Explain to me the American mindset around work, entitlement, and earning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

I am on the left, but I agree that the student loan forgiveness is totally different from everything else you listed and has broader opposition. It is the "fairness" issue.

[Anonymous]

because we all have shiftless relatives who we see flushing money down the toilet and then coming and using pity to take away the money we work for. The problem is that all the shaming in the world (and that is what this is) won't stop this from happening. We just need to somehow accept that part of our money has to go to people who flush money down toilets.

[Anonymous]

Why do people deserve anything just for breathing air?

Good grief. The entitlement mentality is sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

When it's about any left wing or moderately left policy - student loan debt forgiveness or free college, a public health system, a nationally higher minimum wage, family leave and childcare, public housing, the increased unemployment payouts over the pandemic, people like to mock these ideas and call them "free stuff" and "entitlements" for people who haven't earned them, as if that's some horrible thing.

I am not even arguing that I am in favor of every single one of these left ideas. There are valid criticisms of whether these things can be implemented soundly and whether we can configure a tax structure, without loopholes, that would pay for them, and whether as the assumed "world police" we can afford to reduce our military budget enough to have the social programs of the levels of other countries. There are obviously logistical criticism of any large scale government program in such a huge country being implemeneted from scratch.

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day (or at the very least deceive, manipulate, and rig the system every day). Why is it so offensive that somebody receives a home if you don't think their low income job means they didn't work hard enough for it? Furthermore, there is an attitude that glorified suffering, like "I had to work 80 hour weeks and suffer to get into the middle class, so you should too." Is it that crazy to want things to get better and easier for future generations? Is it offensive to your great uncle who died of polio that the polio vaccine was created and people don't have it anymore? Wasn't the innovative vision of the future supposed to be a world where automation and technology makes things easier, so less labor is needed to provide for the world, and people could have more leisure time? Instead, work productivity has doubled, more or less, and work weeks and work days have gotten longer.

I'll also say that I'm not a Communist. I don't agree with state control or everything and government-appointed roles for people. I am American by marriage, not by birth, and still, some ideas are foreign to me. Why is leisure time and vacations looked down upon? even if it's just spending time with your family, caring for children or the elderly? Why is this devalued in favor of work?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone, for the environment especially, and for health, if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less? I think so many of the problems and needs that are especially prevalent in America are connected with overworking. So maybe it's not the end of the world if people receive food, healthcare, and shelter without having to "earn" it?

It would help if you'd articulate the social contract that you envision, including the rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES of citizens and residents.

I think you're suggesting that a person (person A) should be free to choose to work less that others, but that under your proposed social contract, the remainder of the people (society) will tolerate sufficient taxation / redistribution of the value that they generate so that person A is not "poor." How do you define "poor"? And is your social contract generally premised on free market capitalism backstopped by a social welfare state? That is, for people that are not physically or mentally incapacitated, do you generally expect for them to AT LEAST try to support their own lifestyle? If folks can choose not to work and still have a "nice" life, what incentive is there for the rest of society to work to provide others with that life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do people deserve anything just for breathing air?

Good grief. The entitlement mentality is sickening.

OP asked WHY you think this way. Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

Center left here and I'm definitely against student loan forgiveness. I think debt jubilees are stupid. If someone was stupid enough to take out the loans, then they should be responsible for paying them back. I do think they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy though.

While I don't know if I believe in complete loan forgiveness, I would NOT call these people stupid. As a culture, we've told everyone that college is the only answer to upward mobility. We disinvested from vocational training and so many people believe college is their only path. If you don't have money and everyone tells you that college is the only answer, what do you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

Center left here and I'm definitely against student loan forgiveness. I think debt jubilees are stupid. If someone was stupid enough to take out the loans, then they should be responsible for paying them back. I do think they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy though.

While I don't know if I believe in complete loan forgiveness, I would NOT call these people stupid. As a culture, we've told everyone that college is the only answer to upward mobility. We disinvested from vocational training and so many people believe college is their only path. If you don't have money and everyone tells you that college is the only answer, what do you do?

Additionally, it’s frustrated that parents are expected to be the piggy bank, because not everyone’s parents have a piggy bank, and if they do, the kid has no control over whether the parents will decide to let the kid have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

...

