be addressed for the poor, the disadvantaged and the low wage earner. The biggest failing of the whole concept of universiality of opportunity occurs when means testing brings in the bureaucrats to 'assess eligibility'. As soon as the bureaucrats appear you get increased taxpayer costs, more and more hoops to jump through and red tape to unravel. All of which ends up creating barriers against those who need the opportunities the most.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 05 August 2006 11:20 AM
What I find reactionary about Stephen's positions is that he has the idea that the presently existing social structure amounts to the "data" which have to be accomodated by policy.The social structure, though, is based on no serious ethical principle. There is another way of thinking about this.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 05 August 2006 07:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: Stephen, do you have a real example of a genuinely regressive policy supported by a substantial majority of leftists on Babble?
I mentioned a couple in the OP.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 05 August 2006 08:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed: An even better question is whether Stephen Gordon has ever supported a truly progressive cause on Babble.
Although I can appreciate the fact that it's way easier to attack me than to actually do some hard thinking, I have a question for you: can you find an occasion among my 3200 posts where I argued against a policy because it was progressive?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 05 August 2006 09:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I mentioned a couple in the OP.
Yes, and when I challenged you on the specifics you said you didn't want to get into it. I mean, theory is beautiful, including theories about leftists, but a lot of us are more interested in the nitty gritty of results.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 August 2006 10:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed: I'm sorry, but I honestly can't think of a single thread where he's argued in favour of progressive taxation or more public enterprise or more local or national or labour control of .
I must say, Stephen has indicated some support towards social program spending in Canada and pointing to what are said to be the most efficient taxation systems in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. We know those countries are spending more of their GDP's on social spending than the most conservative western nations. I'm having a difficult time with this post-secondary and national daycare stance on funding of his though. He's the economist here, and I think it would be peachy if he could explain it to us in laymans language. Because I'd like to know.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 06 August 2006 05:18 AM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: Yes, and when I challenged you on the specifics you said you didn't want to get into it.I mean, theory is beautiful, including theories about leftists, but a lot of us are more interested in the nitty gritty of results.
Me too, but I was interested in exploring a theoretical point whose merits don't depend on a particular policy. Think of it as a long footnote in a more substantive policy discussion; we're by no means done yet .
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 06 August 2006 08:04 AM
I thought I nailed the theory when I said some Babblers were twits.To explain to Fidel, my understanding of what Stephen is saying about those social programs is that they are used more by higher income earners than lower income earners, and therefor transfer money from lower earners to higher earners, since everybody pays for them. This may well be true on an immediate cash basis, but I don't think it is true on an ultimate value basis. The maybe part of that depends on the progressivity of the taxes that support the service, if the taxes are progressive the effect will be reduced. On the other hand, general revenue taxation is not progressive so that argument may well be moot.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 06 August 2006 09:21 AM
quote: To explain to Fidel, my understanding of what Stephen is saying about those social programs is that they are used more by higher income earners than lower income earners, and therefor transfer money from lower earners to higher earners, since everybody pays for them.
I understand the basic premise of this argument. What I want to know is, why did the federal government abandon the transfer of $4.5 billion dollars for post-secondary funding to the provinces in the 1990's ?. It should be obvious to anyone that the system is short billions of dollars every year. Not only was that money never replaced, post-secondary funding deficits have grown with inflation. The money just disappeared. ie. Our federal Liberals created this crisis with post-secondary in true conservative party fashion. Of course "the have's" are accessing post-secondary education in greater numbers than have-not's across Canada. That seems to be the intended effect. It's not equal access based on merit, it's based on whether the kids have money bags supporting them for four or more years. And the children of poorer families in Canada can either accept what amounts to a bank mortgage without a house to show for it in reaching for the brass ring, or they can stay at the bottom of the ladder where, apparently, they belong according to our two old line parties across Canada. Let's just stop subsidizing drinking water, farmers and post-secondary education altogether and live a full right-wing Libertarian economy a la Milton Friedman, shall we ?. The kids will have the free market choice of becoming either ditch diggers or solicitors with the shortest path to ground being ditch digging. [ 06 August 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 06 August 2006 02:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
Both rich and poor people need some kind of post-secondary education.
