Paul Krugman- The Insecurity Election

[n2doc]

...I wanted to share some thoughts provoked by Ross Douthat’s column today, which makes a very good point — namely, that the winning Obama coalition did not for the most part consist of forward-looking, NPR-listening, culturally adventurous liberals; instead, the big numbers came from groups “unified by economic fear”. Indeed: single women, Hispanics, and, as always, African-Americans are for a stronger welfare state because people like them need the security such a welfare state can provide.

Where I would part ways with Ross is in his suggestions that (a) rising insecurity reflects “social disintegration” and that (b) turning to the welfare state is a dead end.

The truth is that while single women and members of minority groups are more insecure at any given point of time than married whites, insecurity is on the rise for everyone, driven by changes in the economy. Our industrial structure is probably less stable than it was — you can’t count on today’s big corporations to survive, let alone retain their dominance, over the course of a working lifetime. And the traditional accoutrements of a good job — a defined-benefit pension plan, a good health-care plan — have been going away across the board.

Every time you read someone extolling the dynamism of the modern economy, the virtues of risk-taking, declaring that everyone has to expect to have multiple jobs in his or her life and that you can never stop learning, etc,, etc., bear in mind that this is a portrait of an economy with no stability, no guarantees that hard work will provide a consistent living, and a constant possibility of being thrown aside simply because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

...

So here’s the question: isn’t this exactly the kind of economy that should have a strong welfare state? Isn’t it much better to have guaranteed health care and a basic pension from Social Security rather than simply hanker for the corporate safety net that no longer exists? Might one not even argue that a bit of basic economic security would make our dynamic economy work better, by reducing the fear factor?


more

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/the-insecurity-election/

[JHB]

1. If you want everyone to juggle knives, you have to have plenty of band-aids and EMTs available...

...(not to mention universal health care) or your theory just goes against human nature.

If you want to encourage more people to take risks, you have to mitigate the effects of those risks or it just won't happen on the scale you're after. This shouldn't be controversial: it's the rationale behind limited liability for corporations.

...or, you can push back against the knife-juggling philosophy at a higher level.