Yet more evidence of increasing income inequality and the danger it poses to our society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/majority-of-us-public-school-students-are-in-poverty/2015/01/15/df7171d0-9ce9-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
QuoteMajority of U.S. public school students are in poverty
By Lyndsey Layton January 16
For the first time in at least 50 years, a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families, according to a new analysis of 2013 federal data, a statistic that has profound implications for the nation.
The Southern Education Foundation reports that 51 percent of students in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade in the 2012-2013 school year were eligible for the federal program that provides free and reduced-price lunches. The lunch program is a rough proxy for poverty, but the explosion in the number of needy children in the nation's public classrooms is a recent phenomenon that has been gaining attention among educators, public officials and researchers.
"We've all known this was the trend, that we would get to a majority, but it's here sooner rather than later," said Michael A. Rebell of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College at Columbia University, noting that the poverty rate has been increasing even as the economy has improved. "A lot of people at the top are doing much better, but the people at the bottom are not doing better at all. Those are the people who have the most children and send their children to public school."
The shift to a majority-poor student population means that in public schools, a growing number of children start kindergarten already trailing their more privileged peers and rarely, if ever, catch up. They are less likely to have support at home, are less frequently exposed to enriching activities outside of school, and are more likely to drop out and never attend college.
It also means that education policy, funding decisions and classroom instruction must adapt to the needy children who arrive at school each day.
"When they first come in my door in the morning, the first thing I do is an inventory of immediate needs: Did you eat? Are you clean? A big part of my job is making them feel safe," said Sonya Romero-Smith, a veteran teacher at Lew Wallace Elementary School in Albuquerque. Fourteen of her 18 kindergartners are eligible for free lunches.
She helps them clean up with bathroom wipes and toothbrushes, and she stocks a drawer with clean socks, underwear, pants and shoes.
Romero-Smith, 40, who has been a teacher for 19 years, became a foster mother in November to two girls, sisters who attend her school. They had been homeless, their father living on the streets and their mother in jail, she said. When she brought the girls home, she was shocked by the disarray of their young lives.
"Getting rid of bedbugs, that took us a while. Night terrors, that took a little while. Hoarding food, flushing a toilet and washing hands, it took us a little while," she said. "You spend some time with little ones like this and it's gut wrenching. . . . These kids aren't thinking, 'Am I going to take a test today?' They're thinking, 'Am I going to be okay?' "
The job of teacher has expanded to "counselor, therapist, doctor, parent, attorney," she said.
Schools, already under intense pressure to deliver better test results and meet more rigorous standards, face the doubly difficult task of trying to raise the achievement of poor children so that they approach the same level as their more affluent peers.
"This is a watershed moment when you look at that map," said Kent McGuire, president of the Southern Education Foundation, the nation's oldest education philanthropy, referring to a large swath of the country filled with high-poverty schools.
"The fact is, we've had growing inequality in the country for many years," he said. "It didn't happen overnight, but it's steadily been happening. Government used to be a source of leadership and innovation around issues of economic prosperity and upward mobility. Now we're a country disinclined to invest in our young people."
The data show poor students spread across the country, but the highest rates are concentrated in Southern and Western states. In 21 states, at least half the public school children were eligible for free and reduced-price lunches — ranging from Mississippi, where more than 70 percent of students were from low-income families, to Illinois, where one of every two students was low-income.
Carey Wright, Mississippi's state superintendent of education, said quality preschool is the key to helping poor children.
"That's huge," she said. "These children can learn at the highest levels, but you have to provide for them. You can't assume they have books at home, or they visit the library or go on vacations. You have to think about what you're doing across the state and ensuring they're getting what other children get."
Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, was born in a charity hospital in 1959 to a single mother. Federal programs helped shrink the obstacles he faced, first by providing him with Head Start, the early-childhood education program, and later, Pell grants to help pay tuition at the University of Texas, he said.
The country needs to make that same commitment today to help poor children, he said.
"Even at 8 or 9 years old, I knew that America wanted me to succeed," he said. "What we know is that the mobility escalator has simply stopped for some Americans. I was able to ride that mobility escalator in part because there were so many people, and parts of our society, cheering me on."
"We need to fix the escalator," he said. "We fix it by recommitting ourselves to the idea of public education. We have the capacity. The question is, do we have the will?"
The new report raises questions among educators and officials about whether states and the federal government are devoting enough money — and using it effectively — to meet the complex needs of poor children.
The Obama administration wants Congress to add $1 billion to the $14.4 billion it spends annually to help states educate poor children. It also wants Congress to fund preschool for those from low-income families. Collectively, the states and the federal government spend about $500 billion annually on primary and secondary schools, about $79 billion of it from Washington.
The amount spent on each student can vary wildly from state to state. States with high student-poverty rates tend to spend less per student: Of the 27 states with the highest percentages of student poverty, all but five spent less than the national average of $10,938 per student.
Republicans in Congress have been wary of new spending programs, arguing that more money is not necessarily the answer and that federal dollars could be more effective if redundant programs were streamlined and more power was given to states.
Many Republicans also think that the government ought to give tax dollars to low-income families to use as vouchers for private-school tuition, believing that is a better alternative to public schools.
GOP leaders in Congress have rebuffed President Obama's calls to fund preschool for low-income families, although a number of Republican and Democratic governors have initiated state programs in the past several years.
The report comes as Congress begins debate about rewriting the country's main federal education law, first passed as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" and designed to help states educate poor children. The most recent version of the law, known as No Child Left Behind, has emphasized accountability and outcomes, measuring whether schools met benchmarks and sanctioning them when they fell short.
That federal focus on results, as opposed to need, is wrongheaded, Rebell said.
"We have to think about how to give these kids a meaningful education," he said. "We have to give them quality teachers, small class sizes, up-to-date equipment. But in addition, if we're serious, we have to do things that overcome the damages of poverty. We have to meet their health needs, their mental health needs, after-school programs, summer programs, parent engagement, early-childhood services. These are the so-called wraparound services. Some people think of them as add-ons. They're not. They're imperative."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2015, 08:24:33 AM
Yet more evidence of increasing income inequality and the danger it poses to our society.
It's only the poor and public education, two things people don't give a fuck about.
I thought neo-liberalism and everyone for himself was supposed to cause just good things. :hmm:
QuoteMississippi's state superintendent of education
*snicker*
The requirement for reduced price lunch is 185% of the poverty line.
I suspect what's driving this increase is the move towards charter schools.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2015, 04:35:19 PM
The requirement for reduced price lunch is 185% of the poverty line.
I suspect what's driving this increase is the move towards charter schools.
Okay.
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...
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 know about that. I think it's more along the lines of what my wife said about her older sister when asked why her sister has three kids that she didn't bother to take care of: "Likes sex but is too irresponsible to use protection". Anecdotally, that attitude seems far more common among the lower and working classes than among the middle and upper classes.
Are you saying that poor people are not as responsible and like sex more?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Are you saying that poor people are not as responsible and like sex more?
Yeah, wow.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Are you saying that poor people are not as responsible and like sex more?
Why would they have to like sex more?
I can definitely see an irresponsibility and/or ignorance argument.
Not being wealthy is certainly a form of irresponsibility.
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2015, 07:00:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Are you saying that poor people are not as responsible and like sex more?
Why would they have to like sex more?
I can definitely see an irresponsibility and/or ignorance argument.
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
Otherwise they wouldn't be poor, duh.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.
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.
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
If they have more kids than they can support, yeah.
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?
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.
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?
Doesn't that assume the poor aren't getting assistance?
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?
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.
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 Negro
tm 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.
Hmm, guess we might as well scrap them in most parts of the country, then if they're of negligible benefit.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 11:16:41 AM
Hmm, guess we might as well scrap them in most parts of the country, then if they're of negligible benefit.
Don't worry, your elected officials are doing their absolute best to make sure they are.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
Are you seriously questioning the proposition that poor women are more likely to have an unplanned pregnancies than non-poor women?
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
Are you seriously questioning the proposition that poor women are more likely to have an unplanned pregnancies than non-poor women?
Ah, backing away form the absurd proposition that poor people are more irresponsible than rich people. Good. That was never going to end well for you.
As for the question about whether poor women have more "unplanned" pregnancies, I am not sure. Getting data on that question would be difficult because the question of whether the pregnancy was planned is difficult to objectively measure. Rich woman have the resources to hide the fact that they were ever pregnant (travelling abroad to have the child and give it up for adoption or travelling to another jurisdiction to have an abortion) or that the pregnancy was unplanned (Men tend to have an economic incentive to marry rich woman whom they impregnate).
This should be good.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 12:36:43 AM
I have about 10,000 data points of single black mothers.
Single black mothers are poor and irresponsible, basically by definition? And this supports the notion that poor people are irresponsible?
I think there may be more variables at play rather than ethnicity and poverty, but who am I to judge the grand wizard.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2015, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
Are you seriously questioning the proposition that poor women are more likely to have an unplanned pregnancies than non-poor women?
As for the question about whether poor women have more "unplanned" pregnancies, I am not sure. Getting data on that question would be difficult because the question of whether the pregnancy was planned is difficult to objectively measure. Rich woman have the resources to hide the fact that they were ever pregnant (travelling abroad to have the child and give it up for adoption or travelling to another jurisdiction to have an abortion) or that the pregnancy was unplanned (Men tend to have an economic incentive to marry rich woman whom they impregnate).
This is just fucking bizarro.
It is not even a little bit controversial to note that there is a very significant relationship between poverty and unintended pregnancies.
