|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 27 2016 22:25 biology]major wrote:
It's not that it is beyond the pale of our ability to conceive but rather that it does not come naturally for us to be intelligent in that way and so we do not respect it. Most people on TL are probably analytical and very systematic, less right brain oriented, it's just the type of crowd it attracts sorry.
Its rather the other way around: he is just as stupid as the voters and the idiots like it. Before the rise of of the xenophobic populism politicians were more or less part of the intellectual elite and they talked directly to the intellectual part of the electorate. The brilliance of right wing populism is that it is so brutally stupid and simplistic in its worldview.
|
United States43458 Posts
On October 28 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 28 2016 06:31 LegalLord wrote:
It's perfectly possible to live quite reasonably with an even more extreme situation, like living on minimum wage in NYC, LA, or SF, if you're good with finances.
Problem is that most people who are good with finances don't stay that poor for very long. Selection bias plays a role here. this pretty much hits the nail on the head. though lifestyle inflation is the biggest problem for most people. Some may say breeding is one of the most popular lifestyle inflation choice that causes problems.
Denying sex education is a crime against the people. Kids need that shit to not ruin their lives.
|
On October 28 2016 06:39 IgnE wrote:
part of the problem with these hypothetical scenarios is that while they are possible in theory, socially constructed personhood in the United States requires a certain amount of affluent consumption. even if you were living in nyc or san fran on minimum wage "successfully" it would be very difficult to have time or the resources to do anything but go to work and come home while eating some of the cheapest food there is, dressed in the cheapest clothing, etc. and barring a few upper class voyeurs/poverty adventurers who spend a few years slummin it before returning to the upper middle class, if you are successfully living on minimum wage in those places it is a precarious existence with no exit in sight.
Again, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the kind of people who find themselves in such situations and are able to deal with it are generally those most capable of leaving that situation and making a great living out of it. It generally involves using the very best of what the government provides, and being good with money (you can buy luxuries and good food very cheaply if you're smart enough to know where to look). But those are traits that let people become much wealthier than that in not that much time.
The only people I know who choose to continue living like that are:
1. Pensioners who would prefer to live kind of cheaply but well enough to survive comfortably.
2. People who really can't get out of the low wage trap because they suck with money.
Of course, good financial skill is a rare ability, even among people living on far more than NYC minimum wage.
|
On October 28 2016 07:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2016 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 28 2016 06:31 LegalLord wrote:
It's perfectly possible to live quite reasonably with an even more extreme situation, like living on minimum wage in NYC, LA, or SF, if you're good with finances.
Problem is that most people who are good with finances don't stay that poor for very long. Selection bias plays a role here. this pretty much hits the nail on the head. though lifestyle inflation is the biggest problem for most people. Some may say breeding is one of the most popular lifestyle inflation choice that causes problems. Denying sex education is a crime against the people. Kids need that shit to not ruin their lives.
Birth control is pretty dope, they should hand it out in every school.
|
On October 28 2016 06:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 28 2016 06:31 LegalLord wrote:
It's perfectly possible to live quite reasonably with an even more extreme situation, like living on minimum wage in NYC, LA, or SF, if you're good with finances.
Problem is that most people who are good with finances don't stay that poor for very long. Selection bias plays a role here. this pretty much hits the nail on the head. though lifestyle inflation is the biggest problem for most people. That and thinking luxury is standard. Everyone needs their own home, roommates are a college thing or for failures/immigrants. Everyone needs their own car. Everyone needs the newest iPhone and everyone needs it on credit. It's a cultural disease. Doesn't even seem to make people happier.
it's tv man. rich folks have penthouse suites and all, but a partially employed comedian can afford a nice flat in new york and airline crewmember and his sister can afford a house in a nice neighborhood in seoul.
|
www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/erica-garner-rips-clinton-camp-emails-father-death-article-1.2847478
Erica Garner blasts Clinton campaign over discussions staffers had about her father’s death in WikiLeaks emails
Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign in a series of tweets Thursday after new campaign emails released by WikiLeaks showed how the Democratic nominee's staffers discussed the death of her father.
“I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … Why would you want to ‘use my dad?” Garner tweeted along with a link to emails released by WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
“I'm vey (sic) interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said ‘I know we have an Erica Garner problem’ in the #PodestaEmails19,” added Garner.)
