|
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 December 10 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 02:57 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country. And sometimes people are poor even though they did not make any poor choices. As for the often used local level argument. There are plenty arguments for better involvement on local level. But there are good reasons why some things should be kept out of hands of locals. If there is benefit to extensive bureaucracy is its statistical "impartiality". The bureaucrat in Washington does not care about a person on the other side of the country and that is a good thing. Bureaucrats should be as neutral as possible to implement policies fairly and locals are often anything but neutral. There is probably some way to balance it (not perfectly), but claiming like one way is the panacea to everything is flawed. Especially without showing how exactly should the local involvement be increased and how exactly will it help. Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines. As for the statistical impartiality of the bureaucrat in Washington, you're basically whitewashing the fact that the bureaucrat in Washington is just blindly throwing money around. That's not a perk of an effective system.
Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with any "break down in families and local communities". As far as one can look into history nothing actually points to that. Seems more like "good-old-past" wishful thinking.
As for shit happens, that is exactly what the point of the safety net is, for when shit happens.
And the bureaucrat is not throwing money blindly, that is your ideological position maybe, but that is not a fact. There is corruption, there is misuse caused by lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, problems with scale, and so on. But even after all that most of the money (in reasonable countries) actually end up where they should. And I would love to see how making it local would necessarily make it better. There are things that should be moved from federal/state level to more local focus, there are others that should be moved the other way. And some should be reformed in completely different regard. You just seem to repeat the mantra of "bureaucrats are bad" like that is enough to make it true.
|
On December 10 2013 03:36 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:57 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country. And sometimes people are poor even though they did not make any poor choices. As for the often used local level argument. There are plenty arguments for better involvement on local level. But there are good reasons why some things should be kept out of hands of locals. If there is benefit to extensive bureaucracy is its statistical "impartiality". The bureaucrat in Washington does not care about a person on the other side of the country and that is a good thing. Bureaucrats should be as neutral as possible to implement policies fairly and locals are often anything but neutral. There is probably some way to balance it (not perfectly), but claiming like one way is the panacea to everything is flawed. Especially without showing how exactly should the local involvement be increased and how exactly will it help. Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines. As for the statistical impartiality of the bureaucrat in Washington, you're basically whitewashing the fact that the bureaucrat in Washington is just blindly throwing money around. That's not a perk of an effective system. Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with any "break down in families and local communities". As far as one can look into history nothing actually points to that. Seems more like "good-old-past" wishful thinking. As for shit happens, that is exactly what the point of the safety net is, for when shit happens. And the bureaucrat is not throwing money blindly, that is your ideological position maybe, but that is not a fact. There is corruption, there is misuse caused by lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, problems with scale, and so on. But even after all that most of the money (in reasonable countries) actually end up where they should. And I would love to see how making it local would necessarily make it better. There are things that should be moved from federal/state level to more local focus, there are others that should be moved the other way. And some should be reformed in completely different regard. You just seem to repeat the mantra of "bureaucrats are bad" like that is enough to make it true.
Funny that you protest on factuality, but then assert that "most of the money actually end up where they should." I honestly thought you'd go on to glorify your position beyond ideology, but you do have nothing to offer. Similarly with dismissing the changes in family. You dismiss that great structure for raising children to be responsible adults while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances. Looks like you have plenty of hearsay and hand-waving, but no evidence for your own side.
|
Norway28716 Posts
On December 10 2013 01:01 coverpunch wrote:
Unified empowering policies? Like what?
that's basically just a pipe dream of scandinaviafying USA in a way that really isn't anywhere close to being attainable. 
But it starts with considering people a product of circumstance more so than a product of their own strong will or mental fortitude or amazing ability to work hard, because only then can political will to equalize circumstances exist. When the majority opinion is that those who are bad off "deserve" to be bad off while those who are well off "deserve" to be well off, then it's gonna stay that way. My perspective is that we all deserve the same, and that simply being good is motivation in itself which doesn't require much outside incentive. But anyway, I'm guessing you asked for more specifics, and I'll address the two that I already mentioned and which I think are the most important.
