jay

i helped support most of my in-laws as they were young couples. i didn't gripe. figured i married my wife i got the in-laws along with it

ok, i groused a bit when i thought some them were on the dole a bit toooooo long. but never to where my wife and i were clashing in a big way.

Oh no, I'm sure you did. I was just saying that without safety nets people fall back on family more. The lazy have always been with us, way before welfare.

Helps to have a spouse that is different from us in the long run. Hybrid vigor and all that. I have some of those issues myself, though my wife is the type A.

If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

tumescence?

If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

The Duke lacrosse card?

Where do people get this stuff?

If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

Some judge said something idiotic and horrific. Why do I need to "respond"? I didn't say it.

Some judge said something idiotic and horrific. Why do I need to "respond"? I didn't say it.

You know the game. A non-progressive person says something stupid and everybody who is not a progressive is apparently required to disavow the statement.

Now, a progressive person says something stupid? Well, you need to show that all progressives believe it in order to make a fuss. And even then, it doesn't matter, because the non-progressive pointing it out is no doubt a racist anyway.

If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

Lassus, aside from the excellent points made by Ray and Dan in the preceding two comments, can you point to a single time that either Ray or I have even hinted at being soft on crime?

I'm also all for government getting out of the business of helping the wealthy steal from the poor.



Remind me how this works, again?

They take property taxes from the trailer parks of yahoos and use it to build Jeff Loria a stadium. (Or is talking about baseball forbidden in this thread?)

They take property taxes from the trailer parks of yahoos and use it to build Jeff Loria a stadium. (Or is talking about baseball forbidden in this thread?)

Actually, despite the popular narrative, Jeff Loria's stadium was built not with money collected from local Miami taxpayers but mostly with tourist taxes imposed on and collected from (mostly) non-poor "tourists" (a category that includes business travelers and assorted other non-tourist visitors).

I'm generally against public subsidies of ballparks, the Miami stadium deal was horribly structured, and Miami's politicians might be the sleaziest in America, but Loria didn't get money that would have been earmarked for schools or poor people. Under Florida law, tourist taxes have to be spent on projects that are at least ostensibly related to tourism, such as a ballpark or convention center.

Anyway, it's always funny to see how quickly liberals become cost-conscious when a rich person is involved. According to the liberals here:

- 100 weeks of unemployment checks = "stimulus"
- Unlimited "safety net" spending = "stimulus"
- $700 million construction project in a blighted area with high unemployment = not stimulus

It's all so confusing.

It's funny how quickly you assume someone who doesn't parrot your opinions is a liberal, Joe. Construction is an excellent stimulous, but it's still wealth transfer when you take money from the "Poor-relative-to-Jeff-Loria-if-perhaps-of-average-means-rather-than-destitute" people to benefit Loria (of course, there's the problem that typically wealth in is less than wealth out in government projects, so nominally if Loria put in $125 million and the city put in $497 million, and Loria derives ~$500 million in benefits and the city derives ~$500 million in profits, it's difficult to talk about exactly how wealth transfer occurs, since they've both profited. But ... let's assume the audience can use common sense, here).

Lassus, aside from the excellent points made by Ray and Dan in the preceding two comments, can you point to a single time that either Ray or I have even hinted at being soft on crime?

Don't be so purposefully dense. My question wasn't about the sentence, it was about the now oft-repeated view on rape from the conservative legislation and judiciary.

Sure it does -- reindusrialization and protectionism and bringing jobs that match the skills and intelligence of Americans back to America.

That's the only realistic hope.

QFFT, although there is no need for sensible tarriffs, preventing a country with no labour or environmental standards from flooding your market with cheap goods, to be called protectionism. Protectionism is enacting trade policy that punishes a foreign competitor on equal economic footing. China and the west are not even remotely close to being on equal economic footing.

2588. Tripon Posted: December 13, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4324328)


This is kind of funny, because I would wager that 9 of 10 people on this board have more money than me.

So you're admitting that 9 out of 10 people on BTF is smarter than you?

This was hilarious.

