AN OA MAN
ES HL6£ M QTT
SZO00T
~ in°New’York
MAX GELTMAN
CThe
CRent Strike and
the Law
ROGER STARR
LSANYA
T xo
“Poverty & “Welfare:
A Dialogue =| ERNEST van den HAAG
FALL BOOKS
Reviewed by Jeffrey Hart,
Geoffrey Wagner, Theodore
Sturgeon, George F. Eliot,
Guy Davenport, Neal Freeman,
Frank Johnson
SVVH N3G NVA
(92
Relevance
to today’s thinking,
to today’s life.
You'll find it at Canisius,
a co-educational college
(boarding or day), conducted
by the Jesuits since 1870, and
providing education with an
accent on the individual.
Courses in science, liberal
arts, business, and education.
PER,
é . Write
aa Director of Admissions
CANISIUS
COLLEGE
Buffalo, N. Y. 14208
New Residence and
Dinirig Halls; in
1969 new Phys.-Ed. Complex.
SUPPORT
YOUR
MENTAL
HEALTH "i
ASSOCIATION
An escorted tour
South Pacific
‘ Isles January 30 to March 17°69
Firewalkers of Bega, New
Guinea “sing-sing,” Poly-
nesian Tamaaraa are among
the highlights of a Pacific
Travel Adventure encompassing
Samoa, Tonga, New Zealand,
Australia, New Guinea, the
Solomons, Fiji, and Tahiti.
An adventure, backed by
careful planning and experience,
in the sense of unimaginable
sights and sounds, history relived
and participation in island life.
Write for FREE Folder!
FRANCES PAUL TRAVEL SERVICE
143 Harvard Ave., Claremont, Calif.
91711 (714) 624-1675.
1142 Nationa, Review
NOVEMBER 29, 1968 NATIONAL REVIEW |
VOL. XX NO. 46
1148 The Week
ARTICLES, DEPARTMENTS
1144 Letters
1158 ‘The Third World War by James Burnham
1160 Crisis in New York by Max Geltman
1164 Crisis in Welfare: A Dialogue by Ernest van den Haag
1167 Law, Order and Rent by Roger Starr
4169 Principles and Heresies by Frank S. Meyer
1170 Letter From London by Anthony Lejeune
1182 Delectations by Alec Waugh
1183 Trans-O-Gram
1186 For the Record
1171 BOOKS, ARTS, MANNERS :
Jeffrey Hart reviews an indigestible Kook Book [] Guy Davenport on
Fiction [] George Fielding Eliot on Viscount Montgomery’s History of
Warfare (] Geoffrey Wagner on McLuhanacy [] Neal B. Freeman
reviews Arthur Krock’s Memoirs [] Theodore Sturgeon (one who
knows) on Science Fiction [] Frank J. Johnson on American Inter-
vention Abroad: Pro (Mario Lazo) and Con (Theodore Draper)
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. Editor
WILLIAM A. RUSHER Publisher
Editors
JAMES BURNHAM [] FRANK S. MEYER
‘WILLIAM F. RICKENBACKER
PRISCILLA L. BUCKLEY Managing Editor
c. H. siMonps Assistant Managing Edior
JAMES P. MCFADDEN Assistant Publisher
Associates
M. STANTON EVANS [] WILL HERBERG
JAMES JACKSON KILPATRICK
RALPH DE TOLEDANO [] TIMOTHY J. WHEELER
AGATHA SCHMIDT Research Director
Contributors “
©. D. BATCHELOR {] COLM BROGAN [] JOHN CHAMBERLAIN
ARLENE CROCE [] GUY DAVENPORT [] JOAN DIDION
W. H. VON DREELE [] CHARLES FOLEY [] NEAL FREEMAN
MAX GELTMAN [] NIKA STANDEN HAZELTON [] HENRY HAZLITT
SUZANNE LA FOLLETTE [] SIR SHANE LESLIE
SIR ARNOLD LUNN [] VINCENT MILLER
‘THOMAS MOLNAR [] GERHART NIEMEYER [] STEFAN T. POSSONY
MORRIE RYSKIND [] ALEC WAUGH [] AUBERON: WAUGH
FREDERICK D. WILEELMSEN
Foreign Contributors
ANTHONY LEJEUNE, London [] E. v. KUEHNELT-LEDDIHN, Munich
ELSPETH HUXLEY, African Affairs T] WILLIAM S. SCHLAMM, At Large
Art Director: JAMES W. O’BRYAN
Production Editor: VICTORIA: WEHMEIER
Promotion Manager: EDWARD W. MC FADDEN
Circulation Fulfillment: GARY C. MARSHALL
Advertising Director: PATRICK D. MAINES
NATIONAL REVIEW is published weekly, except the first isme in Jansary, by National Review, Tnc., at
50 Emmett St., Bris mn. (Application for entry to inail at second clas postage is pending at
Bristol, Conn)’ © ‘Natoaal Review, Inc. 1968.
yitte, Adress, all editorial mail, manuscrips, Jetters to the editor, etc to Editorial
ept., National Review, 150 East 35th St., New Coan N.Y. 10016.
pan all subscription mail, orders, changes of address, undeliverable copies,
SEA eicy to) Circulation Manager,’ Nationcl Review, 150 East 35th St, New York,
RATES: $17.00 a year ($10.00 for, the ‘4-nage issues, and $7.00 for the Sage issues published on
the alternate weeks). In all cases, add $1.00 for Canada, $2.00 for other foreign subscriptions.
‘The editors cannot be responsible for unsolicited manuscripts unless return postage, or better,
a stamped, self-addressed erivelope, is enclosed. Opinions expressed in signed articles do not
necessarily ‘represent the views of the editors.
/s3
CRISIS IN WELEARE
Should residency requirements be waived for welfare clients?
Yes, says the liberal; no, Says the conservative
in a lively dialogue on the costs of welfare and
its meaning in terms of freedom
A Liberal-Conseryative Dialogue.
- & TBERAL: I think the conserva-
tive proposal. to require a
period of residence before anyone can
receive welfare payments is cruel and
senseless. Why should the- welfare
client be deprived of the ability to live
where he wants, or to change residence
as much as other people?
Conservative: I do not propose to
so deprive him.
L. You do, if you make welfare
~--.. payments. conditional. on a_period_of
residence. Obviously anyone dependent
on such payments cannot move away
if in the new residence these payments
are suspended for a year or more. You
deprive him effectively, even if not de
jure, of freedom of movement,
C. I myself live in Oshkosh, Wis-
consin. Not that I like it here: I would
prefer to-live in New York; it is dull
here; I don’t care for the people; also
it is cold and rainy.
L. Why don’t you move to New
York, or better still to California?
Cc. Well; I am holding a job here
which pays me $8,000 a year. I have
ttied to find something equivalent in
New York and in California, but didn’t
find it. So I prefer to stay here rather
than starve in New York.
L. I understand that. But I still don’t
see why you wish to deprive the wel-
fare client.
Cc. I am not depriving him. You
want to give. him a privilege not en-
joyed_ by self-supporting people—by
most people. Most people have to live
where they can earn an income from
employment, or from their business.