1: American education is extremely uneven, and while you do have scholarships which enable the exceptionally gifted/hard working to attain schools that provide a better education than their socioeconomic background would normally dictate, the fact of the matter is that exceptionalism is by definition a rare character trait. To a very large degree, the wealthiest kids from the smartest families will continue to attend the best education which again makes them able to land the best jobs, the most wealth, the best networks and their kids again will have the same happen to them.
I know that the best american universities are the best in the world, and I am willing to sacrifice this to make the worst american universities better, if I have to prioritize. But essentially, what has been shown by study after study is that the one single most important factor in determining how good of an education children get, is how good the teachers are. And while I'm certain that inner-city school teachers are fundamentally good people who largely try their hardest, the fact is that if they were the best, they would probably be in better schools. Giving economic incentives for teachers who choose to teach "bad" schools rather than rewarding ones who already got to teach the best students (which is a blessing of its own, imo!) , and increasing teacher density in poorer areas, would be logical changes in trying to revert some of the inequality which from my point of view, really hurts your society.
2: The US has a completely ass broken penal system which damns people who make mistakes and come from the wrong socioeconomic / ethnic background to life in crime, poverty, desperation. The american incarceration rate is absolutely absurd - more than 10 times that of Norway. Recidivism rates similarly - Norway enjoys a 20% recidivism rate while USA has 67% re-arrested and 52% re-incarcerated. (source
Going further, life in american jail to me seems an awful lot like systematic torture; jail is supposed to punish, not rehabilitate. This is only possible because people actually believe that people who go to jail deserve to go to jail because of their moral imperfections - regardless of whether they're going to come out better people or not.
And then there's 3: The american metric of success is broken in a way that is especially harmful when combined with these other two. Essentially, you have a society where it is extremely important to appear as wealthy, to date the prom queen, drive flashy cars, yet where this dream is legally unattainable for vast numbers of people. This is why crime appeals to so many more in USA than in otherwise comparable European countries; because simply just doing your own thing and being reasonably happy about it is considered failure. From my perspective, the Americans who actually do work crappy jobs and live in crappy trailer-park while seemingly being content about it are commonly denounced as trailer-trash.
I think that the whole, american dream - work hard to be the best and reap all the riches - it does provide for some great success stories, and it can certainly function as a motivator for some. But as a whole, I think it does more harm than good, because it makes those vast numbers of people who fail to accomplish said dream feel like - and be perceived by society as- failures. Basically, that's what it starts with, and that's what it ends with.
|
On December 10 2013 03:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 03:36 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:57 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country. And sometimes people are poor even though they did not make any poor choices. As for the often used local level argument. There are plenty arguments for better involvement on local level. But there are good reasons why some things should be kept out of hands of locals. If there is benefit to extensive bureaucracy is its statistical "impartiality". The bureaucrat in Washington does not care about a person on the other side of the country and that is a good thing. Bureaucrats should be as neutral as possible to implement policies fairly and locals are often anything but neutral. There is probably some way to balance it (not perfectly), but claiming like one way is the panacea to everything is flawed. Especially without showing how exactly should the local involvement be increased and how exactly will it help. Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines. As for the statistical impartiality of the bureaucrat in Washington, you're basically whitewashing the fact that the bureaucrat in Washington is just blindly throwing money around. That's not a perk of an effective system. Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with any "break down in families and local communities". As far as one can look into history nothing actually points to that. Seems more like "good-old-past" wishful thinking. As for shit happens, that is exactly what the point of the safety net is, for when shit happens. And the bureaucrat is not throwing money blindly, that is your ideological position maybe, but that is not a fact. There is corruption, there is misuse caused by lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, problems with scale, and so on. But even after all that most of the money (in reasonable countries) actually end up where they should. And I would love to see how making it local would necessarily make it better. There are things that should be moved from federal/state level to more local focus, there are others that should be moved the other way. And some should be reformed in completely different regard. You just seem to repeat the mantra of "bureaucrats are bad" like that is enough to make it true. Funny that you protest on factuality, but then assert that "most of the money actually end up where they should." I honestly thought you'd go on to glorify your position beyond ideology, but you do have nothing to offer. Similarly with dismissing the changes in family. You dismiss that great structure for raising children to be responsible adults while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances. Looks like you have plenty of hearsay and hand-waving, but no evidence for your own side.