Quote
Income
As in past reports, there was a large disparity
in rates by women's income level. The total
pregnancy rate for poor women was more than
3 times that of women in the highest income
category, and their unintended pregnancy rate
was more than 5 times that of the same group.
The unintended birth rate for poor women
was also high.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/ajph.2013.301416.pdf (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/ajph.2013.301416.pdf)
Getting data is not difficult, and the idea that this data is flawed because men want to marry "rich" women they knock up is downright weird and kind of creepy...
And since when is the world divided between "poor" and "rich" anyway? There is a rather large group of "not poor and yet not rich" you know...
Quote from: Norgy on January 20, 2015, 01:43:03 PM
I think there may be more variables at play rather than ethnicity and poverty, but who am I to judge the grand wizard.
Only CC and Jacob are contending that those are the only issues in play. Poor people tend to be less well-educated, for instance, and less-well-educated people tend to be less aware of consequences and less likely to consider them, and thus are more likely to act irresponsibly. I think that ethnicity plays much less of a role than poverty; there tends to be a much stronger correlation between poverty and poor education than between any given ethnicity and poor education.
Now, CC may want to weasel-word around the meaning of "unitended pregnancy" but the US Federal government notes that
QuoteThe rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women (those with incomes at or below the federal poverty level) in 2008 was 137 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, more than five times the rate among women at the highest income level (26 per 1,000)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html)
That same study supports my education contentions
QuoteIn 2008, women without a high school degree had the highest unintended pregnancy rate among all educational levels (101 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), and rates were lower for women with more years of education* .
*(from that report's source, 29 per 1,000 for college grades, 60 per 1000 for HS grads)
Edit: Dammit, Berkut, you beat me to that trivially-easy-to-find-but-CC-couldn't-find-it report!
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 02:01:40 PM
Quote from: Norgy on January 20, 2015, 01:43:03 PM
I think there may be more variables at play rather than ethnicity and poverty, but who am I to judge the grand wizard.
Only CC and Jacob are contending that those are the only issues in play.
:huh:
If you are going to lie about what others post there is really no point. But then I guess that was your only option after saying the poor people are less responsible than rich people.
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 20, 2015, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
Are you seriously questioning the proposition that poor women are more likely to have an unplanned pregnancies than non-poor women?
As for the question about whether poor women have more "unplanned" pregnancies, I am not sure. Getting data on that question would be difficult because the question of whether the pregnancy was planned is difficult to objectively measure. Rich woman have the resources to hide the fact that they were ever pregnant (travelling abroad to have the child and give it up for adoption or travelling to another jurisdiction to have an abortion) or that the pregnancy was unplanned (Men tend to have an economic incentive to marry rich woman whom they impregnate).
This is just fucking bizarro.
I agree. It is unusual that someone would make a wide characterization about rich and poor without having knowledge of either.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Poor people are more irresponsible than rich people?
On average, yes.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 02:01:40 PM
Only CC and Jacob are contending that those are the only issues in play.
Oh grumbler, why do you have to lie?
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 02:01:40 PM
Only CC and Jacob are contending that those are the only issues in play.
Oh grumbler, why do you have to lie?
Nice weasel! :lmfao: You have mentioned nothing but those issues so far, and in fact deny that they are even significant to anything other than "the classic narrative."
Quote from: Norgy on January 19, 2015, 10:49:16 AM
I thought neo-liberalism and everyone for himself was supposed to cause just good things. :hmm:
Welfare states apply a couple of half measures that are not even real free market, call them neo-liberalism, and when they fail, as they always do, blame the failure on free market capitalism and move on to enact more big goverment laws.
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
Single black mothers are poor and irresponsible, basically by definition? And this supports the notion that poor people are irresponsible?
No, yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 05:12:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
Single black mothers are poor and irresponsible, basically by definition? And this supports the notion that poor people are irresponsible?
No, yes.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 05:12:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
Single black mothers are poor and irresponsible, basically by definition? And this supports the notion that poor people are irresponsible?
No, yes.
Yeah, I don't know why Jacob keeps raising some argument that every black female who has an unplanned pregnancy must be poor and irresponsible. No one is arguing that, except maybe himself by implication.
And by the way, I saw what you guys did in that Nazi thread.
Not funny.
Making fun of nazi crimes is dismissing the suffering of all their victims.
Quote from: Siege on January 20, 2015, 05:20:29 PM
And by the way, I saw what you guys did in that Nazi thread.
Not funny.
Making fun of nazi crimes is dismissing the suffering of all their victims.
What if we just made fun of Nazis and left it at that.
I didn't participate in that thread, btw.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 05:22:58 PM
I didn't participate in that thread, btw.
And you're the one person on the forum who knows anything about Argentina beyond their fondness for steaks and war criminals.
There are certainly very few irresponsible rich people in the world and none who also have a good education; that stuff back in 2008 was the Poor's fault, proof being the well off did exceptionally well out of it, so they can't be irresponsible can they?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2015, 05:30:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 05:22:58 PM
I didn't participate in that thread, btw.
And you're the one person on the forum who knows anything about Argentina beyond their fondness for steaks and war criminals.
After a while you get tired of pointing out the obvious. My fellow Argentines will have to live out the pain of her final year in office. One would hope there were some lessons learned and they'll vote in someone other than a FpV candidate this fall, but I'm not so optimistic.
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2015, 05:41:34 PM
There are certainly very few irresponsible rich people in the world and none who also have a good education; that stuff back in 2008 was the Poor's fault, proof being the well off did exceptionally well out of it, so they can't be irresponsible can they?
Subtlety in the construction of strawman arguments just isn't possible for you, is it? :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2015, 05:22:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 20, 2015, 05:20:29 PM
And by the way, I saw what you guys did in that Nazi thread.
Not funny.
Making fun of nazi crimes is dismissing the suffering of all their victims.
What if we just made fun of Nazis and left it at that.
I didn't participate in that thread, btw.
It was funny as hell. The Anne Frank one was hysterical.
Free speech and all that jazz right. ;)
Quote from: Siege on January 20, 2015, 05:20:29 PM
And by the way, I saw what you guys did in that Nazi thread.
Not funny.
Making fun of nazi crimes is dismissing the suffering of all their victims.
Nothing should be off limits for jokes. The only problem with that thread was that the jokes were mostly puns, and bad ones at that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjustsomething.co%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2F21-of-the-worst-puns-13.jpg&hash=5db21da56a0dabdeeb253d7a9ab26f5ce07b2a40)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTk2dd4QHHxkXkX0Do_tcy69q_Vj_maWGnIX3JPFM0L8-fZG0J1XA)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addfunny.com%2Ffunnypictures%2Fhitler%2F34%2Fpolishremover.jpg&hash=4773e48749d649d7496131766f35b7fcfffa0bac)
One for Siege:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fb0%2Fb027cfc2e1b9b4bb38df882ed739d0ebedb3514536d06957bd6b249394d432a7.jpg&hash=f72b6d8cf3e5fdc24298c783ccf5757eb573332c)
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2015, 06:17:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2015, 05:41:34 PM
There are certainly very few irresponsible rich people in the world and none who also have a good education; that stuff back in 2008 was the Poor's fault, proof being the well off did exceptionally well out of it, so they can't be irresponsible can they?
Subtlety in the construction of strawman arguments just isn't possible for you, is it? :hmm:
Who are you, Dorothy or is it Toto?
i'm not sure if it has anything to do with irresponsibility. that implies it's objectively wrong/foolish. it may look wrong to some, but i don't think that mentality is shared by everyone.
i think it's just different goals. a future doctor has paranoia and fear of an unwanted pregnancy that a future subway manager simply lacks. both know the repercussions. one cares and the other doesn't. that planning and structure that puts a person on a successful career path shies her away from getting knocked up. the other doesn't have that stress and is less likely to see pregnancy as essentially the end of her dreams. hell, she may want the child or the child may in fact be her dream because children give meaning to one's life.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2015, 08:55:21 PM
i'm not sure if it has anything to do with irresponsibility. that implies it's objectively wrong/foolish. it may look wrong to some, but i don't think that mentality is shared by everyone.
i think it's just different goals. a future doctor has paranoia and fear of an unwanted pregnancy that a future subway manager simply lacks. both know the repercussions. one cares and the other doesn't. that planning and structure that puts a person on a successful career path shies her away from getting knocked up. the other doesn't have that stress and is less likely to see pregnancy as essentially the end of her dreams. hell, she may want the child or the child may in fact be her dream because children give meaning to one's life.
:rolleyes:
Tut, where did you blow in from ? The real world or some such equally fanciful place. :P
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2015, 09:01:23 PM:rolleyes:
Tut, where did you blow in from ? The real world or some such equally fanciful place. :P
i don't get the objection.
and i come from a fanciful winter wonderland. :)
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2015, 08:55:21 PM
i'm not sure if it has anything to do with irresponsibility. that implies it's objectively wrong/foolish. it may look wrong to some, but i don't think that mentality is shared by everyone.
i think it's just different goals. a future doctor has paranoia and fear of an unwanted pregnancy that a future subway manager simply lacks. both know the repercussions. one cares and the other doesn't. that planning and structure that puts a person on a successful career path shies her away from getting knocked up. the other doesn't have that stress and is less likely to see pregnancy as essentially the end of her dreams. hell, she may want the child or the child may in fact be her dream because children give meaning to one's life.
