Housing, health care and the minimum wage

Now that Democrats are back in control of government in Oregon, we are seeing a resurgence of the “liberal agenda.” It’s too bad the right squandered their time in power on meaningless rhetoric about life, death and god that twisted their historical advocacy of liberty and responsibility.

Recent news reports describe efforts to create affordable housing, secure a “living” wage and provide health care.

We favor universal health care: it makes sense socially, economically, morally. Sen. Ben Westlund’s plan is the best, by far. It’s sustainable, it’s attainable. Kulongoski and Kitzhaber need to support it.

We do not feel the same about “living wage” and “affordable” housing. These are different from health care for many reasons, the primary one being an element of choice. We can agree, possibly even in strident times, that the woman down the street did not make a choice to get ovarian cancer, her son did not choose to break his leg.

Universal health care is just insurance, folks. We want our neighbors insured because we will be picking up the bill in any case. We don’t have the same incentive for their housing, or their wage.

As a janitor making the minimum wage, Elvira may have a problem with housing, or with her income. She may or may not be able to get a better job. But I am not paying that price with her. I am not making her choices for her. We may want to do a number of things for Elvira individually. Improve her education, help her with a job search, repair her car, maybe even get her a better place to live.

But passing misdirected laws for a higher wage for all janitors will not help the group of Elviras over the long run.

The trap here is a subtle change of scale, from looking at the problems of individuals, then crafting solutions for an entire “class.” Such laws will give all the Elviras a short shot of cash, good for them, bad for those who give them the cash, an income shift.

If consumers resist giving up their income, some Elviras will actually lose their jobs, replaced by new robotic floor polishers.

If consumers can not resist, they will use whatever power they have to charge Elvira more for the burgers or the tires she buys from them. That will eat the wage increase Elvira received.

Differences are good. They create the dynamic of society. Most of us don’t want the hard life of Elvira and will do what we can to avoid it. We will create value in our skill set, will try to learn a new job. Or we won’t, will sit watching reality TV and slurp a Big Gulp. We will make a choice.

The same is true about “affordable housing.” It is horrible to see the conditions some of our neighbors occupy. But the solution often lies with them, not society. To try to change that for all may have a short term benefit, but it often comes at a greater, hidden cost.

This is hard to see and hard to accept. It is difficult to believe that we can’t wave a wand and change the laws of economics, since those laws are concerned with human behavior and we like to believe that as humans, we can change our behavior. That is probably true on an individual scale.

But just as human behavior on the freeway can be described by the laws of fluid dynamics, the laws of economics are really the laws of scarcity and change.

There are sub issues that need to be addressed: true homelessness, mental illness, worker safety. There is a role for government, which brings social values to the marketplace.

But the left needs to focus on what can be done, what really needs to be done, that which will truly improve the lot of the helpless. If government resources are limited, and they are, we need to focus on opportunity, not on safety nets.

Overreaching will earn the left just what it earned the religious right: failure and being pushed to the margins.