They move at their-own Peril; some-
times they cannot move; often when
they do move they lose all or Part of
their income at least temporarily. They
tisk losing it. The welfare client, on
his level, would suffer-no more,
1164 National Review
ERNEST VAN DEN HAAG
L. All right, you’ do not intend to
deprive welfare clients. But you wish to
deny them a privilege. It still seems
cruel and senseless. These people are
certainly miserable enough. Why not
give them this privilege which, after
all, does not incréase the total cost of
welfare—what is spent in the new
residence Will be saved in the old.
C. Certainly if there are no signifi-
cant added costs, or disadvantages, we
should grant this privilege to welfare
clients even though others do not ordi-
narily enjoy it. To explore possible
added costs, we must distinguish .be-
tween people who would move from
one welfare roll to another, and people
who are not on welfare rolls in the
place which they leave but apply for
welfare in their new residence.
L. I do not see why this distinction
is necessary. We agreed that it would
be pointlessly cruel to those who trans-
fer from one welfare roll to the other
to keep. them waiting—to impose a
residence requirement. I would not
want either to let people not previously
on welfare wait for a year or more
before they can receive needed welfare
payments, simply because they are new
residents. I think that would be cruel,
C. Perhaps. Yet in this case there
might be a palpable disadvantage, an
added cost. Suppose I make a meager _
living somewhere. I’m not doing well,
and I don’t like it but, on the other
hand, I'm self-supporting. I do not
leave my farm or town only because
I make a living there. I know full well
that I cannot elsewhere: I do not have
the necessary skills. At least I would
Tun a great risk. So I stay self-support-
ing here. But, if I know that, upon
leaving my job here, I can receive wel-
fare payments in a few weeks in New
York—I might prefer to go there and
stay on the welfare rolls there. In this
ease your policy has transferred a
self-supporting person to the welfare
rolls. A long waiting period in the new
residence would ‘make this unlikely—it
would deter the person in question
from leaving’ his unsatisfactory job
until he finds something better:
L. Possibly. But the disadvantage
must be weighed against the disadvant-
age of letting people starve, say, in
New York, simply because they have
not been there long enough.
C. Quite. Before we do this weigh-.
ing, let me draw your attention to a
previously neglected matter: There are
added costs even if a person -already
on the welfare rolls transfers to a wel-
fare roll elsewhere.
L. He would be getting welfare, by
hypothesis, in the place which he leaves
and more or less the same amount
NN ereenrarennnerer ieee lS
where he goes. The total cost would
be the same. I can’t see the added cost.
C. There would be no great dis-
advantage, if welfare clients were to
move randomly: if, at least over the
long run, about as Many would leave
any one region or town as move- into
it, Increases and decreases of expendi-
ture would offset each other for each
locality. But the movement is not ran-
dom: clients move from rural areas
and small towns to industrial areas and
bigger towns, from the South to the
East and West.
L. Tapmir that this may cause prob-
Jems about the distribution of the
burden. It may seem unfair that some
localities have to bear more, others less
than before. But we must not reason
parochially. The total cost for all locali-
ties is unchanged. Further, the distri-
bution of welfare costs before such a
Movement was not particularly God-
given or equitable either: it was an
historical accident—just as the new
distribution would be. Still, I don’t
want an excessive tax burden to fall
on the places that attract welfare
clients; nor do I want cities to compete
in making themselves. unattractive to
welfare clients. It would be best, there-
fore, to defray. the cost of _welfare
Payments altogether through federal
subsidies—as is done already to a large
extent. In this way the burden will be
equitably distributed—the total burden
will fall on all citizens without unfair
disadvantages for any one region.
C. Are you sure that it is purely a
* matter of equity?
L. What else? I have already pointed
out that the total cost is the same,
wherever the welfare’ clients live.
C. Except for people who are on
welfare only because they did move—
whether or not that was the purpose
of moving.
L. Yes, except for this group.
C. I have to inform you -now that
even the movement of a person from
the welfare rolls of one place to those
of another adds significantly to the total
cost.
L. Why?
C. Well, the cost of living differs
from place-to place.
LL. Certainly... But I don’t think that
difference is earth-shaking.
C. It is not insignificant. It costs
about three times as much to house a
welfare family in New York as it costs
to house that family in the rural areas,
or even in the small towns they have
left.
L. There is something to this but not
enough to change my mind.
C. Let me add to it. There are con-
siderable indirect costs—costs that do
not show up in welfare expenditures
but in the general city budget. As more
and more people come to a city, public
services must be increased. Usually the
added people pay for the added serv-
ices through their taxes. The welfare
clients do not, and the indirect costs of
their presence are quite high: public
schools, police, housing, social workers,
etc.—they add disproportionately to all
these costs.
L. But in the total picture aren't
these costs occurring, say, in New York,
offset by the decreased costs in, say,
Oshkosh?
C. They are not. The buildings where
these people lived; the schools, the
police force, etc. all were already pres-
ent in Oshkosh—little is saved by non-
use. The emigrants do not ‘decrease
indirect (as distinguished from direct)
costs by their departure; as immigrants
they increase indirect costs by their
arrival and residence.
L. Do you have any estimate of
these additional costs?
C. No, I don’t. But it is not hard
to see that they are far from negligible.
L. Still, we have to weigh them
against the moral and possibly the
economic advantages of freedom of
movement.
C. We do. But “freedom of move-
ment” here is a loaded term. You sug-
gest that to call attention to the costs
of a privilege—which you originally
wanted to grant welfare clients (even
though self-supporting persons do not
have it) because it was supposed to be
costless—is to be opposed to this
“freedom.” This is misleading, at least,
exaggerated. -Besides, you are not
giving them a freedom but placing
them in a privileged position to exer.
cise a freedom they already have; to
feed the hungry is not to give them
“freedom to eat”—it is to help them
use it.
Let me offer an illustration: As you
know, many Puerto Ricans have come
to New York. Most are hardworking
citizens. Some are welfare recipients.
Either way, most are poor and live in
slums. Why do you ‘think they have
come to stay in New York?
L. However poor they are, they are
better off than where they came from.
C. At least they think so; as did the
Irish or Italians who came before. And
the Negroes who came from the South.
But there are many more where they
came from. Why do you think they
have not, or not yet, come to New
York?
L. I suppose conditions are not now
sufficiently attractive in comparative
terms, to lead to more immigration
than actually takes place.
C. Right. But suppose your liberal
(a bad word; “welfarist? would be
more accurate) friends had been able
to appropriate all the money they
wanted to offer public housing accom-
modations or subsidies to those who
were already in New York and live in
slums. This might weil have made New
York more attractive to those Puerto
Ricans who are not attracted enough
to come now. And it might speed up
the immigration of others. The move-
ment into New York and the
consequent indirect costs would be
multiplied (quite apart from the extra-
expenditure that added to the move-
ment in the first place). Do you feel
that the residents of New York have
an obligation to provide. “decent”
housing for all indigents, ‘all those-who
cannot afford to pay for it from their
own incomes, yet want to come to New
“York? The expenditure might be” inc
finite and infinitely self-stimulating.
The more housing you provide from
public funds, the more people will
come.
Pethaps so; but people must have
housing wherever they live. Hence
I should say the Federal Government—
if not the New Yorkers—has an obli-
gation to provide it for those who can-
not afford it—and the migration adds
little to the cost, for the housing would
have to be provided in Puerto Rico,
or in the South as well—if we are to
be just and charitable. And it would
cost no less.