We're talking about people who have more kids than they can afford to raise by themselves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:06:55 PMWe're talking about people who have more kids than they can afford to raise by themselves.
i know: poor people, not lower middle class. i agree that a family is irresponsible if they're popping out their fifth child while the first two are being fed to the other two. but that rarely happens. if you're saying it's irresponsible to the state because they accept government money, then OK. i agree it's irresponsible to the state and most would agree.
i don't think that necessarily means it's irresponsible to mom and pop (or just mom), though. whatever leads a girl to have three children by 25 probably leads a similar girl with no children to be just as broke. that's not necessarily irresponsibility in an objective sense, unless the argument is that everyone should proceed down a specific path.
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible to mom and pop.
irresponsible of mom and pop*
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:35:17 PM
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
but the children are fed, at least in the west. in some cases, there might not be much food on the table, but the child still survives. i'm under the assumption that child deaths or serious physical harm due to malnourishment occurs in only extreme cases and is not common among people with low income.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2015, 09:40:30 PM
but the children are fed, at least in the west. in some cases, there might not be much food on the table, but the child still survives. i'm under the assumption that child deaths or serious physical harm due to malnourishment occurs in only extreme cases and is not common among people with low income.
And a smack head can survive for a while on soup lines and homeless shelters. Is that your definition of responsible?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:35:17 PM
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
Ah, so two 16 year old girls get knocked up. One from a poor family and one from a rich family. Simply by virtue of their families wealth you can label one irresponsible and one not irresponsible even though they have engaged in the exact same action?
Sure. In exactly the same way the poor girl using the rent money to buy clothes is irresponsible and the trust funder is not.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 20, 2015, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2015, 09:01:23 PM:rolleyes:
Tut, where did you blow in from ? The real world or some such equally fanciful place. :P
i don't get the objection.
and i come from a fanciful winter wonderland. :)
It was, I believe, a mock-bjection. I expect mongers thinks you made sense.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2015, 09:57:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:35:17 PM
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
Ah, so two 16 year old girls get knocked up. One from a poor family and one from a rich family. Simply by virtue of their families wealth you can label one irresponsible and one not irresponsible even though they have engaged in the exact same action?
I'd label them both irresponsible, all else being equal. The consequences are likely to be far worse for the poor girl than for the rich girl, but both are behaving irresponsibly, again, all else being equal.
My point was never that ALL poor people are irresponsible about having babies, or that NO rich people are irresponsible.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:35:17 PM
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
From an evolutionary standpoint, it's a much stronger strategy than waiting til you're 38, giving up on finding a "perfect" man and getting implanted from a sperm donor.
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
Quote from: Warspite on January 21, 2015, 06:08:47 AM
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
HEY NOW :mad:
Quote from: dps on January 21, 2015, 12:29:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2015, 09:57:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:35:17 PM
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
Ah, so two 16 year old girls get knocked up. One from a poor family and one from a rich family. Simply by virtue of their families wealth you can label one irresponsible and one not irresponsible even though they have engaged in the exact same action?
I'd label them both irresponsible, all else being equal. The consequences are likely to be far worse for the poor girl than for the rich girl, but both are behaving irresponsibly, again, all else being equal.
My point was never that ALL poor people are irresponsible about having babies, or that NO rich people are irresponsible.
Yeah, I think that you and I are arguing a point that is far from Yi's argument. His is closer to the original purpose of the thread, but less interesting, IMO.
In ecology there is a theory regarding reproductive strategies in different species, called R or K strategies, that divides species between those having lots of descendants and those having very few, dealing with the trade-off between "quantity" and "quality" of the descendancy. Thus, species that have lots of descendants can offer very little parental care to their offspring, forcing them to mature earlier and having lower survival rates for their offspring, while those that have very few descendants can offer much more parental care and allows for a longer time for maturity and a better survival rate.
With the appropriate caveats, it can be argued that the reproductive patterns you're describing amongst the poor and the rich can, in a certain twisted way, be equated to these two strategies
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 10:26:23 PM
Sure. In exactly the same way the poor girl using the rent money to buy clothes is irresponsible and the trust funder is not.
Can you even be irresponsible if you don't have any responsibility for your financial upkeep because you have a trust fund? Being irresponsible necessitates that you actually have to make meaningful decisions, no?
Quote from: Warspite on January 21, 2015, 06:08:47 AM
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
:yes: That's why I like poors and am in favor of open borders. A huge unskilled labor pool means Cal's lawn is cheaper to mow.
Quote from: Warspite on January 21, 2015, 06:08:47 AM
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
Immigrants. Who (sort of) understand English. From an ex-UK colony perhaps. Preferrably someone who already holds UK citizenship so that you can skip the work permit bureaucracy.
I think we had a discussion about this article about why poor people act irresponsibly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
QuoteYour Brain on Poverty: Why Poor People Seem to Make Bad Decisions
In August, Science published a landmark study concluding that poverty, itself, hurts our ability to make decisions about school, finances, and life, imposing a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points.
It was widely seen as a counter-argument to claims that poor people are "to blame" for bad decisions and a rebuke to policies that withhold money from the poorest families unless they behave in a certain way. After all, if being poor leads to bad decision-making (as opposed to the other way around), then giving cash should alleviate the cognitive burdens of poverty, all on its own.
Sometimes, science doesn't stick without a proper anecdote, and "Why I Make Terrible Decisions," a comment published on Gawker's Kinja platform by a person in poverty, is a devastating illustration of the Science study. I've bolded what I found the most moving, insightful portions, but it's a moving and insightful testimony all the way through. [I've bolded different parts. Sue me.]
QuoteI make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to. There's a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there's money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.
Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It's why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It's more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that's all you get. You're probably not compatible with them for anything long-term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don't plan long-term because if we do we'll just get our hearts broken. It's best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.
When neuroscientists Joseph W. Kable and Joseph T. McGuire studied time, uncertainty and decision-making, they found that virtues like patience and self-control weren't as simple previous studies suggested. In the ubiquitous Marshmallow study, for example, kids who ate the treat quickly were deemed impatient and kids who waited had self-control and, on the whole, went on to lead more productive lives, the study found.
But rational self-control in the real world, Kable says, isn't so black-and-white. Perhaps you have enough patience to wait an hour for a train, or to lose one pound each week with exercise and dieting. That sounds responsible. But what happens if the train isn't there in 90 minutes? If you never lose weight and you're making yourself miserable with your diet? Maybe you should give up! "In this situation, giving up can be a natural — indeed, a rational — response to a time frame that wasn't properly framed to begin with," Maria Konnikova summed it up for the Times.
As Andrew Golis points out, this might suggest something even deeper than the idea that poverty's stress interferes with our ability to make good decisions. The inescapability of poverty weighs so heavily on the author that s/he abandons long-term planning entirely, because the short term needs are so great and the long-term gains so implausible. The train is just not coming. What if the psychology of poverty, which can appear so irrational to those not in poverty, is actually "the most rational response to a world of chaos and unpredictable outcomes," he wrote.
None of this is an argument against poorer families trying to save or plan for the long-term. It's an argument for context. As Eldar Shafir, the author of the Science study, told The Atlantic Cities' Emily Badger: "All the data shows it isn't about poor people, it's about people who happen to be in poverty. All the data suggests it is not the person, it's the context they're inhabiting."
Quote from: Monoriu on January 21, 2015, 07:53:03 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 21, 2015, 06:08:47 AM
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
Immigrants. Who (sort of) understand English. From an ex-UK colony perhaps. Preferrably someone who already holds UK citizenship so that you can skip the work permit bureaucracy.
A policy favoring the poor in the rest of the world over the poor in one's own location will also hurt the rich, as they can't guarantee that all their children and grandchildren will also be rich.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 10:26:23 PM
Sure. In exactly the same way the poor girl using the rent money to buy clothes is irresponsible and the trust funder is not.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure.
Quote from: Caliga on January 21, 2015, 07:44:11 AM
Quote from: Warspite on January 21, 2015, 06:08:47 AM
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
:yes: That's why I like poors and am in favor of open borders. A huge unskilled labor pool means Cal's lawn is cheaper to mow.
Some of us weren't born poor, but made poor. You ignorant fucking asshole cocksuckers.
Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2015, 07:55:00 AM
I think we had a discussion about this article about why poor people act irresponsibly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
QuoteYour Brain on Poverty: Why Poor People Seem to Make Bad Decisions
In August, Science published a landmark study concluding that poverty, itself, hurts our ability to make decisions about school, finances, and life, imposing a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points.
It was widely seen as a counter-argument to claims that poor people are "to blame" for bad decisions and a rebuke to policies that withhold money from the poorest families unless they behave in a certain way. After all, if being poor leads to bad decision-making (as opposed to the other way around), then giving cash should alleviate the cognitive burdens of poverty, all on its own.
Sometimes, science doesn't stick without a proper anecdote, and "Why I Make Terrible Decisions," a comment published on Gawker's Kinja platform by a person in poverty, is a devastating illustration of the Science study. I've bolded what I found the most moving, insightful portions, but it's a moving and insightful testimony all the way through. [I've bolded different parts. Sue me.]
QuoteI make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to. There's a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there's money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.
Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It's why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It's more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that's all you get. You're probably not compatible with them for anything long-term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don't plan long-term because if we do we'll just get our hearts broken. It's best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.
When neuroscientists Joseph W. Kable and Joseph T. McGuire studied time, uncertainty and decision-making, they found that virtues like patience and self-control weren't as simple previous studies suggested. In the ubiquitous Marshmallow study, for example, kids who ate the treat quickly were deemed impatient and kids who waited had self-control and, on the whole, went on to lead more productive lives, the study found.
