Wednesday, April 23, 2014

In Our Hands by Charles Murray

Amazon book description of In Our Hands:

"America's population is wealthier than any in history. Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars of that wealth to provide for retirement, health care, and the alleviation of poverty. We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care, and living in poverty. Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectually. The solution is to give the money to the people.


This is the Plan, a radical new approach to social policy that defies any partisan label. Murray suggests eliminating all welfare transfer programs at the federal, state, and local levels and substituting an annual $10,000 cash grant to everyone age twenty-one or older. In Our Hands describes the financial feasibility of the Plan and its effects on retirement, health care, poverty, marriage and family, work, neighborhoods and civil society."


Here is an excerpt from a Gene Expression email Q and A with Murray. The first three questions address the book, and the rest touch on such subjects as Murray's The Bell Curve and "the Larry Summers flap." : 




1. Let's talk first about your latest project. You've stated that In Our Hands is an attempt to strike a compromise between your libertarian ideals and the current socio-political reality. The biggest worry about your plan from a libertarian point of view is that in practice it would create a large constituency who would vote to raise the grant on a regular basis, leaving the fiscal situation largely unchanged or possibly even worse. How does your plan deal with these kinds of public choice objections?


Mancur Olson and other public-choice theorists taught us that sugar farmers can get sugar subsidies because they care passionately about getting their benefit while no other constituency cares enough about preventing them from getting it. Under the Plan, the grant will be the only game in town (every other transfer is gone), and will affect every adult in the country. Every time Congress debates a change in the grant, it will be the biggest political news story in the country, and a very large chunk of the population--and people holding a huge majority of the monetary resources for fighting political battles--will lose money if it's raised. Compare the prospects for jacking up the grant with the certain knowledge we have of the trends in spending under the current system. They have sky-rocketed and will sky-rocket, through classic public choice dynamics. The Plan uses the only strategy I can conceive to get out of the public-choice box.


... 3. It's interesting to consider what kind of downstream social effects your plan might have. For example, it's likely to encourage people to take greater risks (such as starting their own business at a younger age) or to pursue alternative "low remuneration" paths -- academic research, writing, charity work, etc. It would likely remove support for harmful labour regulations like the minimum wage, and one can also think of ways in which this might alter the impact of imigration and illegal labor. How much did you think about these kinds of downstream effects when writing In Our Hands, and what do you think the most significant social impact of the plan would be?


I hadn't thought about the way it would work against labor regulation, but you're right. It would. I did discuss other downstream effects--on families, the underclass, and most broadly on what might be called a climate of virtue. As far as I can see, the downstream, unintended effects of the Plan have a strong tendency to be positive, while the unintended effects of conventional social programs are always negative. Why the difference? Because the Plan taps positive human tendencies that are deeply embedded in human nature as it actually exists--self-interest, the innate desire for approbation, the innate tendency to take responsibility to the extent that circumstances require. They set up extremely positive feedback loops. For example, what happens if I squander my monthly deposit? I have to seek help from relatives, friends, or private social service agencies like the Salvation Army. I'm not going to starve--but I'm going to get that help with a whole lot of encouragement--to put it politely--to get my act together. And it won't be a one-time thing, but a continuous process. Conventional social programs are precisely the opposite. They make assumptions about human nature that are blatantly not true (e.g., bureaucracies are not governed by the self-interest of the people who run them) and the unintended consequences are destructive.


Thoughts?

30 comments:

Unknown said...

Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectually.

I agree. If "the plan" can put K street out of business, that would be a net positive.

Rabel said...

I prefer that my fantasies have impossible aliens and large breasted warrior women rather than impossible public policy proposals.

Unknown said...

The politicians would never cut or stop any program in existence. Never. So this program would layer on top of the madness.

ricpic said...

No disrespect to Charles Murray, a clearly superior human being, but he must understand that so many have so much invested in the State as their instrument for imposing CORRECT LIVING on the rest of us that this plan to hand money to each citizen and then LEAVE HIM ALONE has no chance of being realized.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ridiculous idea.

As April said. It would just be piled up on top of all of the other social engineering/welfare programs. The people who are already pigging out at the trough will squeal like the piggies that they are if their benefits were cut to a mere 10K a year. They are sucking up at least 4 to 5 times that amount now. Do you think they will give up on the gravy train. Hardly likely.

10K a year is a drop in the bucket for someone who wants to start a business.

The only positive I can see is that some people will foolishly use the money on drugs and likely overdose and remove themselves from the gene pool.

Murray has an extremely naive view of human nature if he thinks that this program would tap "positive human tendencies that are deeply embedded in human nature". Methinks he needs to get out a bit more from his cloistered ivory tower.

Lydia said...

Wasn't a guaranteed annual income the end-game for Cloward and Piven?

Lydia said...

DBQ said:
Murray has an extremely naive view of human nature if he thinks that this program would tap 'positive human tendencies that are deeply embedded in human nature'. Methinks he needs to get out a bit more from his cloistered ivory tower.

Yeah, and I guess he's got no deadbeat relatives. Lucky guy.

I'm Full of Soup said...

This is a great idea and we could make the math work.... but what would we do with the 2 million or so social workers and govt drones who would be out of jobs ?

I'm Full of Soup said...

