The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: EDSMedS on December 13, 2014, 01:11:33 PM

Title: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 13, 2014, 01:11:33 PM
I love a good fight!

15% of Americans live below the government defined poverty line.  Black folks, hispanic folks, ladies, and incoming emigrants have a much higher likelihood of being poor.  22% of those in poverty are children.  The poverty industry makes >$33 BILLION/year.

You can say that an individual's choices are the problem, but often industries are raised to make individuals choose against their own interests. Example: McDonalds is less healthy and more expensive than a bag of lentils, but McD's advertising budget is $1B annually; when was the last time you saw an ad for lentils?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 13, 2014, 01:22:24 PM

You can say that an individual's choices are the problem, but often industries are raised to make individuals choose against their own interests. Example: McDonalds is less healthy and more expensive than a bag of lentils, but McD's advertising budget is $1B annually; when was the last time you saw an ad for lentils?

McDonald's food is also full of fat, sodium, and sugar which poor people can get "addicted" to.  When you've spent a lifetime eating crappy food, good food doesn't taste right anymore.  Your body craves the junk that's bad for you.  When I escaped from poverty, I actually had to teach my body to love fresh fruits and vegetables.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 13, 2014, 03:07:50 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Rezdent on December 13, 2014, 03:46:03 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.

WTF?
Sorry but your stereotypical portrait of poverty doesn't match what I see. I live in a poor community. None of my neighbors are unintelligent nor are any of them lazy.

 Most of them did not get the benefit of a college education though.  Many of them work 2 full time manual labor jobs.  I'd guess they work much harder physically than YOU do.

Jeez, if it's so damn easy why don't poor people just do it?  Oh, right.  Because it isn't so damn easy to totally reinvent yourself or leave your family and friends and culture and habits behind.
It's not as simple as eating more broccoli.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 13, 2014, 07:52:50 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.

You must live an incredibly easy life if you think any of what you wrote is true.  Go read some Charles Dickens.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 14, 2014, 10:22:46 AM
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting, and you are assuming things about someone you do not know.

And your plan to change my mind on this issue is to refer to a mostly-FICTION writer from 19th century Britain?  Seriously?

Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

As for me, I grew up relatively poor, by american standards.  I wore hand-me down clothes all the way up until the time I started to make my own money.  We didn't have the latest Nintendo, or the latest anything, and I brown-bagged bologna sandwiches all the way thru school.  I wasn't the coolest kid, or the most popular, but I worked my ass off ( while my peers were doing drugs and going to parties), got nearly all A's, and graduated 4th in my class.  I love to learn, and still do.  I will do whatever it takes to be successful.  I chose to get a degree in chemical engineering PURPOSEFULLY b\c it had the highest starting salary.  It was no accident, and  making it thru a ChE program was pretty damn hard--you try it sometime!  I ate ramen noodles all thru college.  Hell, I was too poor to even afford MacDonald's.

Yeah, it sucked at the time, but I now realize that growing up so "poor" was actually the best thing for me.  Being poor can actually be a very good motivator to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART.  Not many people are.  Most poor kids would rather beat the shit out the kids who try hard in school, than try to work hard themselves.  Sad fact in america.  That's why we have to import high-tech workers from other countries, who have experienced REAL poverty (not the fake kind we have in america), and will put in any amount of work to become successful.  So no, I do not feel sorry for the poor.  Anyone can become rich in america, if they have the right work ethic.  Not many do.  So much to say about this issue but I will end it here for now.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: southern granny on December 14, 2014, 08:27:38 PM
Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

I work in a soup kitchen once  a week.  People start lining up 45 minutes before the doors open even when the temp is 30 degrees.  Some drive there, some ride the bus or walk. When the food is ready, they might stand in line another 20 - 25 minutes to be served.   They eat whatever has been prepared for them and they appreciate it.  If there are leftovers they carry them home for the next day.   If food stamps allowed them to "eat like kings", I don't think they would be lining up at the soup kitchen.  I will admit that the crowds are much bigger toward the end of the month, after the food stamps have run out. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StartingEarly on December 14, 2014, 08:53:55 PM
I have a friend who is on food stamps.  I see what kinds of things he buys with them and then he ends up with no money at the end of the month.  He buys things that I would think are extremely wasteful and I have 6 times as much money coming in.  I have tried getting him to buy mainly staples and to stop wasting his few dollars on soda, snack foods and alcohol, it is a losing battle to the point it's driving us apart as people.
Title: .
Post by: This_Is_My_Username on December 14, 2014, 09:29:45 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.

holy shit!

That is embarassing. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Primm on December 14, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting, and you are assuming things about someone you do not know.

And your plan to change my mind on this issue is to refer to a mostly-FICTION writer from 19th century Britain?  Seriously?

Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

As for me, I grew up relatively poor, by american standards.  I wore hand-me down clothes all the way up until the time I started to make my own money.  We didn't have the latest Nintendo, or the latest anything, and I brown-bagged bologna sandwiches all the way thru school.  I wasn't the coolest kid, or the most popular, but I worked my ass off ( while my peers were doing drugs and going to parties), got nearly all A's, and graduated 4th in my class.  I love to learn, and still do.  I will do whatever it takes to be successful.  I chose to get a degree in chemical engineering PURPOSEFULLY b\c it had the highest starting salary.  It was no accident, and  making it thru a ChE program was pretty damn hard--you try it sometime!  I ate ramen noodles all thru college.  Hell, I was too poor to even afford MacDonald's.

Yeah, it sucked at the time, but I now realize that growing up so "poor" was actually the best thing for me.  Being poor can actually be a very good motivator to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART.  Not many people are.  Most poor kids would rather beat the shit out the kids who try hard in school, than try to work hard themselves.  Sad fact in america.  That's why we have to import high-tech workers from other countries, who have experienced REAL poverty (not the fake kind we have in america), and will put in any amount of work to become successful.  So no, I do not feel sorry for the poor.  Anyone can become rich in america, if they have the right work ethic.  Not many do.  So much to say about this issue but I will end it here for now.

Projection bias. "I did it so everyone can". It's an easy mistake to make.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 15, 2014, 08:01:38 AM
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting[...]

Statistics are not race-baiting.  They are statistics. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/)

MMM forums often have a sickening streak of holier-than-thou, evidenced by your anecdotal evidence.  I'm trying to draw out some arguments and some solutions here.  Thank you for participating.

I do not believe that poor folks are making perfect decisions with their resources; however, it is ignorant to believe that our cultural system of capital allocation is perfect, or that "financial education" of the poor will solve the problem.  McD's gave >$50M to their charity arm while spending >$950M on advertising.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 15, 2014, 08:22:13 AM
Well what did you expect?  They're in business to make money!  They're not a charity organization!

Do you want to ban MacDonalds?  In poor neighborhoods? 

What about other potentially "evil" businesses that advertise their services, such as beer makers, car manufacturers, and cable TV companies?

You can't dictate people's choices.  MacDonalds sells prepared food in exchange for money.  People willingly want (and pay for) this service.  It is up to people to take responsibility for their own lives instead of continually pulling out the "VICTIM" card:  http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2011/04/taking-responsibility-versus-victim.html
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on December 15, 2014, 08:34:33 AM
when was the last time you saw an ad for lentils?

http://www.zazzle.com/keep+calm+lentils+mugs
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lithy on December 15, 2014, 09:00:31 AM
So because corporations advertise, then it isn't the poor people's fault?

Poor people are victims of their own choices.  Life can be hard, there is no denying that, but it doesn't make it any easier to not shoulder the praise/blame for your own decisions.

What exactly are you proposing to be done in this thread?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on December 15, 2014, 09:21:42 AM
If food stamps allowed them to "eat like kings", I don't think they would be lining up at the soup kitchen.  I will admit that the crowds are much bigger toward the end of the month, after the food stamps have run out.

It's illegal to sell food stamps. However, that doesn't stop it from happening. Part of the reason people still show up at soup kitchens despite the existence of food stamps is that they're selling them so they can buy things that otherwise wouldn't be approved.

As an aside, my neighborhood farmer's market doubles the value when purchasing with food stamps. Since (I'm told) food stamps sell in the range of 50 cents on the dollar, if some not-poor person were willing to act unethically they could get their fancy organic food at a 75% discount.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on December 15, 2014, 12:00:32 PM
If food stamps allowed them to "eat like kings", I don't think they would be lining up at the soup kitchen.  I will admit that the crowds are much bigger toward the end of the month, after the food stamps have run out.

It's illegal to sell food stamps. However, that doesn't stop it from happening. Part of the reason people still show up at soup kitchens despite the existence of food stamps is that they're selling them so they can buy things that otherwise wouldn't be approved.

As an aside, my neighborhood farmer's market doubles the value when purchasing with food stamps. Since (I'm told) food stamps sell in the range of 50 cents on the dollar, if some not-poor person were willing to act unethically they could get their fancy organic food at a 75% discount.

Stealth wealth is one thing but I admit I would probably be embarrassed to use food stamps.

Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gone Fishing on December 15, 2014, 12:21:06 PM
I have a good friend that worked for the county's "workforce development"  or unemployment office as a case worker trying to get folks work.  It was quite depressing for him. One of his paperwork requirements was to select a reason why the person was unemployed.  One of his most common answers was to the effect of "Poor Life Choices" (no pun intended). 

It's sad, but most of the poor in our community still have enough money for cigarettes, tatoos, and pickup trucks.  No to mention booze, pot and meth.  "Cultural poverty" is pervasive.

My wife currently teaches at the local community college which is a great way for people to get a leg up on life.  I am kicking around teaching a personal finance class after I am FIRE.  I plan on working with some of the local non-profits as well.  We don't have any illusions of grandor, but we can do our part to move the needle a little bit.       
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: tooqk4u22 on December 15, 2014, 01:39:17 PM
Poverty in the US is a problem, and is one that is extremely difficult to solve.  Accountability is also a major problem in the US - not just for poor people. 

There are some people where being impovershished is not a choice - primarily children, those suffering from psychological/mental disorders and those suffering from major physical disabilities.

Also food stamps are needed for many (especially those above) but they are misappropriated and the items permitted under the program for purchase are inexcusable (i.e. gift baskets provided at least 50% is food content, premade cakes, soda, chips etc.) - the program should support better health and limit crap.

Setting that aside I agree that it is relatively easy to get out of poverty from a practical perspective with some hard work, saving, and individual accountability (i.e. I am not a victim and even if I am I will remain one).  That said, emotionally/financially it can be very difficult because there are often times other mouths to feed/support and people are like crabs in a bushel - once you start trying climb out the others work to pully you back down - that is a very difficult situation to manage through and adds a lot of stress. 

In short, poverty is way to complex to solve with out foresight and leadership and is far to easy and inappropriate to apply stereotypes to. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: rtrnow on December 15, 2014, 01:47:36 PM
The one thing I have not seen mentioned here or on the blog conversation are food deserts. I live in a mostly low income area where a large portion of the residents rely on a fairly sad public transportation system. The nearest grocery store is 3 miles away. However, right across the street from the largest low income apartment complex  near me are three convenience stores. While yes it's possible to make the 1 hour plus each way trip to the real grocery store by walking or taking public transit, I can't really blame people who don't. That's a hell of a lot of effort after working the long hours many of them do. I have spent a lot of time in kitchens with a lot of people making 10-12$ hour and most worked at least two jobs. I agree that you can always make better decisions and often people make bad ones, but it is not as simple as "just go the grocery store and get good fresh ingredients." In their shoes I might end up with dinner from the gas station too. It is also true that even at the grocery store looking purely at a cost per calorie, it's much cheaper to eat crap than real food.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 15, 2014, 01:54:35 PM
I hear a lot about "food deserts" here in Houston (mostly from the liberal mayor, who thinks poor people ARE victims).  But I wonder about the economics.  IF poor people WERE to be inclined to spend their money in supermarkets vs fast food, wouldn't supermarket companies be naturally incentivized to build a supermarket nearby?  The lack of supermarkets around poor neighborhoods (if there even is a lack) leads me to conclude that poor people don't want to eat raw, fresh, unprepared food.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: tooqk4u22 on December 15, 2014, 02:01:20 PM
I hear a lot about "food deserts" here in Houston (mostly from the liberal mayor, who thinks poor people ARE victims).  But I wonder about the economics.  IF poor people WERE to be inclined to spend their money in supermarkets vs fast food, wouldn't supermarket companies be naturally incentivized to build a supermarket nearby?  The lack of supermarkets around poor neighborhoods (if there even is a lack) leads me to conclude that poor people don't want to eat raw, fresh, unprepared food.

Cause and effect?  There are actually food deserts - the operating costs are too high in many cases to support a full fledged store, available land is also an issue - generally takes government subsidies and leadership to pave the way.  I have a friend whose family has grocery stores and recently opened one up in a low income area - too soon to tell how it will do but the trends compared to other stores have it taking longer to get to full numbers. Plus waste/theft is a much bigger issue at these stores.  Again, not a simple issue so there is no simple cure or cause.



Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: rtrnow on December 15, 2014, 02:01:40 PM
I hear a lot about "food deserts" here in Houston (mostly from the liberal mayor, who thinks poor people ARE victims).  But I wonder about the economics.  IF poor people WERE to be inclined to spend their money in supermarkets vs fast food, wouldn't supermarket companies be naturally incentivized to build a supermarket nearby?  The lack of supermarkets around poor neighborhoods (if there even is a lack) leads me to conclude that poor people don't want to eat raw, fresh, unprepared food.

Obviously you are just here to troll so what's the point.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 15, 2014, 02:07:49 PM
Huh?  Trolling?  No, just trying to make an honest economic evaluation. 

Just b/c you don't like my conclusion doesn't make me a troll.  Perhaps we should all conform to your point of view with no dissenting thoughts?  Maybe then I could be your favorite forum pal, instead of a Troll.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: rtrnow on December 15, 2014, 02:20:00 PM
Huh?  Trolling?  No, just trying to make an honest economic evaluation. 

Just b/c you don't like my conclusion doesn't make me a troll.  Perhaps we should all conform to your point of view with no dissenting thoughts?  Maybe then I could be your favorite forum pal, instead of a Troll.

It's your tone not your conclusion. It's unneeded. Maybe try having a discussion without having to through in your little parentheticals.  There's no need for it. Maybe even leave out the politics. Your assertions also just seem silly. Poor people don't want decent food, really? Drawing the conclusion that no grocery store means poor people don't want one makes no sense. Maybe that don't build it b/c it's higher crime areas, or poorer people will spend less, or ... Those are just as valid as your conclusion. It's hard for me to imagine that you have ever actually worked with people in theses circumstances or have been there yourself.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: r3dt4rget on December 15, 2014, 08:35:04 PM
I love a good fight!