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day

The very ethos of our founding republic was a singular argument against taxation without representation and sending untold sums of cash a ruling elite that didn't earn it. Americans don't like one subset of the population - whether that's the low-income, parents getting paid leave, people only with kids, the disabled, tribal groups, URMs - getting something that no one else is getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

...

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day

The very ethos of our founding republic was a singular argument against taxation without representation and sending untold sums of cash a ruling elite that didn't earn it. Americans don't like one subset of the population - whether that's the low-income, parents getting paid leave, people only with kids, the disabled, tribal groups, URMs - getting something that no one else is getting.

The irony. This country was founded on the basis of “equality” by a ruling, slaveholding, male elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

Question: As a country, we obviously need physicians, scientists, farmers…. whatever list seems reasonable to you. Do you feel that the best way to get the best candidates for whatever jobs you view as essential is for 18 year olds to “bet on themselves” and while also prioritizing the options of potential students who have wealthier families? I’m not so sure that assuming enormous debt and “gambling” is the best way to get the best students into these jobs.

I’m not arguing in favor of loan forgiveness— although I’d probably support it once I had the chance to read the fine print. I am thinking that kids with savvier and wealthier families may get “bailed out” in multiple ways, multiple times. People without those supports often don’t. And either way, I’m wondering what the best ways might be to ensure that we end up with the best brain surgeons and neonatologists.

I’m OP and the only way student loans and college cost affect me is that we will strongly encourage our kids to look at higher education outside the United States. I don’t think education should ever be something the individual has to figure out how to finance and make a market analysis and risk calculation when they are 17/18. It also can’t be pushed onto the kids if their parents are not financially savvy. This makes it harder to have the class mobility Americans claim that they have, if parents aren’t a finance whizz, then the kid is at a disadvantage and that carries over.

I’m however more concerned about American work culture, especially hustle culture. There needs to be more emphasis on balance and life outside of work, and this shouldn’t make you poor.

One of my DC's went overseas for college. It was a fantastic experience and the whole degree cost less than $60K (including living expenses) from a very prestigious school.

The added benefit for Europe is that, having made the investment in US kid's college educations, many of them will actually stay in Europe and pay taxes there.

A loss for the US in many senses.

Maybe, maybe not. Many Europeans leave their societies to get high-income jobs in the U.S. at the first chance they get. I highly doubt the American kids they are essentially giving free tertiary educations (especially in places like Germany and Hungary) are sticking around to build low-paying careers in foreign environments to boot. These universities mostly teach in English as well. That is very different from the European place environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


One of my DC's went overseas for college. It was a fantastic experience and the whole degree cost less than $60K (including living expenses) from a very prestigious school.

The added benefit for Europe is that, having made the investment in US kid's college educations, many of them will actually stay in Europe and pay taxes there.

A loss for the US in many senses.


Maybe, maybe not. Many Europeans leave their societies to get high-income jobs in the U.S. at the first chance they get. I highly doubt the American kids they are essentially giving free tertiary educations (especially in places like Germany and Hungary) are sticking around to build low-paying careers in foreign environments to boot. These universities mostly teach in English as well. That is very different from the European place environment.

Not true. I know several who have not returned to the US. One got an engineering degree and married a German (and he has learned German and loves it there). He has a very good job (not low-paying). He had a scholarship to university there as well and paid virtually nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it that so many Americans, especially on the right wing but also center and center-left, are so viscerally against the idea of someone receiving something basic that they didn't "earn"? Of all the terrible things in society, why is this the thing that generates so much outrage?

When it's about any left wing or moderately left policy - student loan debt forgiveness or free college, a public health system, a nationally higher minimum wage, family leave and childcare, public housing, the increased unemployment payouts over the pandemic, people like to mock these ideas and call them "free stuff" and "entitlements" for people who haven't earned them, as if that's some horrible thing.

I am not even arguing that I am in favor of every single one of these left ideas. There are valid criticisms of whether these things can be implemented soundly and whether we can configure a tax structure, without loopholes, that would pay for them, and whether as the assumed "world police" we can afford to reduce our military budget enough to have the social programs of the levels of other countries. There are obviously logistical criticism of any large scale government program in such a huge country being implemeneted from scratch.