But rational self-control in the real world, Kable says, isn't so black-and-white. Perhaps you have enough patience to wait an hour for a train, or to lose one pound each week with exercise and dieting. That sounds responsible. But what happens if the train isn't there in 90 minutes? If you never lose weight and you're making yourself miserable with your diet? Maybe you should give up! "In this situation, giving up can be a natural — indeed, a rational — response to a time frame that wasn't properly framed to begin with," Maria Konnikova summed it up for the Times.
As Andrew Golis points out, this might suggest something even deeper than the idea that poverty's stress interferes with our ability to make good decisions. The inescapability of poverty weighs so heavily on the author that s/he abandons long-term planning entirely, because the short term needs are so great and the long-term gains so implausible. The train is just not coming. What if the psychology of poverty, which can appear so irrational to those not in poverty, is actually "the most rational response to a world of chaos and unpredictable outcomes," he wrote.
None of this is an argument against poorer families trying to save or plan for the long-term. It's an argument for context. As Eldar Shafir, the author of the Science study, told The Atlantic Cities' Emily Badger: "All the data shows it isn't about poor people, it's about people who happen to be in poverty. All the data suggests it is not the person, it's the context they're inhabiting."
Indeed. As someone who came from a poor background, really pretty much halfway to white trash? I think that article captures the psychology very well.
What is frustrating about this is that it makes it really hard to discuss. Since it is in fact at its basic level a matter of poor people acting in a manner that seems very irresponsible to everyone else (even if it makes "sense" from their perspective), noting that *immediately* gets the Jacob/CC types trying to turn it into a issue of bigotry, and it allows the actual bigots to dismiss the issue as "they deserve it", neither of which is actually true of course.
Quote from: Warspite on January 21, 2015, 06:08:47 AM
I used to toy with the idea that it would be simpler were the poor simply not allowed to breed, but then I wondered who I would hire as a cleaner or the office administrative assistant.
I seem to remember a few chaps writing some books about this in the 20th century.
Not too long ago, I sat down and actually read a book about eugenics. It was written by the brother of one of the great people hailing from my town. Upper class ninnies the lot. The point that was driven home time after time is that "we as a society cannot afford these people". Seems rather the same reasoning being used against immigrants nowadays. We measure people's worth in their contribution to the GNP or lack thereof, and not by the fact they actually are humans. When we start doing that, we dehumanise people. And open up a very slippery slope towards a society I certainly have no wish to live in. Mostly because I'd be one of the first to the chopping block.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 07:08:58 AM
Quote from: dps on January 21, 2015, 12:29:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2015, 09:57:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2015, 09:35:17 PM
I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*
To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.
Ah, so two 16 year old girls get knocked up. One from a poor family and one from a rich family. Simply by virtue of their families wealth you can label one irresponsible and one not irresponsible even though they have engaged in the exact same action?
I'd label them both irresponsible, all else being equal. The consequences are likely to be far worse for the poor girl than for the rich girl, but both are behaving irresponsibly, again, all else being equal.
My point was never that ALL poor people are irresponsible about having babies, or that NO rich people are irresponsible.
Yeah, I think that you and I are arguing a point that is far from Yi's argument. His is closer to the original purpose of the thread, but less interesting, IMO.
On the contrary, it's quite interesting. I think it's a more honest approach. He's not trying to justify anything to us or deceive himself.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 09:18:06 AM
Indeed. As someone who came from a poor background, really pretty much halfway to white trash? I think that article captures the psychology very well.
What is frustrating about this is that it makes it really hard to discuss. Since it is in fact at its basic level a matter of poor people acting in a manner that seems very irresponsible to everyone else (even if it makes "sense" from their perspective), noting that *immediately* gets the Jacob/CC types trying to turn it into a issue of bigotry, and it allows the actual bigots to dismiss the issue as "they deserve it", neither of which is actually true of course.
I've never understood the knee-jerk reaction of both the white knights and the snobs to the issue of poverty. Poverty actually exists, and can be measured and analyzed like any other intellectual concept, so would seem to be a fit subject for intellectual discussion. That contrasts with constructs such as race or religion, where we can't even define what these ideas are, let alone intellectually discuss them, and so knee-jerkism is fairly understandable.
The statement that "poor people are more likely to act irresponsibly" seems to me to be as intellectually valid a statement (given the evidence) as the statement "people with head colds sneeze more." No one acts the white knight or the snob about the latter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Are you saying that poor people are not as responsible and like sex more?
Correlation, causation. I have heard sociologists characterize wealthier and more successful families as more highly scheduled than their poorer or less successful counterparts- so even if they like sex equally, possibly even if they're equally diligent about using protection, there could simply be more opportunity for sex with a lower-class couple.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 09:49:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 09:18:06 AM
Indeed. As someone who came from a poor background, really pretty much halfway to white trash? I think that article captures the psychology very well.
What is frustrating about this is that it makes it really hard to discuss. Since it is in fact at its basic level a matter of poor people acting in a manner that seems very irresponsible to everyone else (even if it makes "sense" from their perspective), noting that *immediately* gets the Jacob/CC types trying to turn it into a issue of bigotry, and it allows the actual bigots to dismiss the issue as "they deserve it", neither of which is actually true of course.
I've never understood the knee-jerk reaction of both the white knights and the snobs to the issue of poverty. Poverty actually exists, and can be measured and analyzed like any other intellectual concept, so would seem to be a fit subject for intellectual discussion. That contrasts with constructs such as race or religion, where we can't even define what these ideas are, let alone intellectually discuss them, and so knee-jerkism is fairly understandable.
The statement that "poor people are more likely to act irresponsibly" seems to me to be as intellectually valid a statement (given the evidence) as the statement "people with head colds sneeze more." No one acts the white knight or the snob about the latter.
:lol: Don't ever change.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 09:49:44 AM
The statement that "poor people are more likely to act irresponsibly" seems to me to be as intellectually valid a statement (given the evidence) as the statement "people with head colds sneeze more." No one acts the white knight or the snob about the latter.
lol, Are you really suggesting that that poor people have some kind of condition (your analogy) which causes them to be more likely to act irresponsibly? Having come from poverty I can tell you that condition tends to create a state of mind favouring prudence over risk.
One observational error you are making is that there are a lot more poor people; therefore even though the percentage of irresponsible poor people may be low compared to the percentage of rich irresponsible people their absolute numbers will be much greater.
In Sweden poor people are poor because they decided not to get an education, and not start a business or similar. And since you don't have to pay for education...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 09:49:44 AM
The statement that "poor people are more likely to act irresponsibly" seems to me to be as intellectually valid a statement (given the evidence) as the statement "people with head colds sneeze more." No one acts the white knight or the snob about the latter.
lol, Are you really suggesting that that poor people have some kind of condition (your analogy) which causes them to be more likely to act irresponsibly?
That is exactly correct, actually. Poverty begets more poverty, and much of that is due to consistently "irresponsible" decision making - this isn't a controversial idea.
We've disproven conclusively your earlier "question" in regards to pregnancy - the rate of unintended pregnancy among the poor is 5 times that of the rest of the population. That is the rate, btw, hence adjusted for number.
Quote
Having come from poverty I can tell you that condition tends to create a state of mind favouring prudence over risk.
Wow, having come from poverty I can state definitely that among those who stay poor, that is very much not the case.
Of course, they don't really look at it as "prudence" vs "risk", they look at it as "It doesn't fucking matter anyway, because there is no way out of this, so fuck it, I think I will have another beer/joint/kid/whatever..."
Quote
One observational error you are making is that there are a lot more poor people; therefore even though the percentage of irresponsible poor people may be low compared to the percentage of rich irresponsible people their absolute numbers will be much greater.
Not material to the discussion. Studies have shown that poor people consistently make bad decisions compared to the not poor. Has nothing to do with populations.
And again, the contrast is not with "rich" people, it is with the not poor. And hence your claim that the numbers are skewed is bogus as well - there are more non-poor people in the US than there are poor people.
Why are there so many words in this thread? Damit.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:35:32 PM
That is exactly correct, actually. Poverty begets more poverty, and much of that is due to consistently "irresponsible" decision making - this isn't a controversial idea.
We've disproven conclusively your earlier "question" in regards to pregnancy - the rate of unintended pregnancy among the poor is 5 times that of the rest of the population. That is the rate, btw, hence adjusted for number.
Can you spot the logical leap you are making?
I agree that poverty begets more poverty more often than not. But the reason is very different from the "irresponsible decision making" you propose. Blaming the poor for being poor is an ideological device that is controversial and given you have already said you understand the need for state assistance for the poor, inconsistent on your part.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:35:32 PM
That is exactly correct, actually. Poverty begets more poverty, and much of that is due to consistently "irresponsible" decision making - this isn't a controversial idea.
We've disproven conclusively your earlier "question" in regards to pregnancy - the rate of unintended pregnancy among the poor is 5 times that of the rest of the population. That is the rate, btw, hence adjusted for number.
Can you spot the logical leap you are making?
I agree that poverty begets more poverty more often than not. But the reason is very different from the "irresponsible decision making" you propose. Blaming the poor for being poor is an ideological device that is controversial and given you have already said you understand the need for state assistance for the poor, inconsistent on your part.
No at all inconsistent, because I am not blaming the poor for being poor, I am stating that being poor leads to bad decision making. That isn't blaming them, not is it claiming that the ONLY reason the poor are poor is because they make bad decisions. There are lots of reasons, obviously, but recognizing that poor people make shitty decisions which makes the problem worse is not blaming them, it is recognizing a fact that is one of many variables involved.
