Taiwan News: 'Suspended coffee' tradition inspires noodle vendor in Taiwan
(Apr. 12, 2013)
These two pieces of news shows one issue from two perspectives: One Issue: The less fortunate should be taken care of. Two perspectives: Government or private sectorGovernment could take care of the less fortunate?
I don't intend to make these as general cases. However, it is interesting to have a good look on them, as a comparison and contrast how public and private sectors may carry out the services toward those who are less fortunate during bad times, in different fashion.
Government-run social security program miss the target: Do they "waste" money? how much we allow them to waste?
At the first glance, we could see that state-run US unemployment insurance "wasted" $80 million. However, we have to go further into the details. According to the report, such payment peaked to $150 billion in 2010. These "wasted" money accounted only for 0.053% of the total transfer payment. In the report, Gary Burtless from the Brookings Institution in Washington, had a number of 0.053%, as the percentage of this "mis"-allocation.
Although it is a tough sale to conclude that we have to scrap the whole system, $80 million is still a sizable "friction" that government could just open their pocket too widely. On the other hands, private sectors, i.e. individuals like you and me, might cater the similar services directly to those in needs.
Take this "Suspended Noodle" idea for example.
Private support: Suspended Noodle movement in Taiwan
Taiwan is not known for its social welfare coverage. We do have a great universal health system that makes the world envy us, yet in other perspectives, it seems we have a lot to improve.
To help the less fortunate not to fall behind too much, people in Taiwan bring up their charity spirits with new ideas. "Suspended Noodle"
Such idea is inspired from "Suspended Coffee", a movment allegedly starts from Italy a decades ago. People provide the less fortunate the direct support for daily needs. In Italy, that is coffee. In Taiwan, we make it to noodles. At the place you live, you could make it whatever you could think of.
How this system works? What make it distinct from government-funded projects.
In form of direct help, not as the money transfer:
The support of "suspended _____" (fill in anything as you like) is very direct! It is the goods that is needed for the person who asks for that. This has less likely for people who has more money to abuse such system. Considering that you are a person who earn above $1million USD in previous tax year, I don't think you could even care of going to find a specific noodle stands/cafe to have a bowl of free noodle or free coffee. People would have different preference in goods, and the quality of these goods/services is less likely to fit the preference of the fortunate ones.
Yet, if the support comes in the money form, the story would be different. Money, as long as it is issued in no-hyperinflation society, is a indifference goods for all. A dollar is a dollar and you could use it for any purchase. I don't see a reason for a person say "no" to any money transfer if that is given for free, unless the person holds a "moral standard". Such standard, in a free society, cannot be asked to apply for all.
EU experience: non-money support could help more
For people living in Europe, the following story might occur to you from time to time. When there is a seemingly homeless person approach to you, they ask for money. However, if you provide a alternative to buy them something: Sandwich/coffee/water, they would probably go away. That is an example showing the difference to support in goods form and support in money form. People around me now not really give out money, because they are not sure whether their intention could be truly fulfilled, or the one who gets it simply use it for drugs and alcohol.
Service cost:
I would imagine such service could be carries out less costly than a state-run support system. Image, what's the cost involved here? A white board, a marker and a willing food service provider to give everyone a chance to contribute. That's it! The vendor could actually profit from that since that goods is paid for. For the less-fortunate, they only has to go to the service point.(They might pay some additional searching cost though) We don't have set up a whole system to hire people to do such service, and we don't ask the less-fortunate to be registered for the services or report their conditions.
Of course, the monitoring cost is still at concern, for anyone might abuse the system is not accounted for here. Yet, the monitoring cost could be neglected if, the total wasted service is below 0.053% (as compared to the "mis"-allocation in a unemployment insurance system)
Profit: make it sustainable for all
"Profit" sounds very capitalism and "evil" to some audience, yet this is exactly the beauty of the private "market" system. People benefit from the system, and use "profit" from the system to make it sustainable.
The noodle vendor in Taiwanese news might have higher profits than the peer, given that people love the ideas to give and actually come over more often. They sell more noodles and profit from it. It could even create job opportunity if such system go larger and need someone to manage the additional services. Quite a good win-win situation.
The less fortunate might remember such gifts helping him/her through the hard time, and keep fighting on whatever shitty jobs/no jobs scenario she/he has now. People tend to stress the shady side of humanity, such as abusing as system, yet stress little on the good side of it. People would feel reluctant to take free food, they have pride, and even if they are temporarily given free food, they would like to get out of the situation soon. It encourage the less fortunate to keep going.
The key problem of the governmental system is the sustainability of the project. It doesn't create job opportunity.(well, it would maintain the current governmental employment level but nothing more.) it used, usually, borrowed money/tax collection to run the system. We are not sure whether the system would run out of money any sooner, it really all depends on the macroeconomics scenario, which, we usually has little control over.
Conclusion:
This is a beautiful initiation, and a good start point to show how private sector, by creating a new "services" into the overall "market" could actually help people. After all, what we need is creating more type of services that make market complete, not destroy/manipulate the market system as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment