By that logic, you cannot have a welfare state without mandatory sterilization of the poor. Most will recoil in horror at this, and yet, the harm done by closed border is far greater (people are literally dying while eating dirt because they were born in the wrong country).
But that's beside the point since I was specifically addressing highly skilled immigration.
It's a major problem for Scandinavian countries right now, if you read the local news, its a big problem that many immigrants have a higher and satisfactory conditions of living on welfare compared to where they were from. They have little incentive to work when they are provided what they consider a high standard of living with no effort. It's caused quite a bit of backlash and "racism" in their otherwise progressive countries.
So no, sterilization isn't really an issue because what is considered high standards for living by the second generation go up, but for those based on the old standard, they end up leeching off the system where there is an unspoken social contract for natives that you contribute or always try to do better than the bare minimum and improve one's self. You can't assume that cultural value is instilled in immigrants from other countries, especially when the society has an honor system more or less based on that principal.
basic income, basic income, basic income. In the US there are a lot of cliffs in the support system. make over 10k? ok, you get nothing for support. This creates a terrible effect where people are unwilling to even try.
I think the key is picking a bare minimum standard, and any work beyond that is better. People need the incentive. Maybe it's just to buy booze, who cares? Working 5 hours a week must be better than actively avoiding work.
(perhaps not basic income, but that captures the idea of incentive to work while providing a worst-case floor for people. Perhaps the Scandinavian floor is unsustainably high.)
The non-workers still contribute to the economy with rent, food, bills, they're just horribly inefficient. Furthermore, 1 J.K. Rowling offsets a whole lot of people who actively avoid contributing. The possibility to live in poverty and create art has some pretty profound cultural effects.
I'll support my taxes being raised to pay for more wage subsidy for the working poor.
I won't support my taxes going up in order to let people stay home and not work. I wouldn't even pay for that for my own kids, I'm surely not going to do it for some stranger's kids.
There will always be lazy fucks who try to game the system. It's important to structure the system to ensure they're worse off than anyone else. Really, i think those people are very rare. If mom lets you live in the basement so you can masterbate and play video games all day, ok. but that's on mom, not us.
There are three cases that are far far more common, i'd guess 2-3 orders of magnitude. First, the person having a bad time. We've all worked with the guy who got cancer, or is going through a bad divorce, who just becomes worthless at work. Not everyone gets that bad, but some people can't keep it together. Those folks just need some time. In a year or two they'll get back on their feet and be amazing productive members of society.
Two, the crazy homeless guy. Part of that is not really being capable of asking for the help they need. I'm not sure what fraction are (i hate to say it this way, but there it is) fixable. I do know that getting drunk, passing out when it's 10 below, and going to the hospital consumes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Third, it's not true of everyone, but there are certainly people that just can't work. Hellen Keller, perhaps some disabled veterans. Maybe someday, but there's no hope today.
A zero tolerance policy might be best. I'd say, we're better off as a civilization recovering as many people as we can, and just suck up the fraud caused by the handful of losers. I don't know how to avoid that, but i agree with you, fuck that guy.
If a welfare system only works because people are culturally indoctrinated/shamed away from using it, then it's broken by design. Sure, it would be nice to have a culture in which people are disinclined to be supported by charity unless they absolutely need it (though that kind of shaming can also push people to avoid it even when they do need it). But at the same time, if that cultural disinclination is the only control on the welfare system, it's broken. The goal of any welfare system should be to prevent people from suffering or dying because something went horribly wrong; it's an insurance mechanism. Nobody should die just because they fell on a string of bad luck or circumstances; on the other hand, why should welfare support someone with piles of opportunities available but no inclination to pursue them?
That's how a functioning society works, you're shamed away from unnecessarily doing lots of things that create a burden on others. Littering for example. It creates a burden on society to clean up after others.
There isn't shame in using welfare as a safety net, its there to catch you from following in to absolute destitution from which there is no climbing out of in many cases. There is shame or stigma with staying on it and not finding work, or not retraining to find work. Their is shame in unnecessary long term dependency of an able bodied person being on it. There is shame if everyone just up and decided everything I want is already being paid for, why should I bother. That's abuse, by doing so, you take away from others who truly need welfare to survive and aren't capable of finding work or disabled, you take money from other areas that need it like healthcare, parental leave, education, etc. That's finding a candy jar of free candy and just dumping all the candy in your pocket.
There is no welfare system in existence, theoretical or otherwise that could sustain a disproportionally large number of people dependent on it by active choice, where there is more being taken out then being paid into it. There isn't a socialist democracy that can function that way.
Other than the fact that littering is typically a legal offense (albeit an extremely minor one, as it should be), I think you're saying exactly the same thing.
A safety net is exactly what a welfare or other charity system should be. I'm simply suggesting that ensuring it's no more than a safety net should be backed up by more than just shame.
To be clear, the reason to not do something wrong shouldn't just be "because I'll get in legal trouble if I do"; laws should reflect morality. But that needs to be around as a backup for the sadly large number of people who will only pay attention to that and nothing less. Some people avoid littering because it's wrong and disrepectful to others; others avoid littering because it's illegal and will cost them a fine. Some people avoid drinking and driving because it could hurt or kill people; others only avoid it because it's illegal. Some people turn down charity because they actively want to be self-sufficient and contribute something; others will only do so if it is limited to need.
> There is no welfare system in existence, theoretical or otherwise that could sustain a disproportionally large number of people dependent on it by active choice, where there is more being taken out then being paid into it. There isn't a socialist democracy that can function that way.
Agreed completely. There isn't any governmental or societal system that can function that way.
you take money from other areas that need it like healthcare, parental leave, education, etc.
That's a truism. Investing money in one sector necessarily means it doesn't go to another. All that money spent on education is one that isn't going to space research, but most people would find that sort of statement abhorrent.
The children of people on welfare are still more likely to end up on welfare. So why is not OK to let an immigrant in on the ground that he is likely to end up on welfare?
The federal budget comes primarily from personal and corporate income tax. Sure, there's a little bit from other sources like excise taxes, but those are a drop in the bucket.
Open borders means the US should make it trivial to get a tax id and work. Fundamentally, that's what people want to do anyway, work. Some people may get small handouts for food, or perhaps more expensive handouts for healthcare. The dominating factor by far is the infrastructure. good roads, reliable power, access to good food and clean water, contract enforcement. That stuff costs way way more than a $50 food stamp.
You'd be hard pressed to find an economist that thinks adding more people to the market makes the market worse. I understand the concerns about open borders, but making things so fabulously difficult is just blindingly stupid. If people want to come and work, it's literally better for everyone.
You seem to have a pretty good head for economics. Let me point you to my other comment in this thread for some more info on this important topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9769632
I suspect you'll find that scrotal swelling, albumin in your urine, and being coerced in to medical procedures tends to decrease people's acceptance of tax-funded public assistance.
"Poor" isn't an intrinsic human attribute, it's a bad thing that happens to people. Forcing someone who's paid taxes for 20 years to undergo a forced medical procedure in order to benefit from the programs they helped directly fund is insane.
But that's beside the point since I was specifically addressing highly skilled immigration.