h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<"Chronic poverty is the greatest threat to social progress in the United States," Estes said. "More than 33 million Americans -- almost 12 million of them children -- are poor." "Contrary to public perception," Estes said, "the majority of poor in the United States are members of established family households who work full-time and are white. No other economically advanced country tolerates such a level of poverty."> - excerpt from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/uop-ur2071703.php

Discuss.

I think the idea is more prominent in US dominant culture (i.e. that expressed by all the media establishments) that people are responsible for their own welfare, and therefore the state takes less responsibility for poverty than it does in Europe.

Instead all the big handouts go to corporations.

And is that right/acceptable? Or must we accept it because it just is...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

First, I think we need to have the definition of poverty that was used in that report. Do they have only one DVD player? Do none of their clothes bear the name Tommy?

There is poor, and then there is poor. Industrialized nations have a strange concept of the term, and could use a bit of exposure to third-world nations to put things into perspective.

Twenty years ago, a friend from work visited America for the first time. His abiding impression was of the contrast between the haves and the have-nots. He told me the have-nots had no home, few clothes, little food.... His reference point was Great Britain, not a third-world country.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

So were the 33 million reported in the survey homeless?

According to this, the number of homeless in the US is around 600,000. So the writer was talking about a level of poverty well above homelessness.

The USA is a country of ~280 million people. And though there are have-nots, most can generally get food, clothing and shelter if they need it.

Do you honestly think any western nation around today, increased to that population with that landmass could handle things better? If so, I'd like to find out how.

It's a question of what you mean by "handling things better." Homelessness is almost unheard of in Western European nations, and they have much greater population density, which drives up the cost of a home (limited supply/great demand).

I was watching Gettysburg last night, and there's a scene where the military attache from Britain is speaking with James Longstreet (confederate general) on the similarities between the US and the UK. He finally finds one difference: "Different dreams."

Europe has long been the domain of royalty, and in the UK it still is. It's no wonder that they look to their government as a caretaker, since that was its (professed) role during the heyday of absolutism. Under such a mindset, neglecting the needs of any one individual is considered a failure of the government, and must be rectified.

Here in the US, we're distrustful of any governing power, so we seek to limit it in scope. We don't want our government taking care of us... we'll do it ourselves. If some people fail to do an adequate job of it... . We have the freedom to live our lives in the manner we see fit, and the responsibility to live with the consequences.

"Europe has long been the domain of royalty, and in the UK it still is. It's no wonder that they look to their government as a caretaker, since that was its (professed) role during the heyday of absolutism. Under such a mindset, neglecting the needs of any one individual is considered a failure of the government, and must be rectified."

This is rot. The monarchy has never had any interest in dealing with poverty. Health care, pensions etc only came along after universal suffrage.

Equating welfare with absolutism is just a convenient error.

I said the care of the governed was the *alleged* role of the government under absolutism. It's no wonder that, once the people got some control over the government, it started doing what it was supposed to have been doing all along.

Though in a way you're wrong... there were pensions in the Middle Ages, given by the lords for loyal peasants. As for health care... there wasn't any to give.

Universal suffrage, eh? Who did you vote for at the last monarchical election? Which party did you back for the peerage?

>"Health care, pensions etc only came along after universal suffrage.

Equating welfare with absolutism is just a convenient error."


Well, not exactly. There isn't any necessary connection between welfarism and democracy. The German Empire under Bismarck had an extensive welfare system in the Nineteenth Century, for example. Bismarck, though, was a total reactionary - his reforms were basically an attempt to ward off the threat of social democracy by making a few concessions in that direction, in the hope that it would keep people from rebellion.

Here in the UK, social security was started in the early 20th Century by the Liberal Party, before universal suffrage came in. And have you never heard of One Nation Toryism? The philosophy behind which was basically the same as Bismarck's, to keep people in their place by giving them a little of what they wanted - but not too much.


I think there is something in the idea that here in the UK (tho' I can't speak for the rest of Europe) we have an historical expectation that central government will act as a sort of 'caretaker'. In fact, I would say that attitude is deeply rooted in the national psyche - whenever anything goes wrong, the British instinct is to blame the government and ask what they're going to 'do about it'.