You know what does contribute to the problem? Ideological ignorance and unwillingness to accept objective reality because it makes you uncomfortable, so you would rather pretend that something that is true isn't true, and perpetuate the problem.
There are many reason why poverty begets more poverty - one of those reasons is that poor people consitently make shitty, stupid decisions. There are, additionally, many reasons for THAT as well,including lack of education relative to the non-poor, and even just that stupid people who make bad decisions are in fact more likely to be poor as a result of their stupid, bad decisions.
There are lots of reasons for poverty that have nothing to do with poor people and their own capabilities at all, of course. But pretending that being poor is some condition that the people we are talking about have no control over at all does nobody any favors in the long run, especially in the liberal west where overall there actually does exist reasonable opportunity for nearly everyone.
The whole idea that the State have to feed the people seems ridicoulus to me.
The State needs to get the hell out of the way and let the free market economy allow the people to feed themselves.
Keep taxing the rich and you'll see where your jobs will go.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 02:49:07 PM
The whole idea that the State have to feed the people seems ridicoulus to me.
The State needs to get the hell out of the way and let the free market economy allow the people to feed themselves.
Keep taxing the rich and you'll see where your jobs will go.
It seems like it would be bad idea for everyone involved to sit and watch as one's fellow countrymen starve to death.
I can't even bring myself to respond to Siege on economic issues. It is like talking to a 4 year old who just randomly regurgitates out of context Rush Limbaugh quotes.
This whole thread is out of context!
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:27:34 PM
lol, Are you really suggesting that that poor people have some kind of condition (your analogy) which causes them to be more likely to act irresponsibly? Having come from poverty I can tell you that condition tends to create a state of mind favouring prudence over risk.
Lol, have you paid no attention to what I write whatsoever? Poor people
tend to be poorly educated - they
don't all suffer from "some kind of condition" (which is your analogy, not mine) which causes them to be more likely to act irresponsibly. Poor education tends to lead to more irresponsible decision-making, as a result of both inability to predict consequences, and ignorance of the need to predict consequences. Having come from poverty, I can tell you that condition tends to create a state of mind favoring risk over prudence.
QuoteOne observational error you are making is that there are a lot more poor people; therefore even though the percentage of irresponsible poor people may be low compared to the percentage of rich irresponsible people their absolute numbers will be much greater.
One observational error you are making is that you don't realize that your reading comprehension sucks: "rate" doesn't refer to absolute numbers, but relative numbers (that's what all the "per 1,000" references in my data were about). You need to learn the differences between rate (which I actually used) and raw numbers (which you erroneously assumed - either out of ignorance or negligence - that I used). Right now, your ass is showing, and it is getting reddened with every post you write.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:35:32 PM
That is exactly correct, actually. Poverty begets more poverty, and much of that is due to consistently "irresponsible" decision making - this isn't a controversial idea.
We've disproven conclusively your earlier "question" in regards to pregnancy - the rate of unintended pregnancy among the poor is 5 times that of the rest of the population. That is the rate, btw, hence adjusted for number.
Can you spot the logical leap you are making?
I agree that poverty begets more poverty more often than not. But the reason is very different from the "irresponsible decision making" you propose. Blaming the poor for being poor is an ideological device that is controversial and given you have already said you understand the need for state assistance for the poor, inconsistent on your part.
No at all inconsistent, because I am not blaming the poor for being poor, I am stating that being poor leads to bad decision making.
How does being poor make one inherently a bad decision maker? Some of the wisest people I have ever met were poor. They were wise with their money and their judgments because they could not afford not to be. And your notion that people have some control over whether they are poor feeds directly into the narrative which blames them for being poor. ie they deserve to be poor because if they had just made better decisions, worked harder etc etc they would not be poor.
Fact is a lot of poor people are poor even though they work hard and act responsibly. Someone up stream made the joke that of course poor people lack good judgment, they are poor aren't they. You have fallen into that illogical hole.
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:57:05 PM
I can't even bring myself to respond to Siege on economic issues. It is like talking to a 4 year old who just randomly regurgitates out of context Rush Limbaugh quotes.
Siege is the cleverest troll on the board. He occasionally reveals his true self, but not often. Engage him only if it amuses you; I don't think he really cares.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:35:32 PM
That is exactly correct, actually. Poverty begets more poverty, and much of that is due to consistently "irresponsible" decision making - this isn't a controversial idea.
We've disproven conclusively your earlier "question" in regards to pregnancy - the rate of unintended pregnancy among the poor is 5 times that of the rest of the population. That is the rate, btw, hence adjusted for number.
Can you spot the logical leap you are making?
I agree that poverty begets more poverty more often than not. But the reason is very different from the "irresponsible decision making" you propose. Blaming the poor for being poor is an ideological device that is controversial and given you have already said you understand the need for state assistance for the poor, inconsistent on your part.
No at all inconsistent, because I am not blaming the poor for being poor, I am stating that being poor leads to bad decision making.
How does being poor make one inherently a bad decision maker? Some of the wisest people I have ever met were poor. They were wise with their money and their judgments because they could not afford not to be. And your notion that people have some control over whether they are poor feeds directly into the narrative which blames them for being poor. ie they deserve to be poor because if they had just made better decisions, worked harder etc etc they would not be poor.
Fact is a lot of poor people are poor even though they work hard and act responsibly. Someone up stream made the joke that of course poor people lack good judgment, they are poor aren't they. You have fallen into that illogical hole.
Fact is that overall poor people make bad decisions compare to the not poor. Anecdotes about some poor people making good decisions are not disproof of that.
Let me know when you want to talk about facts and reality rather than feeling superior while harming those you want to feel superior about...
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 02:59:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 02:27:34 PM
lol, Are you really suggesting that that poor people have some kind of condition (your analogy) which causes them to be more likely to act irresponsibly? Having come from poverty I can tell you that condition tends to create a state of mind favouring prudence over risk.
Lol, have you paid no attention to what I write whatsoever?
I did. Perhaps the solution is for you to be more careful about what you write. Your suggestion that poverty and irresponsibility is like a cold is to sneezing was in Berkut's words "bizarro".
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 03:04:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:57:05 PM
I can't even bring myself to respond to Siege on economic issues. It is like talking to a 4 year old who just randomly regurgitates out of context Rush Limbaugh quotes.
Siege is the cleverest troll on the board. He occasionally reveals his true self, but not often. Engage him only if it amuses you; I don't think he really cares.
What is this undeclared war you are waging on me?
I am not a troll, and I can prove it!!!1111
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 03:06:37 PM
Fact is that overall poor people make bad decisions compare to the not poor.
Ok, where are these "facts". I suspect you are suffering from the same observational error made by Grumbles. There are a lot more poor people than rich people (and the middle class is quickly disappearing). Even if there are a smaller percentage of bad decision makers within the ranks of the poor there will still be more in absolute terms.
Jesus Christ.
Crazy Canuck is not poor yet he continues to make the bad decision not to cut his losses in this thread.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:06:52 PM
I did. Perhaps the solution is for you to be more careful about what you write. Your suggestion that poverty and irresponsibility is like a cold is to sneezing was in Berkut's words "bizarro".
:huh: Did you even read what I wrote. This response is completely "bizarro."
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:09:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 03:06:37 PM
Fact is that overall poor people make bad decisions compare to the not poor.
Ok, where are these "facts". I suspect you are suffering from the same observational error made by Grumbles. There are a lot more poor people than rich people (and the middle class is quickly disappearing). Even if there are a smaller percentage of bad decision makers within the ranks of the poor there will still be more in absolute terms.
Please, provide some support for the assertion that there are more poor people than non-poor people, or stop making such an absurd argument (and calling anyone referring to real life data as making "observational errors." Your ass is even redder now than it was five minutes ago.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
Crazy Canuck is not poor yet he continues to make the bad decision not to cut his losses in this thread.
It's pretty incredible, isn't it? Even Raz seems to have realized how stupid CC's arguments are, and seems to have stopped supporting them.
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 03:07:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 03:04:09 PM
Siege is the cleverest troll on the board. He occasionally reveals his true self, but not often. Engage him only if it amuses you; I don't think he really cares.
What is this undeclared war you are waging on me?
I am not a troll, and I can prove it!!!1111
That's
exactly what a troll would say!
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 21, 2015, 03:07:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 03:04:09 PM
Siege is the cleverest troll on the board. He occasionally reveals his true self, but not often. Engage him only if it amuses you; I don't think he really cares.
What is this undeclared war you are waging on me?
I am not a troll, and I can prove it!!!1111
That's exactly what a troll would say!
Are you trolling me?
Yeah, I think your are trolling me. Why else pick on the little guy with the funny accent.
Well, you know what Grumbler? FFUCK YOU!!
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 02:57:05 PM
I can't even bring myself to respond to Siege on economic issues. It is like talking to a 4 year old who just randomly regurgitates out of context Rush Limbaugh quotes.
It has to be a clever joke. To rant about the free market without ever having worked in the private sector is just to strange.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
Crazy Canuck is not poor yet he continues to make the bad decision not to cut his losses in this thread.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 03:06:37 PM
Fact is that overall poor people make bad decisions compare to the not poor. Anecdotes about some poor people making good decisions are not disproof of that.
Let me know when you want to talk about facts and reality rather than feeling superior while harming those you want to feel superior about...
