One problem with the American system is that if you lose your job and are without an income, that’s not just bad for you but for the economy. Our system has more security. And I think it makes our quality of life better. My American friends say they live in the best country in the world, and in a lot of ways they are right. But they always have to worry: ‘What happens to my family if I have a heart attack? What happens when I turn 65 or 70?’ America is the land of the free. But I think we are freer.To me, being freer means being more independent and responsible for my own health and future: your income, health, and retirement are your own business.
But for this Dutch man, being freer apparently means being less responsible and more dependent on the government. You shouldn't have to worry so much about keeping your income, staying healthy, or providing for your retirement. Your government should be there to pick up the slack.
Historically, Americans' preferred idea of freedom has been closer to mine. I reckon individual responsibility was a principal driver of America's greatness in the 20th century—the most basic lesson of capitalism's triumph over communism.
So I'm deeply suspicious of socialists or socialism-lite liberals who would have the government take away the worries this man complains about. Those worries are what makes the system work.
Reduce incentives to work, and you end up with the Netherlands on the bottom of this chart of hours per year:
Yes, free time has great hedonic value—you can find a nice quality of life down there in France, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.
But if you want to do great things—like facing down the USSR or pioneering electrical appliances, assembly lines, computers, the Internet or modern medical cures....well, someone has to do the work. These high welfare states are essentially leeching off security and advancements from the rest of us.
Hmm...I'm inclined to agree with you up to a certain point--I'm a liberal, not a socialist--but I'm not sure why working tons of hours necessarily means more innovation. Working less might mean that breakthroughs occur more slowly, but the notion that not working 10 hours a day means you produce nothing of worth is somewhat baffling. And I tend to be skeptical of this sort of "great nation" conservatism, which I think has gotten us into a lot of trouble over the past decade.
ReplyDeleteI realize that some people get a great deal of stimulation through their work, but I think that our society places too much importance on work and less on interpersonal relationships, travel, and pursuing personal interests. Work is important, but it's not everything. I think conservatives go wrong when they express sentiments like this antagonism toward quality of life, because it ignores peoples' natural desire for stability. Forty years ago, a lot of that stability came from the private sector, which saw itself as a sort of quasi-welfare state and did a lot for workers. That is not the reigning ethos now. In an era of globalization, even less is sure than ever before. I agree that the government shouldn't be doing things like blocking private layoffs or imposing a work week, but a lot of libertarians seem to view the world excessively through an economic lens, and anything that can't be quantified isn't assigned a value. It's not hedonism to want to raise a family or to try to write a novel in one's spare time--these things might well be as important to society as what one does in the extra hours at work. Frankly, a society where everyone works 80 hours a week might well be more productive but it doesn't sound like a society I'd want to be in.
For me, the balance to be found is to basically let the private sector do what it does, provided that there's adequate regulatory oversight to ensure that workers aren't getting screwed and business practices are ethical. Couple that with some basic social insurance--unemployment, disability, welfare for some period of time, which is all present, plus some basic guarantee of healthcare, paid family leave and some guaranteed vacation time for all full-time workers. I don't think that this is the only workable answer to this question, by any means, but it does have the advantage of cushioning the individual from some of the harsher realities of capitalism.
I'll give you this Gherald--you definitely don't mince words. I always enjoy reading your blog, even if it often makes my fists clench just a little bit.