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

[Malthus]

One would think, in a thread about poverty, observations like "When I was starting out, sure it was not too hard to get jobs," would actually look as stunningly condescending and arrogant before pressing "POST" as it does afterwards.

You out-of-touch balls of light on Team Canada get so much shit around here for a reason.  Fucking fairy tale princesses.

... yet you have no problem with Berkut saying ""It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly" about right now.  I guess he gets a pass on that from the enraged embittered yankee peanut gallery. 

I don't think I really need a pass though - I mean, if it has become harder, then ok - but we would need to see some evidence of that before my experience can be dismissed as not relevant. And it would have to be pretty serious evidence, right, that there has been a very significant shift in the last generation or so that would make it so much harder that previous indicators are not at all indicative anymore?

BTW, I have no problem with anything you've said so far, I mostly agree with you in the thread. There is plenty of room for discussion on the topic without the need to act like a douchebag.

The reason I say it isn't even all that hard is that (again, this is of course personal experience) even for myself, I look back on the choices I made, and I made plenty of bad ones. I never took school seriously until I was nearly 26, for example. Got terrible grades in high school. I could have gotten excellent grades, and had my choice of academic scholarships had I worked to anything close to my potential.

So when I say it isn't that hard, what I mean is that it isn't that hard to NOT make the REALLY bad choices. I made bad choices, but relevant to the bad choices that people make that result in them having a much harder road from poverty (drugs, children as children, drinking, dropping out of high school altogether) my bad choices were mild. In fact, I never even *considered* the really bad choices that plenty of people around me made - it was simply self-evident to me that it would be foolish to drop out of high school, for example.

So, from the standpoint of a bright, reasonably motivated poor kid, it didn't seem that hard, at least in hindsight. I worked a lot in high school and college. It wasn't easy from that standpoint, but I didn't ever think there was any realistic chance that I would fail, barring some tragedy that could screw up anyone.

To be honest, I have no real clue as to how tough it is to 'make it' (either to lift oneself out of grinding poverty, or simply, to follow-on from a middle-class background, or whatever) these days, that is, if one was starting out to attempt that right now.

My impressions - gleaned from articles like this, and anecdotes - is that it is a lot tougher now than then, for the reasons Grumbler mentions. But then, impressions is what they are.

[Berkut]

I am honestly kind of amazed that there could be any dispute of the observation that if you look at poor people, that population will on average be more likely to make bad decisions.

I mean, to argue otherwise is to argue that the decisions we make do not matter, that they don't have consequences.

If we imagine 100 people selected to be largely identical in starting position, then go forward ten years and rank them by prosperity, will it comes as any surprise that those who are at the low end will be there because they made some bad decisions? They dropped out of school, had children they could not afford, engaged in bahvior that leads to crap outcomes?

Sure - there will be some who are there for reasons that have nothing to do with their own decisions. And there will be some in the upper end who made bad decisions but got lucky anyway. But overall, if we accept that the decisions we make have consequences, then of course making bad decisions will have bad consequences, and unless we live in a world were our decisions don't actually matter, then the people who are in the group of poorer outcomes will overall have made poorer decisions.

This is about as uncontroversial as noting that if you look at people who run races, the people who lose more often tend to not run as fast. Only in a world where the speed that you run has nothing to do with wining the race would it be the case that one would expect otherwise.

There are lots of variables that go into poverty. A big one, even likely a majority one in liberal western nations with reasonable social mobility, is personal responsibility, drive, and making good decisions.

*That does not mean we should not be working hard to make it so that it doesn't take an *exceptional* person to rise above poor circumstances!!!!!!*

[CountDeMoney]

And that party has been a major party for, well, forever, and been in power at least half the time, and yet none of those things have gone away, or even decreased...in fact, they've all increased steadily and continue to do so.

OK, we'll just do that whole "agree to disagree" thing;  I believe the social safety net and its resources have been reduced, you honestly believe it's actually grown.  I think you're full of shit, you think I'm full of shit, so it all cancels out Even-Stevens.

If someone shows up arguing that we should reduce funding for education, I will be right there with you arguing against it. But your hyperbole is bonkers. It is rage without an actual target, rage for it's own sake.

Funding for education has been reduced;  hell, that's why there's been a spike in higher education tuition increases and a resulting student loan crisis.  Maybe you've heard about it, it's been in all the papers.

[crazy canuck]

I am honestly kind of amazed that there could be any dispute of the observation that if you look at poor people, that population will on average be more likely to make bad decisions.

While I am amazed that any could dispute that a larger percentage of the rich people are more likely to make bad decisions - regarding how they spend their money, raise their kids, etc etc ect.

See what happens when one starts to making value judgments about decisions of others.

[frunk]

When you are rich you can make bad decisions that cost you thousands of dollars and it won't matter.  When you are poor a bad decision that costs you thousands of dollars means you are out on the street.