Do you even know what my position is ? Why would I glorify my position, when my position is that current system is not very good, but it works pretty well, at least for the time being. As evidenced by prosperity unprecedented in history. I am more afraid what will happen in few decades. I do not have to really justify my position any further as far as this discussion goes, because my position here is justified by current reality, people proposing changes need to justify those changes. If you lack evidence for something I claimed, point it out to me and I will do my best to get back to you.
I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing.
Plus stop lying. I never said (or implied) anything of the sort : "while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances". I said that history does not seem to support the fact that changes to typical family are what is causing the issues he described.
|
On December 10 2013 03:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:33 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:10 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 10 2013 01:26 kwizach wrote:For those claiming that receiving unemployment benefits leads people to get lazy about finding a new job, here's a study showing the exact opposite: 12. Unemployed workers who received benefits were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI. UI recipients reported more hours devoted to the job search and more frequently contact friends and examine job postings. Source (excerpt of the key findings on p. 2) Pretty sure if you are on UI you have to be engaged in a job search or you'll be dropped. It might vary by state. On December 10 2013 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 10 2013 01:26 kwizach wrote:For those claiming that receiving unemployment benefits leads people to get lazy about finding a new job, here's a study showing the exact opposite: 12. Unemployed workers who received benefits were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI. UI recipients reported more hours devoted to the job search and more frequently contact friends and examine job postings. Source (excerpt of the key findings on p. 2) Pretty sure if you are on UI you have to be engaged in a job search or you'll be dropped. It might vary by state. Yeah, that's the case in most states. So you both agree that the idea of dropping unemployment benefits in order to "motivate" people to find a job is a silly one? No, it's really easy to game the system if one is so inclined. ...but the study I just provided you with shows that people who are on the system are "more proactive in seeking work". That study is inapposite to my point, which is that rather than sitting on UI benefits for extended periods of time looking for the "right" job, people should go work elsewhere -- even if its a menial job -- until a better opportunity arises. In other words, people shouldn't need more than 6 months of UI benefits. By the time that those benefits run out, they should already have plan B in place to take care of themselves. Considering studies have shown that there are at least three unemployed people for every job opening, the idea that they should "simply" work elsewhere is not very convincing - not only would finding the work itself not be easy, getting a sufficient income would require devoting even more time to perhaps several low-paying jobs, thus severely impairing one's ability to simultaneously look for a job at least somewhat remotely at the level of that person's qualifications. I see the cost of continuing unemployment benefits as significantly lower in absolute term than the impact finding a higher-paying job will have on that person's life (and possibly on the rest of society). We are talking about a vulnerable population here - no need to cripple them further, especially when it does not even change positively their motivation towards seeking work.
Three unemployed people for every job opening!? Oh no! Sounds like we need to deport all of those illegal immigrants who are taking jobs away from citizens.
Giving people indefinite UI benefits isn't going to improve their situation. They need to go work. If that means relocating to an area where there's more economic opportunity, then that's what they need to do. As just an example, there's no shortage of economic opportunity up in the Dakotas and other places where shale drilling is taking off.
Also, it's not like working and continued job-hunting are mutually exclusive. Is it a pain in the ass? Yep. Is it a lot of work (especially if you have a family to take care of)? Absolutely. It's still perfectly doable.
|
Norway28716 Posts
On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country.
The problem with depending on local community is that nobody chooses their local community and sometimes your local community is shitty. I absolutely accept that if you come from a healthy local community which promotes good, healthy, productive values, then you will probably end up good also. But it also condemns those from bad local communities to bad, unhealthy lives, which creates more crime, more distancing between communities due to fear, etc, it's just a bad downward spiral. Like you said, people generally resent money being thrown at bums in "other" communities, because they perceive these bums to be the cause of their own problems. This is a consequence of the increased division lines between communities, societal fragmentation, people considering those nearby them more important than those far away. (Which is something I can to some degree accept as "human nature", but which at the same time is not something I consider ideal - and I think societal influence generally trumps human nature and thus I don't want that to dictate my political wishes.)
|
On December 10 2013 04:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country. The problem with depending on local community is that nobody chooses their local community and sometimes your local community is shitty.
Exhibit A.
![[image loading]](http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/oct/images/07_0091_05.gif)
Exhibit B.
![[image loading]](http://www.edgetech-us.com/images/Map/Gallery/INS/edu9.gif)
Exhibit C.
