Is Politics Insoluble?

Is Politics Insoluble'^ I 29
on relief who claims he cannot find a job? How high should the
relief be? At just what level will it seriously undermine the
incentives to find or hold jobs? At just what level will it under-
mine the incentives to work and save of the taxpayers who are
asked to support the idle? At just what level will it bankrupt
the state?
There are people who are untroubled by these questions.
They want to "guarantee everybody a decent job," or a minimum
income, or even equality of income, regardless of all indi-
vidual differences of effort, ability, or contribution, regardless
of the effect on incentives, regardless of any other social con-
sequence. So, in fact, not only historically but today, the
answers to the question, "What shall government do about the
needy,** still run from nothing to practically everything.
Most people who have given serious thought to the prob-
lem have proposed or accepted some compromise. A typical
compromise proposal is that we should assure the needy or
the unemployed an "adequate" relief payment for a "reason-
able" time, but not enough to "undermine their incentives" to
find jobs or improve themselves, and not enough to undermine
the incentives of the working and productive taxpayers who
are being asked to shoulder the bill.
There are inherent difficulties in this compromise. It is
something of a self-contradiction. If the relief recipient him-
self considers his dole "adequate," this is almost equivalent to
saying that he has no incentive to take a job or otherwise
expend effort to increase it. At all events, the compromise
lacks any precision. On the one hand, even a high standard
dole may fail to meet the urgent needs of some families. On
the other hand, almost any dole of any amount may tend to
undermine some people's incentive to a certain extent. As a
result of such difficulties, it is hard to get any two people to
agree on what should be the amount of a proposed or actual