DBQ- I beg to differ - if we could educate the taxpayers and makers that they are all being slowly robbed by the taxeaters, the plan could work.

I said the other day to a co-worker that we could give every 30 year old $100,000 by cutting 50% of fed spending on welfare programs. She happened to be 30 years old herself and, after I said that, she asked why I was not president.

Mark my word- the young workers in this country will revolt against the taxeaters and it will happen sooner rather than later.

deborah said...

April:
"The politicians would never cut or stop any program in existence. Never. So this program would layer on top of the madness."

It's integral to the plan that all transfers of wealth, e.g. Welfare, be halted. But yes, it is really just a mental exercise, as it would never be voted into being.

deborah said...

Lydia:
"Wasn't a guaranteed annual income the end-game for Cloward and Piven?"

I don't know.

deborah said...

AJ:
"Mark my word- the young workers in this country will revolt against the taxeaters and it will happen sooner rather than later."

Oh, I don't know about that. Frog, water, boiling. I think it more likely that many will just create an alternate society where not as many marry or have kids or get other than threshold jobs that will pay the bills, but no more.

Methadras said...

Rabel said...

I prefer that my fantasies have impossible aliens and large breasted warrior women rather than impossible public policy proposals.


Well, if you have a cat piss in your face, then your dreams will come true. :D

Methadras said...

Lydia said...

Wasn't a guaranteed annual income the end-game for Cloward and Piven?


Yes, by totally wanting to collapse the welfare state. At this point, I'd be in favor of it.

Paddy O said...

I'm enjoying this conversation because I don't really know anything about Murray's work, but I teach at the place that cancelled his appearance, so was getting indirect tongue-lashing from Instapundit and conservative Facebook friends.

Rabel said...

Meth,

Been there. Done that.

Rabel said...

Ran into Meade on the journey. He was fucked up as a monkey on mushrooms.

Chip Ahoy said...

Wanna hear something funny?

Okay. I notice on television by way of clicking through, the bald psychiatrist promoted by Oprah who now has his own show.

A mother and her 10 year old daughter. The daughter has been having manicures and pedicures since she was one-year old and she insists of spa treatments continuously. The mother cannot stand the child's nagging and caves. The family is $20,000 in debt due to the child's treatment.

The psychiatrist had to sort it on t.v.

That is what would happen to money given to people incapable of handling it. That and much worse.

Wanna hear another thing that is funny? Unrelated.

Okay, I was just now looking at stats and somebody found my site by query [then i ate it] and got my site #1 on resulst and I cracked up laughing.

ndspinelli said...

If you've ever worked for the govt. it's not difficult to understand. Govt. employees consider it free money and there's an endless surprise. You don't need to produce anything and efficiency is the norm.

bagoh20 said...

Will I get a card at Christmas from my 100 dependents? A visit? Maybe a cold beer and a thank you?

chickelit said...

Decoupling reward from work is a recipe for disaster. That is what this plan sounds like to me on the face of it.

deborah said...

The way I understand it is that everyone over the age of 21 would get $10K/year. The idea is prevent the government from choosing winners and losers in the game of entitlements. What would that actually look like?

There would still be taxation. But the bureaucracies would shrink dramatically. If a person chose not to work, but make the ten grand stretch, is that worse than what we have now? If the person blows the money on booze and ends up in the street, charities and their families would be the fall-back. If they work, or are out of work involuntarily, but have spouse that works, that's ten grand more a year to play around with.

How would the economy shape itself around these new parameters?

"Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars of that wealth to provide for retirement, health care, and the alleviation of poverty. We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care, and living in poverty."

chickelit said...

Deborah, how will this reduce income inequality? If everyone gets the same amount, it will nominally raise everyone's income by the same amount.

Also, $10k may be something that a person in a Red State state could benefit more from than a Blue state. Libs will cry foul!

bagoh20 said...

Everything is fine until someone starts crying, and that $10 grand would delay that sobbing by about 30 days, then it all starts over again with the 10 forgotten. I don't see the 10 grand changing a single argument from the left.

deborah said...

Chick, I don't think the goal is to change income inequality, or did I miss that? Off the top of my head I would guess one goal would be to give it to those who could use it, either to live on yearly or to augment their income or to put into savings or to whatever. Seed money.

In this scenario the Blue/Red distinction would become less problematic as there would be no entitlements with which to reward constituents.

deborah said...

Bago, that's why this is just a mental exercise...it will never be instituted.

Unknown said...

Deborah - I thank you for posting this. It's an interesting idea, and not a terrible idea if implemented correctly. That's the hurdle. Implementation. Our political welfare state is so entrenched and institutionalized (and getting worse), it would be like pulling a zillion weeds on the head of a pin. and then noticing a zillion more pin heads.

ken in tx said...

There have been countries which tried to guarantee all retirees a certain amount. It has always resulted in that amount not being enough to buy anything. If we did this, 10 grand would not buy you a Happy Meal.

deborah said...

Ken, please see my 10:30 post. Just how would the economy reshape itself? I'd like an educated guess from anyone who knows economics, etc.

y/w April :)

deborah said...

Ken, please see my 10:30 post. Just how would the economy reshape itself? I'd like an educated guess from anyone who knows economics, etc.

y/w April :)