![[image loading]](http://www.indexmundi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/us-obesity-map1.png)
To suggest that a lack of hard work is what is preventing these populations from improving their lot in life is to totally ignore what happens when one is born into poverty or an area that places little to no value on education, health, or success. Opportunity is a door uncovered by the comfort of knowing that your parents are able to put food on the table or that getting a high grade in class will not mark one as an outsider.
|
On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:
I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing.
What are you talking about? It's indisputable that there's a far higher incidence of single-parent families now than even 30 years ago. It's particularly bad in the same minority communities (ie blacks) that always seem to be economically downtrodden. Do you really think that there's no relationship?
|
On December 10 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:
I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing. What are you talking about? It's indisputable that there's a far higher incidence of single-parent families now than even 30 years ago. It's particularly bad in the same minority communities (ie blacks) that always seem to be economically downtrodden. Do you really think that there's no relationship?
So you're suddenly pro-abortion(and or comprehensive mandatory sexual and relationship education in the public school system), gay marriage, and drug decriminalization?
Do you also believe that condoms should be given away freely at most government facilities (including schools)? I mean it almost seems logical seeing how sexual health is a fairly universal concern.
|
On December 10 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:
I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing. What are you talking about? It's indisputable that there's a far higher incidence of single-parent families now than even 30 years ago. It's particularly bad in the same minority communities (ie blacks) that always seem to be economically downtrodden. Do you really think that there's no relationship?
I misunderstood you to some extent. Anyway general objection would be that correlation is not causation and I see no reason to suspect strong causal relation. Now that I see what you specifically mean I could see some self-perpetuating causal relationship where multiple causes influence each other, but I still very much doubt that family breakdown was the original cause of this development. I would also doubt it is even now significant factor causing all the problems you listed compared to myriad other problems with culture in those communities. So as for your second claim that breakdown of communities is to blame for this I could agree if we clarified the exact meaning of "breakdown".
I originally thought that you meant that general changes in whole society are the cause, but society in the past always had problematic communities that had similar issues as those in black communities today. In that sense I don't think anything has changed for worse. There are of course communities that changed for worse, and there it is possible that your issues have some causal relationship.
|
On December 10 2013 04:58 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:
I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing. What are you talking about? It's indisputable that there's a far higher incidence of single-parent families now than even 30 years ago. It's particularly bad in the same minority communities (ie blacks) that always seem to be economically downtrodden. Do you really think that there's no relationship? I misunderstood you to some extent. Anyway general objection would be that correlation is not causation and I see no reason to suspect strong causal relation. Now that I see what you specifically mean I could see some self-perpetuating causal relationship where multiple causes influence each other, but I still very much doubt that family breakdown was the original cause of this development. I would also doubt it is even now significant factor causing all the problems you listed compared to myriad other problems with culture in those communities. So as for your second claim that breakdown of communities is to blame for this I could agree if we clarified the exact meaning of "breakdown". I originally thought that you meant that general changes in whole society are the cause, but society in the past always had problematic communities that had similar issues as those in black communities today. In that sense I don't think anything has changed for worse. There are of course communities that changed for worse, and there it is possible that your issues have some causal relationship.
Are you joking?
|
On December 10 2013 05:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 04:58 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 04:33 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:
I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing. What are you talking about? It's indisputable that there's a far higher incidence of single-parent families now than even 30 years ago. It's particularly bad in the same minority communities (ie blacks) that always seem to be economically downtrodden. Do you really think that there's no relationship? I misunderstood you to some extent. Anyway general objection would be that correlation is not causation and I see no reason to suspect strong causal relation. Now that I see what you specifically mean I could see some self-perpetuating causal relationship where multiple causes influence each other, but I still very much doubt that family breakdown was the original cause of this development. I would also doubt it is even now significant factor causing all the problems you listed compared to myriad other problems with culture in those communities. So as for your second claim that breakdown of communities is to blame for this I could agree if we clarified the exact meaning of "breakdown". I originally thought that you meant that general changes in whole society are the cause, but society in the past always had problematic communities that had similar issues as those in black communities today. In that sense I don't think anything has changed for worse. There are of course communities that changed for worse, and there it is possible that your issues have some causal relationship. Are you joking?