Garner also tweeted links to hacked emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta released this week by WikiLeaks that show internal communications among top Clinton staffers about how to best word an editorial piece on gun violence that was slated to run in the New York Daily News.
-snip-
I swear to god these people are fucking idiots. No shit people are going to discuss if a police death is relevant to police violence issues. This is why middle people don't take your shit seriously. Like fucking hell. Email is a place for private discussion, and that's literally what they were doing. The "Erica Garner" issue is that people like you blow the fuck up for stupid as shit reasons, and point a negative spotlight to anything you think offends you. /rant
sidenote: yeah yeah I don't the right to tell someone s/he shouldn't be offended by stuff but seriously, now it's a "plot" to use gun victims to push gun agendas...
this is goes into that thing I linked earlier about email privacy and wikileaks.
|
On October 28 2016 07:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:59 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 28 2016 06:31 LegalLord wrote:
It's perfectly possible to live quite reasonably with an even more extreme situation, like living on minimum wage in NYC, LA, or SF, if you're good with finances.
Problem is that most people who are good with finances don't stay that poor for very long. Selection bias plays a role here. this pretty much hits the nail on the head. though lifestyle inflation is the biggest problem for most people. That and thinking luxury is standard. Everyone needs their own home, roommates are a college thing or for failures/immigrants. Everyone needs their own car. Everyone needs the newest iPhone and everyone needs it on credit. It's a cultural disease. Doesn't even seem to make people happier. it's tv man. rich folks have penthouse suites and all, but a partially employed comedian can afford a nice flat in new york and airline crewmember and his sister can afford a house in a nice neighborhood in seoul.
Imagine you have one person living at home with their parents, driving a PoS, in cheap cloths, and studying all the time at 21
Then imagine someone driving a fancy import, in designer cloths, and in the VIP at the club.
Then think which one you would be able to sell to Americans in a 30 second commercial for $5k a year and you have it an idea how culture/conditioning can easily out perform our rational decision making capabilities as a species.
The person at their parents house, when observed at the surface level, instead of being lauded for spending precious time with aging parents, responsible saving, frugal spending, preparation, and reasonable lifestyle, is looked at by society as a loser.
However, anyone who just comes across the VIP guy in the fancy import will think "that guy has it together".
Truth is a person will probably meet upwards of 80,000 people in their lifetime. One's retirement savvy will impress a tiny fraction of them when compared to a nice car, nice cloths, and a posh lifestyle while you're young. The truth is that many people base their worth off of the value attributed to them by others, and they aren't as capable of dealing with the disdain that arises from not appearing to be more successful than they are.
It's not as if it's just a little shame that comes with looking poor either. If you look poor enough, you cease to even be a human being worthy of interaction for a lot of Americans.
|
On October 28 2016 06:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:52 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 28 2016 06:31 LegalLord wrote:
It's perfectly possible to live quite reasonably with an even more extreme situation, like living on minimum wage in NYC, LA, or SF, if you're good with finances.
Problem is that most people who are good with finances don't stay that poor for very long. Selection bias plays a role here. this pretty much hits the nail on the head. though lifestyle inflation is the biggest problem for most people. That and thinking luxury is standard. Everyone needs their own home, roommates are a college thing or for failures/immigrants. Everyone needs their own car. Everyone needs the newest iPhone and everyone needs it on credit. It's a cultural disease. Doesn't even seem to make people happier.
Depends where you live I suppose. Here in Hawaii roommates are super common because rents are extremely high and wages are pretty low. Even high-paying professionals utilize roommate situations albeit in nicer areas (Lanikai, Hawaii Kai, Kahala, etc.). On the whole though I agree that many people try and live beyond their means and that's a financially ruinous situation. However, I disagree on the car thing. You kind of do need your own mode of transportation in most places in the country. We're a huge country with vast expanses and idiotic zoning rules. I haven't seen the latest figures (if there are), but I'd wager the average person commutes at least 20 minutes away and the necessities aren't exactly walking distance for most (grocery store, etc.). Technology is making this a bit better though. Amazon Prime has a cool new grocery to home feature for folks on the mainland.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a lot of the subsistence workers in cities are immigrants. it is definitely a hard existence without much upward mobility in the first generation. but with the proper support community the upward mobility for immigrants is better than native blacks.