Cc + YOU OVERLOOK several things. A)
Teal estate is more expensive in New
York than in most other places; b)
there arevthe indirect costs which we
mentioned before; c) these migrants
are not newly born: they move from
one place to the other. The housing for
the newly immigrated in New York
would not have to be built in Puerto
Rico; the migrants had accommoda-
tions thére, public or private. at
NovEMBER 19, 1968 1165
L. Yes, but they were not good
enough. That is why they came to New
York.
C. Perhaps. But that is the trouble:
if we assume the obligation to take
care of anyone who comes to New
York by your standards, we will have
a steadily increasing immigration to
New York—and we might have to procedures, in a way that is both _
build housing for most of the popula-
tion of Puerto Rico.
L. What are those standards you
attribute to me? I am not proposing
the luxuries you suggest.
Cc. I'm not suggesting you do. But
you did say that you would subsidize”
a better standard for the migrants, or
one no less good, at the least, than
they enjoyed at home. That would be
quite enough to attract them and create
the problem we are discussing—a prob-
Jem that is insoluble on your premises
(if we exclude forced residence, as we
should). For even if housing standards
are no better than in Puerto Rico or
Alabama, New York might remain
attractive to those who cannot afford
it, as long as things are not much
worse than they are at home.
L. What would you do?
C. I think we just have to repudiate
the obligation which you so eagerly
want to assume. We should help in-
digent people; but we must not attract
them from one place to the other at
considerable cost, or provide for them
regardless of the effects this will have
on additional migration and on addi-
tional costs.
L. Then, since you already opposed
helping those who have a job and lost
it by moving, you now don’t want to
help those who already were on wel-
1166
National Review
fare rolls, if they move?
C. Not quite. In both cases I would
use the waiting period—the residence
requirement—to deter unwarranted
moving. Otherwise I would be willing
to help—though I think welfare pay-
ments are at present given under
scandalously cumbersome and costly
humiliating and likely to reduce the
incentive to work. But let that go. I do
have some qualifications to the resi-
dence requirement which I would im-
pose.
L. What are they?
C. First, I might make emergency
provisions—conditional on the return
of the applicant to his place of origin,
unless he can show good reason for
not returning—e.g. reasonable employ-
ment prospects.
I would also permit waiving the
waiting period for those who immi-
grate—even though on welfare rolls at
home, or even though they have no
job promised—provided that before
they leave, they advise, say, New York
welfare and employment officials of
their intention and are not advised that
they will not be placed on welfare
rolls. The residence requirement should
be waived for those who have good
employment prospects.
L. Most of them are illiterate.
C. Yes, this whole procedure could
take place between their local and New
York welfare officials.
L. Suppose they are arbitrarily de-
nied their wishes?
C. I favor reasonable standards along.
the lines suggested, and appropriate ap-
peal procedure.
L. Still I think you make movement
for the welfare client much harder.”
C. Perhaps. But please consider two
matters. If a person not on welfare
leaves a place where he earns an in-
come to go to a big city, he, too,
normally inquires and takes precau-
tions and normally moves only if he
has a reasonable prospect of earning
a living. I do not see why the welfare
client—present or future—should be
exempt from such precautions which
are as helpful to him as. to others.
Further, the self-supporting person may
go elsewhere, or return home, if he
can’t make his way in New York. Why
not the non-self-supporting, when there
is no warrant for: supporting him more
expensively in his new residence?
Finally, let me make a general point:
whenever you provide for people, you
place some obligation on them—even
when you do not intend to. If you
provide for all lung cancer patients
you will create social concern and
finally legal provisions restricting the
freedom to .smoke or not to smoke.
The non-smoker, in the long run, will
be unwilling to pay for the harm the
smoker inflicts on if —
restrict it or make it difficult,
L. Would you then prohibit smok-
ing, or refuse to provide for. the indi-
gent victims?
C. Neither. I would make a reason-
able compromise. I would make smok-
ing expensive. No point in reducing
care for victims—cancer is not attrac-
tive anyway. But welfare provisions
might be.
L. We have discussed only one as-
pect of the matter: the residence re-
quirement. Do you think that is the
most important aspect?
C. Far from it. Others are worse and
more important: they have contributed
to the present mess. To remedy these
aspects—which is neither difficult nor
costly materially, but would require
non-demagogic political leadership—is
more important than the matter we
have discussed,
L. In this case, why did we not start
there?
C. Well, we have to start somewhere.
And, you see, I am conservative. I be-
lieve one thing should be tackled at a
time—if it can be separated from
others. And, if I can put you in a
reasonable frame of mind on a matter
which is comparatively minor but en-
gages your passion, who knows, I
might be able to get you to be reason-
able on major things next time. O
imself—so he will _
©
L tt think the conservative proposal to require a period
of residence before anyone can receive welfare payments
is cruel and senseléss. Why should the welfare client
be deprivedof the ability to live where he wants, or te
change residence as much as other people?
cS I do not propose to so deprive him.
L You do, if you make welfare payments conditional on 4
period of residence. Obviously anyone dependent on such
‘payments can not move away if in the new residence these
payments ere suspended for a year or more. ‘You deprive
him effectively even if not de iure of freedom of movement.
@ 1 myself Live in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Not that i Like
it here; I would prefer to live in New York; it is duli
here; I don't care for the people; also it is cold and rainy.
L Why don't you move to New York, or, better still, to
California?
C Well, I am holding a job here which pays me $8,000
a year. I have tried to find something equivalent in
New York and in California but didn't find it. So 1 prefer
to stay kere rather than starve in New York.
wed
L understand that. But 1 still don't see why you wish
te deprive the welfare client,
¢ 1am not deprivinghim. You want to give him a
privilege not enjoyed by self supporting people««by most
people, Most people have fo Live where they can earn an
income from employment or from their business, They move
at their own peril; sometimes they cannot move; often
when they move they lose all or part of their income at
least temporarily; end usually they risk losing it, ‘The
welfare client, on his level, would suffer no more.
L all cight, you de not intend to deprive welfare
elients butyou wish to deny them a privileger- It still
Seems cruel and senseless, These people are certainly
miserable enough. Why not give them this privilege
which, after all, does not increase the total cost of
welfares-what is spent in the new residence will be saved
in the oid,
C Certainly if there zu are no significant added costs
or disadvantages we should grant this privilege to
welfare clients even though others de not ordinarily
enjoy it. Te explore possible added costs, we must
distinguish between people who would move from one welfare
wold to another and people whe are not on welfare rolis
in the place which they leave but apply for welfare in
their new residence.
wed
L 1 do not see why this distinction is necessary. We
egreed thatit would be pointiessiy cruel te keep wanting
those uho transfer from one welfere roll to the other.
IL would not want either to let people notpreviously on
welfare want for a year or more before they can regeive
needed welfare payments, simply because they are new
residents, 1 think that would be cruel.
G Perheps, Yet in this case there might be «2 palpable
disadvantage, an added cost. Suppese I sake a meagre
living somewhere. I'm not doing well, end I donf# like
it but, on the other hand, I'm self supporting. i de
not leave my farm or tewn only because 1 make a kak living
there--and I know full well that I camnot elsewhere--
i de not have the necessary skilis, At least I would run
a great risk elsewnere, So 1 stay self supporting here.
