Social Services and the Free Lunch Fallacy

American Thinker ^ | November 8, 2013 | Robert Weissberg

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Americans love fine-sounding expensive social welfare programs. In New York City, where I live, it is almost axiomatic that government should build ever more affordable housing, force "greedy" landlords to subsidize tenants, supply shelters for the homeless and just about any nostrum that would somehow "help" the needy. Such addiction is even worse nationally where the public clamors for "free" medical care, non-stop "investing" in children, and guaranteeing millions of children free meals no matter how obese. Economists insist that there's no free lunch but don't broach that unpleasant reality to millions of American parents.

The key to understanding this rapacious appetite is the public imperviousness to costs.......

......More generally, the public's inability to price unfamiliar but alluring goodies is breathtaking and, here's the important point, the addiction is incurable. Numbers like a $100 million, let alone half a billion may be incomprehensible. It is as if people have two brains--a smart one for everyday shopping and stupid one for grasping hugely expensive promised government miracles.

To demonstrate this reality, I conducted a national survey in 2000 asking about President Clinton's proposal for Washington to fund hiring of 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size. Predictably, everybody loved the idea. The Clinton administration put the price tag at $20.8 billion for reducing class size, though $20. 8 billion was undoubtedly on the low side.

Seldom do polls soliciting views of these "good ideas" ask what respondents think it will cost. I did and respondents nearly all grievously under-estimated cost(18% could not even hazard a guess). The vast majority said "a billion or less" and virtually nobody got the supposed correct answer (minimally $20.8 billion). A mere 5% got it half correct--$10 billion--but almost nobody came even close. Total ignorance of cost was equally true for supporters and opponents of the hiring proposal.........

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A good article explaining why people don't make more noise about the constant addition of "this and that" government program.

[HarleyD]

This is an excellent article. People can’t grasp these costs ($500M) unless they’re put at a personal level (it will cost you $150 a month). Once people understand the impact it has on them personally, they change their tune.

That is why Obamacare will fail. Liberal Democrats who aren’t personally affect still support it. Those whose families are losing their health care only to have to replace it with a lesser policy that is 40% higher are deciding being a liberal Democrat isn’t such a good idea.

Debating social issues does nothing. “Free” kindergarten for preschoolers sounds great. Put those social issues into personal economy costs, like “this will cost you $100 a month”, and people understand that. Trouble is we past the costs down to other generations who will not have anything...and then we say it’s for the children. What a sad joke.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes. When costs are deducted before YOU physically own and hold your own earnings, your understanding of costs are short-circuited - people become numb to the bite of payroll deductions for taxes, healthcare, social security, etc.

[Gaffer]

The second mouse gets the cheese.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

And the “early bird” must share his worm.

[Islander7]

...and the early worm get a Darwin Award.

[SkyPilot]

In New York City, where I live, it is almost axiomatic that government should build ever more affordable housing, force "greedy" landlords to subsidize tenants, supply shelters for the homeless and just about any nostrum that would somehow "help" the needy.

I am sure the newly elected Mayor of NYC will accelerate the destruction very quickly.