15% of Americans live below the government defined poverty line.  Black folks, hispanic folks, ladies, and incoming emigrants have a much higher likelihood of being poor.  22% of those in poverty are children.  The poverty industry makes >$33 BILLION/year.

You can say that an individual's choices are the problem, but often industries are raised to make individuals choose against their own interests. Example: McDonalds is less healthy and more expensive than a bag of lentils, but McD's advertising budget is $1B annually; when was the last time you saw an ad for lentils?

"Make individuals choose", isn't that an oxymoron?

To answer your question, there is no money to be made selling lentils. However, the service, convenience, and taste of McDonalds is easy to market, especially to the poor. Business are here to make money, not sell products that make the world a better place. The poor are less likely to have the skills and information to cook meals, let alone pick ingredients that are healthy and contain more value. This is evident in the food choices the poor make. Ironically, the poor have higher obesity rates. This means the poor tend to pick calorie-dense food that is pre-packaged and highly processed. Given equal volumes, natural food is often cheaper and contains less calories. If people were poor and had the skills and information to eat with value in mind, they would be eating beans, rice, eggs, etc. instead of McDonalds. It's a myth that healthy eating is more expensive. The fact is that in our society it takes more skills and knowledge to take advantage of nutritional value.

Mustachians have demonstrated that it's possible to live off $20k a year or less. And not just live, but live well. This is where personal responsibility comes in. In the analysis of individual cases of poverty it's almost certain you will find one or two major contributors to that persons current situation. Whether it's lack of education, having kids when not financially prepared, not preparing financially when they were not poor, or "inherited poverty", which is certain traits passed down from generation to generation that keep familes in a cycle of poverty.

There is one thing most people find hard to accept, but it is true. There will always be different classes of people in any society. There will always be poverty. It's not a solvable problem, but it is something we can try to minimize. The best approaches are education, outreach, community service, charity, etc. The worst approaches are endless entitlements, increased entitlements, and basically anything that can create dependency.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: rtrnow on December 16, 2014, 07:27:15 AM
I love a good fight!

15% of Americans live below the government defined poverty line.  Black folks, hispanic folks, ladies, and incoming emigrants have a much higher likelihood of being poor.  22% of those in poverty are children.  The poverty industry makes >$33 BILLION/year.

You can say that an individual's choices are the problem, but often industries are raised to make individuals choose against their own interests. Example: McDonalds is less healthy and more expensive than a bag of lentils, but McD's advertising budget is $1B annually; when was the last time you saw an ad for lentils?

Mustachians have demonstrated that it's possible to live off $20k a year or less. And not just live, but live well. This is where personal responsibility comes in. In the analysis of individual cases of poverty it's almost certain you will find one or two major contributors to that persons current situation. Whether it's lack of education, having kids when not financially prepared, not preparing financially when they were not poor, or "inherited poverty", which is certain traits passed down from generation to generation that keep familes in a cycle of poverty.


While I agree with your point, I am just in favor of making all the tools (primarily education in different forms) available to people. Most all of us have made bad financial decisions along the way. The fact is that it's generally easier to recover when you make more money. So, I agree with things like "if you can't afford kids then don't have them." That said, I don't think we just ignore an 18 year with a kid working for min wage and say "they made their bed."
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 18, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
I hear a lot about "food deserts" here in Houston (mostly from the liberal mayor, who thinks poor people ARE victims).  But I wonder about the economics.  IF poor people WERE to be inclined to spend their money in supermarkets vs fast food, wouldn't supermarket companies be naturally incentivized to build a supermarket nearby?  The lack of supermarkets around poor neighborhoods (if there even is a lack) leads me to conclude that poor people don't want to eat raw, fresh, unprepared food.

There was actually a really good discussion on food deserts a while back. Some social justice organization posted a map of a large city that had all the food deserts marked, and Mustachians who lived there tore it to pieces. Some of the "food deserts" were a large prison complex, a cemetery, several public parks, and industrial areas with no housing. The rest were shown to actually have grocery stores in them, but were smaller than the cutoff size to count (they weren't little corner stores, just smaller than, say, a Walmart).

The concept of food deserts certainly seems plausible, but I would like to see actual evidence for their existence - a map of a city with food deserts drawn in, where only areas that humans actually live in are eligible, and where they use a reasonable definition for what counts (some sources consider it anywhere that requires walking more than 10 minutes to a major grocery store - totally ridiculous).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 18, 2014, 04:38:34 PM
The lack of supermarkets around poor neighborhoods (if there even is a lack) leads me to conclude that poor people don't want to eat raw, fresh, unprepared food.
George Orwell wrote about this issue in The Road to Wigan Pier

Quote
The miner’s family spend only ten pence a week on green vegetables and ten pence half-penny on milk (remember that one of them is a child less than three years old), and nothing on fruit; but they spend one and nine on sugar (about eight pounds of sugar, that is) and a shilling on tea. The half-crown spent on meat might represent a small joint and the materials for a stew; probably as often as not it would represent four or five tins of bully beef. The basis of their diet, therefore, is white bread and margarine, corned beef, sugared tea, and potatoes – an appalling diet. Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw?

Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t. […]

When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let’s have three pen north of chips Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we’ll have a nice cup of tea. That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C level.

White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don’t nourish you to any extent but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man’s opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread.

What is recommended as "healthy" and denigrated as "junk" food have changed since Orwell wrote that 80 years ago, but the basic issue hasn't changed: The poor don't have many pleasures. Junk food is a pleasure.

I was recently in Wichita Falls, Texas. It was a food desert. Nobody ate vegetables, the fruit was greasy so I didn't blame them for not eating it. The market was all breads and meats, with few fruit and vegies for sale. When I went to the steak restaurant, the "green beans" came mixed with bacon, which hadn't been listed on the menu, apparently "everyone knows" green beans come with bacon. There were no pavements to walk on except near the university, people were surprised and confused that I walked 2 miles from where I was staying to where I was training, as I walked through neighbourhoods with (apart from right near the uni) houses with rotting walls, etc. Around a quarter of all retail properties were vacant, and the remainder had a preponderance of "payday loan" joints.

Downtown was abandoned, and adjacent to it was a meth ghetto. There was a liquor store that never got robbed, because if it got robbed the store owner would raise his prices, and everyone would turn in the robber.

The town as a whole was poor. So they ate junk food, drank booze and smoked meth to cheer themselves up. Not sure about the meth, but if I lived there I'd certainly eat junk food and drink booze, too.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: trailrated on December 18, 2014, 05:09:35 PM
I think a big part of it is the mentality. If you are a victim you are saying that things happened to you and you had/have no control or power to change things even in the future. When you change and focus on what you do have control over you really have the power to change your life.

That is why when therapists deal with people that were abused in therapy they refer to them as survivors rather than victims because it changes the context of that individual and puts some "power" back in their hands.

My $.02 at least.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 04:37:45 AM
George Orwell wrote about this issue in The Road to Wigan Pier

What is recommended as "healthy" and denigrated as "junk" food have changed since Orwell wrote that 80 years ago, but the basic issue hasn't changed: The poor don't have many pleasures. Junk food is a pleasure.

I was recently in Wichita Falls, Texas. It was a food desert. Nobody ate vegetables, the fruit was greasy so I didn't blame them for not eating it. The market was all breads and meats, with few fruit and vegies for sale. When I went to the steak restaurant, the "green beans" came mixed with bacon, which hadn't been listed on the menu, apparently "everyone knows" green beans come with bacon. There were no pavements to walk on except near the university, people were surprised and confused that I walked 2 miles from where I was staying to where I was training, as I walked through neighbourhoods with (apart from right near the uni) houses with rotting walls, etc. Around a quarter of all retail properties were vacant, and the remainder had a preponderance of "payday loan" joints.

Downtown was abandoned, and adjacent to it was a meth ghetto. There was a liquor store that never got robbed, because if it got robbed the store owner would raise his prices, and everyone would turn in the robber.

The town as a whole was poor. So they ate junk food, drank booze and smoked meth to cheer themselves up. Not sure about the meth, but if I lived there I'd certainly eat junk food and drink booze, too.

Great thoughts here, Kyle!  I calculated that during my business trips, often to horrible shitty towns (with cheap business real-estate), I saved over $5,000 in 3 years from per-diem alone b/c I too would take a 2 mile hike to the closest grocery store so I could eat apples, peanut butter, hummus, and pitas for a week (and, if I felt like going crazy, some dark chocolate!).  It was a great way to see the town, get cheap exercise, and make bank!

I think you are right on to say that food becomes a luxury item for those that have little luxury.  The folks in the McD's commercials don't have discernible problems and they look so damn happy!  It is their "choice," but they are choosing more than nourishment, they are choosing a path to normalcy.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 04:38:22 AM
when was the last time you saw an ad for lentils?

http://www.zazzle.com/keep+calm+lentils+mugs

LOL!  Loved this!  Thanks!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 04:53:01 AM
I think a big part of it is the mentality. If you are a victim you are saying that things happened to you and you had/have no control or power to change things even in the future. When you change and focus on what you do have control over you really have the power to change your life.

That is why when therapists deal with people that were abused in therapy they refer to them as survivors rather than victims because it changes the context of that individual and puts some "power" back in their hands.

My $.02 at least.

I absolutely agree!  I posted the forum title for bait b/c I think you can't have a strong argument unless you know the opposition's position.

It is not super helpful for those in poverty to consider themselves victims b/c it becomes a stopping point.  However, I think the phrase "victim" can inspire helpful folks to action.  MMM community SHOULD be full of helpful folks that are above the fray and can see the shitty system (that just happened to work for them) and AT LEAST shout about it.  It is not super helpful to insist that the 15% of Americans that are in poverty help themselves when another 15% will replace them in poverty due to a system that consistently recycles (and THRIVES on) suckas!  It's kin to the argument that obese folks should choose better diets even though they work 9 hrs a day, drive 2-3 hrs a day, live in a glorified box separated from social interaction, and are flashed images of delicious, deadly foods one minute for every three minutes of "entertainment programming."

I think MMM IS the most helpful social model currently available b/c, if followed, it provokes the individual to consider every choice as an economic choice.  That is a sad requirement, though.  It basically, and honestly, assesses life as an economic entity, with society as the antagonist that must be defeated.  My goal is to inch society toward a protagonist role.  Though I will continue to utilize and preach MMM standards, I will not allow my success within this fucked up system to prevent my awareness that this system is fucked up.  We have figured out how to produce food, housing, and health at a rate that SHOULD allow us to forget about them and focus on higher pursuits, yet our economic system forces some to consider nothing else.  That's not right.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 19, 2014, 06:01:59 AM
I absolutely disagree that society should take on more of a protagonist role.  If you do everything for people, they don't learn to do anything for themselves.  We already have free food, healthcare, education, etc etc etc.  Most don't even respect any of it.

If you make bad choices in life, you aren't a victim.  You are a Bad Choice Maker.  And you need to learn to make better choices in life.  Having society take on more of a "protagonist" role is like giving money to a drug addict.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 06:57:20 AM
I absolutely disagree that society should take on more of a protagonist role.  If you do everything for people, they don't learn to do anything for themselves.  We already have free food, healthcare, education, etc etc etc.  Most don't even respect any of it.

If you make bad choices in life, you aren't a victim.  You are a Bad Choice Maker.  And you need to learn to make better choices in life.  Having society take on more of a "protagonist" role is like giving money to a drug addict.

I don't think you're understanding my position.  I'm not saying put a band-aid over current conditions by providing hand-outs (although clean needle programs have shown to decrease the social costs from drug addicts).  I'm saying take a step back and aim to learn why folks become drug addicts (such as ~$1,000,000,000 advertising campaigns for burger-drugs).

I'm sure you benefited from your parents' support.  I did.  I'm sure you made mistakes.  I did.  I'm sure you received a second chance.  I did.  Lucky for us, huh?  I guess you can take the position that it is irrational to argue that women, folks of color, and children should be given the same opportunities though you and I are white adult men, but, if that is your position, consider me irrational.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 19, 2014, 07:22:20 AM
Wow, I cannot believe I am hearing this.  During the politically-OVERcorrect era that I grew up in, colleges/companies bend over backwards to admit/hire women and minorities!  Women now outnumber men in universities these days.  All children, no matter the gender/color, have the SAME opportunity to get good grades in school.  The problem is the culture of the poor that does not value trying hard in school or getting good grades. 

Here in Texas, the big schools such as UT/A&M have a policy that if you rank in the top 10% of your high school, you are guaranteed admission.  The problem is that not all high schools are equal, so this is hidden affirmative action and discrimination.  BUT....it gives those growing up in the most ghetto of areas a big advantage--they don't have to try nearly as hard to get into the elite public schools.

I mean, you keep singling out MacDonalds, but all they do is sell food.  They are no different than Subway, Dominoes, Whole Foods, Morton's Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Kroger, etc.  It is not society's fault if people choose to buy too much of the food, and pay too much for it!  How exactly would you like to "solve" the problem?  Ban MacDonalds in poor neighborhoods?  Should we ban Whole Foods, too?  Since most people would say they are priced fairly expensively.  Should we ban super size combos if you don't have the caloric intake needs of a professional athlete?  Should we try to be like NY and ban big soda sizes?  I mean, where would you like to go with this?

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 08:14:33 AM
Staying with McD's, I think there are some very common sense regulations that can affect this issue: 1) limit advertising to children; 2) provide better health education in schools; 3) eliminate corporate political influence through campaign finance reform; 4) examine zoning laws to prevent fast-food from becoming centralized and promote grocery store centralization; etc.

One solution that will NEVER assist the problem is to say, "HOORAY, we've got it right!  If you can't figure out this system, you deserve to die from diabetes or heart disease!"

Your arguments, though I disagree with the root bigotry, are helpful.  I've worked with quite a few folks like you, that live at the level of the problem.  Do you have any suggestions for change that could assist the problem?  Or are you going to stick with "it's all good"?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 19, 2014, 08:25:36 AM
Probably a pipe dream, but I believe that proper city planning could alleviate a ton of the problems the poor face. Having been to a number of American cities in transit to other places, I also believe most of the current American city planners should be shot :)

I mean, take a look at places like Vancouver that are fairly well designed. The city is designed around transit and biking. Streets without sidewalks are basically nonexistent. Minimal sprawl, and the few sprawly areas are being bought up and developed like crazy. Businesses and shops all have apartments for at least a few floors above them. Grocery stores everywhere - where we live there are three within easy walking distance, another three within easy biking distance, and a gazillion within easy transit distance. You go to pretty much any European city and it's the same thing.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 19, 2014, 08:26:14 AM
I realize you're trying to help, and are probably a nice person who cares about others, BUT...