But rhetorically, Americans seem so viscerally offended by the idea of someone receiving something they didn't work for... and this is almost always about low income people receiving something, and not about corporations that lie, cheat, and steal every day (or at the very least deceive, manipulate, and rig the system every day). Why is it so offensive that somebody receives a home if you don't think their low income job means they didn't work hard enough for it? Furthermore, there is an attitude that glorified suffering, like "I had to work 80 hour weeks and suffer to get into the middle class, so you should too." Is it that crazy to want things to get better and easier for future generations? Is it offensive to your great uncle who died of polio that the polio vaccine was created and people don't have it anymore? Wasn't the innovative vision of the future supposed to be a world where automation and technology makes things easier, so less labor is needed to provide for the world, and people could have more leisure time? Instead, work productivity has doubled, more or less, and work weeks and work days have gotten longer.

I'll also say that I'm not a Communist. I don't agree with state control or everything and government-appointed roles for people. I am American by marriage, not by birth, and still, some ideas are foreign to me. Why is leisure time and vacations looked down upon? even if it's just spending time with your family, caring for children or the elderly? Why is this devalued in favor of work?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone, for the environment especially, and for health, if we all just worked LESS, and produced less, consumed less? I think so many of the problems and needs that are especially prevalent in America are connected with overworking. So maybe it's not the end of the world if people receive food, healthcare, and shelter without having to "earn" it?

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

[Anonymous]

^^^ LOL, forgot to delete the quote before hitting send. Not my proudest moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously asking why people on the right extending all the way to the center-left (aka almost everyone), are viscerally against giving others a list of stuff they didn't earn, even though there are good arguments against it?

Answering for myself (from the center-right), I'm in favor of most of the things you listed, but against student loan forgiveness. I get the feeling student loan forgiveness is what you're really asking about. I'm against it because taking out student loans was a gamble that was taken with full information and a path to success. People bet on themselves, sometimes that doesn't go smoothly, but they should keep trying, not get bailed out.

I am on the left, but I agree that the student loan forgiveness is totally different from everything else you listed and has broader opposition. It is the "fairness" issue.

I don't understand this. How is student loans a gamble but having kids you can't afford not a gamble? Both decisions are taken with full information and the latter is usually made at point of time when you are at least half a decade older than the 18-year-old forced to sign on the dotted line for six-figures in debt.

I am not for one over the other - I'm for neither - but your logic is curious.

[Anonymous]

Responding directly to the OP, but not quoting it to save space...

In general, most right-leaning or centrist-left people aren't against the idea of social safety net, or even social benefits (beyond safety net). To cast the disagreement you encounter to the *degree* of such programs as "viscerally against the idea" of them is at best ignorant, and at worst a purposeful mischaracterization of the debate.

How large these programs are, what our tax structure should be, and what other competing priorities should be ranked are discussions to be had. It helps no one for you to characterize those who disagree with you on these things in such extreme terms.

On your last point, no one forces people to work a certain amount or to maintain a certain level of consumption. They are free to slow down their pace, work less, produce less, and consume less. Indeed, many people in fact live this way and are very happy. However, we live in a free liberal society (which is oddly something I have to point out to someone who proclaims not to be a communist) and people generally have the freedom to pursue life as they see fit. For their own personal selfish reasons, people produce and consume at a level that suits them, without requiring approval from anyone. Therefore, it is *NOT* better for everyone to implement a production/consumption policy that you personally think is a better balance, because that would be illiberal. Only people with authoritarian tendencies think this way. Implement laws, protect rights, protect public interest where they exist, and let people decide how much they want to work in order to sustain their target level of consumption.

As for my own view on the whole social benefits issue - I generally do not have a problem with them so long as they are not excessive. I do not find free community college to be excessive, because providing a basic level of college education contributes to the public good and is a good thing to have for society. I find student loan forgiveness to be excessive because most student loans that cannot be repaid are due to the student taking on some non-rewarding field of study or having tacked on other things such as living expenses. In that context, these student loans do not contribute to the public good and were merely funding personal hobbies, curiosities, or life styles - all of which the student is entirely free to engage in, just not paid for by other people's money.

Agree with this. Would add that I would consider the following as social benefits for which I would support government funding: (1) basic health care, as I find it infuriating that the working class without benefits is bankrupted by a healthcare event while people on Medicaid are protected; (2) free universal child care and paid maternity leave for up to two kids for 1 year per kid ---but ONLY for the first two kids