Somewhere on the tranquil plains between the dream of “an affordable existence for everyone” and the fear of “inadvertent communism through excessive social welfare programs” lie the realities of human nature and disincentivization.
Proponents of the true meritocracy argue that those who have excelled and have accordingly reaped a superior level of reward should not be forced to forfeit the riches they’ve earned. Those with stronger humanitarian views argue that it is senseless to permit the rich to bask in ridiculous opulence while their less fortunate fellow citizens hopelessly toil in failing effort to survive.
It’s an ideological battle that is certain to be at the forefront of next year’s United States Presidential election, and one that’s currently center stage in the Democratic Party primary debates leading up to that election. Specifically situated on the dockett are the questions of a universal health care system and debtless government funding of higher education.
“The United Kingdom’s public health care system is facing a catastrophic crisis of occupational disinterest.”
Amid the dust kicked up during the frothy-mouthed accusations of wanton laziness and cold-hearted greed, though, a few realities of the interaction between economics and human nature are being ignored. It makes this perhaps more unforgiveable that there are clear current and historical examples we’re choosing to ignore rather than treating them as predictors.
Regardless of the strength of our desire to believe that an adequate number of people will be willing to sacrifice an incredible amount of their own time and effort to shoulder the crushing burden of supporting and advancing society, it cannot be denied that disincentivization of crucial career fields is a clear and present danger that we cannot afford to ignore.