The only one of your solutions I agree with is #2.  (Since education is the key, and all of your other options are unrealistic, unconstitutional (free speech) and go against a society based on Capitalism).  We already have health classes in schools, where they teach kids what causes diabetes and heart diseases.  The smart ones learn, but the poor students don't.  What more can you do?  If they choose not to learn, lets stop calling them "victims".  Michelle Obama put in a big effort trying to get kids to eat healthier, and it looks like it backfired in a huge way.  Hopefully, she got through to some of them.  But again, eating healthy can cost a lot, too.  So lets ban Whole Foods and Chipotle in poor neighborhoods, right? 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 19, 2014, 08:35:05 AM
Food deserts really do exist.  For instance, until recently there was no supermarket in Chester, PA because the residents were so poor that they kept shoplifting food and the supermarket had to close down because they couldn't make profits.  Public transportation in Chester is terrible and the closest supermarket was miles away so people had to depend on fast food and premade rice and beans at the corner bodega.  That is the reality for a lot of poor people.

Recently, a new supermarket opened in Chester because it was developed and funded as a cooperative by members of the entire community who are operating it like a credit union.  Capitalism failed them so they have turned to socialism.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 08:46:24 AM
Probably a pipe dream, but I believe that proper city planning could alleviate a ton of the problems the poor face. Having been to a number of American cities in transit to other places, I also believe most of the current American city planners should be shot :)

HERE HERE!  I'm reading a book right now - "Cubed" by Nikil Saval - that discusses the proliferation of Office Buildings in US cities and the social planning that resulted.  It's gross and disturbing.  I highly recommend it!

[...] all of your other options are unrealistic, unconstitutional (free speech) and go against a society based on Capitalism).  [...]

1) Free speech, as you call it, is no longer about ideas, it is about funding and lobbying.
2) I am not a fan of capitalism.  I believe in life, not profit.  It has been the driver of most of the modern problems we face. 
3) I can appreciate your critiques, but seriously, provide a solution or stop discouraging those that are trying.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 19, 2014, 09:50:04 AM
Food deserts really do exist.  For instance, until recently there was no supermarket in Chester, PA because the residents were so poor that they kept shoplifting food and the supermarket had to close down because they couldn't make profits.  Public transportation in Chester is terrible and the closest supermarket was miles away so people had to depend on fast food and premade rice and beans at the corner bodega.  That is the reality for a lot of poor people.

Recently, a new supermarket opened in Chester because it was developed and funded as a cooperative by members of the entire community who are operating it like a credit union.  Capitalism failed them so they have turned to socialism.

Really? I'm looking at Google maps and for Chester there seems to be several:

- Fare and Square
- Manly Fine Meats and Grocery (?)
- Chez Penn Food Market
- Chester's Co-op
- Fresh Plus
- Twin Grocers
- Bottom Dollar Food
- Kang's Village Deli
- Avenue Market
- Walmart
- "Grocery Outlet" - assuming it's a Costco-like place?

Looks like it's not far from a Costco as well, for anyone with a vehicle.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on December 19, 2014, 10:10:44 AM
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting, and you are assuming things about someone you do not know.

And your plan to change my mind on this issue is to refer to a mostly-FICTION writer from 19th century Britain?  Seriously?

Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

As for me, I grew up relatively poor, by american standards.  I wore hand-me down clothes all the way up until the time I started to make my own money.  We didn't have the latest Nintendo, or the latest anything, and I brown-bagged bologna sandwiches all the way thru school.  I wasn't the coolest kid, or the most popular, but I worked my ass off ( while my peers were doing drugs and going to parties), got nearly all A's, and graduated 4th in my class.  I love to learn, and still do.  I will do whatever it takes to be successful.  I chose to get a degree in chemical engineering PURPOSEFULLY b\c it had the highest starting salary.  It was no accident, and  making it thru a ChE program was pretty damn hard--you try it sometime!  I ate ramen noodles all thru college.  Hell, I was too poor to even afford MacDonald's.

Yeah, it sucked at the time, but I now realize that growing up so "poor" was actually the best thing for me.  Being poor can actually be a very good motivator to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART.  Not many people are.  Most poor kids would rather beat the shit out the kids who try hard in school, than try to work hard themselves.  Sad fact in america.  That's why we have to import high-tech workers from other countries, who have experienced REAL poverty (not the fake kind we have in america), and will put in any amount of work to become successful.  So no, I do not feel sorry for the poor.  Anyone can become rich in america, if they have the right work ethic.  Not many do.  So much to say about this issue but I will end it here for now.

Projection bias. "I did it so everyone can". It's an easy mistake to make.

There's more to it than that. Nearly everyone working his or her way up through more than one social class has experienced envy, name-calling and more often than not abuse from fellow 'victims'. I know I did. That makes it a lot harder to be compassionate and leads to extreme positions like 'everyone can make it'. On good days I'll try my best to aim for a middle ground between 'try harder!' and the just as wrong patronizing pad on the head, assuring everyone that nothing is ever ones own fault.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 19, 2014, 10:22:34 AM
Projection bias. "I did it so everyone can". It's an easy mistake to make.
There is a nice saying that explains such behavior:
Parents of intelligent children believe in heredity.

Quote
I absolutely disagree that society should take on more of a protagonist role.  If you do everything for people, they don't learn to do anything for themselves.  We already have free food, healthcare, education, etc etc etc.  Most don't even respect any of it.
They cant learn for themselves.
Thats the main reason they make poor choices. They have learned them from parents and surroundings. Its a habit ingrained as hard as going to the toilet - and the amount of willpower to change it is tremendously.
btw: Willpower/decide on something is a resource poor people often have to spend a lot more then "rich" just for surviving the day. And thats not taken to account that if you are physically exhausted your willpower will be, too. Poor often have the hardest physical labor.
(germany, dont know how that system and stats apply to US) And even if a child has good grades (despite parents not able to help or afford help) in school, if it is from a poor family it will often get a recommendation for a lower rate (non-academical) school. children with academical parents are 7 times more likely to go to niversity then children from parents on social welfare with the same grades.

Quote
The problem is the culture of the poor that does not value trying hard in school or getting good grades. 
And that is just BS. Like your setting of poor=dumb
If you dont want people to think you are a troll, then stop these kind of things. If you really believe them, take a stroll to the next university library and look at the studies on this topic. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Rosewhipped on December 19, 2014, 10:37:25 AM
Food deserts really do exist.  For instance, until recently there was no supermarket in Chester, PA because the residents were so poor that they kept shoplifting food and the supermarket had to close down because they couldn't make profits.  Public transportation in Chester is terrible and the closest supermarket was miles away so people had to depend on fast food and premade rice and beans at the corner bodega.  That is the reality for a lot of poor people.

Recently, a new supermarket opened in Chester because it was developed and funded as a cooperative by members of the entire community who are operating it like a credit union.  Capitalism failed them so they have turned to socialism.

Really? I'm looking at Google maps and for Chester there seems to be several:

- Fare and Square
- Manly Fine Meats and Grocery (?)
- Chez Penn Food Market
- Chester's Co-op
- Fresh Plus
- Twin Grocers
- Bottom Dollar Food
- Kang's Village Deli
- Avenue Market
- Walmart
- "Grocery Outlet" - assuming it's a Costco-like place?

Looks like it's not far from a Costco as well, for anyone with a vehicle.


Moneycat, i was so ready to post this about Chester since I live less than 5 miles from there!  Glad someone else was on the ball.   Here are some various articles about it in case anyone is interested:

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/nations-first-non-profit-supermarket-opens-in-chester-pa
http://delcoheronsnest.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-good-and-bad-in-chester-again.html
http://www.delcotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=DC&date=20130923&category=NEWS&lopenr=130929897&Ref=AR&profile=1030040
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/02/25/philabundance-to-open-grocery-store-in-chester/
http://6abc.com/archive/9266135/

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: cam513143 on December 19, 2014, 10:43:04 AM
This isn't entirely true, and one of the biggest problems I have with these kinds of arguments.  I think that a huge problem with our education system is that school funding is based at least partially on property taxes, which creates a vicious cycle.  Basically:

Schools in low income neighborhoods are surrounded by lower value property >
Lower value property results in less funding from property tax >
School in area gets less funding >
Students don't get hep they need, resulting in lower grades, less real learning, and bad choices >
"Bad choices" lead to more poverty


I realize that this is a very simplified approach, and this has been written quickly on my break, but I thought I'd throw an idea into the ring.  This also isn't the entire problem, of course, but it certainly doesn't help.

Also, pretty new to the forums!  Excited for more interesting and stimulating conversations like this one!

All children, no matter the gender/color, have the SAME opportunity to get good grades in school.  The problem is the culture of the poor that does not value trying hard in school or getting good grades.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 19, 2014, 10:48:33 AM
Probably a pipe dream, but I believe that proper city planning could alleviate a ton of the problems the poor face. Having been to a number of American cities in transit to other places, I also believe most of the current American city planners should be shot :)

HERE HERE!  I'm reading a book right now - "Cubed" by Nikil Saval - that discusses the proliferation of Office Buildings in US cities and the social planning that resulted.  It's gross and disturbing.  I highly recommend it!

[...] all of your other options are unrealistic, unconstitutional (free speech) and go against a society based on Capitalism).  [...]

1) Free speech, as you call it, is no longer about ideas, it is about funding and lobbying.
2) I am not a fan of capitalism.  I believe in life, not profit.  It has been the driver of most of the modern problems we face. 
3) I can appreciate your critiques, but seriously, provide a solution or stop discouraging those that are trying.

I have a hard time understanding someone in the US (or the rest of the industrialized world) not being a fan of capitalism.

What exactly do you think it is that drives the world's economy if not profit?  Who built the computer you use to connect to the internet?  A non-profit or a for-profit business?  Unless you live in North Korea I already know the answer.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: greaper007 on December 19, 2014, 12:39:43 PM
Well what did you expect?  They're in business to make money!  They're not a charity organization!

Do you want to ban MacDonalds?  In poor neighborhoods? 

What about other potentially "evil" businesses that advertise their services, such as beer makers, car manufacturers, and cable TV companies?

You can't dictate people's choices.  MacDonalds sells prepared food in exchange for money.  People willingly want (and pay for) this service.  It is up to people to take responsibility for their own lives instead of continually pulling out the "VICTIM" card:  http://livingstingy.blogspot.com/2011/04/taking-responsibility-versus-victim.html

You realize that people eat at McDonalds because it's cheap, but why is it cheap?    Are they just super efficent at making cheap meat, fries and soda.   Or is that meat grown on artificially subsidized government corn?    As a Texan I'm sure you realize that bovines are ruminants and thus can't actually process corn.   Which is why they're only stuffed with it in the last month or so of their life on a feedlot somewhere in Colorado (close your windows when you drive through Greeley).    Check out the price difference on conventional meat and grass fed meat next time you're at the Grocery store.   The grass fed stuff doesn't have the luxury of senators from Nebraska or Iowa subsidizing their food.    Same thing goes for the soda, why does soda  now have corn syrup instead of cane sugar?    Where does corn syrup come from?

Then what about the fact that industries like McDonald's are often the only employers (other than the drug trade) in poor areas.   So someone that does the right thing and works a job 40 hours a week on minimum wage can still qualify for food stamps.    That means that their profit margins are actually further supported by tax payers.

Ok, maybe we're just propping up a few industries like McDonald's and Monsanto.   There's a few other problems though.   When people live on this artificially cheap food, they get considerably more sick than people that eat well.    What happens then?   Well they use their state sponsored medical benefits to treat things like diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease.   It's a viscous cycle with people in the middle who are very stressed, probably have a history of trauma and might be working two jobs while they deal with things like domestic violence.   They often don't have the capacity to break the cycle.    I know that you and I are probably very successful, but I doubt either one of us could become the president.    That's what it's like for a poor person to break into the middle class in this country.

From what I can tell, car, cable and alcohol companies aren't competing in their industry with the advantage of government subsidized products (maybe beer).   Their products are also contributing huge sin taxes and regular taxes into the system to subsidize the problems created from their products.  Thus they're playing on an even more uneven playing field than fast food. 

I get that you had a rough time growing up and you extricated yourself from that situation.   I honestly think that's fantastic.   However, I think if you stopped to analyze some things you'd realize that there were people and things helping you along the way.   Maybe you had a loving supportive family that encouraged you to do well.   Great teachers that saw your talent, a good school system.   And just the fact that white guys like us don't really get hassled by the police and we're generally plugged into a  social system that makes it easier for us to succeed.  You have to accept that some people get an even more poop covered end of the stick than you did.    The only way to help them out of that situation is to have empathy.   
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 19, 2014, 12:45:29 PM
Such fun in here today!

I am presenting an argument, not my opinion.  I could choose to argue that poor people are stupid, lazy, fat ingrates, though, in such a case I would be choosing the less compassionate argument.  I recognize capitalism has benefits.  I recognize that teaching self-reliance is valuable.  I also recognize that "redistribution" of funds within a capitalist society is not fair.  However, we have taught self-reliance for 100(+) years, we have given corporations more and more social authority, and we have allowed wealth to glob onto fewer and fewer, and I contend that it is not accomplishing what SHOULD be the ultimate goal of society: to provide opportunity for citizens to pursue joy.

If McDonald's is such an amazing solution to hunger, why must they spend $1,000,000,000 on advertising each year?  I don't think capitalism is ONLY negative, but recent developments in the political and social landscape have placed capital above well-being, and many would argue that that is an inseparable and inevitable fact of a capitalist system.  In that case, I must argue against capitalism.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 19, 2014, 01:07:50 PM
I also recognize that "redistribution" of funds within a capitalist society is not fair.
Why?
A capitalist says everyone should have the same chance.
But that is not the case- To level the field, you have to move things (money or whatever) around.
I mean, if there were no distribution, resources would end up all in one hand, just because of randomn fluctuation (and thats actually mathematically proven)
Distribution does at least give everyone a bit - how little that may be.