"And have you never heard of One Nation Toryism? The philosophy behind which was basically the same as Bismarck's, to keep people in their place by giving them a little of what they wanted - but not too much."

And I think this is still the attitude of the political elites in democratic countries.

Personally, I have sympathy for both conceptions of the purpose of government - the minimal libertarian conception that BtM advocates and the wider "caretaker" conception - but I think both are wrong. The caretaker view is too undemocratic - the UK is institutionally and in some but not all ways socially less democratic than the US - and the libertarian one too brutal, as the example of levels of poverty in the US illustrates.

I think BtM's "Different dreams" monarchical mindset v distrust of government is an oversimplification. I expect the difference between the US and UK in this way is due to a number of causes. Perhaps among them rationing during and after the world wars in the UK which massively improved nutrition for example, corrupt unions in the US, the whole US paranoia about communism thing, and possibly a little bit of what BtM said too. It does seem that people in the US are more distrustful of government than people in the UK. (Although people in the UK and US seem about equally trusting of non-government organisations, corporate or not.)

The have-nots: "The students might spend a few nights at homeless shelters learning about the denizens: the homeless families, the single mothers and their children, the mentally ill, the down on their luck, the teenage runaways and throwaways. Who are they and how did they get there? They could take notes while they work at soup kitchens and interview street corner beggars to find out about the trajectory of their lives. They could spend time in any big city at the overworked and overrun hospitals and clinics catering to the medically indigent, meaning most of the 20% to 30% of the US population without health insurance, while they researched waiting times, causes of ill health and death rates which they would later compare with the same statistics from more upscale hospitals."

The haves: "Then, onward to the lush lawns, private schools, children with III and IV after their names, country clubs, exotic vacations, pretentious cars and gated mansions of those who know well their advantages and are fearful that someone less fortunate may try to even the score and take something from them. In some ways it will be easier to research the upper class. So much of them is already represented in our political system, on television and in print that students may start out familiar with their attitudes with no awareness of the bias in their own perceptions."

Both quotes taken from "The Class Wars: A Regal Obituary" by Sandra E. Jewell - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0729-02.htm

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>Dogster... "Personally, I have sympathy for both conceptions of the purpose of government - the minimal libertarian conception that BtM advocates and the wider "caretaker" conception - but I think both are wrong. The caretaker view is too undemocratic - the UK is institutionally and in some but not all ways socially less democratic than the US - and the libertarian one too brutal, as the example of levels of poverty in the US illustrates."



I think the basic problem with the 'caretaker' view is that few people today seriously have faith in central government to deliver welfare improvements from Whitehall. Public services are perceived as inefficient and out of touch with the needs of ordinary people, and if left like that for much longer the whole bedrock of popular support for state sponsored welfare will eventually evaporate.

One solution is to devolve as much responsibility as possible for public service provision down to the local level. And, to be fair, the current government (UK, I mean) has been trying initiatives to increase local control of public service provision, the most high-profile recent example being foundation hospitals. But of course they are very controversial - some feel that they will result in an unequal standard of health care across the country. That then raises another question, though: *should* central government be responsible for funding equal health care for everyone? Or, rather, should it focus on ensuring that everyone has access to a basic safety net, whilst at the same time investing more in rewarding those service providers who achieve better standards than that? Is it fair that a taxpayer at one end of the country should be paying for the inefficiencies of, say, an NHS hospital at the other end of the country?

Personally, I lean towards encouraging local autonomy, because I think it engages local people more directly in the services that their taxes are paying for, which to my mind can only be a Good Thing. Also, it could improve efficiency by cutting civil service bureacracy. But there are no easy answers to such questions - there are strong moral arguments on either side of the fence.


Lear

... Just a little bit of background on foundation hospitals for anyone who's interested...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3109245.stm - from today's BBC News

http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsplan/story/0,7991,946032,00.html - general background

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/comment/0,11032,993501,00.html - the case against

http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsfoundationtrusts/ - from a government website

Lear:

"I think the basic problem with the 'caretaker' view is that few people today seriously have faith in central government to deliver welfare improvements from Whitehall."