the intense economic activity of the city does raise rent and commodity prices, but it also funds schools and social services to enable second generation upward mobility. the rent situation can be alleviated by tax reform and land zoning reform, both unpopular with the NIMBY crowd.
|
On October 28 2016 06:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 06:21 Plansix wrote:On October 28 2016 06:18 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2016 06:16 Nevuk wrote:
LOL you can't donate plasma every week of your life. And yet people do. All the time. Years and years of it. The money adds up crazy fast. The logistics behind doing that and having the donation centers not catch on is sort of breaking me right now. What? They encourage it. Plasma is twice a week. That's the normal amount. They tell you to do that.
There is a limit of 45 donations per year in Germany. And no, doing that for multiple years is not healthy. And yes, I did it. And no, it shouldn't be done and doctors will actively go against it, when they notice you doing it.
Oh... and a plasma donation is 1 hour here. So thats 900bucks per year, if we use your 20$ figure. (Here it is 15€ per donation and some minor bonus at the end of the year)
|
also huge public housing programs are great, preferably with the goal of getting economically mixed neighborhoods. Vienna and Singapore are quite successful examples of this.
|
On October 28 2016 07:33 oneofthem wrote:
a lot of the subsistence workers in cities are immigrants. it is definitely a hard existence without much upward mobility in the first generation. but with the proper support community the upward mobility for immigrants is better than native blacks.
the intense economic activity of the city does raise rent and commodity prices, but it also funds schools and social services to enable second generation upward mobility. the rent situation can be alleviated by tax reform and land zoning reform, both unpopular with the NIMBY crowd.
Zoning is one of those esoteric issues only libertarians want to address and who wants to live next to a power-plant or industrial area. /sarc
Most people don't care about helping the poor or disenfranchised. They only want the appearance of doing so. Addressing zoning regulations (abolishing!) will help a lot in reducing rent and housing prices.
|
On October 28 2016 07:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
The truth is that many people base their worth off of the value attributed to them by others, and they aren't as capable of dealing with the disdain that arises from not appearing to be more successful than they are.
It's not as if it's just a little shame that comes with looking poor either. If you look poor enough, you cease to even be a human being worthy of interaction for a lot of Americans.
That is a great way of summarizing a lot of the issues I was getting at. You have to have some form of external support network to be able to deal well with that issue. For most people, that's tough. It does make it easier to make money for the exceptions though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 28 2016 07:39 Nyxisto wrote:
also huge public housing programs are great, preferably with the goal of getting economically mixed neighborhoods. Vienna and Singapore are quite successful examples of this.
yea segregation of housing means segregation of social network and community, a sure trap of chronic poverty. the current young professional generation no longer have deep seated racial prejudices, but gentrification still prevents the mixing of racial communities.
a way out for chronic ghetto situations is to have these public housing projects that are attractive for both the young professionals and minority communities. diversity does have a lot of value in this area.
the kwark way of thinking about it presumes all the conditions necessary for the formation of that agency and strategy. it's descriptively deficient. but if you understand him to be saying that schools etc should be teaching kids how to manage their money, the basic lay of the land about value of certain career choices etc, then sure, that's good.
|
As somebody who actually used to donate plasma twice a week to make some discretionary money for a vacation, I can attest to the fact it adds up quickly. It does take a few hours, and isn't the most comfortable thing to do, but it wasn't "hard." Breaking Bad on an ipad sure helped.
|
United States43458 Posts
On October 28 2016 07:49 oneofthem wrote:
the kwark way of thinking about it presumes all the conditions necessary for the formation of that agency and strategy. it's descriptively deficient. but if you understand him to be saying that schools etc should be teaching kids how to manage their money, the basic lay of the land about value of certain career choices etc, then sure, that's good.
That's a big part of my point. While we all have different advantages and different struggles but I firmly believe that individuals still have a lot of control over their own outcomes. It'd be amazing if schools did more to teach people that, from specific strategies like "if you don't want a kid, wear one of these latex things" to just generally rewarding problem solving and autonomy, but at the same time we can't expect schools to teach children everything they need to know. What schools should instill in the population is how to learn what you need to know, that learning is an ongoing process and a tool with which you can better your life.