Also you do recognise that you arent in a real capitalist society?
A real capitalist society has never existed, like communism never existed (or socialism, even in the "real existing sociallism" of the GDR).
Just remember the english law that forbit children unter 10 to work more then 12 hours a day in wool factories. What a insulting think to do to free capitalism, it was argued.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 19, 2014, 01:10:16 PM
This isn't entirely true, and one of the biggest problems I have with these kinds of arguments.  I think that a huge problem with our education system is that school funding is based at least partially on property taxes, which creates a vicious cycle.  Basically:

Schools in low income neighborhoods are surrounded by lower value property >
Lower value property results in less funding from property tax >
School in area gets less funding >
Students don't get hep they need, resulting in lower grades, less real learning, and bad choices >
"Bad choices" lead to more poverty


I realize that this is a very simplified approach, and this has been written quickly on my break, but I thought I'd throw an idea into the ring.  This also isn't the entire problem, of course, but it certainly doesn't help.

Also, pretty new to the forums!  Excited for more interesting and stimulating conversations like this one!

All children, no matter the gender/color, have the SAME opportunity to get good grades in school.  The problem is the culture of the poor that does not value trying hard in school or getting good grades.

You are completely correct.  The current k-12 funding model in the US is designed so well-to-do people fund well-to-do schools for their children and poor people poorly fund schools for their children.  It is grossly and completely unfair.

We should, as a society, fight to replace that funding model.

Unfortunately, the only alternative usually put forward is to put centralized bureaucrats in complete charge of education.   That's just as bad.

We need to gut the federal and state departments of education.  We need to cut them down to 5 to 10% of their current size - at the most.   

Block grants from the feds to the states with almost no restrictions on how it gets spent on education.  The only restrictions are: no money for coaches, stadiums, fancy gyms, or sports teams, and no more than 5% to non-janitorial administrative staff costs.  Only fund basic physical fitness and intra-mural (internal to each school) sports.

States need to do the same for the city and county school boards.   Let each city and county school system decide how it needs to spend the money.

That way, we have local accountability and a minimum of waste on administrative empires or sports.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 19, 2014, 01:31:01 PM
We also need to destroy the dominant culture of ignorance that infects American schools.  I'm not specifically referring to schools attended by the poor.  I know of plenty of middle-class Americans who suffer from this cultural disease.   I assume the poor do as well, but if not, then bully for them!

This should be society's rules for someone who is physically and mentally capable of graduating from high school:

1) If you don't graduate, you cannot collect any form of welfare from the government at any level except for remedial classes.   
2) If you don't graduate, society will not pay for your medical care.   
3) If you don't graduate, you can only receive 1/2 of the standard unemployment benefits.  This reflects the fact that you will be on unemployment more often than others.
4) If you don't graduate, all jail and prison sentences are doubled.   If you graduate while in jail or prison, the sentence reverts to the original sentence.
5) If you don't graduate, all fines are doubled.
6) If you don't graduate and have a child you cannot afford to take care of, we will take that child and give it to someone who can.  And we will fine you for being a pain in the ass to society. (That applies to males and females.)
7) If your child is not on track to graduate, the child can request or the state can require that you lose parental custody to a parent who might do better.
8) If your child is not on track to graduate, you will be fined.  If you cannot pay the fine, the state reserves the right to enter your residence and take your favorite stuff until the value of the fine is covered.
9) If you threaten a teacher or other school employee in order to coerce them to pass a child, you get a prison sentence.
10) If you are a teacher or other school employee and you falsify records to pass someone who should not have passed, you get a prison sentence and all your belongings are confiscated. 
11) If you are a school administrator and you falsify records to pass someone who should not have been passed or coerce someone to do so, you will be hanged and your body will be dismembered and buried underneath the school toilets.  It will help other students and staff learn a foreign language.  The relevant phrase is "Pour encourager les autres."

Our official education motto should be "Learn or Starve."

If you are about to explain that we should not do this because some people legitimately cannot graduate from high school, then work on those reading comprehension skills.  Hint: look above for the bolded, italicized text.

Once people realize that you really have to graduate or your life will be total crap, they'll find a way to make it happen.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: greaper007 on December 19, 2014, 02:04:44 PM
Sword, you're essentially advocating that people who are thrown overboard and aren't able to swim are responsible for drowning.

I completely agree that there are people that cheat the system.    I can think of three aunts and uncles that are receiving subsidies that they don't entirely deserve.   I also know that they grew up in a family with viscous alcoholic parents, and their roles and place within the family was detrimental to their future success.   Some people become very successful and controlling from those situations, and some people become addicts.   They became addicts.

As many people on this thread have said, much of what is happening is beyond people's control.   I do think it's a good idea to task people with more responsibility and ultimately, control for their future lives.   However, that's more difficult and expensive than what you're proposing.   

We could only implement the type of system that you're suggesting if we were able to first, level the economic playing field for all schools, make sure parents have all the resources they need to work a decent job and still have enough time to spend with their kids, continue to improve healthcare access and costs, take care of institutionalized oppression for all lower ses groups (African Americans, appalachian whites etc), end for profit prisons, increase the minimum wage, legalize drugs etc.

You can't put a boot on someone's head and tell them to stand up.   I know that  most poor people didn't have the same opportunities that I did.    I'm mostly successful because I was born white, male, and relatively rich, not because I really did amazing things.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 19, 2014, 02:59:50 PM
Food deserts really do exist.  For instance, until recently there was no supermarket in Chester, PA because the residents were so poor that they kept shoplifting food and the supermarket had to close down because they couldn't make profits.  Public transportation in Chester is terrible and the closest supermarket was miles away so people had to depend on fast food and premade rice and beans at the corner bodega.  That is the reality for a lot of poor people.

Recently, a new supermarket opened in Chester because it was developed and funded as a cooperative by members of the entire community who are operating it like a credit union.  Capitalism failed them so they have turned to socialism.

Really? I'm looking at Google maps and for Chester there seems to be several:

- Fare and Square
- Manly Fine Meats and Grocery (?)
- Chez Penn Food Market
- Chester's Co-op
- Fresh Plus
- Twin Grocers
- Bottom Dollar Food
- Kang's Village Deli
- Avenue Market
- Walmart
- "Grocery Outlet" - assuming it's a Costco-like place?

Looks like it's not far from a Costco as well, for anyone with a vehicle.


Moneycat, i was so ready to post this about Chester since I live less than 5 miles from there!  Glad someone else was on the ball.   Here are some various articles about it in case anyone is interested:

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/nations-first-non-profit-supermarket-opens-in-chester-pa
http://delcoheronsnest.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-good-and-bad-in-chester-again.html
http://www.delcotimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=DC&date=20130923&category=NEWS&lopenr=130929897&Ref=AR&profile=1030040
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/02/25/philabundance-to-open-grocery-store-in-chester/
http://6abc.com/archive/9266135/

Thanks for sharing all the articles on the supermarket in Chester.  I have made a career out of teaching in low-income area schools and most of the communities I have taught in don't have full-service supermarkets.  Most of my students would purchase pre-made food from corner bodegas, because they couldn't get anything else.  It's pretty sad.

On a related note, before the supermarket opened, I went to a soccer match at the brand new state-of-the-art stadium in Chester and people were protesting outside the game because they were angry that their tax dollars were being spent on a stadium instead of attracting a supermarket.  It was so ridiculous for that community.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 19, 2014, 03:35:59 PM

This should be society's rules for someone who is physically and mentally capable of graduating from high school:

Our official education motto should be "Learn or Starve."

There is so much wrong with it, I honestly dont even know where to start - morality, psychology, brain science...

People like you are giving communits and social darwinists a bad name. Thats nearly a feat in itself.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StartingEarly on December 19, 2014, 03:41:08 PM
I don't think so.  He clearly is saying anyone capable of graduating should.  I don't see how that's not a true statement.  Anyone who willfully should choose not to when given every opportunity afforded should not be let off the hook.  Exigent circumstances aside everyone should be able to at least graduated high school.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StashDaddy on December 19, 2014, 05:23:54 PM
I disagree that public school funding inequity is the problem.  My high school was in a poor, rural area.  Zillow rates it a 4\10. My teachers weren't exactly ivy leaguers!  I've had my share of bad teachers, but I usually managed to do well in the classes due to something called "reading the book."  But I guess that requires some proactivity in life. 

The problem with schools in a poor area is that the CULTURE of the kids is awful.  No amount of additional school funding will help that!  Its up to the individual to have the desire to learn, get ahead, and want to contribute something to society....or at least aim for a high-paying career!

I mean, some of the commentors on here literally have an excuse for everything.  It is quite embarrassing to read.  I thought this was a website for becoming wealthy through hard work and badassity, not how to become wealthy through complaining and making excuses!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: greaper007 on December 19, 2014, 06:39:31 PM
I disagree that public school funding inequity is the problem.  My high school was in a poor, rural area.  Zillow rates it a 4\10. My teachers weren't exactly ivy leaguers!  I've had my share of bad teachers, but I usually managed to do well in the classes due to something called "reading the book."  But I guess that requires some proactivity in life. 

The problem with schools in a poor area is that the CULTURE of the kids is awful.  No amount of additional school funding will help that!  Its up to the individual to have the desire to learn, get ahead, and want to contribute something to society....or at least aim for a high-paying career!

I mean, some of the commentors on here literally have an excuse for everything.  It is quite embarrassing to read.  I thought this was a website for becoming wealthy through hard work and badassity, not how to become wealthy through complaining and making excuses!!!!!!!

Wow.    Who hurt you?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: viper155 on December 19, 2014, 06:42:56 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.

AMEN Stashdaddy!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: viper155 on December 19, 2014, 06:45:06 PM
We also need to destroy the dominant culture of ignorance that infects American schools.  I'm not specifically referring to schools attended by the poor.  I know of plenty of middle-class Americans who suffer from this cultural disease.   I assume the poor do as well, but if not, then bully for them!

This should be society's rules for someone who is physically and mentally capable of graduating from high school:

1) If you don't graduate, you cannot collect any form of welfare from the government at any level except for remedial classes.   
2) If you don't graduate, society will not pay for your medical care.   
3) If you don't graduate, you can only receive 1/2 of the standard unemployment benefits.  This reflects the fact that you will be on unemployment more often than others.
4) If you don't graduate, all jail and prison sentences are doubled.   If you graduate while in jail or prison, the sentence reverts to the original sentence.
5) If you don't graduate, all fines are doubled.
6) If you don't graduate and have a child you cannot afford to take care of, we will take that child and give it to someone who can.  And we will fine you for being a pain in the ass to society. (That applies to males and females.)
7) If your child is not on track to graduate, the child can request or the state can require that you lose parental custody to a parent who might do better.
8) If your child is not on track to graduate, you will be fined.  If you cannot pay the fine, the state reserves the right to enter your residence and take your favorite stuff until the value of the fine is covered.
9) If you threaten a teacher or other school employee in order to coerce them to pass a child, you get a prison sentence.
10) If you are a teacher or other school employee and you falsify records to pass someone who should not have passed, you get a prison sentence and all your belongings are confiscated. 
11) If you are a school administrator and you falsify records to pass someone who should not have been passed or coerce someone to do so, you will be hanged and your body will be dismembered and buried underneath the school toilets.  It will help other students and staff learn a foreign language.  The relevant phrase is "Pour encourager les autres."

Our official education motto should be "Learn or Starve."

If you are about to explain that we should not do this because some people legitimately cannot graduate from high school, then work on those reading comprehension skills.  Hint: look above for the bolded, italicized text.

Once people realize that you really have to graduate or your life will be total crap, they'll find a way to make it happen.

AMEN Swordguy
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: greaper007 on December 19, 2014, 06:47:52 PM
A few people always make these threads disheartening.    I thought one of the points of this forum was to pay it forward.   Having empathy for people's circumstances and trying to help them through so that they could spend their lives enjoying their time instead of working jobs they hate for things they don't need.   I thought this was a movement, not a chance to bolster one's ego on the backs of less fortunate people.   That's ugly.

All of us have gotten to the place that we are because someone helped us.   I don't understand the lack of empathy.   
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 19, 2014, 07:21:36 PM
A few people always make these threads disheartening.    I thought one of the points of this forum was to pay it forward.   Having empathy for people's circumstances and trying to help them through so that they could spend their lives enjoying their time instead of working jobs they hate for things they don't need.   I thought this was a movement, not a chance to bolster one's ego on the backs of less fortunate people.   That's ugly.

All of us have gotten to the place that we are because someone helped us.   I don't understand the lack of empathy.

All the information a person could ever want about personal finance, saving money, and retirement is available free for anyone who chooses to go looking for it. I don't think many Mustachians were led by the hand to ER - we all found our way here through reading, research, and just a general desire to improve our lives. I certainly have sympathy for people who have genuinely bad circumstances like the mentally ill, disabled, really really stupid, etc, and think there should be a strong safety net to help them (particularly life-skills type education like cooking and critical thinking/decision making, and getting reading and math skills up to a grade 8 or 9 level), but people who just make bad life choices and financial choices? Nope. Decisions have consequences.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 19, 2014, 07:45:08 PM
Sword, you're essentially advocating that people who are thrown overboard and aren't able to swim are responsible for drowning.

I completely agree that there are people that cheat the system.    I can think of three aunts and uncles that are receiving subsidies that they don't entirely deserve.   I also know that they grew up in a family with viscous alcoholic parents, and their roles and place within the family was detrimental to their future success.   Some people become very successful and controlling from those situations, and some people become addicts.   They became addicts.

As many people on this thread have said, much of what is happening is beyond people's control.   I do think it's a good idea to task people with more responsibility and ultimately, control for their future lives.   However, that's more difficult and expensive than what you're proposing.   

We could only implement the type of system that you're suggesting if we were able to first, level the economic playing field for all schools, make sure parents have all the resources they need to work a decent job and still have enough time to spend with their kids, continue to improve healthcare access and costs, take care of institutionalized oppression for all lower ses groups (African Americans, appalachian whites etc), end for profit prisons, increase the minimum wage, legalize drugs etc.

You can't put a boot on someone's head and tell them to stand up.   I know that  most poor people didn't have the same opportunities that I did.    I'm mostly successful because I was born white, male, and relatively rich, not because I really did amazing things.

Getting a high school diploma is not the same thing as getting an equal education.   It would be nice if it were but it's not and it's unlikely to be despite reforms that either of us might propose.

Getting a high school diploma requires learning basic arithmetic, reading, writing, basic science, civics and history.   It mostly requires studying, doing the homework, paying attention, and putting up with boring or pointless BS.   (The latter is probably more important a skill for climbing out of poverty than most realize.)  If the standards are lower in poor schools it will be correspondingly easier to graduate.

