Redistribution of Wealth

I read a piece the other day that talked about Obamacare.  My apologies up front, because I cannot remember the piece itself, or who wrote it, only a single point that it made.  In it, the author suggested that progressives and conservatives will never agree on Obamacare.  Even if it is "pragmatically successful" -- that is to say, even if it covers the vast majority of Americans at a reasonable cost to both the individual covered and the taxpayer at large -- conservatives will still not support it because, to their mind, it violates a fundamental "moral" principle.  I am not sure how to characterize the fundamental principle in a way that doesn't betray my bias.  The more Lockian version of the three inalienable rights comes to mind -- life, liberty, and property.   My own less benign characterization would be "what's mine is mine, and no one has a 'right' to it unless I say so."

To a certain extent, we're all in this category, so I will admit a certain amount of hypocrisy right up front.  For the vast majority of my possessions -- those like TVs or cameras that have value beyond sentiment -- should they be stolen, I would feel violated, but not outraged.  As Lora would say, "they must need it more than we do."  Beyond that, she is perpetually sniffing out excess and giving it away.  In her words, she hates "clutter."  For my own part, I have tools that I don't use, and probably never will use, but I would nevertheless be loath to part with them.  Should they be stolen, I would not only feel violated, but "morally outraged."  These are MY tools!  I am a bit more possessive, consider property for the sake of property a bit more sacrosanct, than my wife.  Consequently, it's what I call a "spectrum issue," running from full on white through various shades of grey to full on black.   My wife is always irritated when I force recognition of a "spectrum issue," so too were my students in the past, not because they are necessarily black/white thinkers, but because it becomes an endless parsing of speculative subtleties.  She would prefer to deal with the subtleties as they emerge.

At one end of the spectrum, then, we have the "what's mine is mine, and no one has a 'right' to it unless I say so."  This is a fundamental conservative "moral" principle, and it plays out from top to bottom.  So it is not surprising that conservatives would object to taxes.  All taxes are "redistributive." All taxes take money from some, and "redistribute" it to others.  Some redistributions are easier to swallow than others.  The redistribution to protective functions of government -- e.g. the military and police that help "secure" our property here and abroad -- seems more palatable than redistribution to what might be called the charitable functions of government -- e.g. food stamps or Obamacare.  With protective functions, there is a sense that ALL, including me, benefit from the taxes supporting them.  Those charged to provide protective functions are often portrayed in self-sacrificial and heroic terms, and they are ceremoniously thanked for their service.  With the charitable functions, however, there is a sense that only SOME, specifically excluding me, benefit from the taxes supporting them.  Indeed, if you are in a position to pay taxes, you are by definition excluded from the benefit.  It takes what's mine, my money in the form of taxes, and gives it someone else, with little or no benefit to me, or my "say so."

Here again, I will admit to a certain amount of hypocrisy.  I do feel a bit of resentment at the taxes going to charitable functions, in part because I refuse to romanticize the poor.  There may be a certain amount of nobility in those who renounce possession, but for the most part, the poor that have come my way live cramped, mean-spirited lives.  Hang out for a while in the local trailer park, get a feel for the ambiance.  In many cases -- too many cases -- they are the "hopeless" in every sense of the word.  They have little in the way of "hope" for a better life, and despite our best intentions, there is little "hope" for the success of most interventions.  One might also characterize them as the "increasingly useless."  My wife, as a front line hospice worker, loves her work and is paid reasonably well for it -- better than minimum wage, but less than the minimum wage proposed by Sanders and now Clinton.  Many -- too many -- of her co-workers, however, are "useless."  They cannot get the job because they have various "convictions," mostly drug or theft related, or they cannot keep the job because they have various "attitudinal problems," summarized as "poor work ethic."  They simply don't do the job to keep the job.  If there were a way to automate the care of the elderly and the dying, don't kid yourself, Hearts for Hospice would do it without hesitation.

So I get the resentment.  I feel the conservative pain when I stand in line at the grocery store and watch people pay with food stamps, and think, my tax dollars at work.  But here's the question.  What do we do with them?  The useless and the hopeless?   I believe, despite myself sometimes, that we are creating a "permanent underclass," and it is growing, not shrinking.  Here's something to think about. The Post yesterday ran a story on the neighborhood bank.  The lead read:

That bank branch on the corner — and the one on the way to work — may not be there much longer.
As technology transforms banking, like it has so many other sectors, the consequence could be a dramatic decline in the industry's outposts over the next decade, experts say.

