If removing the safety net would fix things, why were they ever broken enough for the safety net to be put in place in the first place?
I don't see many people thinking that social security enough will be enough to keep them from being poor. Yet many of them still don't save much on their own. You think it's simply a question of the magnitude of the negative incentive, vs the far-future nature of it?
And what if I don't want the poor house to be brought back? What if I think today's situation (if you don't save, you're slightly better off than the poor house) is better? Likewise, it used to be more common for employers to offer long-term employment with pensions. It used to be more common for families to live together across generations. I don't particularly want any of that back -- it would limit my mobility and flexibility, and I don't want to stay in one place forever -- but people are not adjusting well to the new, more independent present.
If removing the safety net would fix things, why were they ever broken enough for the safety net to be put in place in the first place?
You're assuming that's the reason it was put there in the first place. I don't think that's the case. Before modern politics, it was as effective to solicit voters with promises of free goodies as it is now to solicit corporations.
I don't particularly want any of that back -- it would limit my mobility and flexibility, and I don't want to stay in one place forever
(Not sure I know what you're arguing here, so forgive me if I've misinterpreted your point) You should be allowed to make that choice. Forcing people to "come together and find common solutions that protect us all from risk" (read: implement more taxes, have gov't take care of us) eliminates much of that choice. Not only long term choice, but the sort of short term choice you seem to be talking about (mobility and flexibility). Head over to Europe to see. High taxes, incredible benefits, and a system that makes it nearly impossible to fire workers (even private workers), makes finding work very, very difficult. Unemployment for those under 24 is over 50% in Spain and Greece, and not much better in most other EU countries.
You're assuming that's the reason it was put there in the first place. I don't think that's the case.
I'm not sure how one could read much about what conditions were like in industrialized countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and not think that's the case. Conditions were really shitty for workers and the poor for some decades. People literally used to die in the street due to lack of health care; die on the job due to nothing even approximating a concern for workplace safety; die of cold due to no heating; die of hunger due to not being able to buy or steal enough bread; etc. Much of Manhattan was full of tenement slums with high mortality rates.
Head over to Europe to see. High taxes, incredible benefits, and a system that makes it nearly impossible to fire workers (even private workers), makes finding work very, very difficult.
"Europe" does not really have one system. The best examples of social-democratic European countries are probably the Scandinavian countries, which do not generally make it hard to fire workers. In Denmark, at least, it is exceptionally easy to fire workers. But there is also a strong safety net, which is the tradeoff: it's easy to fire workers, but they won't be on the street if they get fired. A similar pro-market-but-pro-services mindset is seen in other sectors of the economy. For example, the transit system is paid for largely by taxes, but privately run by contractors who bid for the right to operate it, unlike the publicly-run U.S. transit systems.
The basic model is high tax but high flexibility. I think that actually increases freedom and individual choice considerably compared to the American model. For example, in Denmark, people who were born with congenital heart defects have the freedom to start a technology company. In the United States they do not, because employer-tied health insurance means they must work for a large employer with a group health plan (unless they're very wealthy).
This comment really nails it. Employers should have all the flexibility they need with regards to hiring/firing, but it should not mean you wind up in the street. This is part of the reasons (IIUC), that "unions" in many Scand. Countries are quite different than American ones, in that they are more guild-like cooperatives (working along with business and government) rather than largely adversarial. A model that has the right mix of policies to allow dynamism without impoverishment is what's needed (along with a periodic reassessments to make tweaks), and seems like something that's seriously worth looking at here in the US.
Good point regarding Scandinavian "unions". This distinction sometimes makes it hard to discuss work related situations with Americans unless I take a large detour around what a union up here usually does.
I don't see many people thinking that social security enough will be enough to keep them from being poor. Yet many of them still don't save much on their own. You think it's simply a question of the magnitude of the negative incentive, vs the far-future nature of it?
And what if I don't want the poor house to be brought back? What if I think today's situation (if you don't save, you're slightly better off than the poor house) is better? Likewise, it used to be more common for employers to offer long-term employment with pensions. It used to be more common for families to live together across generations. I don't particularly want any of that back -- it would limit my mobility and flexibility, and I don't want to stay in one place forever -- but people are not adjusting well to the new, more independent present.