I'm all for providing meals and daycare for kids so people can work.  I'm even willing to provide a subsidy to help out the parents if they need it.   (Although my willingness to do so for the 2nd or later child conceived in poverty is pretty much nil.)   

I'm willing to fund keeping the schools open later so the kids have a safe place to study if they need it.  Ditto for transportation home.

I'm willing to totally restructure the school system funding so all schools get adequate resources. 

But unless we convince people to stop squandering their educational opportunities I think too few will be well equipped to
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 20, 2014, 07:10:46 AM
I don't think so.  He clearly is saying anyone capable of graduating should.  I don't see how that's not a true statement.  Anyone who willfully should choose not to when given every opportunity afforded should not be let off the hook.  Exigent circumstances aside everyone should be able to at least graduated high school.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 20, 2014, 07:17:45 AM
A few people always make these threads disheartening.    I thought one of the points of this forum was to pay it forward.   Having empathy for people's circumstances and trying to help them through so that they could spend their lives enjoying their time instead of working jobs they hate for things they don't need.   I thought this was a movement, not a chance to bolster one's ego on the backs of less fortunate people.   That's ugly.

All of us have gotten to the place that we are because someone helped us.   I don't understand the lack of empathy.

You clearly do not get it.

I am willing to pay more in taxes to make schools better.  ALL schools better.

I am willing to pay more in taxes to provide a better quality social safety net.

I am NOT willing to help people who are perfectly capable of helping themselves and who choose not to.  I want society to set clear expectations that people have to get off their butts and do their part.   Knuckling down and graduating from high school is the first step on the rung to success.   

If someone is capable of graduating we should expect them to do so.   We should help them do so.  We should encourage them to do so.   Hell, I'm even willing to pay them to do so if their family needs money!   

But they have to do the work.  There is no magic pill they can take that will give them a high school education nor is there a magic pill that will give them the good study habits or good work habits it takes to do so.   All that requires hard work.

Since they are capable of that hard work we should expect them to do it and hold them accountable for choosing not to do it.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 20, 2014, 07:30:48 AM
If they can't afford bread, then let them eat cake.  It should be obvious to anyone. [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 20, 2014, 02:42:48 PM
If they can't afford bread, then let them eat cake.  It should be obvious to anyone. [/sarcasm]

No, if the kid's parents can't afford bread, and it's a temporary situation, give them bread.

I was accused of not having any empathy.  Simply not true.

I truly empathize with kids who are born to dysfunctional parents.   Dysfunctional parents include non-functioning alcoholics, drug addicts, people who won't get a job or choose not to keep the job they have, or just folks who cannot function successfully in our society, or those who just don't give a damn about their kids.

It's totally, grossly unfair to the kids. 

If there was a magic wand we could wave to make those parents functional I would need shoulder surgery from waving it around so much.

But there is no magic wand.  Nor is there a magic social policy that will solve that problem.

So, that's why I think kids with dysfunctional parents should be able to ditch them and quickly get better parents.  Parents that can feed and cloth them.  Parents who are sober and not on a drug trip.  Parents who can teach them useful life skills that will enable them to succeed in life.

And to hell with the dysfunctional parent's feelings about that.   Those feelings are simply unimportant compared to the welfare of their children.   That doesn't mean I don't feel for their pain (assuming they have any).  It just means that compared to the welfare of their children it doesn't matter when it comes to deciding what to do for the kids.

Expecting the kids to succeed with dysfunctional parents getting in their way is cruel.    If we need to fund schools to stay open in the evening so they have a safe, quiet place to study, so be it.  If we need to feed the kids dinner, so be it.   If we need to fund daycare for children, so be it.

If we need to put the kids in dorms away from their parents so they can focus on studying so they can graduate, so be it.

We've tried "helping" people in the current manner and now we have 3rd generation poor folks who are effectively institutionalized that way.
One could argue that the stats that show less upward mobility coincide with the creation of the modern welfare state...

But absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing we do will make a tinker's damn if the kids don't take their educational opportunities seriously.    That's why I also propose serious consequences to a failure to graduate for those who are physically and mentally capable of doing so.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 20, 2014, 03:23:15 PM

One could argue that the stats that show less upward mobility coincide with the creation of the modern welfare state...
Of course, one could and ignore all scientific data, as most of this post, again.
You dont help children if you take them away from - whatever the english term is - their social surroundings.

Why are you so focust on a grade, anyway?
There are scores of successful people who have not finished higher education and started getting very rich or very useful or... 
Not to mention war generations and such like.
School is a great place to get a formal education (!=useful knowledge), win friends, waste a lot of time and lose creativity and learning fun. Sometimes the opposite is possible, of course.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 20, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
I think we should just eat poor people's babies.  That will solve the problem.  (Yes, that's a Jonathan Swift reference.)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: greaper007 on December 20, 2014, 04:08:51 PM
I'm not really sure why a few people on this thread are convinced that their unenlightened, evidence free theories on the cause, and solution to poverty are so sound.   Especially since they espouse their reams of credentials, and cite all the difficult work they did in their school career.   Yet, they don't seem to quote studies that support their position, or give an example of times that social organizations implemented their particular theories with success.

I've yet to see any evidence that removing children from a home, or increasing jail sentences based on levels of education has ever worked.   On the contrary.    I can show you Native Americans in their 60s that were forcibly removed from their homes and communities up until the early 60s and placed in boarding schools.   Where their hair was cut, they weren't allowed to speak their native language.   And worst of all, they endured unspeakable abuse.   Verbal, physical and widespread forcible rape by authority figures.    That's a particular sort of genocide that America is really good at.

These theories are evil, this is how things like apartheid or genocide happen.   They start from the thought that other people are willfully ignorant or lazy and deserve what comes to them.    I suggest that the right wingers on here really seek out some first person source material on what it's like to grow up in a poverty stricken area.   The lack of role-models, jobs, education or hope.    The Ms Pat episode on the WTF podcast is an easy starting point.

After that, actually look for research that doesn't conform to your biases.   I'll sum it up for you though, mental health access for dealing with the trauma that many of these people have experienced is the first point.   I grew up in a wealthy household with a raging father and codependent, enabling, emotionally distant mother.   I didn't really start to get over that until I started going to therapy this year at 34.   I can't imagine what it's like for people in truly bad situations.   And number two, people have to be able to play an active role and guide the programs that are put into place to help their lives.

Honestly, you guys are just bullies.   For whatever reason you loathe something about yourself and chose to lash out at people that are weaker than you in order to feel better.   I get it, I used to do it.   But I always knew it was wrong, and it made me feel dead inside.   You have to embrace love and empathy or you'll never truly be happy.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: NumberJohnny5 on December 20, 2014, 04:16:54 PM
I truly empathize with kids who are born to dysfunctional parents.   Dysfunctional parents include non-functioning alcoholics, drug addicts, people who won't get a job or choose not to keep the job they have, or just folks who cannot function successfully in our society, or those who just don't give a damn about their kids.
....
So, that's why I think kids with dysfunctional parents should be able to ditch them and quickly get better parents.  Parents that can feed and cloth them.  Parents who are sober and not on a drug trip.  Parents who can teach them useful life skills that will enable them to succeed in life.

And to hell with the dysfunctional parent's feelings about that.   Those feelings are simply unimportant compared to the welfare of their children.   That doesn't mean I don't feel for their pain (assuming they have any).  It just means that compared to the welfare of their children it doesn't matter when it comes to deciding what to do for the kids.

In principle, I kinda agree with you. But I'd be against any policy that tried to implement your plan on any kind of scale. Why? Because I have to think about what would happen to that perfectly implemented (ha!) policy 30 years from now.

30 years ago, I was allowed to play by myself, without constant parent supervision. Heck, I was often left in the car by myself while one (or both) of my parents ran into the store. Now people are being arrested because their child wasn't within arm's reach at all times.

So..."dysfunctional" parents either have to change, or have their kids taken away. Who gets to define "dysfunctional"? What would happen is in the case of a generation, "dysfunctional" will mean "non-conformist/different". So either conform or lose your kids.

I've had heated discussions with one of my child's teachers (pre-school years) about how my daughter wasn't dressed appropriately. Either wearing sandals on cold days (we once forgot to pack a backup pair of shoes in her backpack, I promptly went home and retrieved a pair), or not wearing warm clothes (I pointed out the coat she had in her cubby; if she complained about being cold, put on a coat...should note that she was NOT complaining). All this in an area that saw snow once in the three years we've been here (melted within an hour), and has a mere handful of days that are below freezing. If such a law were in place, I fear that she would have been taken from us and forced to wear sweaters and coats on mild days.

Our son's school is requiring parents to provide iPads. I'm probably not going to purchase one (he has an Android tablet and a Windows tablet, both costing less than a single iPad). Should I worry that he'll be taken away from us and given to a family that have bought the Apple kool-aid?

We buy used clothes for our kids when possible. Under $100 total in Christmas gifts, many from op-shops (thrift stores), for the oldest two. Oh the humanity! Won't someone think of the kids??!!

We have a car that's nearing 20 years old. Surely that's a safety hazard. I've taken the oldest on motor scooter rides since he was five (earlier, but not on the main roads). Someone should stop me!

And at the mere mention of going halfway across the world for no other reason than "it might be fun," we should have been stopped at the border and forced to return to Tennessee. Taking kids away from their aunts/uncles/grandparents/etc. should be illegal.

I'm not saying all children should be forced to live with their parents, regardless of circumstances. I'm saying, we have to be very VERY careful. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

Expecting the kids to succeed with dysfunctional parents getting in their way is cruel.    If we need to fund schools to stay open in the evening so they have a safe, quiet place to study, so be it.  If we need to feed the kids dinner, so be it.   If we need to fund daycare for children, so be it.

If we need to put the kids in dorms away from their parents so they can focus on studying so they can graduate, so be it.

Problem with this, is that INITIALLY the longer hours will be optional. Then semi-mandatory, then completely mandatory. Same with dorms, if it's offered to everyone, it'll start out optional. Then semi-mandatory, then completely mandatory (as in, you'll need someone from the school district to approve any deviation from policy, like underclassmen being semi-forced to live in college dorms).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: thepokercab on December 20, 2014, 04:56:10 PM
Since this topic seems to manifest itself on a daily basis here, maybe we should just create one topic called "Why are poor people poor?" and let folks have at it.   The boot-strappers can opine on how poor people are just lazy and stupid and looking for a hand out, liberals can respond with data and research to try to argue that the issue is more nuanced and also driven by macro-factors, and the boot-strappers can just ignore it.  Rinse and repeat.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 20, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Since this topic seems to manifest itself on a daily basis here, maybe we should just create one topic called "Why are poor people poor?" and let folks have at it.   The boot-strappers can opine on how poor people are just lazy and stupid and looking for a hand out, liberals can respond with data and research to try to argue that the issue is more nuanced and also driven by macro-factors, and the boot-strappers can just ignore it.  Rinse and repeat.

We call everyone lazy and stupid. Especially the high earning people who post case studies complaining about having no savings but spending ridiculous amounts on junk (STUPID) and hiring people to do damn near everything for them (LAZY). Why should one group of people be exempt? We should all take a close look at the stupid and lazy habits/choices that are costing us money, regardless of income.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 21, 2014, 06:16:51 PM
Since this topic seems to manifest itself on a daily basis here, maybe we should just create one topic called "Why are poor people poor?" and let folks have at it.   The boot-strappers can opine on how poor people are just lazy and stupid and looking for a hand out, liberals can respond with data and research to try to argue that the issue is more nuanced and also driven by macro-factors, and the boot-strappers can just ignore it.  Rinse and repeat.

We call everyone lazy and stupid. Especially the high earning people who post case studies complaining about having no savings but spending ridiculous amounts on junk (STUPID) and hiring people to do damn near everything for them (LAZY). Why should one group of people be exempt? We should all take a close look at the stupid and lazy habits/choices that are costing us money, regardless of income.

NICE!

I believe we are all victims!  If you haven't screamed "FUCK YEAH" while watching the post-apartment-fire bar scene in "Fight Club" then you may not understand my tone.  Advertising expenditures were over $160 BILLION in 2012!  http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Total-Media-Ad-Spend-Inches-Up-Pushed-by-Digital/1010154 (http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Total-Media-Ad-Spend-Inches-Up-Pushed-by-Digital/1010154)  That doesn't mean we have to stay victimized - as mentioned before the term "survivor" is often applied to provoke a greater sense of agency - but we SHOULD recognize that consistent negative pressure is being applied.

We are all stupid and lazy in some way.  When I am stupid and lazy and allow advertising/convention to make decisions for me I may lose 6 months of my early retirement opportunity.  When a poor person is stupid and lazy, they can't pay for dental care or housing or chronic disease treatment or potatoes or higher education.  That's not a system to be proud of, even though I AM WINNING.  When someone can't step back from their pedestal of privilege to perceive this issue, especially within a community such as MMM where intelligent folks repetitively recognize the ridiculousness of NORMS, it makes me hurt.

I'm still interested in hearing more from the "bootstrappers" regarding realistic solutions beyond "stop being stupid and lazy." 

We also need to destroy the dominant culture of ignorance that infects American schools.  I'm not specifically referring to schools attended by the poor.  I know of plenty of middle-class Americans who suffer from this cultural disease.   I assume the poor do as well, but if not, then bully for them!

This should be society's rules for someone who is physically and mentally capable of graduating from high school:

1) If you don't graduate, you cannot collect any form of welfare from the government at any level except for remedial classes.   
2) If you don't graduate, society will not pay for your medical care.   
3) If you don't graduate, you can only receive 1/2 of the standard unemployment benefits.  This reflects the fact that you will be on unemployment more often than others.
4) If you don't graduate, all jail and prison sentences are doubled.   If you graduate while in jail or prison, the sentence reverts to the original sentence.
5) If you don't graduate, all fines are doubled.
6) If you don't graduate and have a child you cannot afford to take care of, we will take that child and give it to someone who can.  And we will fine you for being a pain in the ass to society. (That applies to males and females.)
7) If your child is not on track to graduate, the child can request or the state can require that you lose parental custody to a parent who might do better.
8) If your child is not on track to graduate, you will be fined.  If you cannot pay the fine, the state reserves the right to enter your residence and take your favorite stuff until the value of the fine is covered.
9) If you threaten a teacher or other school employee in order to coerce them to pass a child, you get a prison sentence.
10) If you are a teacher or other school employee and you falsify records to pass someone who should not have passed, you get a prison sentence and all your belongings are confiscated. 
11) If you are a school administrator and you falsify records to pass someone who should not have been passed or coerce someone to do so, you will be hanged and your body will be dismembered and buried underneath the school toilets.  It will help other students and staff learn a foreign language.  The relevant phrase is "Pour encourager les autres."