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
When someone argues that poor people tend to be irrational, this will be an effective counter-argument.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 05:06:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
When someone argues that poor people tend to be irrational, this will be an effective counter-argument.
Oh boy. I can't wait for that to happen.
Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2015, 06:10:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2015, 05:06:24 PM
When someone argues that poor people tend to be irrational, this will be an effective counter-argument.
Oh boy. I can't wait for that to happen.
Won't have to wait long; after all, it's been the basis of gender politics and policy for centuries, so tossing in teh poors isn't much of a stretch.
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 21, 2015, 03:06:37 PM
Fact is that overall poor people make bad decisions compare to the not poor. Anecdotes about some poor people making good decisions are not disproof of that.
Let me know when you want to talk about facts and reality rather than feeling superior while harming those you want to feel superior about...
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
You can act rationally and yet still make what is an objectively poor choice.
I can understand why it seems rational to not care if you get pregnant at 16, that doesn't suddenly mean that in fact it was a good choice.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
How does being poor make one inherently a bad decision maker?
Strawman, much? No one is arguing that poor people are inherently bad decision makers. The terms we've used have been along the lines of "tends to", "on average", "in general", "all else being equal",
not "inherently".
I guess I should thank Berkut for linking to the data that supports my initial statement that poor people are more likely to be irresponsible about using contraceptives. Frankly, I wasn't going to do so, any more than if I'd been asked to link to data showing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because it's fucking obvious to anyone who bothers to pull their head out of their ass and look around. And given that even with the data linked, you still are arguing what Berkut, grumbler and are saying, it was a waste of time anyway.
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
How does being poor make one inherently a bad decision maker?
Strawman, much? No one is arguing that poor people are inherently bad decision makers. The terms we've used have been along the lines of "tends to", "on average", "in general", "all else being equal", not "inherently".
I guess I should thank Berkut for linking to the data that supports my initial statement that poor people are more likely to be irresponsible about using contraceptives. Frankly, I wasn't going to do so, any more than if I'd been asked to link to data showing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because it's fucking obvious to anyone who bothers to pull their head out of their ass and look around. And given that even with the data linked, you still are arguing what Berkut, grumbler and are saying, it was a waste of time anyway.
You claim that poor people tend to be, on average are, in general are, all else being equal are: irresponsible? And you want to avoid making the claim that there is something inherent about being poor that make the poor irresponsible?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 07:47:24 AM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
How does being poor make one inherently a bad decision maker?
Strawman, much? No one is arguing that poor people are inherently bad decision makers. The terms we've used have been along the lines of "tends to", "on average", "in general", "all else being equal", not "inherently".
I guess I should thank Berkut for linking to the data that supports my initial statement that poor people are more likely to be irresponsible about using contraceptives. Frankly, I wasn't going to do so, any more than if I'd been asked to link to data showing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because it's fucking obvious to anyone who bothers to pull their head out of their ass and look around. And given that even with the data linked, you still are arguing what Berkut, grumbler and are saying, it was a waste of time anyway.
You claim that poor people tend to be, on average are, in general are, all else being equal are: irresponsible? And you want to avoid making the claim that there is something inherent about being poor that make the poor irresponsible?
Reading comprehension fail, still. No one says that it is poverty itself that causes people to be irresponsible. Why don't you just fucking
read the arguments for the other side and respond to them, instead of continually creating strawmen arguments to knock down?
Quote from: grumbler on January 28, 2015, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 07:47:24 AM
Quote from: dps on January 27, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
How does being poor make one inherently a bad decision maker?
Strawman, much? No one is arguing that poor people are inherently bad decision makers. The terms we've used have been along the lines of "tends to", "on average", "in general", "all else being equal", not "inherently".
I guess I should thank Berkut for linking to the data that supports my initial statement that poor people are more likely to be irresponsible about using contraceptives. Frankly, I wasn't going to do so, any more than if I'd been asked to link to data showing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because it's fucking obvious to anyone who bothers to pull their head out of their ass and look around. And given that even with the data linked, you still are arguing what Berkut, grumbler and are saying, it was a waste of time anyway.
You claim that poor people tend to be, on average are, in general are, all else being equal are: irresponsible? And you want to avoid making the claim that there is something inherent about being poor that make the poor irresponsible?
Reading comprehension fail, still. No one says that it is poverty itself that causes people to be irresponsible. Why don't you just fucking read the arguments for the other side and respond to them, instead of continually creating strawmen arguments to knock down?
:lol:
I hope you dont teach logic to your students. There are a lot of reasons poor people might tend to be disadvantaged compared to rich people in stats like unwanted pregnancy that have little or nothing to do with being irresponsible. But when someone makes the claim, like you Berkut and DPS have made that poor people tend to be more irresponsible you gloss over all the othe possible explanations and go right for the argument that in some way being poor makes people more irresponsible than others.
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
This strikes me as a reasonable explaination. Why bother saving for the future, if you are likely to run out of money right now, and by all indications your efforts will not be rewarded with a reasonable chance of getting out of poverty anyway?
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
This strikes me as a reasonable explaination. Why bother saving for the future, if you are likely to run out of money right now, and by all indications your efforts will not be rewarded with a reasonable chance of getting out of poverty anyway?
This was noted a long time ago in the thread - that what the non-poor classify as "irresponsible" can in fact be rationally justified. I talked about it quite a bit myself, including anecdotally about my own experiences growing up in poverty.
But it isn't a refutation of the general observation, but rather an explanation for why from their perspective it doesn't appear to be irresponsible per se...but in fact it is just that, because the reality is that (in the US at least) it is entirely possible to get out of poverty. It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly. But it does require people to make good decisions, and in many cases the people who have to make those good decisions are not equipped to do so because of the very environment they are raised in.
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
I'm not sure that's true. I've read some articles suggesting that poor people do in fact act as rationally as anyone else. It's just that given there specific situations the choices they make might not seem optimal in hindsight.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/
This strikes me as a reasonable explaination. Why bother saving for the future, if you are likely to run out of money right now, and by all indications your efforts will not be rewarded with a reasonable chance of getting out of poverty anyway?
Its far easier to simply make the observation the poor people are more likely, tend to be, on the whole, or whatever other weasly words one may wish to use, are more irresponsible than others. The hard part that Grumbler and others have found is that it is far harder to explain away the implication they are necessarily making.
You are a dishonest fuck sometimes, you know that CC?
Nobody here is arguing that those explanations are not accurate, that is a bald faced lie. Nobody is "implying" anything but you.
I must be getting old, my tolerance for dealing with people like you is at an end.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 10:51:15 AM
But it isn't a refutation of the general observation, but rather an explanation for why from their perspective it doesn't appear to be irresponsible per se...but in fact it is just that, because the reality is that (in the US at least) it is entirely possible to get out of poverty. It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly. But it does require people to make good decisions, and in many cases the people who have to make those good decisions are not equipped to do so because of the very environment they are raised in.
I do wonder about that - it seems to me that it is getting harder and harder for those not already doing well to lift themselves into doing well. Hence the title article of the thread.
The lot of us are simply too old to have a good handle on this. When I was starting out, sure it was not too hard to get jobs, and even a shitty service-sector job was a decent springboard into something better - so work hard and even without higher education (not all that hard, in Canada at least, to get anyway), and you could at least be decently okay.
I just don't know how true that is anymore. From what I hear, it appears to be a lot harder.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 11:22:28 AM
You are a dishonest fuck sometimes, you know that CC?
No, every time you don't understand another position (or choose not to think about it) you react in of two childish ways. Either you stamp your feet and go all hurricane Berkut and insist that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong or you simply claim the other side a is lying. I have explained a number of times why your claims don't make sense. Rather than responding to those repeated posts you simply call me a liar. Like I said. Childish.
Ah, we're back. All is right in the universe.
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 10:51:15 AM
But it isn't a refutation of the general observation, but rather an explanation for why from their perspective it doesn't appear to be irresponsible per se...but in fact it is just that, because the reality is that (in the US at least) it is entirely possible to get out of poverty. It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly. But it does require people to make good decisions, and in many cases the people who have to make those good decisions are not equipped to do so because of the very environment they are raised in.
I do wonder about that - it seems to me that it is getting harder and harder for those not already doing well to lift themselves into doing well. Hence the title article of the thread.
The lot of us are simply too old to have a good handle on this. When I was starting out, sure it was not too hard to get jobs, and even a shitty service-sector job was a decent springboard into something better - so work hard and even without higher education (not all that hard, in Canada at least, to get anyway), and you could at least be decently okay.
I just don't know how true that is anymore. From what I hear, it appears to be a lot harder.
Berkut said it was "possible", not probable. The odds were always against it even during the best of times, when there was actual social awareness and political sympathy, but those odds in breaking the cycle of poverty have increased substantially.
And really, Malthus, with all due respect...you "starting out" /= "starting out" from the baseline of institutionalized generational poverty. Dude. C'mon.
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 10:51:15 AM
But it isn't a refutation of the general observation, but rather an explanation for why from their perspective it doesn't appear to be irresponsible per se...but in fact it is just that, because the reality is that (in the US at least) it is entirely possible to get out of poverty. It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly. But it does require people to make good decisions, and in many cases the people who have to make those good decisions are not equipped to do so because of the very environment they are raised in.
I do wonder about that - it seems to me that it is getting harder and harder for those not already doing well to lift themselves into doing well. Hence the title article of the thread.
