Comments on: The Job – Urine Test http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/the-job-urine-test/ "Many creative writers keep journals; the sociologist's need for systematic reflection demands it." -C. Wright Mills Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:21:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Jay http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/the-job-urine-test/comment-page-1/#comment-1368 Jay Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:38:08 +0000 http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-job-urine-test/#comment-1368 I think addressing an argument like this through its own logic can help clarify its weakness. By focusing attention on the (seemingly obvious) fact that even underpaid lab techs and receptionists, used equipment, and low-income neighorhood building rents would cost enough that it would require an astronomical number of recipients for the proposed solution to start breaking even, it becomes impossible to sustain the illusion that the proposal is motivated by a concern for government efficiency. Then I think it becomes easier to discuss the other possible motivations and their implications. I think addressing an argument like this through its own logic can help clarify its weakness. By focusing attention on the (seemingly obvious) fact that even underpaid lab techs and receptionists, used equipment, and low-income neighorhood building rents would cost enough that it would require an astronomical number of recipients for the proposed solution to start breaking even, it becomes impossible to sustain the illusion that the proposal is motivated by a concern for government efficiency.

Then I think it becomes easier to discuss the other possible motivations and their implications.

]]> By: cuz http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/the-job-urine-test/comment-page-1/#comment-1361 cuz Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:57:00 +0000 http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-job-urine-test/#comment-1361 And, you know, Lori, I don't think I've ever really thought about big business internalizing the social management they deny big government. It really does align social administration with business objectives. Intriguing...and yet so depressing. And, you know, Lori, I don’t think I’ve ever really thought about big business internalizing the social management they deny big government. It really does align social administration with business objectives. Intriguing…and yet so depressing.

]]> By: cuz http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/the-job-urine-test/comment-page-1/#comment-1360 cuz Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:19:04 +0000 http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-job-urine-test/#comment-1360 I agree that defeating an argument on its own merits is a great way to go, Jay, but I don't think you quite succeed in doing so. You're absolutely correct IF we all agree that the number of people who are taking drugs and receiving welfare benefits is a small number. My main concern with the original email is that it implies that the author holds exactly the opposite view of the situation. The person 'obviously' thinks that most people on welfare are also on drugs (and thus 'undeserving poor') and that 'we' would be saving lots of money if we set up testing facilities. So we would need some sort of statistics to back up your counterargument to have an effect. That said, my goal wasn't simply to defeat the argument but to point out deeper systemic causes for the situations in which these people (to the extent they exist) live. I want to show that they're not undeserving but railroaded and that therefore from the start the policy conception doesn't address the sickness, only the symptom. If we stick to simply defeating an argument on its own terms, we wind up implicitly accepting its frame of reference, which is often where the real problem lies. Gotta pee... I agree that defeating an argument on its own merits is a great way to go, Jay, but I don’t think you quite succeed in doing so. You’re absolutely correct IF we all agree that the number of people who are taking drugs and receiving welfare benefits is a small number. My main concern with the original email is that it implies that the author holds exactly the opposite view of the situation. The person ‘obviously’ thinks that most people on welfare are also on drugs (and thus ‘undeserving poor’) and that ‘we’ would be saving lots of money if we set up testing facilities. So we would need some sort of statistics to back up your counterargument to have an effect.

That said, my goal wasn’t simply to defeat the argument but to point out deeper systemic causes for the situations in which these people (to the extent they exist) live. I want to show that they’re not undeserving but railroaded and that therefore from the start the policy conception doesn’t address the sickness, only the symptom. If we stick to simply defeating an argument on its own terms, we wind up implicitly accepting its frame of reference, which is often where the real problem lies.

Gotta pee…

]]> By: Jay http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/the-job-urine-test/comment-page-1/#comment-1358 Jay Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:35:08 +0000 http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-job-urine-test/#comment-1358 Unfortunately, this is a familiar pattern. People who claim to want government to be "run like a business" are invariably the same people who demand the most unbusiness-like inefficiencies. Take the mandate for the IRS to heavily audit the Earned Income Tax Credit; no risk management professional would ever dedicate so many resources to an area with such little potential for recovery! Then there are the "accountability" measures to "control" costs, that instead of streamlining the processes to reduce overhead actually add more levels of approval and audit (more overhead) and add more lowest-bidder requirements, which ultimately increase costs from delays and otherwise unnecessary replacements. It is a clever strategy - a sort of self-fulling prophecy. Except for most of these people it's not a strategy at all. It's just another example of their bigotry being used to distract them from their own self-interest. Just like the "tax cuts" that shift the burden of national wealth acquisition from the beneficiaries to those responsible for productive work. Unfortunately, this is a familiar pattern.

People who claim to want government to be “run like a business” are invariably the same people who demand the most unbusiness-like inefficiencies. Take the mandate for the IRS to heavily audit the Earned Income Tax Credit; no risk management professional would ever dedicate so many resources to an area with such little potential for recovery!

Then there are the “accountability” measures to “control” costs, that instead of streamlining the processes to reduce overhead actually add more levels of approval and audit (more overhead) and add more lowest-bidder requirements, which ultimately increase costs from delays and otherwise unnecessary replacements.

It is a clever strategy – a sort of self-fulling prophecy. Except for most of these people it’s not a strategy at all. It’s just another example of their bigotry being used to distract them from their own self-interest. Just like the “tax cuts” that shift the burden of national wealth acquisition from the beneficiaries to those responsible for productive work.

]]> By: Jay http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/the-job-urine-test/comment-page-1/#comment-1357 Jay Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:13:44 +0000 http://www.cuzproduces.com/index.php/2008/01/30/the-job-urine-test/#comment-1357 Personally, I like to beat an argument on its own terms... I would tend to spend less effort justifying the destructive habits of despair, and simply point out the "big government" costs of the proposed bureaucratic solution. How long does it take to pee in a cup? How many people have to work in the testing facility to maintain the integrity (it's really their pee), check people in, receive the samples, actually do the testing, handle all the paperwork..... I can't imagine the savings from payments withheld from the percentage of current beneficiaries who abuse substances could come anywhere near close to covering the operation of the testing facilities and additional administration. Does the person behind the email really want to pay even higher taxes just so some government functionaries can handle poor people's pee? Personally, I like to beat an argument on its own terms… I would tend to spend less effort justifying the destructive habits of despair, and simply point out the “big government” costs of the proposed bureaucratic solution.

How long does it take to pee in a cup? How many people have to work in the testing facility to maintain the integrity (it’s really their pee), check people in, receive the samples, actually do the testing, handle all the paperwork….. I can’t imagine the savings from payments withheld from the percentage of current beneficiaries who abuse substances could come anywhere near close to covering the operation of the testing facilities and additional administration.

Does the person behind the email really want to pay even higher taxes just so some government functionaries can handle poor people’s pee?

]]>