
Why Do People Who Need Help from the Government Hate It So Much? - helloworld
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/books/review/strangers-in-their-own-land-arlie-russell-hochschild.html
======
leurfete
I come from the heart of tea-party country. My impression is that people
believe government handouts destroy any illusion that one might have of self-
sufficiency and instill a sense of helplessness. There could be some merit to
this idea. [1]

It's one reason I'm skeptical of basic income. Burying money and putting
people to work "mining" it, as Keynes once suggested, might even be a better
alternative. [2] :]

1.)
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2202/1944-2858.1158/ab...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2202/1944-2858.1158/abstract)

2.) [http://quotes.liberty-
tree.ca/quote/john_maynard_keynes_quot...](http://quotes.liberty-
tree.ca/quote/john_maynard_keynes_quote_657c)

~~~
taneq
I thought one of the major benefits of UBI was that, because it's _universal_
, there's less stigma attached? If you're either "working" or "on the dole"
then the latter makes you feel pretty useless. If everyone gets UBI then
looking forward to yours is legitimized. It'd become no different to a tax
return.

~~~
hodgesrm
UBI does not solve the basic problem that a good percentage of one's sense of
personal worth is tied up in work. Giving people a check is not the same as
giving them something meaningful to do with their life.

Personally I find it hard to support UBI on any large scale without more
understanding of the unintended side effects.

~~~
vikeri
What if it’s not payed work but meaningful activities that leads to self
worth. Many activities may not be generating direct economic value but may
still contribute to society. Different types of environmental or community
work are examples of that category.

------
dkarapetyan
_“‘Let me give you a lesson in practical politics.’ Senator Burt looked at his
wristwatch, leaned back and smiled. ‘It is a mistake,’ he said, ‘to suppose
that the public wants the environment protected or their lives saved and that
they will be grateful to any idealist who will fight for such ends. What the
public wants is their own individual comfort.

‘Now then, young man, don’t ask me to stop the Pumping. The economy and
comfort of the entire planet depend on it. Tell me, instead, how to keep the
Pumping from exploding the Sun.’

Lamont said, ‘There is no way, Senator. We are dealing with something here
that is so basic, we can’t play with it. We must stop it.’

‘Ah, and you suggest only that we go back to matters as they were before
Pumping.’

‘We must.’

‘In that case, you will need hard and fast proof you are right.’

‘The best proof,’ Lamont said stiffly, ‘is to have the Sun explode.'”_

There is always a tension between short term gains and long term planning. I
think history, economics, psychology, behavioral economics all pretty much
agree that most people are terrible at long term planning and they will
consistently sacrifice long term gains for short term gains in exchange for a
much worse future for all involved.

I'm not as optimistic as the author of that book. I don't think there is a way
to crack this nut and get long term thinking to be the norm. When even people
who have cancer because of the kind of environment they live in are voting to
weaken the power of the EPA what hope is there?

~~~
bostik
I recognise that excerpt. _The Gods Themselves_ , by Asimov.

Of his works that I've read, "optimistic" is not the word I would associate
with this particular book. It is cynical from the outset, with even the
prologue making a point that scientific progress is mostly achieved out of
spite.

As for the solution to the problem in the book ... IIRC it happens mostly by
accident. The underlying tone in the story is that despite the importance of
scientific advances, the driving force is always that of a personal vendetta.
After all, in the story Lamont spends his career seeking revenge, trying to
find a way to shoot the messenger of the uninformed and dangerous view.

Optimistic? I prefer jaded.

EDIT: originally I remembered it was a Heinlein book. Changed to Asimov.

------
gok
The leading assumption of this book review (and many articles like it) is that
it's hypocritical for poor people to both accept government assistance and be
in favor of reducing it in general.

What a crock of shit.

Notice we never see headlines asking…

\- Why Do Tech Workers Who Need Software Patents Hate Them So Much?

\- Why Do Billionaires Who Need Tax Breaks Hate Them So Much?

\- Why Do Tenants Who Need Rent Control Hate It So Much?

…because it goes without saying that _those_ people are smart enough to vote
outside of their short term economic interest. Anyone accepting a food stamp,
though, how dare they vote for anything except more food stamps!?