Our official education motto should be "Learn or Starve."

If you are about to explain that we should not do this because some people legitimately cannot graduate from high school, then work on those reading comprehension skills.  Hint: look above for the bolded, italicized text.

Once people realize that you really have to graduate or your life will be total crap, they'll find a way to make it happen.

One major burden of this approach is defining "physically and mentally capable."  Isn't that the same line we currently tread when discussing who should be claiming disability?  Who becomes the authority for physical and mental capability? 

Also, I breezed through school without ever trying and retained very little beyond what I use day to day.  What is so damn important about chemistry?  I don't use that malarchy!  I'm a fucking financial auditor!  And I never went to school for finance/auditing but now regularly earn organizational performance awards for identifying and implementing systemic improvements within federal organizations.  Was biology really that important for my contribution to society?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on December 21, 2014, 07:08:05 PM
I have worked with poor families for years.  The issues are very complex. 

First, please remember that entitlement programs benefit CHILDREN.  Do you really want to cut programs that provide nutrition to children?  Do you know a way to ensure children get food that does not involve giving access to food to their parents?  Do you really want children to grow up in substandard housing, moving multiple times every year, or living in hotel rooms, which are the country's shelter placements?  Do you know a way to ensure that children are living in homes their parents, who get less in cash benefits every month than a market rate apartment rents for, can afford (did you know that the WAIT LIST for subsidized housing opens at most a couple of times a year?) 

Second, children growing up in poverty do not know there is another way they can live.  They don't have any idea that working hard in school can lead to a better life.  Sure, teachers and guidance counselors tell them that, but they've never seen it happen.  No one they know has ever done that.

Third, the ability to choose a behavior that is contrary to one's emotional state is a skill largely absent among poor youth and, unfortunately, many poor adults.  This skill is critical to success at school, in the community, and at work.  Our country's school teachers have been telling us this for at least a decade now, and instead of paying attention, we are just demanding our teachers do the impossible, which is to educate a classroom in which ten or fifteen kids are acting out all day long.  Until we find a way to teach poor children to manage their emotions (which most middle class children begin to learn in infancy), they will remain at a tremendous disadvantage. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on December 22, 2014, 02:55:56 AM

I'm still interested in hearing more from the "bootstrappers" regarding realistic solutions beyond "stop being stupid and lazy." 


"Bootstrapper" from a very different background here (the German social net is MUCH more comfortable than its US counterpart).

I wish the focus around here would be less about supporting the consumption habits of the non-working lower class and more about investing in their children. For example, we have a voluntary schedule for doctor's visits (totally free of charge) which monitor the development of children ("U1" immediately after birth to "U9" at 5-6 years old). As you can imagine, those who need it most are not taken to the doctor after infancy.

I would like to make those appointments mandatory. And to have interventions occur if something is not right. If development is delayed, preschool should be mandatory (see Perry pre-school study. It's amazing what a few regular hours in a different environment can achieve).

If there are signs of severe neglegt, physical or sexual abuse _all_ children should be taken out of the house. Not only the one who showed up at the hospital with more than suspicious injuries (sadly, this is common here. You almost have a "right" to mess each of your kids up before it is taken away.).

The children should then be transferred to good homes and not "just a little better than their parents" homes (progressive German social scientists have figured out that once children experience a good home they are likely to scream "NOOO!" if the state would like to hand them back to their "parents". We can't have that. It would totally expose the system's cruelty, you see. So we practise something that is called milieunahe Unterbringung, rough translation: near-class accomodation. This has recently led to the death of a little girl because she accidently took the heroin substituting drug of her foster parents.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 22, 2014, 05:35:37 AM
I have worked with poor families for years.  The issues are very complex. 

First, please remember that entitlement programs benefit CHILDREN.  Do you really want to cut programs that provide nutrition to children?  Do you know a way to ensure children get food that does not involve giving access to food to their parents?  Do you really want children to grow up in substandard housing, moving multiple times every year, or living in hotel rooms, which are the country's shelter placements?  Do you know a way to ensure that children are living in homes their parents, who get less in cash benefits every month than a market rate apartment rents for, can afford (did you know that the WAIT LIST for subsidized housing opens at most a couple of times a year?) 

Second, children growing up in poverty do not know there is another way they can live.  They don't have any idea that working hard in school can lead to a better life.  Sure, teachers and guidance counselors tell them that, but they've never seen it happen.  No one they know has ever done that.

Third, the ability to choose a behavior that is contrary to one's emotional state is a skill largely absent among poor youth and, unfortunately, many poor adults.  This skill is critical to success at school, in the community, and at work.  Our country's school teachers have been telling us this for at least a decade now, and instead of paying attention, we are just demanding our teachers do the impossible, which is to educate a classroom in which ten or fifteen kids are acting out all day long.  Until we find a way to teach poor children to manage their emotions (which most middle class children begin to learn in infancy), they will remain at a tremendous disadvantage.

Thanks for posting this.  One of the reasons I get so angry when people post these "poor people are stupid and should starve" threads is because I grew up on nutrition programs and without them I would have starved.  Until I was 13, I was unable to work for myself (and then I worked under the table for nearly nothing), so I depended on those nutrition programs to eat and there really wasn't anything I could do about it.  There are a lot of people out there who believe that kids like myself should just die, because they are born to bad parents.  At least, that's the message that comes across with this "bootstrap" nonsense.  The parents are not going to "shape up".  It's just not going to happen.  But there is a chance that the kids can be saved.

By the way, since I escaped from poverty, I now pay for other people's children to go to public school and I pay for other people's federal and state benefits.  You don't hear me bitching about it.  Ever.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on December 22, 2014, 08:33:31 AM

By the way, since I escaped from poverty, I now pay for other people's children to go to public school and I pay for other people's federal and state benefits.  You don't hear me bitching about it.  Ever.

I'm all in all fine with my tax rate. I'd just like to redistribute a lot of it. Specifically I'd much rather pay for food, kindergarten and preschool for kids from dysfunctional families than hand over xyz amount of money to the parents for each of their kids with no one ever checking if such money is indeed spend for the kids.

Momentarily, a non-working familiy with 3 kids receives rent, health insurance and a certain amount for paying heating and energy bills plus the following lump-sums:

- 360 EUR for each parent
- 234, 267 and 302 EUR for each of the children (depending on age)

So you'll end up with: free accomodation and health care as well as 1523 EUR per months to spend how you see fit. Furthermore, there are a lot of other discounts available (for sports, museums, public transportation, etc.) as well as the opportunity to get food and second hand clothes for free.

I think you could find quite a few Mustachian families living on less.

Yet, malnourishment (either too skinny or obese kids), summer clothes in winter, households without a single book and otherwise neglected children can be found everywhere and have almost become the norm in certain districts.

I'm not saying that the US system is the correct one (I consider it too harsh, especially on the kids). I'd just like to caution those who think that pouring money on the problem eventually would make the problem go away. It does not.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LibrarIan on December 22, 2014, 09:02:47 AM
@StashDaddy (and really anyone else who might find this interesting):

The conversation in this thread seems to be focusing heavily on food (a major part of poverty and life in general). The example of McDonald's keeps coming up. Yes, people can and should choose better quality food, but McDonald's and other similarly unhealthy places to eat have enormous advertising budgets, and advertising has been shown very clearly to alter someone's behavior for better or for worse. If you have very little money, you're hungry and you see a multitude of McD's ads showing off cheap food that looks filling, you would probably be inclined to eat there more often.

For any and all, I highly, highly recommend the book Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement. This book discusses these issues at length. Here is the synopsis:

"In this era of eroding commitment to government sponsored welfare programs, voluntarism and private charity have become the popular, optimistic solutions to poverty and hunger. The resurgence of charity has to be a good thing, doesn't it? No, says sociologist Janet Poppendieck, not when stopgap charitable efforts replace consistent public policy, and poverty continues to grow. In Sweet Charity?, Poppendieck travels the country to work in soup kitchens and "gleaning" centers, reporting from the frontlines of America's hunger relief programs to assess the effectiveness of these homegrown efforts. We hear from the "clients" who receive meals too small to feed their families; from the enthusiastic volunteers; and from the directors, who wonder if their "successful" programs are in some way perpetuating the problem they are struggling to solve. Hailed as the most significant book on hunger to appear in decades, Sweet Charity? shows how the drive to end poverty has taken a wrong turn with thousands of well-meaning volunteers on board."

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Charity-Emergency-Food-Entitlement/dp/0140245561/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1419263838&sr=8-2&keywords=sweet+charity%3F (http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Charity-Emergency-Food-Entitlement/dp/0140245561/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1419263838&sr=8-2&keywords=sweet+charity%3F)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on December 22, 2014, 09:44:01 AM
Also, I breezed through school without ever trying and retained very little beyond what I use day to day.  What is so damn important about chemistry?  I don't use that malarchy!  I'm a fucking financial auditor!

Chemistry is important so that you can do things like read the labels on stuff and manage to avoid poisoning yourself. Chemistry is how I learned that drinking methanol, mixing bleach and ammonia, and playing with mercury are bad ideas, for example.

Speaking of retaining knowledge from school, that's also where I learned not to look like an idiot by misspelling "malarkey." ; )

On a more serious note, I'm going to go ahead and assume you retained more than you think. For example, I assume that as a high-school graduate that you have at least some minimal understanding of how government works, along with some minimal understanding of history and economics, such that you are not entirely too incompetent to vote. I assume that even if you weren't a financial auditor, you would have retained at least the minimal math skills necessary to keep track of your household's expenses. I assume that you attained a minimum level of literacy such that you are capable of reading things like street signs, employment applications and news articles.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Leisured on December 22, 2014, 11:38:49 PM
Further on junk food. Thank you Kyle Schuant for the quote from George Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier.

I recommend the website below.

http://karenlebillon.com/

Karen Le Billon is married to a Frenchman and has observed the school lunch program in France. The French take food seriously, and subsidized school lunches are available. She says that advertisements for junk food on French TV are required to carry health warnings. There is no school lunch program in Australia, but I understand that there is a school lunch program in the US. How does the American school lunch program compare with the school lunch program in France? How would American students from poor backgrounds react to good quality school lunches?

A school lunch program, properly run, would ensure that students from poor households get at least one good meal a day.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 23, 2014, 01:27:58 AM
Further on junk food. Thank you Kyle Schuant for the quote from George Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier.

I recommend the website below.

http://karenlebillon.com/

Karen Le Billon is married to a Frenchman and has observed the school lunch program in France. The French take food seriously, and subsidized school lunches are available. She says that advertisements for junk food on French TV are required to carry health warnings. There is no school lunch program in Australia, but I understand that there is a school lunch program in the US. How does the American school lunch program compare with the school lunch program in France? How would American students from poor backgrounds react to good quality school lunches?

A school lunch program, properly run, would ensure that students from poor households get at least one good meal a day.

About school lunches, there is an interesting story to be found on this blog about an scottish girl
http://neverseconds.blogspot.co.uk/
what reminded me of this blog was your words of taking food seriously. Well, there is a contest to make the best meal in japanese schools.  This post:
http://neverseconds.blogspot.de/2013/03/staying-in-japan.html
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 23, 2014, 04:49:34 AM
Also, I breezed through school without ever trying and retained very little beyond what I use day to day.  What is so damn important about chemistry?  I don't use that malarchy!  I'm a fucking financial auditor!

Chemistry is important so that you can do things like read the labels on stuff and manage to avoid poisoning yourself. Chemistry is how I learned that drinking methanol, mixing bleach and ammonia, and playing with mercury are bad ideas, for example.

Speaking of retaining knowledge from school, that's also where I learned not to look like an idiot by misspelling "malarkey." ; )

On a more serious note, I'm going to go ahead and assume you retained more than you think. For example, I assume that as a high-school graduate that you have at least some minimal understanding of how government works, along with some minimal understanding of history and economics, such that you are not entirely too incompetent to vote. I assume that even if you weren't a financial auditor, you would have retained at least the minimal math skills necessary to keep track of your household's expenses. I assume that you attained a minimum level of literacy such that you are capable of reading things like street signs, employment applications and news articles.

LOL!!  1) I have made a contribution to society without being able to spell "mal-argh-kee" and I'll bet you googled the spelling anyway. 2) I have yet to drink poison even though I guessed my way through chemistry. 3) Reading is generally understood by 1st grade and I was reading before Kindergarten. 4) The highest math I use day-to-day is algebra, and that is most commonly through an IT program like Excel... 5) Government works? ;) 6) Addition/subtraction (aka. Personal Finance) was taught (and not REALLY taught) in 1st grade.

My point is that education is important but our current system may not be all that wonderful.  Why is it that we don't focus on important life skills - personal finance, debt management, defining your passion, health, food production - but we demand that every student in America must know how cells are structured?  Our focus is wonky.  It is GREAT to provide training on science, math, etc, but demanding that every student understand them enough to pass a standardized test is inappropriate, especially while we have a country full of idiots that don't realize that sitting on their ass on their couch while the TV talks at them is an unhealthy addiction that contributes to diabetes and heart disease.


I'm still interested in hearing more from the "bootstrappers" regarding realistic solutions beyond "stop being stupid and lazy." 


"Bootstrapper" from a very different background here (the German social net is MUCH more comfortable than its US counterpart).

I wish the focus around here would be less about supporting the consumption habits of the non-working lower class and more about investing in their children. For example, we have a voluntary schedule for doctor's visits (totally free of charge) which monitor the development of children ("U1" immediately after birth to "U9" at 5-6 years old). As you can imagine, those who need it most are not taken to the doctor after infancy.

I would like to make those appointments mandatory. And to have interventions occur if something is not right. If development is delayed, preschool should be mandatory (see Perry pre-school study. It's amazing what a few regular hours in a different environment can achieve).

If there are signs of severe neglegt, physical or sexual abuse _all_ children should be taken out of the house. Not only the one who showed up at the hospital with more than suspicious injuries (sadly, this is common here. You almost have a "right" to mess each of your kids up before it is taken away.).

The children should then be transferred to good homes and not "just a little better than their parents" homes (progressive German social scientists have figured out that once children experience a good home they are likely to scream "NOOO!" if the state would like to hand them back to their "parents". We can't have that. It would totally expose the system's cruelty, you see. So we practise something that is called milieunahe Unterbringung, rough translation: near-class accomodation. This has recently led to the death of a little girl because she accidently took the heroin substituting drug of her foster parents.

