Raj, I think you like capitalism and free markets right?
Well, we have to have some way to ease adjustments in the market. Otherwise, very few people would be brave enough, to put themselves out there and start a business. And as some have mentioned, having people starving for a few months is a pretty big motivator to NOT do anything risky, and it would likely cause all kinds of instability and chaos for all of us.
Let’s say I want to start a company making handbags, and I employ 50 people. Great. But I’m vulnerable to shifts in the market right? You might also start a company and compete with me. Maybe you’re making nicer purses more efficiently? I can either become better, or I’m going to have to do something else, right? Let’s say I decide to retool and make something else, and that takes some time. Meanwhile, we have to ease these market changes through things like unemployment benefits. It’s to the advantage of everybody to ease these changes so people CAN take risks and start businesses.
The only argument is really a matter of degree. If we make benefits too good, we might discourage risk taking behavior, and entrepreneurship. Countries like Finland have grappled with this as they’ve sometimes had a 15% or higher unemployment rate with people sitting pretty comfortably waiting for a really good next opportunity, instead of jumping off of government benefits. Humans weigh risks all the time.
We could go back and forth looking at the data of where the sweet spot is in terms of creating a safety net that encourages, rather than discourages market participation or that discourages people from getting comfortable on our safety net as a way of life. Sure. We constantly have to be tweaking that as our economy changes.
BUT reasonable people on either side of the political aisle aren’t looking to tear down ANY accommodations for people who take risks, or who find themselves between jobs. This would be true if it was just America, or if we have a much more global market. I also like capitalism, so I’d much rather see us have ways to encourage and ease the market shifts, than look at using government to try to control the market, through undo restrictions on trade, having government control of industry, etc… Does that make sense? I’d WAY rather have some unemployment benefits than have Venezuela.
We don’t want people who are temporarily unemployed because of market shifts to starve. It’s REALLY bad for free markets, and for stability of our government. I think this is why you get some small L libertarians talking about how we might have less government, but NOT talking about killing any and all government programs.
We’re typically not looking at lawlessness, or anarchy, or going back to a frontier society, where we might starve if there is a drought one year. As a society, we don’t want to be without any way to ease market shifts that we can’t control. We might fall out in different places on HOW MUCH statism we want, but that’s about it. It eventually comes down to talking about very specific policy.
Yes, families and churches and charitable organizations can ease some of the pain, but most of us don’t want to pull back from ANY state supports.