What must be shall be: the end of the social safety net
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the United States’ general disdain for the social welfare systems of Europe and Canada, which we Americans view as bureaucratic and stultifying. And there are serious trade-offs involved with maintaining a substantial safety net, as any economist will tell you. Still, I’ve been shocked to realize that some commentators now go far beyond simply itemizing the costs and benefits of different government programs. For example, John Tierney argues in a New York Times column that the fact that Americans are living longer, and hence living longer past the standard retirement age, is a serious problem. He doesn’t mention some of the economic problems caused by this trend (e.g., the threat to social security’s solvency), but instead argues that work itself is virtuous, in part because it helps us stay competitive in a globalized world, but in larger part because it keeps us from being slothful and lazy. This general attitude is now pervasive among economic commentators, from Thomas Friedman to the entire editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. What is shocking to me is not the admiration of work for what it can bring- material wealth, mental stability, national power- but for itself. Work becomes a quasi-religious duty one must give to the almighty market. Various religions, including many Protestant sects, have viewed work in a similar divine sense, but they believed in a rather clear (if delayed) reward for work in the afterlife. These commentators don’t really care if there’s a reward for work- it should be done because it must be done. And as Vaclav Havel once noted, a system that was once viewed as serving man is now viewed as being served by man.
The problem for free market disciples of this creed is that most people don’t view work that way. Work is often something to be done painfully, grudgingly, while free-time to just relax is a wonderful and coveted thing. Now, it may well be true that certain aspects of developed countries’ working habits are not economically competitive in a globalized world (e.g., 35 hour work weeks), but that doesn’t make those aspects in and of themselves bad, however much Mr. Tierney might want it to. In fact, Mr. Tierney takes the argument even further, and argues that someone retiring early from one job to work in a new job they find more exciting or personally rewarding is being lazy. That certainly shouldn’t be criticized, if work is such a laudable thing in and of itself! On closer inspection, however, these commentators seem to be arguing that only a particular type of work is virtuous: that of a person trying to maximize their personal income. Picture for a moment the ideal world that would obtain under this vision: everyone would work 60+ hours a week, with minimal health insurance and vacation time, and a retirement age of perhaps 80. I’m sure that world is more economically competitive, but who would actually want to live in it?