Not between family changes and unemployment directly or even between family changes and all the issues that you mentioned as important for being employable. And again you argue with rhetoric statement instead of at least some argument or, even better, evidence.
|
On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2013 03:36 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:57 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country. And sometimes people are poor even though they did not make any poor choices. As for the often used local level argument. There are plenty arguments for better involvement on local level. But there are good reasons why some things should be kept out of hands of locals. If there is benefit to extensive bureaucracy is its statistical "impartiality". The bureaucrat in Washington does not care about a person on the other side of the country and that is a good thing. Bureaucrats should be as neutral as possible to implement policies fairly and locals are often anything but neutral. There is probably some way to balance it (not perfectly), but claiming like one way is the panacea to everything is flawed. Especially without showing how exactly should the local involvement be increased and how exactly will it help. Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines. As for the statistical impartiality of the bureaucrat in Washington, you're basically whitewashing the fact that the bureaucrat in Washington is just blindly throwing money around. That's not a perk of an effective system. Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with any "break down in families and local communities". As far as one can look into history nothing actually points to that. Seems more like "good-old-past" wishful thinking. As for shit happens, that is exactly what the point of the safety net is, for when shit happens. And the bureaucrat is not throwing money blindly, that is your ideological position maybe, but that is not a fact. There is corruption, there is misuse caused by lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, problems with scale, and so on. But even after all that most of the money (in reasonable countries) actually end up where they should. And I would love to see how making it local would necessarily make it better. There are things that should be moved from federal/state level to more local focus, there are others that should be moved the other way. And some should be reformed in completely different regard. You just seem to repeat the mantra of "bureaucrats are bad" like that is enough to make it true. Funny that you protest on factuality, but then assert that "most of the money actually end up where they should." I honestly thought you'd go on to glorify your position beyond ideology, but you do have nothing to offer. Similarly with dismissing the changes in family. You dismiss that great structure for raising children to be responsible adults while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances. Looks like you have plenty of hearsay and hand-waving, but no evidence for your own side. Do you even know what my position is ? Why would I glorify my position, when my position is that current system is not very good, but it works pretty well, at least for the time being. As evidenced by prosperity unprecedented in history. I am more afraid what will happen in few decades. I do not have to really justify my position any further as far as this discussion goes, because my position here is justified by current reality, people proposing changes need to justify those changes. If you lack evidence for something I claimed, point it out to me and I will do my best to get back to you. I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing. Plus stop lying. I never said (or implied) anything of the sort : "while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances". I said that history does not seem to support the fact that changes to typical family are what is causing the issues he described.
Changes in family is purposeful distortion of his break down in families and local communities. This most definitely includes the growth in single parents/illegitimacy (and its connection to poverty being fairly well known). You cite the record of history to say, positively, that nothing points to that. If you instead intended a very mild response in the form of skepticism, perhaps you should have brought that one forward. With nothing proffered by you, I had to guess that you thought circumstances and surroundings kept kids from making solid life choices. Setting aside the case for cause for a moment, the record of history does show finishing school, waiting until a marriage to have kids, and not breaking the law is the ticket out. What's your cause for such a relatively simple formula to follow not being followed?
Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines.