The lot of us are simply too old to have a good handle on this. When I was starting out, sure it was not too hard to get jobs, and even a shitty service-sector job was a decent springboard into something better - so work hard and even without higher education (not all that hard, in Canada at least, to get anyway), and you could at least be decently okay.
I just don't know how true that is anymore. From what I hear, it appears to be a lot harder.
I agree that it may be hard for us to really have a feel for it, of course.
But I also think that what has become harder moreso recently is to move from the lower middle class into the actual middle class. I think those good paying, mid-level jobs have become very scarce, relatively so anyway. And I think that kind of gets blurred into the poverty discussion. Which perhaps is a good thing.
But when I talk about poverty, I mean *poverty*. I mean a family of seven living in a 2 bedroom shithole apartment and living on a twice a week trip to the local church free meal dinner and trips to the free clothes clinic and drugs and alcohol, and all that goes along with serious poverty.
And the idea that that demographic is composed largely of people making good decisions with bad outcomes is laughable. It is not - it is composed of desperation, ignorance, stupidity, no education, and a complete lack of self awareness or responsibility. The *reasons* they lack those things are not because they are fundamentally bad people overall, but because they are fundamentally normal people in terrible situations that result in them largely being incapable of making rational, long term choices to improve their situation.
Further, those that ARE capable of making those rational, long term desicions to improve their future do so...and are no longer part of that population. So of course those that are left are the ones who do not - how that is not grossly self evident is beyond me.
Yes, it is possible to get our of poverty. And those who can...do. Those who cannot, remain. The goal of society is to make it so that the bar for getting out is as reasonable as possible, so as many people as possible can do so. That has a lot to do with understanding and combating the very forces that lead to bad decisions. Education, education, education. Hope. Empowerment. How do you change the culture of despair that leads people to make patently terrible choices like "I don't care if I get pregnant at 16, what difference does it make anyway?"
Pretending that that choice isn't really a bad choice because it makes us feel better about not being judgmental is counter-productive.
Just my opinion of course, and what do I know? I have two older brothers and a mother still in abject poverty. They are both career drug addicts, alcoholics and petty criminals. But not because they don't make excellent choices at all times, of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 10:51:15 AM
But it isn't a refutation of the general observation, but rather an explanation for why from their perspective it doesn't appear to be irresponsible per se...but in fact it is just that, because the reality is that (in the US at least) it is entirely possible to get out of poverty. It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly. But it does require people to make good decisions, and in many cases the people who have to make those good decisions are not equipped to do so because of the very environment they are raised in.
I do wonder about that - it seems to me that it is getting harder and harder for those not already doing well to lift themselves into doing well. Hence the title article of the thread.
The lot of us are simply too old to have a good handle on this. When I was starting out, sure it was not too hard to get jobs, and even a shitty service-sector job was a decent springboard into something better - so work hard and even without higher education (not all that hard, in Canada at least, to get anyway), and you could at least be decently okay.
I just don't know how true that is anymore. From what I hear, it appears to be a lot harder.
Berkut said it was "possible", not probable. The odds were always against it even during the best of times, when there was actual social awareness and political sympathy, but those odds in breaking the cycle of poverty have increased substantially.
And really, Malthus, with all due respect...you "starting out" /= "starting out" from the baseline of institutionalized generational poverty. Dude. C'mon.
Dude, I'm not claiming I "starting out" from the baseline of institutionalized generational poverty. Where are you getting that from?
All I am saying is that, when I was starting out (that is, the time I was young), it appeared to be easier all around - for anyone - than it is now. It's an observation about the times, not my personal circumstances.
Berkut said "It isn't even all that hard, quite honestly". That's what I am commenting on. How are you reading that as "... "possible", not probable"?
I don't get why you are taking swings at me, to be honest. It everyone in this thread totally insane, such that actual dispassionate discussion of issues is not possible? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
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. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 12:33:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 12:44:08 PM
Fucking fairy tale princesses.
I think that was a compliment :yeah:
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 10:07:20 AM
:lol:
I hope you dont teach logic to your students. There are a lot of reasons poor people might tend to be disadvantaged compared to rich people in stats like unwanted pregnancy that have little or nothing to do with being irresponsible. But when someone makes the claim, like you Berkut and DPS have made that poor people tend to be more irresponsible you gloss over all the othe possible explanations and go right for the argument that in some way being poor makes people more irresponsible than others.
:lmfao:
Is it really possible in Canada for a functional illiterate like you to charge money for intellectual services? Wile there may be "many reasons" why people have unwanted pregnancies, the number-one reason, by far, is fucking without adequate protection against pregnancy, i.e. irresponsibility. You may be a weasel, but you can't weasel out of that fact. As to why they tend to act irresponsibility, I have gone into that in some detail, with sources (unlike you, with your unsupportable assertions and complete lack of evidence). And, no, your "anecdotes" are not evidence.
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
... It everyone in this thread totally insane, such that actual dispassionate discussion of issues is not possible? :hmm:
I asked exactly this question a page or so back, and the shrill hysteria of the answers argued against rational ability.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 12:44:08 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
... 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. :lol:
Well, yeah. :P Because down here, "poverty" is a problem that--with just a little grit and determination with absolutely no help from anybody, especially the government--you can overcome pretty easily. :yeah:
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 12:44:08 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
... 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. :lol:
I think that this issue is, as you point out, quite different now. Thirty or so years ago, one could get out of poverty without even possessing a high school diploma by getting a job in light manufacturing (and eventually heavy manufacturing, if you were lucky). Those jobs are mostly long gone, replaced by machinery or offshored. While new jobs have opened up, they require more education, experience, or both. Unskilled labor generally doesn't pay a living wage.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
... 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. :lol:
Well, yeah. :P Because down here, "poverty" is a problem that--with just a little grit and determination with absolutely no help from anybody, especially the government--you can overcome pretty easily. :yeah:
Total strawman, nobody is making any such argument.
I had plenty of help from the government, for example. Free high school education, pell grants, guaranteed student loans, an infrastructure that provided an excellent education at a reasonable cost, etc., etc., etc.
I don't think anyone at all has argued that any of that should go away.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 01:46:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
... 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. :lol:
Well, yeah. :P Because down here, "poverty" is a problem that--with just a little grit and determination with absolutely no help from anybody, especially the government--you can overcome pretty easily. :yeah:
Total strawman, nobody is making any such argument.
I had plenty of help from the government, for example. Free high school education, pell grants, guaranteed student loans, an infrastructure that provided an excellent education at a reasonable cost, etc., etc., etc.
I don't think anyone at all has argued that any of that should go away.
You have a major political party, elected state governments and a substantial portion of the national electorate that says, and votes, otherwise. And the campaign season is only getting started.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 01:59:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 01:46:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
... 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. :lol:
Well, yeah. :P Because down here, "poverty" is a problem that--with just a little grit and determination with absolutely no help from anybody, especially the government--you can overcome pretty easily. :yeah:
Total strawman, nobody is making any such argument.
I had plenty of help from the government, for example. Free high school education, pell grants, guaranteed student loans, an infrastructure that provided an excellent education at a reasonable cost, etc., etc., etc.
I don't think anyone at all has argued that any of that should go away.
You have a major political party, elected state governments and a substantial portion of the national electorate that says, and votes, otherwise. And the campaign season is only getting started.
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 01:45:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 01:19:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 12:44:08 PM
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. :lol:
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.
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!!!!!!*
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2015, 03:03:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 02:24:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2015, 03:03:38 PM
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).
So the poor decisions and irresponsibility is being born poor?
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 12:33:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 28, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 02:36:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 03:31:39 PMThose 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?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 28, 2015, 04:22:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 28, 2015, 02:36:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2015, 04:28:24 PM
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)?
If those are the only choices you can think of, then I vote that you should have no say in deciding policy alternatives! :P
Quote from: Jacob on January 28, 2015, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 03:31:39 PMThose 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.
No, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that overall poor people do in fact make bad decisions compared to the non-poor, and this is a factor in why they are poor.
Quote
What do we do with that conclusion? Does it inform our approach towards poverty?
I would certainly hope so - you cannot create the framework of a solution without understanding the problem stripped of its emotional baggage.
Quote
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)?
Clearly the latter.
I think the "how" is a complex answer, and one we have already as a society tried to provide, for better or worse. We do in fact expend incredible resources trying to provide that framework. We have social workers, teachers, studies, programs, etc., etc., etc. attempting to do just that.
I think part of the problem is that with all that outreach, we still have poverty. Which suggests that there isn't enough. But is that really the case?
What would a world where everyone had an adequate amount of "help" look like? Would we be able to recognize that? Or would we simply continually define the lower X% of income as "poverty" and insist that we need to do more to help them?
I honestly don't know the answer, but my concern is that neither does anybody else.
Quote
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?
I think it is a critical question that should be informing how we approach poverty. Sadly, we mostly pretend like poverty is some kind of natural disaster completely out of anyone's control, and to suggest otherwise gets the PC treatment we have seen. Don't judge people! How can you be such an asshole, saying poor people make shitty decisions!
Quote
In short, let's say we agree that it's not a controversial proposition (though I believe it is), what then?
We need to create policy and programs informed by the reality that poverty is a problem of education, hope, and culture. And if we want to fix it, we need to understand how to make people in systemic poverty understand how their own choices impact it and give them the tools necessary to remove themselves from that world.
The problem I have is that if we did that perfectly, I suspect we would still have poverty. People are obstinate, and some of them are pretty set on being dumbshits who are going to make terrible choices. There will still be those who don't work as hard, aren't as smart, and simply don't have what it takes to be above average in results, and we will define them as "the poor" and wonder what we as a society can and should do to help them.