I think it's significant that you say welfare *improvements*. I'd agree with your statement, and the sentiment mentioned. Our current government isn't capable of delivering welfare improvements because they're largely incompetent power seekers. I don't think that this view implies a lack of faith in the concept of welfare per se.

On your more specific points about foundation hospitals and local autonomy, I don't have much of substance to add. I agree that local autonomy is a good ideal (an anarchist one I'm pleased to say), but as you say the issue is very subtle and finely balanced. If local autonomy were to lead to, eventually, substantially worse outcomes for the worst off then perhaps now isn't the time to introduce it.

Incidentally, you don't have to have an authoritarian perspective to think that introducing local autonomy could lead to worse outcomes. For example, while the enormous disparity between rich and poor remains, decentralisation of hospitals, schools and so forth could just end up with the rich getting all of the improvements and the poor ending up badly off. Whilst I believe in anarchist ideals like local autonomy, I can't help but seeing such an outcome as a disaster.

BtM:

I just wanted to add one thing to what I said about the US attitude towards the government. Whilst they are suspicious of the government in some ways (domestic policy, welfare, etc.), they aren't fundamentally suspicious of its defence and foreign policies in the same way, and many seem quite happy to be left in the dark about these matters. In other words, in defence and foreign policy they actively want a "caretaker" approach from government. I'm not saying this is different in the UK by the way, I think the same applies.

"I just wanted to add one thing to what I said about the US attitude towards the government. Whilst they are suspicious of the government in some ways (domestic policy, welfare, etc.), they aren't fundamentally suspicious of its defence and foreign policies in the same way, and many seem quite happy to be left in the dark about these matters."

This is entirely consistent with the interests of the corporations which own the US government and control the media agenda. Minimum welfare at home, and strong protection of commercial interests abroad, toppling governments if necessary.

It does raise the question of whether this suspicion of government arises from healthy free-thinking, or if it is itself institutional and part of somebody's power play.

>Dogster... "Our current government isn't capable of delivering welfare improvements because they're largely incompetent power seekers. I don't think that this view implies a lack of faith in the concept of welfare per se."


You're probably right. When I wrote, "if left like that for much longer the whole bedrock of popular support for state sponsored welfare will eventually evaporate," I think I made my point too strongly. I meant to say simply that continuing government failure to deliver on public services is likely to leave a vacuum where public goodwill used to be, and that can be exploited by those who are opposed to welfare of any kind.


Your point about decentralisation possibly leading to the poor getting a worse deal than ever is a fair one, but I think that actually the middle classes have invariably tended to get more than their fair share out of the welfare state. That's one of its key weaknesses IMO - the better-educated and more affluent know how to use the system and are better able to manipulate the levers of power, and have tended consequently to gain better services for themselves at the expense of poorer areas.

So inequality in public services is already there to some degree - it just tends to go unremarked upon. Some see greater local control as a way of remedying that problem; others think it will just make the problem even worse.

>Jowot... "It does raise the question of whether this suspicion of government arises from healthy free-thinking, or if it is itself institutional and part of somebody's power play."


My impression (from a UK eyeview) is that the average American does indeed have a gut-level, instinctive, mistrust of big government, but that US media / corporate / government interests are very adept at channelling that healthy scepticism into areas that suit *them*, rather than the average American. So welfare programmes, for example, are dismissed as intrusive, 'nannying' interventionism, while anyone who criticises increased defence spending is called 'unpatriotic', anyone who takes a shot at corporate interests is labelled 'unAmerican', etc.

Lear, I agree with both of the above posts . I would say that while the middle classes have always benefited more than the poor and probably will continue to do for the forseeable future, it could be a whole lot worse. It seems to me, at the moment, that the net effect of everyone having to deal with something like the same system (in healthcare, education, etc.) is better than the alternatives. It's a little known fact that despite income tax being progressive, taxation in the UK is actually regressive - the poor pay a higher proportion of their income and wealth in taxes than the rich because of things like VAT. Overall though, it does seem as though there is a net benefit flowing downwards from the well off to the less well off because although the poor are paying more they have much more to gain. (That's a contentious proposition and I could probably be persuaded to change my mind with a good argument.) That said, things could, and should, certainly be better - taxation should be progressive not regressive, and spending shouldn't be directed primarily to the middle classes.