[Jacob]

I am honestly kind of amazed that there could be any dispute of the observation that if you look at poor people, that population will on average be more likely to make bad decisions.

I mean, to argue otherwise is to argue that the decisions we make do not matter, that they don't have consequences.

I'm not sure that your conclusion follows.

First off, the premise is a bit unclear. What do we mean when we say "make bad decisions"?

Secondly, however we define "make bad decisions" does the available range of choices when making a decision matter? Say, if out of 10 possible choices at a given decision point poor people can pick between 5 terrible, 4 poor, and one distinctly average decisions; in comparison a wealthy person may be able to chose between 1 terrible, 1 poor, 3 average, 3 good, and 2 excellent choices.

Thirdly, it is possible that the consequences of making any given bad decision are more debilitating and longer lasting in general for poor people than for better off ones. For example, if we agree that selling drugs for spending money while you're in high school is a "bad decision", the likely consequences may be  more permanent and close down more options for a poor person than for a well off person (i.e. they're more likely to face physical violence, or to be tried as an adult if caught shutting down most avenues of future betterment; while a well off person making the same decision might be given a slap on the wrist and put into rehab because they're "from a good family").

In short, if we look at the outcomes systemic factors may have more to do with the results than decision making ability. I think that it is possible for that to be the case without concluding that decisions do not have consequences. They do, it's just that the available decisions and scope of consequences differ so much that systemic outcomes are determined primarily by systemic factors.

[grumbler]

Funding for education has been reduced;  hell, that's why there's been a spike in higher education tuition increases and a resulting student loan crisis.  Maybe you've heard about it, it's been in all the papers.

I don't think that the rise in tuition costs has been caused primarily by reduced government funding of education.  I think that the increase has been pretty steady (4% +/- 0.5%) since the seventies, regardless of economic conditions and government funding.  In fact, the lowest years for such inflation were 2013 and 2014!

i think increased university costs (especially the competition for faculty, and subsequent salary costs for the "superstars," but also in technology and student quality of life)) are far more responsible.  Over the last 50 years, the percentage of the University of Michigan budget paid by the state has dropped from about 77% to about 25%  - but the amount, in real dollars, is actually higher now.

Higher education in the US competes based on "reputation."  Reputation is hella expensive; more expensive than government can afford.

[Berkut]

I am honestly kind of amazed that there could be any dispute of the observation that if you look at poor people, that population will on average be more likely to make bad decisions.

I mean, to argue otherwise is to argue that the decisions we make do not matter, that they don't have consequences.

I'm not sure that your conclusion follows.

First off, the premise is a bit unclear. What do we mean when we say "make bad decisions"?

Secondly, however we define "make bad decisions" does the available range of choices when making a decision matter? Say, if out of 10 possible choices at a given decision point poor people can pick between 5 terrible, 4 poor, and one distinctly average decisions; in comparison a wealthy person may be able to chose between 1 terrible, 1 poor, 3 average, 3 good, and 2 excellent choices.

Thirdly, it is possible that the consequences of making any given bad decision are more debilitating and longer lasting in general for poor people than for better off ones. For example, if we agree that selling drugs for spending money while you're in high school is a "bad decision", the likely consequences may be  more permanent and close down more options for a poor person than for a well off person (i.e. they're more likely to face physical violence, or to be tried as an adult if caught shutting down most avenues of future betterment; while a well off person making the same decision might be given a slap on the wrist and put into rehab because they're "from a good family").

In short, if we look at the outcomes systemic factors may have more to do with the results than decision making ability. I think that it is possible for that to be the case without concluding that decisions do not have consequences. They do, it's just that the available decisions and scope of consequences differ so much that systemic outcomes are determined primarily by systemic factors.

Those are decent points, but largely server to paper over the reality that making bad decisions results in bad outcomes, all other things being equal.

Can a bad decision by a poor person result in a greater negative consequence? Of course! No doubt about that at all - but it doesn't make the bad decision not bad.

Nor does it mean that the measurable results of bad decisions are not still there. The rich kid selling drugs might not get in as much trouble (although we don't even know if that is factually true), but there is no question that it will result in a adverse outcome for the rich kid as well, presumably another rich kid making a better decision will have a better outcome compared as well. So noting that the bad decisions matter and have consequences is not refuted by noting that it is possible that systemic factors may exaggerate those consequences.

However, you still need to evidence that in order to ask us to accept that poverty is primarily a systemic problem. We are talking about defined, factual outcomes. One example given was that poor people have unwanted pregnancies at five times the rate of the non-poor. That is a *huge* factor in poverty, both for themselves and their children. Now, it is most certainly the case that a non-poor person having an unwanted teen pregancy is going to have an statistically adverse outcome on the non-poor, but we can agree that the "damage" will not be as great. The non-poor have more resources generally to handle these kinds of adverse outcomes.

