I think there is some definition fuzziness here. We started with “percentage of the population … not able to contribute productive work”, this mutated into “surplus population” which is not the same as “people with disabilities”?
A resonable (economic) definition of “disabled” is “not able to contribute productive work”...
Do you have in mind what Tyler Cowen calls ZMP (zero marginal productivity) workers?
A resonable (economic) definition of “disabled” is “not able to contribute productive work”...
Agreed, but my impression is that SSI is targeted at medical disabilities- “I used to be a manual laborer but I now have persistent back pain” instead of “I used to be a manual laborer but now I’m structurally unemployed.” The system as is encourages the medicalization of economic issues- and in particular of exaggerating the medical impact of issues rather than ameliorating them.
SSI is targeted at medical disabilities- “I used to be a manual laborer but I now have persistent back pain” instead of “I used to be a manual laborer but now I’m structurally unemployed.”
Right, because the former means unable to work, while the latter usually means “can’t find a job that I like enough”.
The system as is encourages the medicalization of economic issues- and in particular of exaggerating the medical impact of issues rather than ameliorating them.
I agree. I have no particular wish to defend SSI or the way it’s run—my point was basically that “we should not subsidize failure” cannot be taken as an overriding principle. It is one of many considerations: sometimes it governs and sometimes it steps back.
I agree. I have no particular wish to defend SSI or the way it’s run—my point was basically that “we should not subsidize failure” cannot be taken as an overriding principle. It is one of many considerations: sometimes it governs and sometimes it steps back.
It still (mostly) follows the principle that we should not subsidize deliberately choosing to fail, as medical disabilities are generally assumed not to be voluntarily self-inflicted.
I think there is some definition fuzziness here. We started with “percentage of the population … not able to contribute productive work”, this mutated into “surplus population” which is not the same as “people with disabilities”?
A resonable (economic) definition of “disabled” is “not able to contribute productive work”...
Do you have in mind what Tyler Cowen calls ZMP (zero marginal productivity) workers?
Agreed, but my impression is that SSI is targeted at medical disabilities- “I used to be a manual laborer but I now have persistent back pain” instead of “I used to be a manual laborer but now I’m structurally unemployed.” The system as is encourages the medicalization of economic issues- and in particular of exaggerating the medical impact of issues rather than ameliorating them.
Right, because the former means unable to work, while the latter usually means “can’t find a job that I like enough”.
I agree. I have no particular wish to defend SSI or the way it’s run—my point was basically that “we should not subsidize failure” cannot be taken as an overriding principle. It is one of many considerations: sometimes it governs and sometimes it steps back.
It still (mostly) follows the principle that we should not subsidize deliberately choosing to fail, as medical disabilities are generally assumed not to be voluntarily self-inflicted.