Broadly speaking, I would argue that right now the West overall (say we are talking about the last 100 years) has more social and economic mobility that any place or time in human history. Is that not true? It is a continually improving state though, and that is a good thing, we should continue to create a society as driven as possible by ability and opportunity.
But here is the thing - I think that if we do not recognize that poverty is not some systemic condition, but rather largely results from the choices people make (at least in the western liberal world), we can easily correct to a point where ability will not help opportunity, because we've stagnated our economy trying to force an equality that simply does not exist. Equality of opportunity does not dictate equality of outcomes, and insisting that absent perfectly equal outcomes the state must step in and force "more" opportunity can be a dangerous path. And that is where I see the reasoning that insists that any unequal outcomes MUST be the result of systemic bias leads.
One thing about poverty that I find hard to understand how to measure is how well anti-poverty measures actually work.
One example of this is place based poverty - the notion that in the US, there are pocket sof pverty that are geographically distinct and persistent. A lot of study goes into how to fix this.
However, those statistics are almost always rate based - as in, "In this county in Alabama, the poverty rate is 24%" As someone who grew up in poverty, I don't see that as being very useful.
If a particular area has high poverty levels, then the individual answer is to go somewhere else. If there is a lot of poverty in rural Alabama, then the obvious solution for some person growing up there is to move where there is greater economic opportunity. Problem solved (for them).
However, this won't "solve" the problem of that place having high poverty. Because the people who for whatever reason choose to stay, will still be staying in some place with little economic opportunity. So we say "Man, there is just no solution! It was 24% before, and it is still 24%!" even though in fact there could be a perfectly working solution in place - give people the social mobility to leave if they wish.
But the very act of leaving takes them out of the measure.
This kind of economic movement is happening all the time of course, and the places that people are leaving are often looked at as systemic problems. Why is poverty so terrible in Detroit? Because the not poor people have left!
Why doesn't everyone leave then?
I don't know - for some people, they simply will not have the flexibility to uproot their lives in order to find greater opportunity. That is a choice they make. Do we have a responsibility to make sure that their outcome is still just as good as those who were willing to leave for a better opportunity elsewhere?
Now, what I would consider a *systemic* problem in this example is one where the poor people CANNOT leave, because they lack the resources to do so, and hence are trapped. THIS is an example of a problem that we should look at how to solve. But recognize that if this is a real problem, and it is solved, we will still be left with high rates of poverty in those areas. It will still look like the problem has not been solved.
People always know someone with a fast car. They can get somewhere.
Quote from: frunk on January 28, 2015, 03:03:09 PM
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.
Agreed, the consequences are more grave for the poor. That is the point I have been making throughout. That is why the bad decisions of the poor are far more visible. But the fact that the consequences for the poor are more serious does not mean that they are any more likely to be irresponsible. As I argued a while back, if anything, since the consequences are more serious poor people are much more likely to act responsibly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 28, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 02:02:26 PM
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.
Do you even realize that this attitude it what allows the right to dismiss your views out of hand?
You paint a picture of a society where nobody cares about the poor, there is no opportunity to improve your lot in life, the state does nothing to help them.
The reality is that we spend massive amounts of resources fighting poverty. We have an incredibly expensive net out there that has grown from basically nothing a few hundred years ago to a huge chunk of our GDP spent on publicly funded schools, infrastructure, housing, welfare, health care, etc., etc., etc.
And yet, the response from people like you is to say that it isn't enough, it isn't even close to enough, the poor are systemically and hopelessly screwed, and apparently we live in some Dicksonian world of starving orphans with their bowls out asking "Please sir, may I have some more???"
Well shit, if that is the case, that all this incredible effort we've put in has resulted in NO IMPROVEMENT to speak of, that still the poor are no better off, that they are still just slaves and peasants to be ignored and discarded, then fuck it - we should stop spending all this money on trying since it clearly cannot work. We spend trillions, and what we hear from the shrill left is how horrible it is being poor, how hopeless and impossible it is for them to fight the system? Then why bother? If the last trillion dollars didn't help, it is easy to assume the next trillion won't either.
The reality is, however, that is has helped in fact. Poverty in America is of a fundamentally different nature than it has been in the past, and there has never been greater economic opportunity (well, outside the very recent economic mess, but in broad strokes that is true). As a society we in fact have made incredible strides in eradicating hunger, disease, lack of education, all the ails of the traditional poor. It isn't perfect of course, and we must and will continue to work towards making it better, but the constant whine about how horrific it is just makes you easy to tune out. The claim that anyone not willing to do EVERYTHING you demand doesn't care is ridiculous. We already do an incredible amount, the question is not between doing nothing and something, it is between doing a lot and a little bit more.
I was born into a poor family in 1972. I can confidently state that there is no time or place in human history where I would rather have been born poor into that the United States (or elsewhere in the liberal west) in the last 50 years. And I imagine that will be true in the next fifty years as well. At least, it will be if we get this current economic blip of an out of whack sharing of increasing prosperity figured out...
Quote from: The Brain on January 28, 2015, 05:21:26 PM
People always know someone with a fast car. They can get somewhere.
Any place is better. :yes:
Quote from: Berkut
Quote from: Jacob
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)?
Clearly the latter.
I think the "how" is a complex answer, and one we have already as a society tried to provide, for better or worse. We do in fact expend incredible resources trying to provide that framework. We have social workers, teachers, studies, programs, etc., etc., etc. attempting to do just that.
Berkut, what would you think of making it a legal requirement to get a job that you either have completed high school, or be over the age of 18? It seems to me that allowing someone to quit school at 16 and get a job might send the message to some people that doing so is a reasonable decision, so maybe we shouldn't allow it. OTOH, I can see disadvantages to the idea as well. Would it be better just to say that you can't drop out until you either graduate HS or reach age 19? Or maybe you can't get a full, unrestricted driver's license with out a diploma? Or given that drop-out rates have fallen from what they were years ago, would it make more sense to not worry about trying to further discourage students from dropping out, and instead try to provide a better education for people who are still actually in school?
Quote from: Berkut on January 28, 2015, 05:27:50 PM
Do you even realize that this attitude it what allows the right to dismiss your views out of hand?
You paint a picture of a society where nobody cares about the poor, there is no opportunity to improve your lot in life, the state does nothing to help them.
The reality is that we spend massive amounts of resources fighting poverty. We have an incredibly expensive net out there that has grown from basically nothing a few hundred years ago to a huge chunk of our GDP spent on publicly funded schools, infrastructure, housing, welfare, health care, etc., etc., etc.
And yet, the response from people like you is to say that it isn't enough, it isn't even close to enough, the poor are systemically and hopelessly screwed, and apparently we live in some Dicksonian world of starving orphans with their bowls out asking "Please sir, may I have some more???"
Well shit, if that is the case, that all this incredible effort we've put in has resulted in NO IMPROVEMENT to speak of, that still the poor are no better off, that they are still just slaves and peasants to be ignored and discarded, then fuck it - we should stop spending all this money on trying since it clearly cannot work. We spend trillions, and what we hear from the shrill left is how horrible it is being poor, how hopeless and impossible it is for them to fight the system? Then why bother? If the last trillion dollars didn't help, it is easy to assume the next trillion won't either.
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
We've been witnessing a major societal and political shift in policy and governance over the course of a generation on how to address poverty--from the role of government in social conscience spending to the increased reliance on "faith-based" initiatives, legislative reform of welfare from Reagan to Clinton to Obama, to party centerpiece items like the Ryan Budget and Coburn's "Want a plan, Cut a plan" fiscal approach--but noooo...in typical Hurricane Berkut, psycho nutcase shoot-everything-in-the-room fashion, you just have to go from zero to 300mph and start tossing around Dickensian metaphors and that "NO IMPROVEMENT" line--which, incidentally enough, is the same bullshit false dichotomy argument you use when it comes to race relations. But
I'm supposed to be the one with the hyperbole issues?
QuoteThe reality is, however, that is has helped in fact. Poverty in America is of a fundamentally different nature than it has been in the past, and there has never been greater economic opportunity (well, outside the very recent economic mess, but in broad strokes that is true). As a society we in fact have made incredible strides in eradicating hunger, disease, lack of education, all the ails of the traditional poor. It isn't perfect of course, and we must and will continue to work towards making it better, but the constant whine about how horrific it is just makes you easy to tune out. The claim that anyone not willing to do EVERYTHING you demand doesn't care is ridiculous. We already do an incredible amount, the question is not between doing nothing and something, it is between doing a lot and a little bit more.
You're simply just going to have to do better than the "We already do an incredible amount" angle while you roll your eyes and play the typical I-Don't-Understand-Why-They-Still-Complain conservative straight out of Central Casting. Talk about being easy to tune out.
I realize Starfleet never activated your empathy chip when they constructed you prior to deploying your nasty and unpleasant ass to this planet, but goddamn.
QuoteI was born into a poor family in 1972. I can confidently state that there is no time or place in human history where I would rather have been born poor into that the United States (or elsewhere in the liberal west) in the last 50 years. And I imagine that will be true in the next fifty years as well. At least, it will be if we get this current economic blip of an out of whack sharing of increasing prosperity figured out...
I had no idea Elvis was singing about you. That's awesome. Autograph my album cover.
Yes, I have no empathy - that is clearly the right conclusion from all of this.
Zero to 300mph.
Every time I see this thread title, I think "this is just the inevitable consequence of laws preventing child labor."