The Quiggin-style response is incredible because the people who offer the various versions of them are ostensibly in careers dedicated to tackling, not dismissing, thorny problems.
But Quiggin's response suggests an alternative diagnosis that makes more sense to me, which is simply ignoring the problem because of its complexity, going al…
The Quiggin-style response is incredible because the people who offer the various versions of them are ostensibly in careers dedicated to tackling, not dismissing, thorny problems.
But Quiggin's response suggests an alternative diagnosis that makes more sense to me, which is simply ignoring the problem because of its complexity, going all in on the few things we seem to have some control over, and hoping for the best. I grew up in one of the most progressive/liberal town's in the country and I was never taught that innate differences don't exist. Rather, it seemed that people just wanted to ignore the issue and hammer as much as possible on what there was some public governance of. And that is a near universal human tendency, not reducible to a blank slate ideology
Thirty years ago Deroy Murdock argued that Social Security was inherently racist. Why? Black men do not attend college at the same rate as whites or Asians. They start their working careers much earlier as a consequence. Then they die earlier as well. The net result is that black men contribute relatively more to SS and recoup relatively less.
Talk about reforming SS, maybe by switching it over to privatized savings/retirement accounts like Singapore, and you are persona non grata for most of the country. What we choose to hammer on doesn't necessarily reflect what would do the most good so much as what we are most comfortable with. And that has tragic consequences.
Right. I didn't attempt to justify it. I'm arguing that other factors besides an ideology explain it. Maybe blank slate-y -like post hoc rationalizations are reached for sometimes, but I'm not convinced by Freddie's reasoning that the ideology drives the policies discussed.
I think that at least with some specific issues some of it is ideologically driven. There is an IQ score disparity between whites and black in this country. That is probably at least partially some of the reason behind why fewer blacks go to college comparatively. If college isn't the answer to eliminating racial income inequality then where's the value in programs like affirmative action?
AA can be/was(?) instituted to eliminate or counteract as much of the disparity in social discrimination as possible and/or to make people feel like they are doing *something* (and/or more besides). Why it continues whether or not it is 'working' is a separate issue where institutional inertia and other factors play significant roles. Sociological causes often don't align with individual reasoning.
I didn't say that ideology per se plays no role. I said that Freddie hasn't convinced me that a specific one, the "Blank Slate" ideology, is doing all the work he claims.
Affirmative action can be used elsewhere besides higher education. I'd also argue there are certain occupations (like say journalism or politics) where there's a strong argument to be made that having a workforce representative of society as a whole will help deliver better results.
I am more comfortable with the concept of AA in journalism than politics, where for me it raises the specter of special interest groups vying with one another under the assumption that everything is a zero sum game where for one tribe to thrive another must necessarily suffer. And maybe in terms of government funding that is a perfectly valid world view.
Privatized savings does not solve the problem of what to do for an individual who fails to save enough. Thet's why "social security" is called SOCIAL security: it's a socialist program. Each contributes according to ability, each receives according to need.
I actually read a right-leaning defense of pensions from the standpoint of inherent human difference once.
The argument was basically this - people vary based upon their ability to save/spend wisely, and this appears to be to a large extent immutable - it's not responsive to financial incentives. Therefore if we establish private tax-free accounts for retirement we're basically rewarding people who don't need a reward - people who would have saved anyway (this has been proven by studies in Denmark) - and punishing those who are naturally financially impaired. Pensions, in contrast, work as a great leveler because asset management is ported over to professionals who know what they are doing, which allows those who are not financially savvy to have an adequate retirement.
That's conflating the goal of forcing people to save for retirement versus providing a social safety net. Plus how is SS socialist? The entire idea is that it's universal, meaning that it is not subject to means testing. I think in a sane system Warren Buffett would get bupkis from SS (and Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, etc.) at the same time that he still has to pay into it.
The Quiggin-style response is incredible because the people who offer the various versions of them are ostensibly in careers dedicated to tackling, not dismissing, thorny problems.
But Quiggin's response suggests an alternative diagnosis that makes more sense to me, which is simply ignoring the problem because of its complexity, going all in on the few things we seem to have some control over, and hoping for the best. I grew up in one of the most progressive/liberal town's in the country and I was never taught that innate differences don't exist. Rather, it seemed that people just wanted to ignore the issue and hammer as much as possible on what there was some public governance of. And that is a near universal human tendency, not reducible to a blank slate ideology
Thirty years ago Deroy Murdock argued that Social Security was inherently racist. Why? Black men do not attend college at the same rate as whites or Asians. They start their working careers much earlier as a consequence. Then they die earlier as well. The net result is that black men contribute relatively more to SS and recoup relatively less.
Talk about reforming SS, maybe by switching it over to privatized savings/retirement accounts like Singapore, and you are persona non grata for most of the country. What we choose to hammer on doesn't necessarily reflect what would do the most good so much as what we are most comfortable with. And that has tragic consequences.
Right. I didn't attempt to justify it. I'm arguing that other factors besides an ideology explain it. Maybe blank slate-y -like post hoc rationalizations are reached for sometimes, but I'm not convinced by Freddie's reasoning that the ideology drives the policies discussed.
I think that at least with some specific issues some of it is ideologically driven. There is an IQ score disparity between whites and black in this country. That is probably at least partially some of the reason behind why fewer blacks go to college comparatively. If college isn't the answer to eliminating racial income inequality then where's the value in programs like affirmative action?
AA can be/was(?) instituted to eliminate or counteract as much of the disparity in social discrimination as possible and/or to make people feel like they are doing *something* (and/or more besides). Why it continues whether or not it is 'working' is a separate issue where institutional inertia and other factors play significant roles. Sociological causes often don't align with individual reasoning.
I didn't say that ideology per se plays no role. I said that Freddie hasn't convinced me that a specific one, the "Blank Slate" ideology, is doing all the work he claims.
Affirmative action can be used elsewhere besides higher education. I'd also argue there are certain occupations (like say journalism or politics) where there's a strong argument to be made that having a workforce representative of society as a whole will help deliver better results.
I am more comfortable with the concept of AA in journalism than politics, where for me it raises the specter of special interest groups vying with one another under the assumption that everything is a zero sum game where for one tribe to thrive another must necessarily suffer. And maybe in terms of government funding that is a perfectly valid world view.
Privatized savings does not solve the problem of what to do for an individual who fails to save enough. Thet's why "social security" is called SOCIAL security: it's a socialist program. Each contributes according to ability, each receives according to need.
I actually read a right-leaning defense of pensions from the standpoint of inherent human difference once.
The argument was basically this - people vary based upon their ability to save/spend wisely, and this appears to be to a large extent immutable - it's not responsive to financial incentives. Therefore if we establish private tax-free accounts for retirement we're basically rewarding people who don't need a reward - people who would have saved anyway (this has been proven by studies in Denmark) - and punishing those who are naturally financially impaired. Pensions, in contrast, work as a great leveler because asset management is ported over to professionals who know what they are doing, which allows those who are not financially savvy to have an adequate retirement.
That's conflating the goal of forcing people to save for retirement versus providing a social safety net. Plus how is SS socialist? The entire idea is that it's universal, meaning that it is not subject to means testing. I think in a sane system Warren Buffett would get bupkis from SS (and Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, etc.) at the same time that he still has to pay into it.
And for the specific scenario Deroy Murdock described how is SS not regressive?