Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Dependency theories

Wall Street Journal:

[D]o these Senators really think it's compassionate to give people an additional incentive to stay out of the job market, losing crucial skills and contacts? And how politically smart is it for Democrats to embrace policies that keep the jobless rate higher than it would otherwise be? How many Democrats share Mr. Harkin's apparent desire to defend a jobless rate near 9% (today it is 9.7%) in the fall election campaign.

What capital calls an "incentive not to work" is what is more commonly known as "unemployment insurance." Quite apart from what "these Senators think is compassionate," there is reason to believe that Americans would prefer to have some income when they are unemployed vs. none. Senators are merely hip to this; they have "compassion" for their careers.

This illustrates a fundamental hang-up which conservatives encounter anytime they try to convince people who would otherwise starve that government is the problem. No, fuckface, not having any income is the problem. Everybody knows how bad it is to be "dependent" on their government; but anybody who has ever worked knows full-well how much worse it is to be dependent on their employer.


Ben There said...

Why these people think it's preferable to be pushed around by corporate elites than by government is beyond me. (Well, not really - Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do the thinking for roughly 40% of the population.)

I'm of the mind that it sucks to be pushed around by any outside intstitution but as an individual I sure feel like I have more power to affect change in 'my' government than I do in Exxon, Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs,Aetna, or Monsanto.

Enron said...

In the land of self-made man, if you're not made then it's your fault.