But if I know that upon leaving my job here I can receive
welfere payments in a few weeks in New York+-1 might
prefer to eo there and get and stay om the welfare rolls
there. In this case your policy has transferred a sellf
supporting person to the welfare rolls, A long waiting
period in the new residence would make this unlikely+-it
would deter the person in question from leaving his
wisatisfactery job until he finds something better.
L ‘This is possible. But this dissdvantage must be
weighed against the disadvantage of letting people starve:
say, in New York, simply because they have not been there
ieng enough.
C Quite, But befere we do this weighing, let me draw
your attention te some previously neglected matters.
There ere added costs even if a person already on the
welfare rolls movese-interest mailing period--to 2
welfare roll elsewhere.
L He would be getting welfare, by hypothesis, in the
place which he leaves and, sore or leas the same amount
where he gees. The total cost would be the same, I
ean't see the added gost.
¢ There would be no great disadvantage--if welfare
¢lients were to move randomly--if, et least over the long
run, about as many would Leave any one region er town
as move into it, Imereases and decreases of expenditure
would offset each other for each locaity, But the
movement is not rendom: clients move from rural sreas
and small towns fo inéustrial areas and bigger towns,
feom the South to the East and West.
L - admit thet this may cause problems about the
distribution of the burden, It my seem unfair that
some locelities have te bear more Skhuuxatziegerss
ethers less than before, But we must not reason paro-
chialiy. The total cost for all lecalities is unchanged.
Further, the distribution of welfare cost before the
ed
movement was net particularly Gedegiven or equitable
either: it was an histerical esecident+-just as the
new distributien would be. Still, I don't want an excess-
ive tax burden te fail on the places that attract welfare
elients, nor do I want cities te compete in making
themselves unattractive fer welfare clients. Sit would
be best therefore to defray the cost of welfare payments
through Federal subsidiese-as is done already to a large
extent. In this way the burden will be equitably
distributed--the tofal turden will fall on all citizens
without unfeis Gisadvantages for any one region,
G Axe you sure thatit is purely a matter of equity?
SL Uhat else? I have already pointed out that the
total cost is the same, wherever the welfare clients live.
L~L Emeepe for people uho are on welfare only because
they did meve-«eshether or not that wes the purpose of
moving.
L Yes, except for this group.
cS Ee (i RATE PES SES ES Hea: BE
@ person from the welfare folls of one piece to another
adds significantly te the totel cest.
Lo why
waG
© Well, the cost of living differs from place to place.
L Certainly. But I dente think thet difference is
muti world shaking,
G it as net insignificant. It certainly costs about
three times as much to house e welfare family in New York
than it costs to house that family in the rural areas,
or even in the small towns which they have left.
L There is something to this but not enough to change
ay mind.
¢ Let me add to it, ‘There are eonsiderable indirect
eostse-costs that do not show up in welfare expenditure
bot in the general city budget. As more and more people
eome to a city, public services must be increased,
Usually the added people pay for the added services through
their tazes, ‘The welfare clients do not, and the
indireet costs of their presence are quite high: Public
stheols, police, housing, social workers, ete,««they add
@ispropretionately te all these costs,
L But im the toml pieture aren't these costs cccuming
say, in New York, offset by the decreased costs in. Seyy
Oshkosh?
© They are not. ‘The buildings where these people lived:
the schools, the police feree, ote. all were already
present in Oshkesh--littie is saved by nen use, ‘The
=F
emigrants de not decrease in direct (am as distinguished
from direct) costs by their departure; the immigrants
increase indirect costs by theix arrival and residence,
& De you have any estimate of these additional costs?
@ No, i dem'e, Bue it is net hard te see that they are
fez from negligible.
L Still, we heve to weigh them against the moral and
pessibly the economic edvantases of freedom of movement.
CG Wedo, But "freedom of movement" here is a ineded
term, You suggest that to call attention te the costs of
@ privilege which you originally wanted to erant welfere
elients (even though self supporting persons do not have it)
because it wes supposed to be costless is to be opposed
to this freedom. This is misleading, at least exaggereted,
Let me offer now an illustration of my point which is
leaded only to clebEfy the point.
As you know, many Puerte Ricans have come to New York,
Most are bardworking citizens, Some are welfare recipients.
Either way, most are quite poor and they live in slums,
Why do you think they have come, and stay in New York?
on
L However poor they are, they ere better eff than
where they came from.
G at least they think so; as did the irish er itealians
whe came before. Ata the Negroes who came from the South.
But there are many more skw where they came from. why
@o you think they do not, or not yek come to New York?
L 4 suppese conditions are not sow sufficiently attractive
in comparative terms, to lesd to more iemieration then
actually takes place.
© Right. But suppose your Skmk *iiberal® (a bed words
welfarist” would he mere accurate) friemis hed been able
to appropriate all the money they wanted to effer public
housing accommodations ox subsidies to those whe were
already in New York and live in slums. ‘This might well
have made New York more attractive te those Puerte Ricans
who are not ettracted enoush te ceme new, And it might
speed up the immieration of others, The movement into
New York end the consequent indirect costsyemekex would
be miltiplied, quite apart from the extrasexpenditure
that added to the movement. Do you feel thet the residents
ef New York have an obligation to provide "decent" housing
for all indigents, ali those who cannot aiferd te pay for
it from their own incomes, a wont te Live in New York?
wed
The expenditure might be infinitely self stimslating. The
more housing you provide from public funds, the more
people will come.
L Perhaps not; but people met have housing wherever
they live, Hence I should say the Federal goverament
has an obligatien to provide it for these who cannot
afford iy-~and the migration adds little to the cost:
for the housing would heve te be provided in Puerto Ricos
ov in the South as well-«if we are to be just and
charitable, And it wuld cost no less.
C ‘You overlook several metters, a) Realy estate is
more expensive in New York then in most other places;
b) there are the indirect costs which we mentioned
already; cc) you ignore tha fact thet these migrants
ate not newly bern: they move from one place to the
other, ‘The housing for the newly immigcated in Rew York
would not have to bebuile aeywey in Puerte Rico, the
migrants had accommodations there, public or private,
L Yes, but they were not good enough. That is why
they came to New York.
@ Perhaps. But that is the trouble: Lf we assume
the obligation to take care of anyone whe comes to New
York by your standards, we will have a steadily increasikng
imiegration.to New York=eand we might have to build
owld
housing for most of the population of Puerto Rico.
L Whet ave those standards you attribute to me? I am
mot proposing the lamuries you suggest.
& I'm not suggesting pou deo, But you did say thet you
would provide for the migrants a better standard, or one
no Less good, « t the least, than they enjoyed at home.
That would be quite enough to attract them and create
the problem we discuse«-a problem that is insoluble on
your oremises (if we exclude forced residence, as we
Should). For even if housing standards are no better
thenin Puerto Rico om Alebama, New York might remain
attrective te those whe cannot afferd it, as long as thikes
ave not such worse then they ere at home.
Lo Whe would you do?
@ i think we just have to repudiate the obligation
which you 50 eagerly want to assumee Wwe should help
indigent people, Bat we must not attract them from one
place to the other at considerable cost, or provide for
them, tegerdless of the effects this poifion sey have
on additional migration and an additional costs.
L Then, since you already opposed helping those who
have a job and lose ity by moving, you now don’t want
to help those whe already were on welfare rolis, if
they moved?