So why is it that the poor, who have less ability to handle an outcome that arises from a bad decision STILL make that bad decisions at five times the rate of the non-poor? WHY do they make that bad decision so much more often, even when it harms them so much more? THAT is the interesting question that needs to be asked and answered. But I don't think there is any way to call a persons decisions to engage in behavior that leads to getting pregnant a "systemic outcome" and pretend it isn't like the individuals involved have no control over it.

[grumbler]

In short, if we look at the outcomes systemic factors may have more to do with the results than decision making ability. I think that it is possible for that to be the case without concluding that decisions do not have consequences. They do, it's just that the available decisions and scope of consequences differ so much that systemic outcomes are determined primarily by systemic factors.

I don't know how this argument relates to decision-making.  The systematic portions of outcomes is important, for sure, but we aren't talking about the systematic portions of outcomes when we talk about the extent to which people make responsible decisions; by definition, systematic elements of outcomes are beyond individual control, and thus not a reflection of relative responsibility in decision-making.

Pregnancy isn't a result of systematic factors.  It is the result of the decision to fuck without adequate protections (or, in a teeny portion of cases, bad luck).

[Razgovory]

So the poor decisions and irresponsibility is being born poor?

[MadImmortalMan]

Being poor because of bad decisions is basically the life story of everyone in my family. But being born into it is not one of those.

[Barrister]

Dude, I'm not claiming I "starting out" from the baseline of institutionalized generational poverty. Where are you getting that from?

He is undoubtedly recalling your impoverished beginnings of being the son of a mere university professor. 

One would think, in a thread about poverty, observations like "When I was starting out, sure it was not too hard to get jobs," would actually look as stunningly condescending and arrogant before pressing "POST" as it does afterwards.

You out-of-touch balls of light on Team Canada get so much shit around here for a reason.  Fucking fairy tale princesses.

You think we don't have instutionalized generational poverty in Canada?  If so let me correct you, because I deal with it every single day.

[Eddie Teach]

While I am amazed that any could dispute that a larger percentage of the rich people are more likely to make bad decisions - regarding how they spend their money, raise their kids, etc etc ect.

"Rich" people aren't statistically significant. As for poor/middle/affluent folks, certain types of bad decisions are likely to force them down the ladder.

[Jacob]

Those are decent points, but largely server to paper over the reality that making bad decisions results in bad outcomes, all other things being equal.

Can a bad decision by a poor person result in a greater negative consequence? Of course! No doubt about that at all - but it doesn't make the bad decision not bad.

Nor does it mean that the measurable results of bad decisions are not still there. The rich kid selling drugs might not get in as much trouble (although we don't even know if that is factually true), but there is no question that it will result in a adverse outcome for the rich kid as well, presumably another rich kid making a better decision will have a better outcome compared as well. So noting that the bad decisions matter and have consequences is not refuted by noting that it is possible that systemic factors may exaggerate those consequences.

However, you still need to evidence that in order to ask us to accept that poverty is primarily a systemic problem. We are talking about defined, factual outcomes. One example given was that poor people have unwanted pregnancies at five times the rate of the non-poor. That is a *huge* factor in poverty, both for themselves and their children. Now, it is most certainly the case that a non-poor person having an unwanted teen pregancy is going to have an statistically adverse outcome on the non-poor, but we can agree that the "damage" will not be as great. The non-poor have more resources generally to handle these kinds of adverse outcomes.

So why is it that the poor, who have less ability to handle an outcome that arises from a bad decision STILL make that bad decisions at five times the rate of the non-poor? WHY do they make that bad decision so much more often, even when it harms them so much more? THAT is the interesting question that needs to be asked and answered. But I don't think there is any way to call a persons decisions to engage in behavior that leads to getting pregnant a "systemic outcome" and pretend it isn't like the individuals involved have no control over it.

Okay. I'm not sure I agree, but let's assume that I do and we agree that poor people tend to be poor because they tend to make more bad decisions.

What do we do with that conclusion? Does it inform our approach towards poverty? I.e. does it mean we can say "it's basically their own fault for making bad decisions, so we shouldn't do anything about it" or "to alleviate poverty, the main thing we need to do is focus ensuring that poor people make better decisions; material help for housing, employment, food, education etc are less important than providing the framework for better decision making" (and if so, how do we provide that framework)?

Or is it more of an abstract point for languish debate purposes "be it resolved that poor people tend to make bad decisions yes/no" with no repercussions in how we approach anything in the real world?

In short, let's say we agree that it's not a controversial proposition (though I believe it is), what then?

[grumbler]

While I am amazed that any could dispute that a larger percentage of the rich people are more likely to make bad decisions - regarding how they spend their money, raise their kids, etc etc ect.

"Rich" people aren't statistically significant. As for poor/middle/affluent folks, certain types of bad decisions are likely to force them down the ladder.

CC is amazed that people dispute a bullshit counter-intuitive assertion unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.  He must be amusing as fuck in court when he lays lines like that on the judge.