Extreme income inequality is a bad thing though, and it is not possible without laws and policies that favour the rich (i.e. the rich (corporations) overtly influencing legislation and policy). Under a just set of laws and policies, the law of diminishing returns is pretty solid evidence to me that you can only get so rich before the extra effort required to make that additional dollar isn't worth it. If any of the Libertarians want to pretend that such influence doesn't exist, or that its OK, I can't stop you.

The happiest, healthiest countries are the ones with the smallest range of income.

Don't be so purposefully dense. My question wasn't about the sentence, it was about the now oft-repeated view on rape from the conservative legislation and judiciary.


It's stupid, absurd, and ridiculous. If you guys would wise up and move closer to the center, people like that would be worthless politically and would be completely marginalized. As the left has become more insistent and nutty, the right has moved in lockstep.

Now, a progressive person says something stupid? Well, you need to show that all progressives believe it in order to make a fuss. And even then, it doesn't matter, because the non-progressive pointing it out is no doubt a racist anyway.

I.e., Andy's classic "Yes, Barry Goldwater opposed parts of the Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons, but a bunch of crackers opposed it for racist reasons, you don't really want to be associated with a bunch of cracker racists, do you? Well, do you????"

from the bill james mailbag:

The Tea Party issue is actually very different than you have represented it. The Tea Party movement was actually a movement of fiscal conservatives. .. .basically a coalition of activists who think that giving the government 40% of your money and asking it to make purchasing decisions on your behalf is stupid and wasteful.

But, in the hurly-burly of real-world politics, social conservatives. . ..people that I really don't agree with AT ALL, although many of them are my friends and relatives. . ..social conservatives glommed onto the Tea Party movement and became a part of it. Democrats, who disliked and distrusted the Tea Party movement as they dislike and distrust Republicans in general, chose to represent the Tea Partiers as social conservatives who were anti-abortion, insenstive to women's issues, insenstive on issues of race and immigration, and generally self-righteous. I would guess. . .not trying to mis-characterize you. . .but I would guess, based on your inaccurate characterization of the Tea Partiers, that you were one of those Democrats.

referencing an earlier back and forth. just to confirm that i was not concocting my perspective out of thin air

The fetish over income inequality smacks of pure jealousy and class envy.

So I think this is actually an important topic. First of all I am going to restate it in less loaed and divisive terms.

"Should a nation/society care about the income distribution within that society, assuming there is a safety net which allows the lowest income rung a reasonable standard of living?"

There are a variety of reasons for caring (I am not saying I believe all of them btw, just throwing them out there):

* Weath and power are largely synonomous. Having power concentrate can be dangerous to a society over time, especially if the power concentration continues over generations. This suggests that cross generational income/wealth mobility (both upwards and downwards) is also important, perhaps moreso than simple static income inequality.

* Economic theory suggests that extreme concentration of wealth leads to speculative bubbles which overall damages the economy.

* History suggests the having a strong and thriving middle class combined with possible income mobility leads to a thriving society.

* If one believes that "random" factors (who your parents are, the genetic lottery, old fashioned luck) play a significant factor in success then a portion of that success is not truly deserved, so there is no moral issue with redistributing a portion of that wealth back to society.

* If one believes that the society at large plays a large part in wealth accumulation (we have seen this expressed upthread in the airport discussion and the Loria ballpark discussion to a degree) then society is "owed" a portion of that wealth.

* From a micro economic & societal maximizing standpoint, if one accepts the diminishing marginal utility of wealth then a society with the wealth distributed more equally will utilize that wealth more effectively than one with more concentrated wealth. In fact diminishing marginal returns suggest than any outsized concentration of resources within a society is to avoided if you want your society to function at its "best".

* One could be a Marxist, Catholic (classic, not recent American version), or any one of a number of belief systems that clearly state as part of their dogma that wealth is undesireable for a variety of moral and philisophical reasons.

* And yes there could be ency and jealousy (which by the way when taken to an extreme can destabilize a society).

All those things could be true. Problem is the lefties act and talk as if the safety net is deserved, as opposed to an unfortunate reality of life.

This is one of the roots of my problems with much of the "IQ discussion", it tends not to lead to any concrete policies (policy changes

Sure it does -- reindusrialization and protectionism and bringing jobs that match the skills and intelligence of Americans back to America.