Uh, no they don't. I know some people who are doing very well without formal post-secondary education. Unless you want to include trade apprenticeship in your definition of post-secondary education... quote: Originally posted by West Coast Greeny: Additionally, opening up more university seats in existing programs can help too.
Do you know why my high school diploma is barely worth anything in terms of getting a good job? Because so many people have them, and it's difficult NOT to get a diploma if you simply show up more than half the time. Drastic tuition reduction, the "you have to go to university" mentality, and opening up more spaces (which will inevitably lower the threshold in terms of required academic peformance will combine to make a Bachelor's degree as worthless as my high school diploma.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 07 August 2006 10:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ken Burch: Another arguement in favor of universality is that, if social benefits of any kind are means tested rather than universal, middle-income and higher-income people are more likely to resent the existence of such services because they could not use them.
Like American's who qualify for medicaid and are resented by the working poor whose incomes are somewhere just above low income thresholds and so do without medical coverage or afford only inadequate coverage. Yes, I agree. And I believe one of the reasons for Canada's high rates of post-secondary educational achievement is due to a carry over from when tuitions were lower, and when student loans were not denied the poor because of bad credit. As well, Scandinavian and Northern European countries tend to have fewer lowly skilled, lowly paid jobs as a percentage of total employment than N. America. There isn't the perception in those countries that if they do not have college or university degrees that they will be struggling for the rest of their lives. People there can live on service industry wages.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 08 August 2006 06:21 AM
Well this thread is getting a bit to long to sustain any more serious discussion, or at least focussed discussion, but with regards to this: quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: 1) Claims to the effect that universal programs such as free tuition or free daycare are in fact progressive are beside the point. The question is: would you support any universal program regardless of its effect on inequality? I get the impression that people who would reply in the affirmative really don't believe it themselves - nobody seems to want to argue that a universal yacht-maintenance program is a good idea.
I think the obvious answer to this is "no." But this query unfortunately begs the question. Leftists do not support universal health care and child care (used as examples in the OP) because they are universal. They support them, as argued extensively above, because they are good in and of themselves, and the more people that access them make society (and the economy) better. Yacht-maitenance, while universal, does not offer a serious social return on the investment, and so is not supported by leftists. I would even offer that a program's affect on "equality," as defined by Prof. Gordon above, doesn't even enter into it. Or, more accurately, ultimately isn't required for consideration in order to support a certain program when push comes to shove. Stephen's original question is couched in a logical fallacy, and as such, you won't find an acceptable answer to it.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 08 August 2006 06:40 AM
quote: Leftists do not support universal health care and child care (used as examples in the OP) because they are universal. They support them, as argued extensively above, because they are good in and of themselves, and the more people that access them make society (and the economy) better.
This was the answer I provided early in the thread, but it was apparently discarded. This made me think that maybe I was out of the loop, and in fact many here do support them because they are universal. My suspicion is that many believe that anything that is important to the population at large should be provided exclusively by the government, but I think that just reduces to an argument on the merits of socialism. That's an ideological question, and vastly expands the scope of the debate.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 08 August 2006 08:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by Proaxiom: Ken Burch, that argument was provided above. Isn't it unsatisfying to argue that universality isn't really a good thing, but necessary to get votes?
But that's democracy in North America. It's said that as a general rule for countries where proportional electoral systems are in place, voter participation rates are higher because people realize that there is something at stake ie. social programs. They tend to turnout in higher numbers to punish centrist and conservative parties which promise to undermine their social democracy. But with our two old line conservative parties in North America maintaining a stranglehold on power for the last 100 years in a row, voter apathy is the rule. Our system distorts democracy in favour of plutocratic rule, and so there is less emphasis on what people really want.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 August 2006 08:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchfire: [They support them, as argued extensively above, because they are good in and of themselves
I hope you don't mean to imply that the actual effect of the policy is irrelevant in the decision to support it.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401
|
posted 08 August 2006 08:57 AM
quote: I hope you don't mean to imply that the actual effect of the policy is irrelevant in the decision to support it.