& et qiite., In beth cases 1 would use the witing
petiod-«the residence requirement--to deter unwarranted
moving, Ctherwise 1 would be gukiegx willing to help
«~though 1 think welfare psyments are af present given
under scandalously cumbersome and costiy procedures, in a
way thet is beth humiliating end Likely to reduce the
incentive to work, But let that go. i de have some
qualifications to the residence requirement which I would
impose,
LL What are they?
© Firet, I might make emergency provisions--conditional
on the return of the applicant te his place or origitiy
umless he can show good reason for not returning-«e.s.
teasonable employment prospects.
I would also waive the waiting period forthose who
iemigrate--even though on welfare folis at hottie, om even
though they have no job promised-eprovided that before
they leave they advise, say’ Hew York welfare and employment
officials of their intention end are not advised that they
will rot be placed on welfare roils,
L Most of them are illiterate,
6 Yes; this hole procedure could take place beetweer
their local and the New York welfare officials,
wow 2
L Suppose they are arbitrarily denied their wishes?
G 1 favor reasonable standards along the lines suggested,
and appropriate appeals provedures.
L Still 1 think you sake movement harder.
© Perhaps, But please consider tuo metters, If 2
person noton welfare Leaves a place where he earnes an
imeome te go to a big city, he too normally inquires
and takes precautions and soramelly mkskeaxmiig moves only
a£ he has a reasonable prospect of earming a living. i
do not see why it should be easier for the welfare
glient--present om futuve-«if these precautions are
helpful im both cases, And, the self supporting person
may go elsevhere, or return home, if he can't make his
way in New York-auhy not the noneself supporting in those
eases where there is mo warrant for supporting him
mere expensively inhis new residence?
Finaliy, let me sake a gemerel point: whenever
you provde for people, you place some obligation on them
“geen whenyou do not intend to, if you provide for ali
~EiveigG cancer patients you will create social concern
end finally legal provisions restricting the freedom to
makemaxummzseex smoke or not to semke, ‘The non-smoker, in
the long rum, will be unwilling to pay for the harm the
smoker inflicts on biaslef«-se he will sestrict or make
we3
@iftioult the seif«infliction of such harm
Z Would you then prohibit smoking, ox cefuse te provide
for the indigent victims?
G Neither, But I would make a reasonable compromise.
i would mike smoking expensive, No point in reducing
eave for vietims-ecancer is not attractive anyway. But
welfare provisions might be.
L We have discussed only one aspect of the matter: the
vesidence requirement, Do you think thet is the mst
important aspect?
© Fer from it, Others are worse and more important:
vhey have contributes more to the present mess. To remedy
these aspects-<which is neither difficult ner eostiy
materially, but would require nonedemogogic political
jeadershipesis more important than the matter wehave
discussed.
Zh Inthis case, why did we mot start there?
CG Well, we have to start somewhere, And you see i am
conservative, 1 believe onething should be tackled at
2 timee-if it can be separated from others, And, if
i can pue you in a reasonable frame of mind on e matter
which is comparatively minor but engeges your passions
Lb | think the conservative propesal to require 2 period
of residence before anyone can receive welfare payments
is eruel and senseléss. why should the welfare elient
be deprivedef the ability to live where he wants, oz to
change residence as much as other people?
C i do not propose te so deprive hin.
L You do, if you sake welfare payments conditional on 2
period of residence. Obviously anyone dependent on such
payments cen not move awey if im the new residence these
paynents are suspended for e year or more, You deprive
him effectively even if not de iure of freedom of movement.
© I myself live in Oshkesh, Wisconsin. Not that 1 like
it heres I would prefer to Live in New York; it is ail
here; I don’t care for the peoples aise it is cold and reiny.
L Why don't you move to New York, or, better still, to
California?
© Weill, I em holding e job here which pays me $8,000
a year. 1 heave tried toe find something equivalent in
New York end in California but didn't find it. So I prefer
to stay here rather than starve in New York,
a02
L of understand that. But i still don't see why you wish
te deprive the welfare client.
G 1am not deprivinghim. You want to give him a
privilege net enjoyed by self supporting people-<-by most
people, Most people have fo live where they can earn an
income from employment or from their business, They move
at their own peril; sometimes they cannot move; often
when they move they lose all or part of their income at
least temporarily; and usually they risk losing it. The
welfare client, on his level, would suffer no more.
L All right, you ée not intend to deprive welfare
elients butyou wish to deny them 4 privileger- It still
seems cruel and senseless, These people are certainly
miserable enough. Why not give them this privilege
which, after ali, does not increase the total cost of
welfare--what is spent in the new residence will be saved
in the old.
C Certainly if there = are no significant added costs
or disadvantages we should grant this privilege to
welfare clients even though others de not ordinarily
enjoy it. To explore possible added costs, we must
distinguish between people who would move from one welfare
rolé to another and people who are not on welfare relis
in the place which they leave but apply for welfare in
their new residence.
wed
LZ I €e not see why this distinction is necessary. We
agreed thatit would be pointlessiy eruel to keep wanting
those who transfer from one welfare roll to the other.
I would not want either to Let people notpreviously on
welfare want for a year or more before they can receive
needed welfare payments, simply because they are new
residents, £ think that would be cruel.
© Perhaps, Yet in this case there might be a palpable
disadvantage, an added cost. Suppose 1 make a meagre
living somewhere. i'm not doing well, and 1 donf# Like
it but, on the other band, I'm self supporting. I de
not leave my farm or town only because 1 make a Eek living
there-«and I know full well that I cannot elsewhere--
I do not have the necessary skilis. At least I would run
a great risk elsewhere. So 1 stay self supporting here.
But if I know thet upon leaving my job here I can receive
welfare payments in a few weeks in New York--i might
prefer to go there and get and stay on the welfare rolls
there, Im this case your policy has transferred a sellt
supporting person te the welfare rolls, A long waiting
period in the new residence would make this unlikely-«it
would deter the person in question from leaving his
wnsatisfactory job until he finds something better.
L hie is possible, But this disadvantage must be
weighed against the disadvantage of letting people starve,
say, in New York, simply because they have not been there
and
tong enough.
© Quite, But before we do this weighing, let me draw
your attention to some previously neglected matters,
There are added costs even if a person aiready on the
welfare rolis smvesweliontoee Beidine period-«to a
welfare roll elsewhere.
L He would be getting welfare, by hypothesis, in the
place which he leaves and, more or less the same amount
where he goes, The totel cost would be the seme. I
eantt see the added cost.
© There would be no great disadvantage--if welfare
elients were to move randomly--if, at least over the long
run, about as many would Leave any ome region or town
as move into it. Inereases and decreases of expenditure
would offset each other for each locaity. But the
movement is not random: clients move from rural areas
and small towns te industrial areas and bigger towns,
from the South to the East and West.
L 2 admit thet this may cause problems about the
distribution of the burden, It may seem unfair that
some localities have to bear more Shumxatzktgers<
others less than before, Eut we must net reason paro-
chially. The totel cost for all localities is unchanged.
Further, the distribution of welfare cost before the
oS
movement was not particularly God«given or equitable
either: it was an historical aecident+-just as the
new distribution would be, Still, i don't want an excess-
ive tax burden to fail on the places that attract welfare
elients, nor do I want cities to compete in making
themselves unattractive for welfare clients. Sit would
be best therefore to defray the cost of welfare payments
through Federal subsidies+-as is done already to a Large
extent. in this wey the burden will be equitably
distributed--the total burden will fall on ail citizens
without unfeir Gisadvantages for any one region.