Thanks for responding. I am not sure I see the full connection, or rather the vast majority of the argument around intelligence is not relevent to your prescription.

You are suggesting (I think, tell me if I am wrong):

1) That countries (the US specifically, because that is the country we are discussing) have citizens with a range of capabilities, and it is in our best interest to arrange our policies so that there are good jobs for the whole range of worker capabilities.

2) The range of capabilities is somewhat fixed. In other words either individuals are what they are and no amount of re-training will help them, or at the very least there will always be a group of individuals unable or unwilling to advance into "modern" (high functioning, whatever term you want to use) jobs, which reinforces #1 above and states you can not train your way out of the box.

3) The primary driver behind the range of capabilities is intelligence which is somewhat driven by forces such as genetics.

4) The best way to provide for the range of careers is reindusrialization and protectionism.

I hope I am at least close. I am breaking the parts out, because I have very different feelings about the sections and I don't want to accept or dismiss the whole thing as a unit.

I agree with #1 and #2. I think they are fairly non-controversial. I think #3 is irrelevent from a policy perspective if you do accept #1 & #2, unless you are going to have intelligence testing and sorting/screening as a policy - which you have not suggested. This is why the intelligence discussion is (I think) kind of a red herring, sound and fury, but from a policy perspective signifying nothing. I disagree with #4, but I admit I am not 100% sure and think we could have a good discussion about #4, so long as we don't get bogged down in IQ wars.

If you guys would wise up and move closer to the center, people like that would be worthless politically and would be completely marginalized.

This logic is faulty.

bitter

regarding 1 and 2 in 2619 i think the primary responsibility is on the individual to adapt. i think it's a pretty ridiculous burden on a society to have to contrive roles that provide tangible compensation no matter the workers abilities. this concept of 'make work' is an exercise in futility

so you can claim these are non-controversial but i think just the opposite. unless you are speaking within liberal circles

because i don't know any of my peers who think like this

not at all

* If one believes that the society at large plays a large part in wealth accumulation (we have seen this expressed upthread in the airport discussion and the Loria ballpark discussion to a degree) then society is "owed" a portion of that wealth.

Well, I would say "wealth production" rather than "wealth accumulation", which is driven partly by some of your previous points (about how a strong middle class drives a strong economy, while concentrating wealth in a few people causes it to stagnate/stall, but it leads to a much different motivation of why it's a good idea. Fundamentally, our organisation into a society makes all of us (collectively, and individually) orders of magnitude wealthier than we would be without it (and this is accelerating in recent times - in a practical sense, I'm functionally wealthier than Julius Ceasar, say, because when I get meningitis I just go get drugs to cure it, rather than keel over dead; when I want to travel to China I just pay a week's wage, rather than it being impossible. When I want food from the other side of the planet, I pick it up at the corner for essentially no money, etc. In relative terms, I'm much poorer, but in absolute terms, I'm mostly wealthier). So realistically, we all owe essentially all of our wealth to society; we're each paying in a nickel to get back a thousand dollars; telling Jeff Loria he has to pay in eight dollars to get his hundred thousand back is proportionately unfair, but still so beneficial I can't take the claim he's being treated unfairly seriously.

Lassus, aside from the excellent points made by Ray and Dan in the preceding two comments, can you point to a single time that either Ray or I have even hinted at being soft on crime?

Libertarians generally favor gun "rights" and therefore are per se soft on crime.

Bitter, I can't speak for SBB but I'd say your four pillars are rigth on (from my perspective). #3 should be expanded though, to include people that not only are not smart enough for the "knowledge economy", but my simply prefer to work with their hands. There are lots of smart people who prefer to put in a good day's labour over sitting at a desk.

EDIT: After reading what Harvey said, I think he might be misinterpreting #1 and #2. I took it, and I assume you meant it that not everyone is suitable for every field of work, not that we should create or maintain very specific menial jobs because people don't want to learn.

All those things could be true. Problem is the lefties act and talk as if the safety net is deserved, as opposed to an unfortunate reality of life.

