It seems to me that we HAVE accepted that on the social level and so are paying that growing percentage of the population so that it doesn’t starve (or turn to crime, etc.).
I think we’re disagreeing about the use of ‘accepted’ rather than the facts: I mean that the media consensus is not that we have ‘surplus population’ who should be paid to not starve or cause too much trouble, but that we have a growing number of people with disabilities, and that the labeling as ‘disabled’ is a significant portion of why the voting public is willing to spend taxpayer money on them. I understand you to use ‘accepted’ to mean that SSI is still funded and protected by public opinion against significant cuts.
I think there is some definition fuzziness here. We started with “percentage of the population … not able to contribute productive work”, this mutated into “surplus population” which is not the same as “people with disabilities”?
A resonable (economic) definition of “disabled” is “not able to contribute productive work”...
Do you have in mind what Tyler Cowen calls ZMP (zero marginal productivity) workers?
A resonable (economic) definition of “disabled” is “not able to contribute productive work”...
Agreed, but my impression is that SSI is targeted at medical disabilities- “I used to be a manual laborer but I now have persistent back pain” instead of “I used to be a manual laborer but now I’m structurally unemployed.” The system as is encourages the medicalization of economic issues- and in particular of exaggerating the medical impact of issues rather than ameliorating them.
SSI is targeted at medical disabilities- “I used to be a manual laborer but I now have persistent back pain” instead of “I used to be a manual laborer but now I’m structurally unemployed.”
Right, because the former means unable to work, while the latter usually means “can’t find a job that I like enough”.
The system as is encourages the medicalization of economic issues- and in particular of exaggerating the medical impact of issues rather than ameliorating them.
I agree. I have no particular wish to defend SSI or the way it’s run—my point was basically that “we should not subsidize failure” cannot be taken as an overriding principle. It is one of many considerations: sometimes it governs and sometimes it steps back.
I agree. I have no particular wish to defend SSI or the way it’s run—my point was basically that “we should not subsidize failure” cannot be taken as an overriding principle. It is one of many considerations: sometimes it governs and sometimes it steps back.
It still (mostly) follows the principle that we should not subsidize deliberately choosing to fail, as medical disabilities are generally assumed not to be voluntarily self-inflicted.
I think we’re disagreeing about the use of ‘accepted’ rather than the facts: I mean that the media consensus is not that we have ‘surplus population’ who should be paid to not starve or cause too much trouble, but that we have a growing number of people with disabilities, and that the labeling as ‘disabled’ is a significant portion of why the voting public is willing to spend taxpayer money on them. I understand you to use ‘accepted’ to mean that SSI is still funded and protected by public opinion against significant cuts.
I think there is some definition fuzziness here. We started with “percentage of the population … not able to contribute productive work”, this mutated into “surplus population” which is not the same as “people with disabilities”?
A resonable (economic) definition of “disabled” is “not able to contribute productive work”...
Do you have in mind what Tyler Cowen calls ZMP (zero marginal productivity) workers?
Agreed, but my impression is that SSI is targeted at medical disabilities- “I used to be a manual laborer but I now have persistent back pain” instead of “I used to be a manual laborer but now I’m structurally unemployed.” The system as is encourages the medicalization of economic issues- and in particular of exaggerating the medical impact of issues rather than ameliorating them.
Right, because the former means unable to work, while the latter usually means “can’t find a job that I like enough”.
I agree. I have no particular wish to defend SSI or the way it’s run—my point was basically that “we should not subsidize failure” cannot be taken as an overriding principle. It is one of many considerations: sometimes it governs and sometimes it steps back.
It still (mostly) follows the principle that we should not subsidize deliberately choosing to fail, as medical disabilities are generally assumed not to be voluntarily self-inflicted.