|
On December 10 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 03:14 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:33 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:10 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 10 2013 01:26 kwizach wrote:For those claiming that receiving unemployment benefits leads people to get lazy about finding a new job, here's a study showing the exact opposite: 12. Unemployed workers who received benefits were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI. UI recipients reported more hours devoted to the job search and more frequently contact friends and examine job postings. Source (excerpt of the key findings on p. 2) Pretty sure if you are on UI you have to be engaged in a job search or you'll be dropped. It might vary by state. On December 10 2013 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 10 2013 01:26 kwizach wrote:For those claiming that receiving unemployment benefits leads people to get lazy about finding a new job, here's a study showing the exact opposite: 12. Unemployed workers who received benefits were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI. UI recipients reported more hours devoted to the job search and more frequently contact friends and examine job postings. Source (excerpt of the key findings on p. 2) Pretty sure if you are on UI you have to be engaged in a job search or you'll be dropped. It might vary by state. Yeah, that's the case in most states. So you both agree that the idea of dropping unemployment benefits in order to "motivate" people to find a job is a silly one? No, it's really easy to game the system if one is so inclined. ...but the study I just provided you with shows that people who are on the system are "more proactive in seeking work". That study is inapposite to my point, which is that rather than sitting on UI benefits for extended periods of time looking for the "right" job, people should go work elsewhere -- even if its a menial job -- until a better opportunity arises. In other words, people shouldn't need more than 6 months of UI benefits. By the time that those benefits run out, they should already have plan B in place to take care of themselves. Considering studies have shown that there are at least three unemployed people for every job opening, the idea that they should "simply" work elsewhere is not very convincing - not only would finding the work itself not be easy, getting a sufficient income would require devoting even more time to perhaps several low-paying jobs, thus severely impairing one's ability to simultaneously look for a job at least somewhat remotely at the level of that person's qualifications. I see the cost of continuing unemployment benefits as significantly lower in absolute term than the impact finding a higher-paying job will have on that person's life (and possibly on the rest of society). We are talking about a vulnerable population here - no need to cripple them further, especially when it does not even change positively their motivation towards seeking work. Three unemployed people for every job opening!? Oh no! Sounds like we need to deport all of those illegal immigrants who are taking jobs away from citizens. Giving people indefinite UI benefits isn't going to improve their situation. They need to go work. If that means relocating to an area where there's more economic opportunity, then that's what they need to do. As just an example, there's no shortage of economic opportunity up in the Dakotas and other places where shale drilling is taking off. Also, it's not like working and continued job-hunting are mutually exclusive. Is it a pain in the ass? Yep. Is it a lot of work (especially if you have a family to take care of)? Absolutely. It's still perfectly doable.
Are you really claiming that fully 2/3 of the people seeking employment in America right now are illegal immigrants? If not, are you suggesting that we start exiling unemployed American citizens?
|
On December 10 2013 06:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 04:19 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 10 2013 03:36 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:57 mcc wrote:On December 10 2013 01:46 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 00:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I actually don't think paid support is what people in desperate situations generally need the most. I think what they need the most is for society around them to not blame them for their own desperate situation. And once that happens, a greater set of unified, empowering policies which would alter education and revolutionize the penal system could be set in motion to possibly in the future make real, large scale social mobility a possibility.
I'm not holding my breath though. But the notion that poverty and desperation is a personal choice is so distant from my own perspective, and so fundamentally illogical, that I don't even see the point in addressing the point of view that poverty and desperation can sometimes also be empowering tools for the exceptionally gifted. No one directly chooses to be impoverished. However, people do make other poor choices that inevitably lead to impoverishment. It doesn't have to be one choice, either. Lots of poor small choices can have disastrous cumulative effects. Even something as small as slacking off at work or showing up late too often. And frankly, I think you have it backwards. The problem is that people aren't judged enough for their poor decisions. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is the general weakening of local communal relationships. Hell, if you really want to help people, it needs to be handled at a local level anyway where people on the ground with actual knowledge of the problem can properly address it. A bureaucrat in Washington throwing money all over the place isn't going to fix anything. In fact, people generally are going to resent their tax money being sent to bums they don't know in communities that are across the country. And sometimes people are poor even though they did not make any poor choices. As for the often used local level argument. There are plenty arguments for better involvement on local level. But there are good reasons why some things should be kept out of hands of locals. If there is benefit to extensive bureaucracy is its statistical "impartiality". The bureaucrat in Washington does not care about a person on the other side of the country and that is a good thing. Bureaucrats should be as neutral as possible to implement policies fairly and locals are often anything but neutral. There is probably some way to balance it (not perfectly), but claiming like one way is the panacea to everything is flawed. Especially without showing how exactly should the local involvement be increased and how exactly will it help. Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines. As for the statistical impartiality of the bureaucrat in Washington, you're basically whitewashing the fact that the bureaucrat in Washington is just blindly throwing money around. That's not a perk of an effective system. Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with any "break down in families and local communities". As far as one can look into history nothing actually points to that. Seems more like "good-old-past" wishful thinking. As for shit happens, that is exactly what the point of the safety net is, for when shit happens. And the bureaucrat is not throwing money blindly, that is your ideological position maybe, but that is not a fact. There is corruption, there is misuse caused by lack of understanding, lack of knowledge, problems with scale, and so on. But even after all that most of the money (in reasonable countries) actually end up where they should. And I would love to see how making it local would necessarily make it better. There are things that should be moved from federal/state level to more local focus, there are others that should be moved the other way. And some should be reformed in completely different regard. You just seem to repeat the mantra of "bureaucrats are bad" like that is enough to make it true. Funny that you protest on factuality, but then assert that "most of the money actually end up where they should." I honestly thought you'd go on to glorify your position beyond ideology, but you do have nothing to offer. Similarly with dismissing the changes in family. You dismiss that great structure for raising children to be responsible adults while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances. Looks like you have plenty of hearsay and hand-waving, but no evidence for your own side. Do you even know what my position is ? Why would I glorify my position, when my position is that current system is not very good, but it works pretty well, at least for the time being. As evidenced by prosperity unprecedented in history. I am more afraid what will happen in few decades. I do not have to really justify my position any further as far as this discussion goes, because my position here is justified by current reality, people proposing changes need to justify those changes. If you lack evidence for something I claimed, point it out to me and I will do my best to get back to you. I am dismissing changes in the family as cause, because none provided any reasoning why today's family is any worse than family 50 years ago for fulfilling things that you claim it should. The only thing I ever see when such claims are raised are "good-old-past" sentiments and expectations that somehow everyone has to see that today's society is getting worse. I see no such thing. Plus stop lying. I never said (or implied) anything of the sort : "while mystically saying history shows working hard in school, staying away from drugs, not going criminal, and working hard and showing up for work on time can't trump circumstances". I said that history does not seem to support the fact that changes to typical family are what is causing the issues he described. Changes in family is purposeful distortion of his break down in families and local communities. This most definitely includes the growth in single parents/illegitimacy (and its connection to poverty being fairly well known). You cite the record of history to say, positively, that nothing points to that. If you instead intended a very mild response in the form of skepticism, perhaps you should have brought that one forward. With nothing proffered by you, I had to guess that you thought circumstances and surroundings kept kids from making solid life choices. Setting aside the case for cause for a moment, the record of history does show finishing school, waiting until a marriage to have kids, and not breaking the law is the ticket out. What's your cause for such a relatively simple formula to follow not being followed? Show nested quote +Shit happens. But barring some unpreventable calamity, people who work hard in school, avoid drugs and criminal behavior, and then work hard for their employers will do just fine in life. The problem is that too many people stray from that path. The root cause of this problem is a break down in families and local communities -- largely, though not always, along certain racial and ethnic lines.
I dealt with my misunderstanding of xDaunt's position in reply to him so I will mostly ignore this here. In short I thought he was talking about general changes in whole of society, not in specific communities.
I actually intended purely skepticism of the claims. I have my own vague suspicions about why those communities ended up as they did and I would definitely say that changes in family would not be on top of my list. Simplest explanation would be historical "coincidence" of poverty, historical baggage and emergence of culture not really friendly to productive modern life. But considering that peers are more important than families in many regards, placing family changes at the top seems like at best putting wheel before the horse. I would agree though that community breakdown could be used to describe the problem.
As for the kids after marriage thing, is it causal relation or simply correlation caused by the fact that simply having kids later is correlated with higher education and so on ?
As for why this formula (except for the kids after marriage part) is not followed ? For the same reason it was not followed 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 1000 years ago. Pick your era.
|
Government sells the last of its GM stake: Treasury
The U.S. government ended up losing $10.5 billion on the General Motors bailout, but it says the alternative would have been far worse.
The Treasury Department sold its final shares of the Detroit auto giant on Monday, recovering $39 billion of the $49.5 billion it spent to save the dying automaker at the height of the financial crisis five years ago.
Without the bailout, the country would have lost more than 1 million jobs, and the economy could have slipped from recession into a depression, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said on a conference call with reporters.
"The economic stakes were high, and President Obama understood that inaction was not an option," Lew said. "His decision to commit additional support to GM while requiring them to fundamentally restructure their business was tough but it was right."
The government received 912 million GM shares, or a 60.8 percent stake, in exchange for the bailout in 2008 and 2009. It began selling shares once GM went public again in November of 2010, and the pace picked up this year as the stock rose more than 40 percent. ...