I don't believe that schools should teach the intricate nuances of tax credits, that shit isn't universally applicable and changes from time to time. But a school should leave you with the mentality where if you don't like how much tax you're paying and you want to know what tax credits are out there you can find a layman's terms explanation pretty easily and then learn more about the specifics for your situation as needed. Likewise I don't think a school should teach you how to replace a broken iphone screen but you should be able to leave school with the ability to learn how to replace one. Specific knowledge beyond the foundational tools like reading, writing, maths, civics and so forth isn't the domain of schools, there's too much of it and most of it isn't relevant. It can even be counterproductive, teaching kids stuff they'll never use and sending them out into the world with a piece of paper that declares that they're done learning. Teaching them how to learn and making it a continuous part of their life, that's the ideal. When you do that then problems are met with an attitude of "I don't know how to solve this but I do know how to find out".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 28 2016 08:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 07:49 oneofthem wrote:
the kwark way of thinking about it presumes all the conditions necessary for the formation of that agency and strategy. it's descriptively deficient. but if you understand him to be saying that schools etc should be teaching kids how to manage their money, the basic lay of the land about value of certain career choices etc, then sure, that's good. That's a big part of my point. While we all have different advantages and different struggles but I firmly believe that individuals still have a lot of control over their own outcomes. It'd be amazing if schools did more to teach people that, from specific strategies like "if you don't want a kid, wear one of these latex things" to just generally rewarding problem solving and autonomy, but at the same time we can't expect schools to teach children everything they need to know. What schools should instill in the population is how to learn what you need to know, that learning is an ongoing process and a tool with which you can better your life. I don't believe that schools should teach the intricate nuances of tax credits, that shit isn't universally applicable and changes from time to time. But a school should leave you with the mentality where if you don't like how much tax you're paying and you want to know what tax credits are out there you can find a layman's terms explanation pretty easily and then learn more about the specifics for your situation as needed. Likewise I don't think a school should teach you how to replace a broken iphone screen but you should be able to leave school with the ability to learn how to replace one. Specific knowledge beyond the foundational tools like reading, writing, maths, civics and so forth isn't the domain of schools, there's too much of it and most of it isn't relevant. It can even be counterproductive, teaching kids stuff they'll never use and sending them out into the world with a piece of paper that declares that they're done learning. Teaching them how to learn and making it a continuous part of their life, that's the ideal. When you do that then problems are met with an attitude of "I don't know how to solve this but I do know how to find out".
a big source of this kind of life knowledge is the family, and in a lot of situations this is lacking.
just using this discussion to draw a more general point about similar arguments from rational desert, what someone deserves based on his or her reasoning in action. this moral intuition is pretty powerful, but it also has a high potential of importing a lot of ability and knowledge privilege. it is also usually applied with prejudice, as we do not always go to this type of reasoning when the victim is someone of higher sympathy/closeness, such as a family member.
it's also basically a naive cartesian style of reasoning, so you'd need a functional theory of volition and how to strengthen it etc to get an actual policy outlook from it.
|
it's almost as if family privilege is real! Kwark though for a liberal that is an astonishing level of personal responsibility you are spouting, good shit.
|
United States43458 Posts
Bio, among my people I am a conservative. If your Republicans would get their shit together and stop denying climate change, repressing LGBTs and pushing Jesus on everyone I'd join you. Although I still think healthcare joins essentials like education, justice, defence and similar services which ought to be provided by the state through taxation (albeit not with a monopoly, private health insurance can continue just as it does in the UK for those that want it). You can even keep your guns.
I lean right. I just don't lean Trump.
|
The Twisted Business of Donating Plasma
Since 2008, plasma pharmaceuticals have leapt from $4 billion to a more than $11 billion annual market. Donors desperate for the cash incentive from high-frequency "plassing" may be putting their health, and the public's, at risk.
It does seem a bit cruel to suggest to a minimum wage worker that donating plasma twice a week is the road to financial security when that worker has to replace the plasma being siphoned off on his or her ramen diet and lack of sleep.
A bit like Vampire: The Masquerade. No?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