G Axe you sure thatit is purely a matter of equity?
SL What else? I have already pointed out that the
total cost is the same, wherever the welfare clients live.
& Exeepe for people whe are on welfare only because
they did moves-whether or not that was the purpose of
moving.
L Yes, except for this group.
€& i have te inform you now that even the movement of
a person from the welfare folls of one place to another
adds significantly te the total cest.
Lo = Why*
G Well, the cost of living differs from place to place.
L Certainly, But I dentt think that difference is
weet world shaking,
© te is net insignificant, it certainly costs about
three times as much te house 2 welfare family in New York
than it costs te house that family in the rural areas,
er even in the small towns which they have left.
L here is something to this but net enough to change
my mind.
CG Let me edd to it. There are considerable indirect
eosts«-costs that do not show up in welfare expenditure
but in the general city budget. As more and more people
come to a city, public services must be increased.
Usually the added peopje pay for the added services through
their taxes, The welfare clients do not, and the
indireet costs of their presence ere quite high: Public
schools, police, housing, social workers, ete,.<-they add
dispropretionately to all these costs.
& But ia the toml picture aven'r these costs occuming
say, in New York, offset by the decreased costs in, says
Oshkosh?
@ They are not. ‘The buildings where these people lived;
the schools, the police force, ete. ali were already
present in Oshkosh--littie is saved by non use, The
7
emigrants de net decrease in-direct (ex as distinguished
BA .
from direct) costs by their departure; #2 immisrants
inerease indirect costs by their arrival and residence,
~L Do you have any estimate of these additional costs?
G No, i don't, But it is not hard to see that they are
far from negligible.
L Still, we have to weigh them against the moral and
possibly the economic advantages of freedom of movement,
S Wedo. But “freedom of movement” here is a leaded
term. You suggest that te cali attention te the costs of
@ privilege which you originally wanted to grant welfare
elients (even though self supporting persons de not have it)
because it was supposed to be costless is to be opposed anya) ponent
to this freedom. This is misleading, at leest exaggerated", J).
Let me offer now an illustration of my point which is aA
leaded only to clekEfy the point.
As you know, many Puerto Ricans have come to New York.
Most are hardworking citizens, Some are welfare a =
Either way, most are quite poor and they live in slums, id ccdre
Why do you think they have come, and stay in New York?
==8
iL However peor they are, they are better off than
where they came from,
C At least they think so; as did the Irish ex Italians
whe came before, Ari the Negroes who came from the South.
But there are many more tke where they came from. Way
do you think they do not, or mot yet come to New York?
L i suppose conditions are not now sufficiently attractive
in comparative terms, to lead to more immisration than
actually takes place,
© Right. But suppese your Skek *liberal™ (a bed word;
Syelfarist® would he more accurate} friends had been able
to appropriate all the money they wanted to offer public
housing accommodations or subsidies to these whe were
aixeady in New York and live in slums. This might well
have made New York more attractive to those Puerte Ricans
who are not attracted enough to come mow, And it might
Speed up the immieration of ethers, The movement into
New York and the consequent indireet costayzmgmkk= would
be mitiplied { quite ae from the extra-expenditure
that added te the novetient, Bo you feel that the residents
ef New York have an obligation to previde “decent” housing
for ail indigents, 211 these who cannot afford to pay for
ode trwe b
it from their own incomes, les want to bivesige New York?
oad
The expenditure might be)infinitely self stimulating. The
more housing you provide from public funds, the more
people will come.
L Perhaps sunt but people must have housing wherever
they live. Hence I should say the Federal government
hes an obligation te provide it for those whe cannot
afford ibpewand the migration adds little to the cost,
for the housing would have to be provided in Puerto Rico,
or in the South as wellssif we are to be just and
charitable, And it would cost no less,
G You overlook several matters, a) Realy estate is
more expensive in New York than in most othdr places;
b) there ave the indirect costs which we mentioned
already; c}) you ignere tha fact that these migrants
are not newly born: they move from one place tc the
ether, The housing for the newly immigrated in New York
would not have to bepute engrey-in Puerto Rico? the
migrants had accommodations there, public or private,
z Yes, but they were mot good enough, Theat is why
they came to New York,
@ Perhaps. But that is the trouble: if we assume
the obligation to take care of anyone who comes to New
York by your standards, we will have a steadily inereasikng
inmigration.to New York«sand we might have to build
wolf
housing for most of the population of Puerto Rico.
L. Whet are these standards you attribete to me? i am
not proposing the luxuries you suggest,
G t'm not suggesting you do, But you did say that you
would provide for the migrants a better standard, or one
ne Less good, a t the least, than they enjoyed at home,
That would be quite enough te attract them and ereate
the problem we discuss+-a problem that is insoluble on
your premises (if we exclude forced residence, as we
should). For even if housing standards are nc better
thanin Puerto Rico or Alabama, New York might remain
attractive te these whe cannot afford it, as long as thikes
are not much worse than they are at home,
L Wee would you do?
© i think we just have to repudiate the obligation
which you co eagerly want to assumes Ve should help
indigent people, Sat we must not attract them from one
place to the other at considerable cost, or previde for
them, regerdliess of the effects this wopiéton Sar have
on aéditionel migration and an edditional cests.
iL Then, since you already oppesed helping these whe
have a job and lose it, by moving, you now don't want
to help these who already were on welfare rolls, if
they moved?
wll
& Not quite. in both eases i would use the waiting
period--the residence requirement-~to deter unwarranted
moving, Otherwise I would be gmkkkg= willing to help
w=though I think welfare payments are at present given
under scandalously cumbersome and costly procedures, in a
way that is both humiliating and likely to reduce the
incentive to work, But let that go. 1 do have some
qualifications to the residence requirement which I would
impose.
L What are they?
¢ First, I might make emergency provisions-~conditional
on the return of the applicant te his place or origin, |
unless he can show good reason for net returning--e.¢,
reasonable employment prospects,
i would also waive the waiting period ferthose who
immigrate--even though on welfare folis at home, or even
though they have ne job promised-<provided that before
they leave they advise, sayk Hew York welfere and employment
officials of their intention and are not advised that they ,
a A
Will not be placed on welfare rolls, * re Cree i oes u
; = ww
d
aa Gane well Fer Bet ens jos
yo ~
L Most of them are illiterate,
G Yes; this whole procedure could take place beetween
their local and the New York welfare officials,
won 2
L Suppose they are arbitrarily denied their wishes?
G I favor reasonable standards along the lines suggested,
ang appropriate appeals procedures.
& Still I think you mike movement harder,
CG Perhaps. But please consider two matters. If a
person notes welfare Leaves a place where he earmes an
income to go to a big city, he too normally inquires
and takes precautions and norefbl iy Riskexxemiz moves only
if he has a reasonable prospect of earning a living. i
do not see why it should be easier for the welfare
a canal oa or futureread these precautions are a>
helpful Gm_bethcasess And, the self supporting person
may go elsevuhere, or return home, if he can't make te
way in New York«.why not the noneself supporting in-tkese
caggsuees there is mo warrant for supporting him
more expensively S new residence?
