Majority of U.S. public school students are in poverty; first time in 50 years

Started by jimmy olsen, January 19, 2015, 08:24:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

dps

Maybe it's lack of access to affordable birth control more than irresponsibility per se.  OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

garbon

Quote from: dps on January 19, 2015, 11:25:21 PM
OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

You are the one who wanted to take her sister and make her typical of all poor people.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

dps

Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2015, 11:29:09 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2015, 11:25:21 PM
OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

You are the one who wanted to take her sister and make her typical of all poor people.

I didn't say it was typical;  I said that anecdotally, it seems to be a more common attitude among poor people.  To be honest, though, it seems pretty damn obvious that poor people in general are less responsible when it comes to using birth control.  Are you guys seriously contesting that point?

Jacob

Quote from: dps on January 19, 2015, 11:47:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2015, 11:29:09 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2015, 11:25:21 PM
OTOH, aa probably knows her sister better than you guys do.

You are the one who wanted to take her sister and make her typical of all poor people.

I didn't say it was typical;  I said that anecdotally, it seems to be a more common attitude among poor people.  To be honest, though, it seems pretty damn obvious that poor people in general are less responsible when it comes to using birth control.  Are you guys seriously contesting that point?

Do you have any data for this, or is this more based on the classic narrative?

Admiral Yi


dps

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 12:36:43 AM
I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.

If you've been that irresponsible, you must be really, really tired.  Even if you aren't poor.

Razgovory

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 12:36:43 AM
I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.

So are you arguing that responsibility is tied to race?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Monoriu

Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2015, 04:49:45 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2015, 04:40:44 PM
As I understand it, the gap between the reproductive rate of the upper class and the lower class is still increasing.  Those who can afford to have children don't;  those who can't afford them do.

This is actually a fairly common reaction to poverty - having enough children so they can work and support the family.  It is logical if the persons who are having the kids believe that things are going to get worse and they need the bodies to support the family.  It  isn't about taking the resources available and fitting the budget to that - it is about believing the resources are going to shrink over time and the only way to react is to have more people in the market.  Of course, this mixed with the nuclear family and the complex capitalist system has a bit of disconnect...

I don't understand.  If you have a farm, and more hands will lead to higher productivity, this may make sense.  But most people don't have farms these days.  Even if the child wants to support the family, it is going to be at least 15, or 16 years before the child can legally work in most places.  And that's a big if.  Are you saying this is hard-wired in the DNA or something biological? 

garbon

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2015, 10:17:50 AM
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2015, 04:49:45 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2015, 04:40:44 PM
As I understand it, the gap between the reproductive rate of the upper class and the lower class is still increasing.  Those who can afford to have children don't;  those who can't afford them do.

This is actually a fairly common reaction to poverty - having enough children so they can work and support the family.  It is logical if the persons who are having the kids believe that things are going to get worse and they need the bodies to support the family.  It  isn't about taking the resources available and fitting the budget to that - it is about believing the resources are going to shrink over time and the only way to react is to have more people in the market.  Of course, this mixed with the nuclear family and the complex capitalist system has a bit of disconnect...

I don't understand.  If you have a farm, and more hands will lead to higher productivity, this may make sense.  But most people don't have farms these days.  Even if the child wants to support the family, it is going to be at least 15, or 16 years before the child can legally work in most places.  And that's a big if.  Are you saying this is hard-wired in the DNA or something biological? 

Yeah, I have to admit that I'm a little puzzled by his narrative as well.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Malthus

Could the causation not work the other way - that (say) those who have more kids (for whatever reason) are simply more likely to be poor, because they have lots of kids - kids being very expensive?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

CountDeMoney

Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 10:34:30 AM
Doesn't that assume the poor aren't getting assistance?

Aren't you assuming the poor are getting assistance that matters?

derspiess

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2015, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 10:34:30 AM
Doesn't that assume the poor aren't getting assistance?

Aren't you assuming the poor are getting assistance that matters?

So the assistance they get here and in Canada doesn't matter?  I thought food stamps, Head Start, WIC, CHIP, etc. helped a great deal.  If it doesn't matter, I suppose we can shut down those costly programs.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

CountDeMoney

Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 10:47:25 AM
So the assistance they get here and in Canada doesn't matter?  I thought food stamps, Head Start, WIC, CHIP, etc. helped a great deal.  If it doesn't matter, I suppose we can shut down those costly programs.

LOL, "costly".  I realize you continue to operate under the narrative that The Damned Dirty Negrotm is somehow ripping you off, but those programs have been systematically reduced to such a degree that the "assistance" is relatively negligible in most parts of the country.