I consider myself pretty progressive, but come on. How would you feel about
being told you "need" any law which happens to benefit your bottom line and
being treated like an idiot for opposing it?

~~~
someguydave
Your point is well taken. But how can the state redistribute wealth to the
needy without paternalism?

~~~
ivcha
This is arguably one of the main points of UBI, which should, by construction,
solve paternalism. One of the main points is changing people's view on income.

------
gorpomon
I was listening to Dan Savage today, and he mentioned that the racism of Trump
is nothing new, we did it with Catholics, Irish, Chinese, Italians, it seems
most every nationality got it's brief turn as the "other". His point was that
the right will eventually look back with shame on this moment too, when they
demonized Mexicans and innocent refugees from Syria.

His point reinforced sort of the opposite in me, something else that I have
been feeling for a long time: we need to understand that many people, now and
in the future will have significant problems with immigration. Whether it's
right, wrong or just illogical, we on the left do ourselves no favor by
writing off their feelings as racism and not at least attempting to address
them. Furthermore, this is a democracy, where they should have their viewpoint
at least somewhat addressed, they certainly have the numbers to warrant it. It
doesn't mean we buckle to racism, but it means we accept that wariness and
fear of immigration is something that has existed in this world for a long
time, and these sentiments are tied to real feelings people have to feel
secure.

True, the real solutions to these insecurities are based on education and
economic growth, not limiting immigration, but perhaps it's time we on the
left said loudly "We hear you, and we understand."

~~~
xupybd
One problem people seem to skip over is that the current state of immigration
is broken. Regardless of the number of immigrants you think should be allowed
in, none of those should be illegal. The presence of illegal immigrants hurts
everyone, especially those who have no legal status. They are removed from
normal legal protections, this needs to be fixed. You can not have a large
part of the population in such an exploitable position. Some people who agree
with what Trump is say are swayed by this side of the argument and it's valid.

~~~
snowwrestler
> Regardless of the number of immigrants you think should be allowed in, none
> of those should be illegal.

The obvious technical solution is to greatly increase the number of legal
immigration slots--boom, problem solved, everyone now has legal status.

Unfortunately this solution would not change the conversation. Why? Because
most anti-immigration folks are not concerned about protecting immigrants from
exploitation, they are concerned about Mexicans and Muslims. A bunch of legal
Mexicans moving into their town is no better to them than a bunch of illegal
Mexicans.

In fact they _prefer_ to keep the system the broken way it is now, because it
gives them a "rule of law" fig leaf to place over their racism.

~~~
someguydave
It's good that casting aspersions on large groups of strangers is limited only
to most anti-immigration folks.

------
mullen
Look, these people have missed out. No one cheated them, they are stuck in a
time that says if you are white and not a complete idiot, you can get a
factory job and make a good living. But those days are over and being white is
no longer the only requirement to living a good life. They look around and no
longer see a world where they are naturally at the top and they start to blame
others.

~~~
hackits
Bit on the racist side there mullen.

~~~
vacri
It's a rephrase of the content in the article.

------
dotcoma
Before even reading the article (Hey, I'm a real blogger!): Perhaps because
they (rightly or not) feel they have been pushed to the borders of society and
rendered unable to provide for themselves and their families by government
policies, such as for example free trade agreements that have destroyed
factory jobs (for example in the Rust Belt in the US and in areas of the UK
that voted in favour of Brexit). How did I do?

~~~
vacri
If there was no government, there'd be nothing to assign protective tariffs in
the first place, and the market would be even 'freer'. As it stands the
government still limits transactions to some extent (eg: embargos on hostile
nations)

(of course, if there were no government, there wouldn't even be global trade
in the first place, but I'm just talking about trade deals here)

~~~
stretchwithme
people traded before governments and international borders existed. But, yes,
certainly harder to have property without governments protecting property
rights.

~~~
vacri
Yes, they did. But long trade routes were expensive, and there was nothing
like the current globalisation of labour. People making cheap garments in
China weren't undercutting the European makers of clothes, for example.

------
rdtsc
There is soup of things there, but at the very bottom is really the fact that
those in power always manipulate those are not to fight amongst themselves so
they don't interfere with the dealings upstairs. For example people are told
to the hate mythical welfare single mom queen, because she is going to drive
up in her Lexus and steal all the benefits.

Not to say that there aren't real issues, there are, but they are mixed in
with racial rhetoric, hate for other groups, corporatist agenda and a heavy
sprinkling of American Civil Religion and you get "Take your government out of
my Medicare!" craziness.

Sometimes I like to imagine ridiculous scenarios -- in this case I imagine
that Tea party is supported and funded by ultra-liberals, because crazies like
birthers and so on are really effective at demolishing the conservative agenda
by making them look insane and unstable by association.

To be fair, I also like to imagine that say some liberals are hidden ultra-
conservatives and so they promote a steady stream of refugees to Western
Europe. And there is no better way to turn people to nationalism and
conservatism today that than.

So in my imaginary scenario each side is actually a false flag operation for
the other side.

------
vacri
How about: In the US where there are effectively only two parties, people
don't feel like the choices on offer suit their desires? 310M people and only
two parties for general elections?

After all, the 'liberal' party in the US would be considered 'far
conservative, but not extreme' in other western democracies. Not a lot of
choice there.

~~~
evgen
If you think there are only two parties then your observational skills are
lacking. There are multiple factions within the parties that are
ascendant/declining due to support on specific issues and the candidates of
these factions compete among each other for the party nomination at all levels
of government. This is why third-parties in the US are only found at the
extremes and tend to burn-out quickly, the factions and interest groups which
have a nominal chance of actually governing are within one of the two major
parties. Free-trade proponents in the Republican party get trade deals done,
Libertarian party voters whine from the sidelines. Environmentalists within
the Democratic party pass pollution control laws, Green party voters speak
earnestly to each other about how more should be done.

~~~
vacri
Oh, cool! So, how do I vote for a green-faction president?

How do I vote for a federal republican faction that won't bloc-vote to
strangle legislation? You know, for those conservatives out there who want
actual conservative governance, not fearmongering?

~~~
evgen
You vote for the one closest to your views in the primaries. They didn't win
you say? Too bad. Your faction is too small to actually win all the marbles.
OTOH, you can work at the legislative level where a smaller, dedicated
interest group can actually get someone elected. It does not have the ego
stroking that comes with top of the ticket wins, but it actually does manage
to accomplish something and while you may be forced to compromise your
principles and actually work with other people who do not share your views
once elected it is better to be on the inside than on the outside complaining.

------
saosebastiao
The most cynical government haters I know fall into two categories: they
either receive handouts from the government, or they receive paychecks via the
government. It turns out that in order to benefit from the government, you
have to deal with it a lot. We should learn to accept that they can see
problems with something that they ultimately benefit from. And such critics
might actually offer some very important criticism that tends to go unheard
because we're too busy making fun of their "stupidity".

~~~
matt_wulfeck
This makes sense. Going to the DMV makes me strongly want to privatize the
entire operation.

~~~
evgen
And then dealing with a large private entity that has a major public-facing
requirement like Comcast makes you want to nationalize the entire operation
again. Round and round we go...

~~~
someguydave
Umm, a company like Costco has a large public facing requirement and is great.
You do realize that Comcast has been effectively been granted government
status through its various federal and state grants of monopoly over cable
infrastructure?

~~~
evgen
Costco gets to pick and choose who its customers are, Comcast and others
really do not have that option. Neither does the government. There is a big
difference.

~~~
someguydave
Comcast can ban your account and refuse to do business with you.

------
SaasDeveloper1
The answer is pretty simple. Most tea party members as well as most
libertarians simply want the federal govt. to do what it was designed to do;
no more and no less. They understand what happens when it gets too big and too
powerful. It's what our Founders understood and the reason we have state
legislatures and municipal govts..

------
helthanatos
I'm writing a paper about optimal government reach. Any tips?

~~~
withdavidli
you need to define optimal. does it result in highest gdp relative to <x>,
highest gdp growth relative to <x>, happiest citizenship, lowest incarceration
rate, highest incarceration rate, lowest recidivism rate of criminals, best
education, least amount of divorce, etc.

good luck on the paper. things are simple on an individual level and complex
when looked at as a whole (think economics / behavior / incentives).

~~~
visarga
Such an interesting topic to meditate on. It is at the same time deeply
pragmatic and philosophical. In order to find the most important criteria, we
have to know what is the purpose of life.