Finally. Let me make a general point: whenever
you provde for people, you place some obligation on them
«agyen whenyou do net intend to. if you provide for all
i cancer patients you will ereate secial concern
and fimally legal provisions restricting the freedom to
wakexemcmmkxkex smoke or not to smmke, The non-smoker, in
the long run, will be unwilling to pay for the harm the
smoker inflicts on himslef-«so he will restrict or make
wal
difficult the selfeinfliction of such harm,
L Would you then prohibit enoking, or refuse te provide
for the indigent victims?
@ Neither. But I would make ea reasonable compromise.
I would make smoking expensive, /No point in reducing
eare for victims--cancer is not attractive anyway.) But
welfare provisions might be,
L We have discussed only one aspect of the matter: the
residence requirement. Do you think that is the most
impertant aspect?
CG Far from it. Others are worse and more important:
they have contributes more to the present mess, To renedy
these aspects--vhich is neither difficult nor costiy
materially, but would require nonedemogogic political
leadership-+is more important than the matter wehave
discussed,
L inthis cease, why did we not start there?
G Well, we have to start somewhere, And you see i am
conservative. I believe onafbing should be tackled at
4 times-if it can be separated from others, And, if
i can mit you in a reasonable frame of mind on a matter
which is comparatively minor but engages your passion,
weed
who knows, I might be able to get you to be reasonable
on major things next time.
Lo Plattery will get you nowhere.
G That's why I'm not using its
@. {I think the conservative proposal to require a period “7
of residence before anyone can receive welfare payments
is cruel and senseléss. Why should the welfare client
be deprive ce the ability to live where he wants, or to
change residence as much as other people?
a@ . I do not propose to so deprive him.
Q. You do, if you meke welfare payments conditional on @
period of residence. Gbviously anyone dependent on such
payments can not move away if in the new residence these
payments are suspended for a year or more. You deprive
him effectively even if not de gure of freedom of movement.
&. I myself live in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Not that I like
it here; I would prefer to Live in New York; it is dull
here; I don't care for the people; aiso it is cold and rainy.
Q. Why don't you move to New York, or, better stiil, to
California?
h . Well, I am holding a job here which pays me $8,000
a year. I have tried to find something equivalent in
New York and in California but didn't find it. So I prefer
to stay gBere rather than starve in New York.
--2
9) I understand that. But I still don't see why you wish
to deprive the welfare client.
Qj. I am not deprivinghim. You want to give him a
privilege not enjoyed by self-supporting people--by most
people. Most people have yo live where they can earn an
income from employment, or from their business, They move
at their own peril; sometimes they cannot move; often
when they move they lose all or part of their income at
least temporarily; and usuaily they risk losing it. The
welfare client, on his level, would suffer no more.
Q. All right, you do not intend to deprive welfare
clients Butgou wish to deny them ée privitecerd It still
seems cruel and senseless. These people are certainly
miserable encugh. Why not give them this privilege
which, after all, does not increase the total cost of
welfare--what is spent in the new residence will be saved
in the old,
(3 . Certainly if there x= are no Significant added costs)
or disadvantages | we should grant this privilege tc
welfare clients even though others de not ordinarily
enjoy it. To explore possible added costs, we must
distinguish between people who would move from one welfare
rolé to snother) end people who are not on welfare rolls
in the place which they leave but apply for welfare in
their new residence.
Q. I do not see why this distinction is necessar We
ab pe
& reattleme
* those who transfer from one welfare roil to the other ei pa cette
i
agreed thathe would be pointlessly cruel|to kee waging
I would not want either to let people notpreviously on
a !
welfare wagt for a year or more before they can receive
needed welfare payments, simply because they are new
residents. I think that would be cruel.
B. Perhaps. Yet in this case there might be a palpable
disadvantage, an added cost. Suppose I make e meagre
living somewhere. I'm not doing well, and I don/f# like
it but, on the other hand, I'm selfesupporting. I do
not leave my farm or town only because I make a xxx living
theresgsmé- I know full well that I cannot elsewhere}m
I do not have the necessary skills. At least I would run
a great risk elsewhere. So I stay self- supporting here.
But, if I know that) upon leaving my job here) 1 can receive
welfare payments in a few weeks in New York--1 might
prefer to go there and get, and stay, on the welfare rolis
there. In this case your policy has transferred a seljft
supporting person to the welfare rolls. A long waiting
period in the new residence would make this unlikely--it
would deter the person in question from leaving his
unsatisfactory job until he finds something better.
z
®. This is possible, But this disadvantage must be
weighed against the disadvantage of letting people starve,
say, in New York, simply because they have not been there
--4
long enough.
is . Quite. But before we do this weighing, let me draw
your attention to some previously neglected matters.
There are added costs even if a person already on the
welfare roils novessstetene Ses ing period--to a
welfare roll elsewhere.
Q , He would be getting welfare, by hypothesis, in the
place which he leaves and, more or less the same amount
where he goes. The total cost would be the same, I
can't see the added cost.
&. There would be no great disadvantage mit welfare
clients were to move randomly4nif » at least over the long
run, about as many would leave any one region or town
as move into it. Increases and decreases of expenditure
would offset each other for each locality. But the
movement is not random: clients move from rural areas
and small towns to industrial areas and bigger towns,
from the South to the East and West.
Q I admit that this may cause preblems about the
distribution of the burden. It may seem unfair that
some localities have to bear more, SHANZEXXELEERSA
others less than before, But we must not reason paro-
cChially. The total cost for all lecalities is unchanged.
Further, the distribution of welfare cost before the
--5
movement was not particularly God-given or equitable
either: it was an historical accident--just as the
new distribution would be. Still, I don't want an excess-
ive tax burden to fall on the places that attract welfare
clients; nor do I want cities to compete in making
themselves unattractive for welfare clients. fit would
be best, therefore )to defray the cost ef welfare payments
through Federal subsidies--es is done already to a large
extent. In this way the burden will be equitably
distributed--the total burden will fall on all citizens
without unfair disadvantages for any one region.
}
RB. Are you sure thatit is purely a matter of equity?
a What else? I have already pointed out that the
total cest is the same, wherever the welfare clients live.
f\ (<4 Except for people who are on welfare only because
> .
‘they did move--whether or not that was the purpose of
moving.
a9) Yes, except for this group.
R , I have to inform you now that even the movement of
a person from the welfare folis of one place to another
aGds significantly to the totai cost.
Q wf
A Well, the cost of living differs from place to place.
QQ. Certainly. But I don't think that difference is
earth
wemkh worké shaking.
fa) . It is not insignificant. It cestainiy costs about
three times as much to house a welfare family in New York
gC _.-than it costs te house that family in the rural areas,
pe er even in the smail towns my evans left.
©. There is something to this but not enough to change
my mind.
pe. Let me add to it. There ere sonsiderable indirect
costs--costs that do not show up in welfare expenditure
but in the general city budget. As more and more people
come to a city, public services must be increased,
Usually the added people pay for the added services through
their taxes. The welfare clients do not, and the
indirect costs of their presence are Fquite highs Bublic
schools, police, housing, social workers, etc,--they add
dispropfotionately to ali these costs,
®. But im the toal picture aren't these costs cccuming
say, in New York, offset by the decreased costs in, say,
Oshkosh?
fe , They are not. The buildings where these people lived;
the schools, the police force, etc. ali were already
present in Cshkosh--little is saved by nom—use, The
--7
emigrants do net decrease indirect (ax as distinguished
bn
from direct) costs by their departure; tke immigrants Hoy
increase indirect costs by their arrival and residence.