How was this program initiated?  Does Germany utilize non-profit organizations to lead these efforts or is it strictly top-down Governmental action?  Thanks for bringing your germanic perspective to the conversation!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lithy on December 23, 2014, 05:35:37 AM
Since this topic seems to manifest itself on a daily basis here, maybe we should just create one topic called "Why are poor people poor?" and let folks have at it.   The boot-strappers can opine on how poor people are just lazy and stupid and looking for a hand out, liberals can respond with data and research to try to argue that the issue is more nuanced and also driven by macro-factors, and the boot-strappers can just ignore it.  Rinse and repeat.

We call everyone lazy and stupid. Especially the high earning people who post case studies complaining about having no savings but spending ridiculous amounts on junk (STUPID) and hiring people to do damn near everything for them (LAZY). Why should one group of people be exempt? We should all take a close look at the stupid and lazy habits/choices that are costing us money, regardless of income.

Agreed here, to me the idea that "the poor" are exempt from criticism for their choices is patronizing and just as unhelpful as those who would suggest that not a single person in the world is deserving of welfare or charity in some fashion.

What I feel like the posters being profiled as bootstrappers are at least attempting to argue is that we can't simply ignore the actions of the poor as a possible cause of their situation.  Do they have a lot working against them?  Sure, but to say that it is beyond their control is typical whiny-pants blame shifting. 

The poor as mentioned by several in this thread, make poor choices that have adverse effects on their ability to escape poverty.  The children of poverty learn these decisions and often don't correlate the two and end up repeating a cycle of poverty.  I think that's something a lot of posters should be able to agree on.  How you would implement public policy to ameliorate the issue is probably not so easy to agree on.  ;)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on December 23, 2014, 06:07:07 AM

I'm still interested in hearing more from the "bootstrappers" regarding realistic solutions beyond "stop being stupid and lazy." 


The children should then be transferred to good homes and not "just a little better than their parents" homes (progressive German social scientists have figured out that once children experience a good home they are likely to scream "NOOO!" if the state would like to hand them back to their "parents". We can't have that. It would totally expose the system's cruelty, you see. So we practise something that is called milieunahe Unterbringung, rough translation: near-class accomodation. This has recently led to the death of a little girl because she accidently took the heroin substituting drug of her foster parents.

How was this program initiated?  Does Germany utilize non-profit organizations to lead these efforts or is it strictly top-down Governmental action?  Thanks for bringing your germanic perspective to the conversation!

You're welcome! I find it quite interesting to compare different systems, the reasons given and their outcomes. Quite often you can end up with the same results by making very different mistakes. :-) And sometimes good examples are ignored even if you would not need to travel very far to observe the great results. Just because.

The milieunahe Unterbringung is a top-down approach without much new legislation being passed. Terms like "harm", "danger", "fit to do...", and "help" have been interpreted in the 50ies and 60ies in a way to e.g. take children of unwed mothers and place them in church-run children's homes (where a lot of abuse happened) and are now interpreted in a manner which places most importance on "help for troubled families" and "achieving small scale progress while maintaining the integrity of the family system" vs "protect the ones who can't help themselves". NGO's and companies working with the state authorities go along with it since otherwise they would not be assigned any cases (in a form of public private partnership). Driving forces behind those priorities are both the wish to get the job done as cheaply as possible from the conservative side (nothing cheaper than handing kids back to their parents) and a very dangerous brand of progressive sentimentality on the left side that just can't stomach the thought of imposing bourgeois values and habits on lower class families.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: golden1 on December 23, 2014, 01:32:45 PM
Quote
Quote from: Primm on December 14, 2014, 09:43:40 PM
Quote from: StashDaddy on December 14, 2014, 10:22:46 AM
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting, and you are assuming things about someone you do not know.

And your plan to change my mind on this issue is to refer to a mostly-FICTION writer from 19th century Britain?  Seriously?

Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

As for me, I grew up relatively poor, by american standards.  I wore hand-me down clothes all the way up until the time I started to make my own money.  We didn't have the latest Nintendo, or the latest anything, and I brown-bagged bologna sandwiches all the way thru school.  I wasn't the coolest kid, or the most popular, but I worked my ass off ( while my peers were doing drugs and going to parties), got nearly all A's, and graduated 4th in my class.  I love to learn, and still do.  I will do whatever it takes to be successful.  I chose to get a degree in chemical engineering PURPOSEFULLY b\c it had the highest starting salary.  It was no accident, and  making it thru a ChE program was pretty damn hard--you try it sometime!  I ate ramen noodles all thru college.  Hell, I was too poor to even afford MacDonald's.

Yeah, it sucked at the time, but I now realize that growing up so "poor" was actually the best thing for me.  Being poor can actually be a very good motivator to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART.  Not many people are.  Most poor kids would rather beat the shit out the kids who try hard in school, than try to work hard themselves.  Sad fact in america.  That's why we have to import high-tech workers from other countries, who have experienced REAL poverty (not the fake kind we have in america), and will put in any amount of work to become successful.  So no, I do not feel sorry for the poor.  Anyone can become rich in america, if they have the right work ethic.  Not many do.  So much to say about this issue but I will end it here for now.

Projection bias. "I did it so everyone can". It's an easy mistake to make.

There's more to it than that. Nearly everyone working his or her way up through more than one social class has experienced envy, name-calling and more often than not abuse from fellow 'victims'. I know I did. That makes it a lot harder to be compassionate and leads to extreme positions like 'everyone can make it'. On good days I'll try my best to aim for a middle ground between 'try harder!' and the just as wrong patronizing pad on the head, assuring everyone that nothing is ever ones own fault.

I think this points out one of the biggest barriers to social mobility that not a lot of people talk about - the  fact that in order to jump social classes, it often involves estranging family and friends and forming entirely new peer groups.  This can take a very serious emotional and psychological toll on some people.  People will accuse you of being "uppity" or a "snob" if you are the first of your generation to graduate high school or college.   Perhaps this is why so many "bootstrappers" have very little empathy for the poor, because they were rejected by their family and friends for wanting to achieve, or because they rejected them in order to move "up".

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 23, 2014, 03:21:03 PM
I think this points out one of the biggest barriers to social mobility that not a lot of people talk about - the  fact that in order to jump social classes, it often involves estranging family and friends and forming entirely new peer groups.  This can take a very serious emotional and psychological toll on some people.
Certainly the same is true in other aspects of life. For example, I once had a personal training client whose boyfriend drank 3 slabs of beer a week (a slab is 24 cans) and who came from a life of weekends of alcohol and party drugs. She made good progress while she was with me, I said, "you know, there is a powerlifting contest in 3 months, you could work towards that."

She replied, "Oh, my friends wouldn't be down for that."

She quit after 6 weeks. Her results were good, but her results changed her. She had to either change her friends, or stop effective workouts.

The same applies for people dealing with obesity.

There's a reason we've formed this community, and we spend a lot of time bitching and moaning about "those idiots" who live differently. For all the macho chest-thumping talk of doing it all on your own, most of us need some community, some friends and family who want to live as we do.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 23, 2014, 04:36:13 PM
I truly empathize with kids who are born to dysfunctional parents.   Dysfunctional parents include non-functioning alcoholics, drug addicts, people who won't get a job or choose not to keep the job they have, or just folks who cannot function successfully in our society, or those who just don't give a damn about their kids.
....
So, that's why I think kids with dysfunctional parents should be able to ditch them and quickly get better parents.  Parents that can feed and cloth them.  Parents who are sober and not on a drug trip.  Parents who can teach them useful life skills that will enable them to succeed in life.

And to hell with the dysfunctional parent's feelings about that.   Those feelings are simply unimportant compared to the welfare of their children.   That doesn't mean I don't feel for their pain (assuming they have any).  It just means that compared to the welfare of their children it doesn't matter when it comes to deciding what to do for the kids.

In principle, I kinda agree with you. But I'd be against any policy that tried to implement your plan on any kind of scale. Why? Because I have to think about what would happen to that perfectly implemented (ha!) policy 30 years from now.

30 years ago, I was allowed to play by myself, without constant parent supervision. Heck, I was often left in the car by myself while one (or both) of my parents ran into the store. Now people are being arrested because their child wasn't within arm's reach at all times.

So..."dysfunctional" parents either have to change, or have their kids taken away. Who gets to define "dysfunctional"? What would happen is in the case of a generation, "dysfunctional" will mean "non-conformist/different". So either conform or lose your kids.

I've had heated discussions with one of my child's teachers (pre-school years) about how my daughter wasn't dressed appropriately. Either wearing sandals on cold days (we once forgot to pack a backup pair of shoes in her backpack, I promptly went home and retrieved a pair), or not wearing warm clothes (I pointed out the coat she had in her cubby; if she complained about being cold, put on a coat...should note that she was NOT complaining). All this in an area that saw snow once in the three years we've been here (melted within an hour), and has a mere handful of days that are below freezing. If such a law were in place, I fear that she would have been taken from us and forced to wear sweaters and coats on mild days.

Our son's school is requiring parents to provide iPads. I'm probably not going to purchase one (he has an Android tablet and a Windows tablet, both costing less than a single iPad). Should I worry that he'll be taken away from us and given to a family that have bought the Apple kool-aid?

We buy used clothes for our kids when possible. Under $100 total in Christmas gifts, many from op-shops (thrift stores), for the oldest two. Oh the humanity! Won't someone think of the kids??!!

We have a car that's nearing 20 years old. Surely that's a safety hazard. I've taken the oldest on motor scooter rides since he was five (earlier, but not on the main roads). Someone should stop me!

And at the mere mention of going halfway across the world for no other reason than "it might be fun," we should have been stopped at the border and forced to return to Tennessee. Taking kids away from their aunts/uncles/grandparents/etc. should be illegal.

I'm not saying all children should be forced to live with their parents, regardless of circumstances. I'm saying, we have to be very VERY careful. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

Expecting the kids to succeed with dysfunctional parents getting in their way is cruel.    If we need to fund schools to stay open in the evening so they have a safe, quiet place to study, so be it.  If we need to feed the kids dinner, so be it.   If we need to fund daycare for children, so be it.

If we need to put the kids in dorms away from their parents so they can focus on studying so they can graduate, so be it.

Problem with this, is that INITIALLY the longer hours will be optional. Then semi-mandatory, then completely mandatory. Same with dorms, if it's offered to everyone, it'll start out optional. Then semi-mandatory, then completely mandatory (as in, you'll need someone from the school district to approve any deviation from policy, like underclassmen being semi-forced to live in college dorms).

You make some very cogent, rational arguments.

I do still believe that children who recognize their parents are not good for them should have the option (more easily done than currently) of putting themselves up for a speedy adoption.   I have zero desire to put kids in boarding schools.  Our adoption process could be streamlined to work with a minimum of time and expense.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 23, 2014, 04:46:28 PM
I have worked with poor families for years.  The issues are very complex. 

First, please remember that entitlement programs benefit CHILDREN.  Do you really want to cut programs that provide nutrition to children?  Do you know a way to ensure children get food that does not involve giving access to food to their parents?  Do you really want children to grow up in substandard housing, moving multiple times every year, or living in hotel rooms, which are the country's shelter placements?  Do you know a way to ensure that children are living in homes their parents, who get less in cash benefits every month than a market rate apartment rents for, can afford (did you know that the WAIT LIST for subsidized housing opens at most a couple of times a year?) 

Second, children growing up in poverty do not know there is another way they can live.  They don't have any idea that working hard in school can lead to a better life.  Sure, teachers and guidance counselors tell them that, but they've never seen it happen.  No one they know has ever done that.

Third, the ability to choose a behavior that is contrary to one's emotional state is a skill largely absent among poor youth and, unfortunately, many poor adults.  This skill is critical to success at school, in the community, and at work.  Our country's school teachers have been telling us this for at least a decade now, and instead of paying attention, we are just demanding our teachers do the impossible, which is to educate a classroom in which ten or fifteen kids are acting out all day long.  Until we find a way to teach poor children to manage their emotions (which most middle class children begin to learn in infancy), they will remain at a tremendous disadvantage.

If parents cannot take care of their children - AND NEVER COULD (that last part is VERY important as these comments do not apply to a functional family that has fallen on temporary hard times - we should let the children be adopted by people who can take care of them.   Not like our current adoption process that takes years and years and 10s of thousands of dollars!  Something quick and simple.   Hell, one can get a Secret security clearance faster than one can adopt a child that wants you to adopt them!   

You see, I want the kids fed and clothed.  I want them exposed to good role models.  I want them taught successful life skills.   If the parents are just on temporary hard times, give them the help they need.  All for it.

But if the parents have never been able to take care of the kids, to hell with the parents.   Take care of the kids by putting them in an environment they can succeed in.

This takes care of the problems you mentioned about growing up in a household that hasn't got a clue in hell of how to get out of poverty.  Don't make the kids do that.  Let them grow up in middle class homes.  Our country has people who scour the world for children to adopt because our own adoption process is so damn dysfunctional.

And if the parents who were NEVER able to take care of their kids have more kids they STILL can't take care of, fine the living daylights out of them as you rescue their new kids.   

Happy kids.  Happy functional parents.   Society is better off.   The biological parent ne'er do wells?  They are better off economically.   Maybe they'll get their act together.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 23, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
I have worked with poor families for years.  The issues are very complex. 

First, please remember that entitlement programs benefit CHILDREN.  Do you really want to cut programs that provide nutrition to children?  Do you know a way to ensure children get food that does not involve giving access to food to their parents?  Do you really want children to grow up in substandard housing, moving multiple times every year, or living in hotel rooms, which are the country's shelter placements?  Do you know a way to ensure that children are living in homes their parents, who get less in cash benefits every month than a market rate apartment rents for, can afford (did you know that the WAIT LIST for subsidized housing opens at most a couple of times a year?) 

Second, children growing up in poverty do not know there is another way they can live.  They don't have any idea that working hard in school can lead to a better life.  Sure, teachers and guidance counselors tell them that, but they've never seen it happen.  No one they know has ever done that.

Third, the ability to choose a behavior that is contrary to one's emotional state is a skill largely absent among poor youth and, unfortunately, many poor adults.  This skill is critical to success at school, in the community, and at work.  Our country's school teachers have been telling us this for at least a decade now, and instead of paying attention, we are just demanding our teachers do the impossible, which is to educate a classroom in which ten or fifteen kids are acting out all day long.  Until we find a way to teach poor children to manage their emotions (which most middle class children begin to learn in infancy), they will remain at a tremendous disadvantage.