Link
|
For anyone interested in their political affiliation: www.isidewith.com
The wide ranging choices for each issue really help create an accurate identification. It takes probably 15 minutes if you're thorough in your answers.
|
On December 10 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 03:14 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:33 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 02:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 02:10 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2013 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 10 2013 01:26 kwizach wrote:For those claiming that receiving unemployment benefits leads people to get lazy about finding a new job, here's a study showing the exact opposite: 12. Unemployed workers who received benefits were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI. UI recipients reported more hours devoted to the job search and more frequently contact friends and examine job postings. Source (excerpt of the key findings on p. 2) Pretty sure if you are on UI you have to be engaged in a job search or you'll be dropped. It might vary by state. On December 10 2013 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 10 2013 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 10 2013 01:26 kwizach wrote:For those claiming that receiving unemployment benefits leads people to get lazy about finding a new job, here's a study showing the exact opposite: 12. Unemployed workers who received benefits were more likely to have been proactive in seeking work than those who did not receive UI. UI recipients reported more hours devoted to the job search and more frequently contact friends and examine job postings. Source (excerpt of the key findings on p. 2) Pretty sure if you are on UI you have to be engaged in a job search or you'll be dropped. It might vary by state. Yeah, that's the case in most states. So you both agree that the idea of dropping unemployment benefits in order to "motivate" people to find a job is a silly one? No, it's really easy to game the system if one is so inclined. ...but the study I just provided you with shows that people who are on the system are "more proactive in seeking work". That study is inapposite to my point, which is that rather than sitting on UI benefits for extended periods of time looking for the "right" job, people should go work elsewhere -- even if its a menial job -- until a better opportunity arises. In other words, people shouldn't need more than 6 months of UI benefits. By the time that those benefits run out, they should already have plan B in place to take care of themselves. Considering studies have shown that there are at least three unemployed people for every job opening, the idea that they should "simply" work elsewhere is not very convincing - not only would finding the work itself not be easy, getting a sufficient income would require devoting even more time to perhaps several low-paying jobs, thus severely impairing one's ability to simultaneously look for a job at least somewhat remotely at the level of that person's qualifications. I see the cost of continuing unemployment benefits as significantly lower in absolute term than the impact finding a higher-paying job will have on that person's life (and possibly on the rest of society). We are talking about a vulnerable population here - no need to cripple them further, especially when it does not even change positively their motivation towards seeking work. Three unemployed people for every job opening!? Oh no! Sounds like we need to deport all of those illegal immigrants who are taking jobs away from citizens.
Nonsensical sarcastic reply which doesn't address the point.
On December 10 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote:
Giving people indefinite UI benefits isn't going to improve their situation. They need to go work. If that means relocating to an area where there's more economic opportunity, then that's what they need to do. As just an example, there's no shortage of economic opportunity up in the Dakotas and other places where shale drilling is taking off.
Strawman again - nobody is talking about indefinite UI benefits. Not cutting them after six months does not equate to making them "indefinite".
On December 10 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote:
Also, it's not like working and continued job-hunting are mutually exclusive. Is it a pain in the ass? Yep. Is it a lot of work (especially if you have a family to take care of)? Absolutely. It's still perfectly doable.
You know what else is doable? Not cutting unemployment benefits after six months.
|
On December 10 2013 04:23 xDaunt wrote:
Also, it's not like working and continued job-hunting are mutually exclusive. Is it a pain in the ass? Yep. Is it a lot of work (especially if you have a family to take care of)? Absolutely. It's still perfectly doable.
What if you're already working 2 jobs with long hours and low pay and have a family to take care of? I guess poor people should just create more hours in a day!
|
Relevant to the current discussion about unemployment benefits, the New York Times did a really fantasitc article about an 11 year old girl growing up in a homeless shelter in Brooklyn. According to the Times, homelessness in NYC is at it's highest level since the great depression. Her parents became homeless years ago after becoming addicted to crack and losing their jobs. Gives the reader a look into what it is like to grow up in a situation like that in NYC.
On December 10 2013 08:45 darthfoley wrote:For anyone interested in their political affiliation: www.isidewith.com The wide ranging choices for each issue really help create an accurate identification. It takes probably 15 minutes if you're thorough in your answers.
Green Party, no surprise. Guess those Dems are too dang conservative...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