@ Do you have any estimate cf these additional costs?
Oy. Bo, I don't, But it is not hard to see that they are
far from negligible.
@ Still, we have to weigh them against the moral and
.
possibly the ecenomic advantages of freedom of movement.
Q . We do. But "freedom of movement! here is a loaded
term. You suggest that to call attention to the costs of
a privilege which you originally wanted to grant welfare
clients (even though self-supporting Berens do not have it)
because it was supposed to be costiess, 4 is to opposed
Reger Boe plang Mins
A " wy YL ete wok qui A me
te this freedom, “FRis “is misieading,tat Teast, exaggerated) rey
Let me offer now an illustration of my point which is
rN prac”
loaded only to clatffy the point. wa Aare
As you know, many Puerto Ricans have come to New York. ea orien
Most are hardworking citizens. Some are welfare recipients, 7 unr)
brane 8
Either way, most are quite poor and they live in slums. cr \) Mew
* h
Why do you think they have come, and stay in New York? felon t a
Abp Mem
Par
--8
Q . However poor they are, they are better off than
where they came from,
ie. At least they think so; as did the Irish er Italians
who'came before. Aid the Negroes who ceme from the South.
But there are many more xk where they came from, Why
do you think they do not, or,not yet, come to New York?
GQ. I suppose conditions are net now sufficiently attractive
in comparative terms, te lead to more immigration than
actually takes place.
®. Right. But suppose your Mie ®liberal" (a bad word:
"‘*welfarist" would be more accurate) friends had been able
to appropriate ail the money they wanted to offer public
housing accommodations or subsidies to those who were
already in New York and live in slums, This might well
have made New York more attractive to those Puerto Ricans
who are not attracted enough to come now. And it might
speed up the immigration of others, The movement into
New York and the consequent indirect ccostsyept¥ku would
be multiplied, (qaite apart from the extra-expenditure
in Ma Bik Miter hy
that added to the novensnt] Bo you feel that the residents
of New York have an obligation to provide "decent" housing
for all indigents, all those who cannot afford to pay for
Lowe da
it from their own incomes, oe want to Himes New York?
pad ke |
The expenditure might bée\infinitely seif stimulating. The
more housing you provide from public funds, the more
people will come.
Q . Perhaps =; but people must have housing wherever
they live. Hence I should say the Federal government
has an obligation tc provide it for those whe cannot
afford i#--and the migration adds little to the cost,
for. the housing would have to be provided in Puerto Rico,
or in the South as well--if we are to be just and
charitable. And it would cost no less.
fe _ You overlook several matters, a) Realy estate is
more expensive in New York than in most other places;
b) there are the indirect costs which we mentioned
already: c) you ignore thé fact that these migrants
are not newly born: they move from one place to the
other. The housing fon the newly immigrated in New York
would not have to bebuilt asg@ey in Puerto Rico; the
migrants had accommodations there, public or private.
@ Yes, but they were not good enough. That is why
they came to New York.
(i Perhaps. But that is the trouble: if we assume
the obligation to take care of anyone who comes to New
York by your standards, we will have a steadily increasifing
immigrationgto New York--and we might have to build
--10
housing for most of the population ef Puerto Ricco.
Q. What are those standards you attribute to me? I am
not proposing the luxuries you suggest.
Py . I'm not suggesting you do. But you did say that you
would provide for the migrants a better standard, or one
ne less good, act the least, than they enjoyed at home,
That would be quite encugh to attract them and create
the problem we discuss--a problem that is insoluble on
your premises (if we exclude forced residence, as we
should). For even if housing standards are no better
thanin Puerto Rico or Alabama, New York might remain
attractive to those who cannot afford it, as long as thipgs
are not much worse than they are at home.
Q Whe would you do?
AB , L think we just have to repudiate the cbligation
which you so eagerly want to assumes We should help
indigent peoples BCE we must not attract them from one
place to the other at considerable cost, or provide for
them, regardless of the effects this beifion BY we
on additional migration and en additional costs.
Q Then, since you already opposed helping those who
‘
have a job and lese ity by moving, you now don't want
to help those who already were on welfare rolis, if
they moved?
--1l
& . Not quite. In both cases I would use the waiting
period--the residence requirement--to deter unwarranted
moving. Otherwise I would be guktxxx willing to heip
~-though I think welfare payments are at present given
under scandalously cumberseme and costly procedures, in a
way that is both humiliating and likely to reduce the
incentive to work. But let that ge. I de have some
qualifications to the residence requirement which I would
impose,
Q What are they?
.
fe , First, I might make emergency provisions--conditional
on the return of the applicant to his place of origin,
unless he can show good reason for not returning-~e.g.
reasonable employment prospects.
I would also waive the waiting period fortthose who
immigrate--even though on welfare folis at Rew, or even
though they have no job promised--provided that before
they leave ey advise, say Hew York welfare and employment
officials of their intention and are not advised that they
will not be eS on wal eas roe vie vous Tents wren
@ Host oF them mt wok a :
A Yes; this whole procedure could take place bectween
their locai and the New York welfare officials.
---12
A Suppose they are arbitrarily denied their wishes?
, IL favor reasonable standards along the lines suggested,
and appropriate appeals’ procedures.
Q Still I think you mike movement harder.
& ‘ Perhaps. But please consider two matters. Ifa
person noton welfare leaves a place where he earngs an
income to go to a big city, he, too,normally inquires
and takes precautions and norgmmlly Wkekesxexix moves only
if he has a reasonable pros ie xrning a living. I
do not see why it most ed ETO the welfare
client--present or futures ; Grose precautions are er
helpful nol ads 7 the self- supporting person
may go elsewhere, or return home, if he can't make his
Wy not the non-self. supporting, inVieee
2
cages_waere there is no warrant for supporting him
way in New Yorke
more expensively ibis new residence?
Finally, let me make a general point: whenever
you prowe for pecple, you place some obligation on them
--even whenlyou do not intend to. If you provide for all
= ancer patients you will create social concern
and fiaally legal provisions restricting the freedom to
makexexxnskxkex smoke or not to smmke., The non-smoker, in
the long run, will be unwilling to pay for the harm the
smoker inflicts on hi jet --so he will restrict or make
difficult the seif-infliction of such harm.
Q. Would you then prohibit smoking, or refuse to provide
®. Neither. But I would make a reasonable compromise.
I would make smoking expensive. No point in reducing
eare for victims--cancer is not attractive anyway. But
welfare provisions might be.
Q We have discussed only one aspect of the matter: the
residence requirement, Do you think that is the most
important aspect?
f) , Far from it. Cthers are worse and more important:
they have contributed more to the present mess. To remedy
these aspects--which is neither difficult nor costly
materially, but would require non-demogogic political
leadership--is more important than the matter wehave
discussed,
\
@ inthis case, why did we not start there?
Q. Well, we have to start somewhere. And you see I am
conservative. I believe onefh
ig should be tackled at
a time--if it can be separated from others. And, if
I can put you in a reasonable frame of mind on 4 matter
which is comparatively minor but engages your passion,
W-14
who knows, I might be able to get you to be reasonable
on major things next time.
Q . Flattery will get you nowhere.
A . That's why I'm not using it.
