White male poor people in the US had better opportunities in 1800 than in 2010. They had the opportunity to be mostly independent on their own–risky, but what isn’t?

What was their life expectancy?

White male poor people in the US had better opportunities in 1800 than in 2010. They had the opportunity to be mostly independent on their own–risky, but what isn’t?

Everyone else in the US has better opportunities today.

Elsewhere, it may not make a difference. Depends where–and who–you are.

I like evidence too. But it’s rare to find clear answers there.

Yeah. As far as I can tell, the only field in which we can find really clear answers is mathematics — and the longer I read this blog, the less sure I am of that.

I personally like “true measures”. I think these are measures that implicitly capture the truth by observing how people are actually behaving. Non-true measures are subject to our own personal preferences on what we think represents a good outcome. For example, we may think longer life expectancies is a good goal, but apparently smokers don’t agree with us.

I think one of the truest measures of social policy is population growth, maybe even migration patterns.

“What public policies best promote the interests of the poor? Seems like an empirical question to me.”

If it is an empirical question, it seems too open to subjective judgment based on how you define ‘promote the interests of the poor’ and what phase of the social program that you happen to be in.

Fair enough. I merely mean to suggest that, instead of simply navel-gazing, we consider actual evidence.

So no, I don’t mean to suggest that you test for the variable “good social outcomes.” I mean to suggest that you pick whatever variables you care about achieving, and then look at jurisdictions that seem to achieve them best. Do you care about life expectancy, or education levels, or productivity, or divorce, or violent crime? Then I suggest we look to see where we find the best results for any of these variables. Then consider the public policies in that jurisdiction that are arguably related to promoting that end, and consider whether we could expect to promote those ends in other jurisdictions by adopting similar policies.

No, this is no guarantee of finding optimal social policies, but it seems like a more fruitful avenue of research than pontification.

Also, the question on 1800 vs. 2010 seems like a loaded question.

Better questions would be (by better I mean loaded to the point I want made):
- Into which societies would it have been the best to be born poor in 1800 and in 2010?
- To what extent did these societies share wealth?

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” is said after someone who is rich asks to follow Jesus and Jesus tells him to give up everything he owns.

It’s possible that the point of the text is that for this man, his wealth was preventing him from achieving what God wants for his life. It’s possible that if a philanderer came up to Jesus and asked to follow him that Jesus would tell him to stop sleeping around.

America spends way more on defense than anyone else. If the point of the text is getting rid of what is preventing you from doing what God wants you to do and if God wants those in the U.S. to help the poorest in the world, then fear of the loss of our wealth is preventing us from fully doing what Gods wants us to do.

Under this interpretation, America isn’t “doomed”, other than the fact that it lives with fear that it doesn’t need to have.

I’m pretty sure advocating that people with guns take money from some people and give it to others was not exactly what Jesus had in mind when he said “feed the hungry”, “sell all that you have and follow me”, “when you take care of the least of my brethren you are taking care of me,” etc. I think the generally accepted interpretation of those passages would be that Jesus was calling on people to use their own resources and time to help others.

Also, as an aside, the only research I’m aware of shows that Democrats are much less charitable than republicans (it’s mostly that religious are more charitable than non-religious, and there is a big overlap between religious and republican in the U.S.), so if you’re going to make a stupid argument about christianity and political affiliation, you should probably go with “Democrats are too stingy to be good Christians.”

An interesting question: To what extent did Jesus focus on means, and to what extent did he focus on ends?

I’ve read that, in contrast to people in Northern (and predominantly Democratic) states, people in Southern (and predominantly Republican) states are less willing to support tax-funded social safety nets, but report on tax returns that they give a larger share of their income to charitable organizations. And I’ve read that Northern states tend to achieve better social outcomes than Southern states.

When Jesus exhorted people to care for the least of these your brethren, did he intend for people to focus on the needs of the needy – or on the needs of the donor? Is the goal to achieve good outcomes for the recipients of charity – or good karma for the donors of charity?

People disagree. Consequently I’m not surprised to see some people pursue policies that have a track record of achieving good social outcomes – even if these policies provide little opportunities for demonstrating personal virtue. And I’m not surprised that other people favor policies that maximize opportunities for demonstrating personal virtue – even if those policies don’t have the best track record for alleviating distress.

I confess a fondness for achieving good social outcomes, but I acknowledge that Jesus gave mixed signals. At Mark 12:41-44, Jesus praises the offerings of a poor widow over the larger offerings, simply because it represented a greater sacrifice. That is, Jesus focused on the giver, not the recipient. So I find support for various positions here.