I try to talk about it as a societal moral imperative. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

And many more. All of these quotes speak to the same idea, how a society functions is the important thing and how the society can be evaluated, not so much who deserves what.

bitter

where you will lose me is when you equate the 'weakest members' (which i consider the infirm, the very young) with 'the poor'.

one can be fully functioning mentally and physically and be poor. and i am not going to waste much time fretting over that

if you are 3 years old and living in squalor, that bothers me

if you are unhinged and wandering the street, that concerns me

if you are 37 years old and have f8cked up your life, that's not my issue

I try to talk about it as a societal moral imperative. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Two sides same coin. The recipients do not deserve it; the payers don't owe it.

regarding 1 and 2 in 2619 i think the primary responsibility is on the individual to adapt. i think it's a pretty ridiculous burden on a society to have to contrive roles that provide tangible compensation no matter the workers abilities. this concept of 'make work' is an exercise in futility

HW, thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear it sounds like the part of #1 you think is controversial is: "it is in our best interest to arrange our policies so that there are good jobs for the whole range of worker capabilities".

And in #2 is: "The range of capabilities is somewhat fixed."

Am I correct? These are fairly complex statements and I want to make sure I am correctly communicating and understanding your response.

Because I don't think I suggested "make work" or "contrived" jobs. What I tried to say was it is in societies best interest for there to be a good (where good is meaningful job that pays well enough to support a family) jobs for all those willing and able to take them. I don't think that part is controversial at all, though of course accomplishing it without make work jobs, huge deadweight costs, reducing incentives to work with super great safety net and so on are tricky perhaps not possible even).

2619 hits it pretty well. I'd add to 2 that people shouldn't be forced to adopt a "modern" work lifestyle, which I interpret as a willingness to uproot and move, leaving behind friends, families, and communities -- and work crazy hours. The guy born in Akron, with family and friends and social clubs in Akron should have a path to keep his nose clean, stay somewhat close to Akron, make a good wage/salary, and have time and weekends available for friends, family, and social clubs.

That used to be a virtually unquestioned social consensus, and it's been shattered and ruined -- to the obvious detriment of the country. The "economy" is there to serve people, not vice versa.

bitter

i don't think they are complex statements, just open to varying interpretations.

i think it's an admirable goal to have jobs for all those willing and able to take them which we reached briefly in the 90's when unemployment is very low.

i just make a distinction (and perhaps this more semantics than anything) between a job and a 'good job'. because i don't think just bieng willing to work means someone has earned a good paying job. being willing is a very basic premise. that means you should be able to get 'a' job. you show up and work diligently

you want a 'good' job takes some additional commitment from the individual.

you want an even better job in terms of compensation that takes even more commitment

you should be able to invest in yourself and see the results

and that is happening. unemployment among folks with significant education is low. and that makes sense to me

now folks with limited education can make good money but then they have to sacrifice by moving to north dakota (energy territory). and that has always been the case.

where you will lose me is when you equate the 'weakest members' (which i consider the infirm, the very young) with 'the poor'.

one can be fully functioning mentally and physically and be poor. and i am not going to waste much time fretting over that

HW - I see what you are saying, but it is more impersonal from my persective. It doesn't matter (to me, from a moral perspective) why someone needs help. Young, disabled, addicted, terminally lazy, really stupid, whatever - I think society should provide a minal standard of living - a safety net - for all of them, complete with incentives and such so that they have a chance of working their way into being a productive member of society.

In some ways I acknowledge it is not fair to have some lazy SOB, who could work but chooses not to, sucking from the public dole. They may not deserve aid. But I am not at all confident in societies ability to pick out those who deserve from those that don't. And honestly I feel more sorry for the lazy SOB, because they are pathetic losers who have to live their life as pathetic losers. Hopefully they will get their act together, but even if not I refuse to lower my society to their level.

I want my society to be better than that. I want my society to treat people better than they deserve rather than worse than they deserve. I want my society to be an example to strive for and for it to be somthing to be proud of, and if that means some pathetic losers are getting more than they deserve that is the price I am wuilling to pay.

It is analogous to protecting the innocent at the price of letting some of the guilty going free. I would rather the guilty go free than the innocent be jailed, just as I would rather let the underserving have some benefits as a price to make sure everyone has a solid safety net - but I totally acknowledge there is no natural law or anythign that says it has to be that way, it is just how I personally feel.