Stephen, I'm not sure you have posted a real example of a universal policy where the effect is demonstrably (ie. shown in research) not progressive in reality. The two you site (day care and free tuition) could be, sure, but given that the poor make up at most 20% of the population, the rates of usage of those programs will always be less than the average person's. At the end of the day, I think progressives would have to justify whether the cost of universality is warranted against the incremental increase in participation for disadvantaged groups. ie. if we had free tuition, would the increase in participation by low-income people over what we currently have be worth it? If not, a targeted program of, say, student grants would be better. However, the politics of maintaining support for the program is equally important (going back to my last post).
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 August 2006 09:12 AM
But what if you could achieve the stated policy goal without increasing inequality? What's so special about universality per se that we're willing to allow an increase in inequality in order to have universality?The political support angle will only go so far - the upper end of the income will of course support a regressive policy. [eta:] I can understand supporting a policy that is less progressive than what you would otherwise have liked in order to get broad support. But I don't understand extending this argument in order to support policies that are actually regressive. [ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401
|
posted 08 August 2006 10:16 AM
quote: But what if you could achieve the stated policy goal without increasing inequality? What's so special about universality per se that we're willing to allow an increase in inequality in order to have universality?
I still don't think you've convincingly argued that any real life universal programs are regressive. Even in your own example, if just one poor person availed themselves of the universal yacht maintenance program that otherwise wouldn't (you never know, there might be some low-income person living on a boat somewhere in Canada), than isn't that more progressive than not having the program?
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 August 2006 10:33 AM
There are 2 classes of responses when I make the sorts of claims in the OP:a) I've made a mistake, due to some evidence I wasn't aware of, or to a misinterpretation of the data. (It happens.) b) So what if it's regressive? It's a universal program! Responses along the lines of a) are of course fair game, one where we all more or less understand the rules of evidence and logic. But I didn't quite know what to do with b), hence this thread.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401
|
posted 08 August 2006 10:54 AM
quote: b) So what if it's regressive? It's a universal program!Responses along the lines of a) are of course fair game, one where we all more or less understand the rules of evidence and logic.
Fair enough. So if, say, free tuition is shown unequivocably to be regressive would targeted programming be the route you would take to even out the regressive nature of it? I'm of two minds on the issue myself. I do tend to fall into the camp of more targeted funding; the money spent on making a program universal could be better spent on creating truly adequate programs for those who are really in need. And if you can afford to pay, shouldn't you pay?
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 08 August 2006 10:55 AM
Stephen, a couple of questions:First, how are you certain that these things are regressive? Even if the affluent benefit more than the poor from, the affluent also pay more than the poor, due to progressive taxation. Does the disparity in usage of these services more than cancel the disparity in taxation to pay for them? Second, what do you make about the merit good argument?
I suppose that falls into the 'regressive? so what?' camp, but I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that it makes for a more prosperous society over all, even if a slightly less equal one than we could have. [ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 August 2006 11:25 AM
Now that we're at post 100 and about to be closed down, I'll respond to a specific example: quote: Originally posted by Olly: Fair enough. So if, say, free tuition is shown unequivocably to be regressive would targeted programming be the route you would take to even out the regressive nature of it? I'm of two minds on the issue myself. I do tend to fall into the camp of more targeted funding; the money spent on making a program universal could be better spent on creating truly adequate programs for those who are really in need. And if you can afford to pay, shouldn't you pay?
That's my position as well. And I will also now say to Fidel that I very much approve of increasing public funding of post-secondary education so that fewer people are excluded for financial reasons. Proaxiom, it turns out that the tax system as a whole is nowhere near as progressive as one might expect. Source.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188
|
posted 08 August 2006 11:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by Olly:
Couldn't the same argument be used to justify a tax cut?
If the program's value distribution is less regressive than a broad tax cut (even if it's still regressive), and provides more overall social value than the tax cut would, then it seems to make sense to fund it.
From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|