It is popular to argue that what one wants only what one deserves, not a ‘handout’. Wollstonecraft argued precisely that - “It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world!” Henry George similarly argued that “All that charity can do where injustice exists is here and there to mollify somewhat the effects of Injustice.” Justice is a strong word, a powerful one, even if it’s a difficult one to define.
I think you have to keep in mind the extent to which working class America considers getting by without the need of public assistance a mark of status. It is the dividing line between the poor that there's no shame in being and the poor who ought to be ashamed. Consider how often you hear in country music the refrain that we were poor but we never took charity. Trying to create a social Rube Goldberg device that is supposed to direct income to the lower wage earners via the free enterprise system rather than just giving them money is a sop to their pride. Thus restricting immigration becomes the conservative idea of a social program: Improving wages by reducing the labor pool.
"Many Americans, however, would vehemently argue against receiving direct payments compensating for lower wages - it’s an entitlement, funded by unfair taxes!"
Uh, how many? The EITC disbursed $70 billion last year. Social Security is based, pretty much, on the amount of money you pay in. This is an awfully vague argument, based on a free trade "deal" that would be coupled flawlessly with disbursements to those affected by the deal--as if it were easy to determine who was "affected" and how much, and as if it were easy to convince people that the arrangement would never be changed to affect them adversely. This strikes me as no more than idle speculation, uniformed by any data whatsoever.
I think you have to keep in mind the extent to which working class America considers getting by without the need of public assistance a mark of status. It is the dividing line between the poor that there's no shame in being and the poor who ought to be ashamed. Consider how often you hear in country music the refrain that we were poor but we never took charity. Trying to create a social Rube Goldberg device that is supposed to direct income to the lower wage earners via the free enterprise system rather than just giving them money is a sop to their pride. Thus restricting immigration becomes the conservative idea of a social program: Improving wages by reducing the labor pool.
Exactly - an immense amount of resources are spent just making sure that no one has to *feel like* the government is helping them
A critique in long form
https://calmandcollected.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-entitlement-a-critique
"Many Americans, however, would vehemently argue against receiving direct payments compensating for lower wages - it’s an entitlement, funded by unfair taxes!"
Uh, how many? The EITC disbursed $70 billion last year. Social Security is based, pretty much, on the amount of money you pay in. This is an awfully vague argument, based on a free trade "deal" that would be coupled flawlessly with disbursements to those affected by the deal--as if it were easy to determine who was "affected" and how much, and as if it were easy to convince people that the arrangement would never be changed to affect them adversely. This strikes me as no more than idle speculation, uniformed by any data whatsoever.