What does that mean?  You guessed it.  Fewer people employed as Bank Tellers.  As they go on to say, "The global industry, under pressure to meet customer demands for automation and cheaper services, will slash employment and branches by 20 percent to 50 percent over the next decade, he estimated," he being  Antony Jenkins, the former CEO of Barclays.  It probably goes without saying that we "demand" cheaper services, but I don't know that customers are "demanding automation," consciously.  Nevertheless, every time one makes a transaction over the phone, it "demands" better, more efficient, more secure automation.  Yes, it will "create jobs," even well paying jobs, for technicians, but they will be far far fewer in number.   Those who own the banks aren't suffering.   The new CEO of Barclays made nearly 400K USD, not in his first year, in his first month.  The bank tellers who lose their jobs, on the other hand, will very likely suffer.

OK, so I get the resentment.  I feel the conservative pain when the laid off bank teller pays with food stamps, but it is not "welfare," per se, that is at fault.  There are, one might argue, plenty of jobs to go around.  That's true, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the fastest growing sector is "ambulatory health care services," and within that category, the sub-category of "home health aides," of which Lora is one.  The median salary is 10.51 USD an hour, better than the federal minimum wage, but not a whole lot better.  The average hours worked per week hovers at around 32.  What that means, of course, is that very few of the workers are full time.  Just to be above board, the next biggest sector is "food services and drinking places."  These are minimum wage jobs, or worse.  Waitresses are typically paid minimum wage LESS what they can be expected to earn in tips.  If they earn less than expected, sucks to be you, if they earn more, so much the better.  Nevertheless, they stand to earn more -- 11.62 USD per hour.  Their average weekly hours, however, hover at around 24, which again means that the vast majority are part time, hourly workers.  

So, let's put it into perspective.  If one assiduously attends to a job in one of the fastest growing sectors, what does that mean?  Full time, one can expect to earn 21,860 USD per year as an ambulatory care worker.  One can, at least, support one's self in such a way, but it is right at the federal poverty guideline for a family of three.  The reality, however, is more complicated.   As I suggested, no such jobs are full time.  They are, at best, 29 hours per week, and are without benefits of any sort.  The maximum one can earn at a single employer, minimum wage, is 15,849 USD per year.  That is below the federal poverty guidelines for a family of two.  Let us assume that they hold two such jobs for the "equivalent" of a full time job, but then what about health care?  

Here I need to point out that most "true" conservatives want to do away not only with Obamacare, but the minimum wage.  So let us assume that Obamacare doesn't exist.  The full cost of my health care plan is 11,100 USD per year.  That represents nearly 100 percent of a single ambulatory care job, and nearly 50 percent of two minimum wage jobs combined into full time.  It makes no sense to fork out that much money when there is rent to pay, food to buy, et cetera.   Let's assuming that they "bought into the system," with or without subsidy.  If the assiduous ambulatory care worker were themselves to get sick, they would still have to pay $5000 out of pocket.  Even so, part time, minimum wage jobs do not have "sick time" -- no hours, no pay -- and so they would be faced with a hefty bill right when they can no longer work to pay it, or anything else for that matter.  I have just outlined the NEW american dream -- work hard, at a physically and emotionally taxing job, and you will sink even further into poverty.

When we look at the wealth of the uber-wealthy, where did it come from?  Let's not be coy about this.  It came from you and me, as "profit" from goods and services, especially those basic goods and services we cannot do without.  They took it because they have the means to do so.  This is an "extractive" economy.   It shouldn't be surprising that people are asking for cheaper and more convenient, because they have less money and less time, but the "satisfaction" of that demand pushes even more people out of jobs, or into poorly paying jobs, and who cares?  so long as I still have mine.  There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in this nation over the last few decades -- just not by taxes -- just not from the rich to the poorer members of our society -- but rather from the poorer members to the increasingly disparate  and distant rich.

The core conservative economic stance, lower taxes, less gov'ment regulation, simply allows them to keep legally more of what they "extract" and much more latitude in how they go about "extracting" it.   The core conservative moral stance should be amended to read, at least for the ideologues in charge, "what's mine is mine, and what's yours will soon enough be mine." There's little mystery in this,.  The conservative ideologues in charge are all for a redistribution of wealth, but they want the redistribution to continue in their direction.  For the so-called conservative core, those salt-of-the-earth rural folk, those angry trump supporters, those evangelical cruz supporters, well, they can take pride in their latest find at the garage sale.  Look!  It's almost like new!  Hey I found it first.  It's mine!  For the sitting in the driveway raking in the nickels, I'm sure he'd agree -- keep your grubby gov'ment hands off my profits!