alt Hacker NewsSocial programs are the polar opposite of how the US should be spending its money if it wants to outcompete China. Social programs both reduce the incentive for Americans to work while also depriving research/infrastructure projects of funding.
Replies
Pretty much everywhere has proved that ensuring people have a place to shelter and eat doesn't stop them from wanting to do something with their lives. It's the oldest and most wrong talking point from this debate.
Doesn't China have better social programs? They have universal healthcare.
If it is about "incentivizing people to work" and getting warm butts in chairs or out swinging hammers... well, how are we going to compete with a country that has 4x the number of warm bodies?
We can't compete with China via the number of people we have working.
We need to build a functioning society instead of a group of rugged individual capitalists who only come together when we need to help out the wealthy with a bail out or tax break.
It's amazing how people think this is true when by every known metric, people who are given a minimally comfortable life almost always end up being far more productive members of society than those who are not.
That is why China is losing to the US. China massively more social programs than the US and it has reduced their economy to shambles because no one has incentive.
Social programs to help towns experiencing economic depression would inject money, training, education, etc. which would create opportunity for new growth and development in areas with a low cost of living. When people are too busy just trying to survive, they are not going to be working on inventing the next big thing, and they certainly are not going to support tax dollars going toward investments for tomorrow.