This seems to go along with Hacker’s concession that risk shift probably shouldn’t be avoided, but managed. Having portable benefits makes sense, but doing so means that employers will be “let off the hook”. People should manage most of there own risk, but also we probably can provided a universal, safe bottom that doesn’t cost too much. The goverment can probably protect people’s physical well-being, but protecting their lifestyle and assets seems silly to me.

Martin – he discusses some of this stuff in the book, albeit at a semi-popular level. The preferences of the median voter clearly do not drive policy outcomes here – see the consistent support for some sort of government driven health reform. The US political system is not one where the median voter counts all that much, b/c of inbuilt institutional mechanisms and political strategies – see Hacker’s previous book with Pierson for a lengthy discussion of this (albeit one that I suspect he’d partly revise in light of the likely election outcomes in a couple of weeks).

I haven’t read the book but I have read lots of studies that show that job tenure has not decreased over the last 50 years. The “good old days” of lifetime employment is a myth.

Second, the increasing number of working women significantly decreases the risk of unemployment to the household. One would think that if people were more concerned about financial risk they would be increasingly rather than decreasingly be in married relationships.

Third, what evidence does he show that employment risk has been increasing? Unemployment rate changes and the business cycle in general have been relatively moderate in the last 20 years compared to the 20 before that.

Fourth, the increasing access to debt instruments,(does he cite evidence of changes in home ownership over time which has increased over time to historic highs) has improved the ability of people to spread expenses to different times in the life cycle.

That does live the increasing cost of health care, which, although not as comprehensive as some other countries is quite comprehensive for pregnant mothers and children in poverty, the elderly and the disabled. One would have a very tough time showing that the risk of adverse health care events on wealth has increased significantly over the last 50 years. There has been a modest increase in the total number of uninsured but frequently these numbers are not adjusted for immigration. Even after adjustment for income levels the hispanic population has relatively lower demand for health insurance.

I’m not saying there aren’t people without significant financial and health care risk, I just don’t see the evidence that the relative size of that group has changed dramatically, and in particular changed dramatically due to policy changes.

Furthermore, in a representative form of government its the preferences of the median voter that tend to drive the system. Did he analyze the risk profile of the median voter over time? Did he look to data on chnages in the risk preferences of people?

However, those of us busybodies who are interested in making things somewhat more pleasant and less horror-filled for the duration of our stints in these mortal coils tend to like books that focus on the things one actually can do something about, like, say, making benefits portable.

Where do you get that from?!?

You should have noticed that Lowenstien endorses the idea of portable benefits.

However, those of us busybodies who are interested in making things somewhat more pleasant and less horror-filled for the duration of our stints in these mortal coils tend to like books that focus on the things one actually can do something about, like, say, making benefits portable.

And, er, “scrupulosity”?

The part you site is not his statement of Hacker’s argument, but his statment that Hacker’s more focus on the causes of risk shift would help provide the perspective to deal with it more effectively.

I recommend reading further down.

He was very generous in not criticising Hacker to harshly for some of his sillier statements, like “The big puzzle is why political and corporate leaders have been so slow to respond … they’ve actually piled on new risks even as Americans have become increasingly insecure “. A bigger puzzle is why haven’t they done it faster. All risk the employer assumes translates into a cost.

I think so too.