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

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[Warspite]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

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 

[grumbler]

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.

[The Larch]

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

[Zanza]

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?

[Caliga]

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.

  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.

[Monoriu]

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. 

[Syt]

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/

Your 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.]

I 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."

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

  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.

[Berkut]

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/

Your 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.]

I 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.

[Norgy]

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.

[Razgovory]

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.