The recipients do not deserve it; the payers don't owe it.

Hopefully above answered this, but if not let me know.

i just make a distinction (and perhaps this more semantics than anything) between a job and a 'good job'. because i don't think just bieng willing to work means someone has earned a good paying job. being willing is a very basic premise. that means you should be able to get 'a' job. you show up and work diligently

That is fair and I think you are right, we are a bit closer than I thought - which may invalidate (render moot) much of 2628.

2629

no, it has not always been the case. folks moved out to the prairie to stake their claim. folks moved to california to look for gold. folks in the south moved north to get factory jobs in the mid 20th century. folks flocked silcon valley in the 90's

the notion that you had a 'right' to live and die in the same place and get a good paying job along the way does not exist nor has it existed. it's a happy confluence of events working in the individual's favor. nothing that is a 'right'

Now, a progressive person says something stupid? Well, you need to show that all progressives believe it in order to make a fuss. And even then, it doesn't matter, because the non-progressive pointing it out is no doubt a racist anyway.

I.e., Andy's classic "Yes, Barry Goldwater opposed parts of the Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons, but a bunch of crackers opposed it for racist reasons, you don't really want to be associated with a bunch of cracker racists, do you? Well, do you????"

That would at least be coherent if I'd ever even hinted to you or anyone else here that they were either racist or sympathetic to racism. Perhaps you can provide us with a few quotes that I actually wrote, rather than quotes you wish I had said.

But as to the primary makeup of CRA opposition: I'm sorry that the simple facts of history seem to disturb you, but the truth is that Barry Goldwater most certainly was an anomaly among CRA opponents in his history of non-racism, and only someone completely ignorant of American history would ever claim otherwise. Take a look at the congressional roll call when that bill was passed, check out the names, and try to argue otherwise with a straight face.

Here's a starting hint: James O. Eastland and Strom Thurmond were not libertarians.

After reading what Harvey said, I think he might be misinterpreting #1 and #2. I took it, and I assume you meant it that not everyone is suitable for every field of work, not that we should create or maintain very specific menial jobs because people don't want to learn.

Correct, that is what I meant (was trying to say).

no, it has not always been the case. folks moved out to the prairie to stake their claim. folks moved to california to look for gold. folks in the south moved north to get factory jobs in the mid 20th century. folks flocked silcon valley in the 90's

If they wanted to. Today it's forced, because jobs and industries abandon communities. A bunch of Michiganders have "staked their claims" in places like Texas, but out of economic necessity.

I wouldn't refer to the path I outlined as a "right."

But as to the primary makeup of CRA opposition: I'm sorry that the simple facts of history seem to disturb you, but the truth is that Barry Goldwater most certainly was an anomaly among CRA opponents in his history of non-racism, and only someone completely ignorant of American history would ever claim otherwise. Take a look at the congressional roll call when that bill was passed, check out the names, and try to argue otherwise with a straight face.

Here's a starting hint: James O. Eastland and Strom Thurmond were not libertarians.


The fact that some cracker racists didn't support the CRA is irrelevant to the libertarian critique of the CRA. Yet, you always bring up the cracker racists when the libertarian critique is presented. Why?

post 2636

some because they wanted to. others moved out of religious persecution. some moved to flee debt. folks in the south moved because they were being oppressed socially, economically and politically.

that is all forms of 'force'

i think it's irrational behavior to expect a government to get you a good paying job in a part of the country that has been abandoned by market forces

it stinks. it's tough. but that is called 'life'

something else that people can do is work to reinvent their cities. that has happened time and again this country. it takes time and commitment but folks make it happen. and then jobs return.

it's the ebb and flow of a society

the 'safety net' folks like to discuss creates a false market that delays progress and stymies soceital evolution

you need some level of destruction for growth.

it stinks. it's tough. but that is called 'life'

And "life" has led to a nation of rootless strugglers, receding communities, decaying civil society, and national decline. That can and should be reversed.

Look, you guys talking about how there's a need for silly protectionism and stuffs. That's just nonsense. There's a need for full employment (meaning unemployment close to 5%, with a LFPR consistent with the age of the population). When the unemployment market is consistently slack, it kills workers negotiating ability and distorts corporate profits. When there is limited unemployment, workers have more negotiating power, businesses employ different strategies to increase productivity, and the whole of society benefits.

***

re: Harveys quoting Bill James on the Tea Party:
Was the debt ceiling crap the "fiscal conservatives"? Because that wasn't the act of fiscal conservatives. That was the act of stupid nihilists. People like to claim that they're fiscally conservative, but they don't seem to engage with the actual budget. There are three things that matter in the budget: healthcare for poor people, healthcare for old people, and defense. Everything else doesn't really matter. Also, Bill talking about how the federal gubmint takes 40% of your income should disqualify his point.

Anyway, it's always funny to see how quickly liberals become cost-conscious when a rich person is involved.

Liberals are normally just cost-conscious in general. In Democrat administrations, everything goes to PAYGO. In Republican administrations, everything is argued from principles. I don't know why Liberals are so cost-conscious. This is one of those weird things, like R's having a presumption of competence in national defense. It's a legacy from history, I suppose. Yglesias had a very Slate-y blog post about it yesterday.

2640

bah, that's a very negative and flawed view of the country

why is the old guy the one who is the most positive and so many here so cynical?

it astounds me that i am more bullish than folks less than half my age

There's a need for full employment (meaning unemployment close to 5%, with a LFPR consistent with the age of the population).

This is akin to Bill James's description of Chuck Tanner, and current national economic policy is akin to batting Omar Moreno leadoff in 1985.

Speaking of attitudes toward work and career, I watched Jiro Dreams of Sushi last night. A remarkable, fascinating portrait of possibly the most dedicated, diligent worker the world has ever known.

it astounds me that i am more bullish than folks less than half my age

I'm unfortunately more than half your age, so I'm old enough to realize that the Fed giving away money for at least seven years (2008 until at least 2015) in the hopes of getting unemployment down to 6.5% isn't symptomatic of just another business cycle we can Chuck Tanner our way out of.

i think it's irrational behavior to expect a government to get you a good paying job in a part of the country that has been abandoned by market forces

I'd submit that there aren't enough "good paying" jobs in any part of this country to maintain the class structure we're accustomed to. Only so many jobs in North Dakota or Texas or Iowa, and only a portion of those are better than a bog-standard service job in the local mall.

If they wanted to. Today it's forced, because jobs and industries abandon communities. A bunch of Michiganders have "staked their claims" in places like Texas, but out of economic necessity.

Hasn't mobility always been a key factor in people's economic lives? What is the centuries-long shift from rural to urban nations if not the product of economic realities forcing themselves upon people?

EDIT: Or for that matter the waves of immigration that made North America.

why is the old guy the one who is the most positive and so many here so cynical?

The job market was so much better forty years ago than it is now. People who first got jobs in the fifties, sixties, or seventies have no idea that getting a job - any job - could possibly be hard. They have some idea that getting a good job is a bit of work, but they've never applied to fifty jobs they're well qualified for and not heard back from any of them.

Look, you guys talking about how there's a need for silly protectionism and stuffs. That's just nonsense. There's a need for full employment (meaning unemployment close to 5%, with a LFPR consistent with the age of the population). When the unemployment market is consistently slack, it kills workers negotiating ability and distorts corporate profits. When there is limited unemployment, workers have more negotiating power, businesses employ different strategies to increase productivity, and the whole of society benefits.

So, t, how do we bring employment (and not just any old job - jobs that replace the income lost when all the manufacturing jobs left that are never coming back without some form of tarriffs ) levels back down. Service economies do not generate wealth, so that's not the answer.

it's the ebb and flow of a society

the 'safety net' folks like to discuss creates a false market that delays progress and stymies soceital evolution

you need some level of destruction for growth.

HW - No surprise but I agree with much of what you are saying. There is a definite cost to having a safety net. I think the economic benefits (counter-cyclical spending as one) and the moral imperative are worth delaying the inevitable change, but yueah destructive change is critical.

I could also argue that having a safety net enables folks to take risks (I am more likely to try to walk the tight rope with a net below me) which is one of the fuels of creative destruction.

And hey I think I am an optimist. I am 47, so I supect I am more than half your age though.