If parents cannot take care of their children - AND NEVER COULD (that last part is VERY important as these comments do not apply to a functional family that has fallen on temporary hard times - we should let the children be adopted by people who can take care of them.   Not like our current adoption process that takes years and years and 10s of thousands of dollars!  Something quick and simple.   Hell, one can get a Secret security clearance faster than one can adopt a child that wants you to adopt them!   

You see, I want the kids fed and clothed.  I want them exposed to good role models.  I want them taught successful life skills.   If the parents are just on temporary hard times, give them the help they need.  All for it.

But if the parents have never been able to take care of the kids, to hell with the parents.   Take care of the kids by putting them in an environment they can succeed in.

This takes care of the problems you mentioned about growing up in a household that hasn't got a clue in hell of how to get out of poverty.  Don't make the kids do that.  Let them grow up in middle class homes.  Our country has people who scour the world for children to adopt because our own adoption process is so damn dysfunctional.

And if the parents who were NEVER able to take care of their kids have more kids they STILL can't take care of, fine the living daylights out of them as you rescue their new kids.   

Happy kids.  Happy functional parents.   Society is better off.   The biological parent ne'er do wells?  They are better off economically.   Maybe they'll get their act together.

I really wish life was as simple as you seem to think it is, because it would be really comforting.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad people out there who would love to get their hands on some little kids for bad reasons.  That's why the adoption process is so long and expensive.  They do their very best to weed out dangerous people (although it still often doesn't work.)

Besides, there may be a big "market" for couples to adopt cute little babies, but who is going to adopt the surly 12 year olds with mental illnesses from neglect and abuse?  Frequently, these kids are removed from their parents' houses and put into foster homes which turn out to be even worse than where they came from.  You can do a Google search and come up with thousands of examples of that.

Usually, the best option is to keep kids with their parents, even if their parents are less than ideal.  It's a heck of a lot better than most other options for them.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 23, 2014, 08:04:34 PM
I really wish life was as simple as you seem to think it is, because it would be really comforting.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad people out there who would love to get their hands on some little kids for bad reasons.  That's why the adoption process is so long and expensive.  They do their very best to weed out dangerous people (although it still often doesn't work.)

Besides, there may be a big "market" for couples to adopt cute little babies, but who is going to adopt the surly 12 year olds with mental illnesses from neglect and abuse?  Frequently, these kids are removed from their parents' houses and put into foster homes which turn out to be even worse than where they came from.  You can do a Google search and come up with thousands of examples of that.

Usually, the best option is to keep kids with their parents, even if their parents are less than ideal.  It's a heck of a lot better than most other options for them.

The adoption process is as long as it is because it's moronic.   In theory it has to do with protecting the children but it's really about petty control and budgets.

You are right, nasty people might adopt a child.  It's easier to just give birth to one, less red tape and the child has no protections other than God (who mostly appears to have other priorities), so that's what most of them do.   

Background checks don't take that long to do.  As I said, one can get a Secret security clearance which requires a financial, criminal, coworker, neighbors and friends background check (over a decade's worth of past history) in a tiny fraction of the time it takes to adopt a child.   There aren't many traitors that get thru it, either.

As for your comment about adopting surly 12 year olds, let's think that thru a bit.  Personally, I've never seen or heard of any one being born as a 12 year old.   Someone born to folks who cannot and never have been able to afford children would be placed with functional parents right away.  They would never be exposed to the corrupting influence of their dysfunctional birth parents.  Problem solved for that case.  (Except for the crack addicts who give birth to children who addicted at birth...  No solution for that one, sorry, other than to say the sooner the kid is away from them the better.)

You may not be aware of this, but there are LOTS of great American families that try to adopt older kids, too.  They system is so screwed up that most of them just can't make it happen.  They just can't continue to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars as the years of bureaucratic dithering drag on and on and on.  If the process were more reasonable even more would adopt.   Provided, of course, that restrictions on who can adopt the child as set up by the birth parents are tossed in the trash can where they belong.   Problem solved here, too.

I know several families that have gone thru the adoption process.  I've had them explain to me, in detail, the kinds of moronic things they have to go thru.  It's insane.

As for foster homes, of course some are bad.   Duh.  Some birth parents are bad, too.  Some adoptive parents will be bad, too.   We have to balance the likely benefits of getting a child situated in a permanent home with parents who want them and can take care of them vs. doing reasonable background checks.   If we make the adoption process faster we'll need fewer foster parents which means we can get a better quality of them on average.   

There are ZERO guarantees in life.  Any course of action we take can go wrong.   The current system and the self-toxic belief and action structure it has created is so grotesquely flawed that we have to act to change it.  We can be certain the current system will lead to worse and worse results. 

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Leisured on December 24, 2014, 12:01:28 AM
Further on food deserts. I drove taxis in an Australian country town for a while, and single mothers living on welfare would receive their welfare payments into a bank account every fortnight, on a day known to welfare recipients as ‘payday’. Some of these single mothers lived about 4 or 5 miles from a supermarket, and it was common for a single mother to phone for a taxi, take her children to the ATM, withdraw money, and then go on to a supermarket. About 90 minutes later, she would phone for another taxi to take her, her children and the groceries home, and she would stock the fridge and the pantry for a fortnight.

Only a minority of women from poor backgrounds choose the single mother way of life. Today, a single mother on welfare benefits gets A$720 a fortnight, about US$600.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 24, 2014, 05:14:47 AM
I think this points out one of the biggest barriers to social mobility that not a lot of people talk about - the  fact that in order to jump social classes, it often involves estranging family and friends and forming entirely new peer groups.  This can take a very serious emotional and psychological toll on some people.
Certainly the same is true in other aspects of life. For example, I once had a personal training client whose boyfriend drank 3 slabs of beer a week (a slab is 24 cans) and who came from a life of weekends of alcohol and party drugs. She made good progress while she was with me, I said, "you know, there is a powerlifting contest in 3 months, you could work towards that."

She replied, "Oh, my friends wouldn't be down for that."

She quit after 6 weeks. Her results were good, but her results changed her. She had to either change her friends, or stop effective workouts.

The same applies for people dealing with obesity.

There's a reason we've formed this community, and we spend a lot of time bitching and moaning about "those idiots" who live differently. For all the macho chest-thumping talk of doing it all on your own, most of us need some community, some friends and family who want to live as we do.

Huzzah!  +1!

Community is a huge element of well-being.  One reason I began this discussion is b/c I have perceived this growing separation, aided by moralistic judgement, of Mustachians from Poor Folks.  MMM targets Rich Folks (>$100K income) that are poor due to obviously stupid choices (You HAVE to drive your SUV 55 miles to work everyday?!), aka Suckas.  Suckas bolster our culture of consumption through chasing/creating fads.  Suckas are whiny, stupid, unhealthy, uninteresting, lazy car-clowns that have the opportunity to reverse all that with some simple changes to their consumption patterns!

Poor folks do not have such a simple path.  In our culture of consumption, emulating Suckas in an attempt to gain "the good life," they are exhibiting normal tendencies but lack the income to support them (think homeless man with an iPhone).  I am not interested in simply bolstering those bad choices with government subsidies but I find it useless to moralize against a group that has the full weight of culture on its back.

I hang around here because Mustachians have their heads far enough above water to recognize who is trying to push them under.  This consolidated intelligence should be utilized for problem solving instead of moralistic poverty bashing!  Let's change the culture by addressing our neighbors with heads just below the surface - Suckas - and the system trying to hold us under - thoughtless consumption driven by advertising - that can drown us all!  Let's make it possible for those sunk to the bottom to find buoyancy in the embrace of Mustachianism instead of driving them deeper under the dark waves through moralistic demagoguery.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: 5pak on December 24, 2014, 07:46:14 AM
Another way to put this topic is that "victims are poor people." Because oppression seems to trend downward. If someone is oppressed (defined as "denied an equal ability, intentionally or accidentally, to attain a stable, meaningful existence alongside other members of the individual's society"), they tend to become poorer, less healthy, less likely to trend upward. If someone is born with a crippling disease, if they are victims of a natural "oppression" (don't read too much into that word choice), that also denies them an equal opportunity to obtain a stable existence. It's just that, in this case, the thing causing the oppression is random, natural chance, not a human entity. But the trend is still the same: the victim becomes poorer, or at least is more likely to become poorer, in their existence compared to others of the same society.

I hate to use an analogy, but it is like being robbed. You will be poorer for the experience.

That's not quantitative talk though. Just analogy. So whatever.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 24, 2014, 08:11:52 AM
And just to add insult to injury, pure randomness is all thats needed to make a very unfair distribution.
One reason why I am a big fan of inheritance taxes - something unbelievable stupid from capitalist view, because: for what are you working when "nothing" is left after you died!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 24, 2014, 09:06:53 AM
Another way to put this topic is that "victims are poor people." Because oppression seems to trend downward. If someone is oppressed (defined as "denied an equal ability, intentionally or accidentally, to attain a stable, meaningful existence alongside other members of the individual's society"), they tend to become poorer, less healthy, less likely to trend upward. If someone is born with a crippling disease, if they are victims of a natural "oppression" (don't read too much into that word choice), that also denies them an equal opportunity to obtain a stable existence. It's just that, in this case, the thing causing the oppression is random, natural chance, not a human entity. But the trend is still the same: the victim becomes poorer, or at least is more likely to become poorer, in their existence compared to others of the same society.

I hate to use an analogy, but it is like being robbed. You will be poorer for the experience.

That's not quantitative talk though. Just analogy. So whatever.

Really excellent thought!  I have fun with the term "victim" b/c it is at both ends of the improvement spectrum: NEGATIVE b/c it can allow a victim to claim no responsibility and therefore ; POSITIVE b/c it forces attention to the victimizer.  It always starts a good fight!

Are there folks in here that would NOT agree that advertising victimizes us all?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Metta on December 24, 2014, 09:46:58 AM

Thanks for posting this.  One of the reasons I get so angry when people post these "poor people are stupid and should starve" threads is because I grew up on nutrition programs and without them I would have starved.  Until I was 13, I was unable to work for myself (and then I worked under the table for nearly nothing), so I depended on those nutrition programs to eat and there really wasn't anything I could do about it.  There are a lot of people out there who believe that kids like myself should just die, because they are born to bad parents.  At least, that's the message that comes across with this "bootstrap" nonsense.  The parents are not going to "shape up".  It's just not going to happen.  But there is a chance that the kids can be saved.

By the way, since I escaped from poverty, I now pay for other people's children to go to public school and I pay for other people's federal and state benefits.  You don't hear me bitching about it.  Ever.

It's not just "bad parents" who sometimes find themselves in poverty. My sister lost her husband and her job and was plunged into a serious financial problem that she is still dealing with. She is going to school to find a better career but meanwhile she accepts help from everyone in the family and help with food and medical care from the social programs established by the government so that her two girls will have a better life. She is a very good parent. (Far better than most I've seen.) Her lack of a good job does not make her a bad parent. Sometimes I think that people here conflate having money with being a good person and it just isn't the case.

We have social programs because "there but for the grace of God, go I". We are all inches away from disasters and all are likely to need help from someone at some time.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 24, 2014, 10:01:07 AM
Are there folks in here that would NOT agree that advertising victimizes us all?

Irritates, bores, angers, and instills hatred of certain companies? Yes! Victimizes? How so? I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 24, 2014, 10:23:44 AM
Are there folks in here that would NOT agree that advertising victimizes us all?

Irritates, bores, angers, and instills hatred of certain companies? Yes! Victimizes? How so? I'm not quite sure what you mean.
At the lowest level we are all victimized by emission from the energy needed to produce and watch the advertisement.
And then there are the children who come running to their mother "mama, X has A, that was in TV! I want A, too!". And if the child doesnt get it...
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gin1984 on December 24, 2014, 10:35:52 AM
If food stamps allowed them to "eat like kings", I don't think they would be lining up at the soup kitchen.  I will admit that the crowds are much bigger toward the end of the month, after the food stamps have run out.

It's illegal to sell food stamps. However, that doesn't stop it from happening. Part of the reason people still show up at soup kitchens despite the existence of food stamps is that they're selling them so they can buy things that otherwise wouldn't be approved.

As an aside, my neighborhood farmer's market doubles the value when purchasing with food stamps. Since (I'm told) food stamps sell in the range of 50 cents on the dollar, if some not-poor person were willing to act unethically they could get their fancy organic food at a 75% discount.

Stealth wealth is one thing but I admit I would probably be embarrassed to use food stamps.

Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.

Or the poor person sold them to afford heat, rent, daycare etc. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 24, 2014, 11:04:45 AM
There was a 2nd season episode of "South Park" that fits perfectly into many of the anti-poor people arguments made on this thread.  Here's a quote from the episode "Chicken Pox":

Quote
Gerald: [reading] "'My Final Solution' by Kyle Broflovski. My dad is the smartest guy in the whole wide world. He has taught me that all poor people are actually things called clods. I wanna live in a world of only gods so my idea to make America better will go ahead and I can put all the poor people into camps." WHAT!? "If we get rid of them, there will be nothing but rich people, and there won't be any hunger, poverty or homeless people, 'cause they'll all be dead. The End." Oh God, what have I done?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: neo von retorch on December 24, 2014, 11:21:16 AM
It's interesting how many arguments basically come down to a variant of Nature vs. Nurture. On the one side, there's the argument that "they are this way. They choose to be this way." On the other hand, it's argued that "they are in this because of situation. Their surroundings caused their condition."

And in so many of these arguments, it's almost certainly a blend of the two.

Here's my anecdote: I was born in relative poverty. Family of six with a single, small income. My parents are very different from each other. One was a consistently hard worker who made purchases based on logic, need and common sense. The other was mostly concerned with wants. I developed habits from each of them, and still struggle because I see myself behaving in ways that I know, logically, to be bad. But I am doing well, overall, because of good logical decisions (and a lot of fortunate opportunities!) I like to quote The Mexican and say that I "Forrest Gump'd my way through it" to get where I am, stumbling across little lucky events that led me to my talents and profession, my education and my career.

Given my belief that individuals in poverty are partially a product of their environment and partially in their situations because of choices they've made (and that much of their behavior is the logical extension of the situations they've been exposed to throughout their lives), the question is what those that may (or may not) have the ability to change their situation can and should do. I do not believe that everything is already in place and that each of those individuals should (and can) just abruptly change all of their decision-making so that it leads to a successful life, free from poverty. So I think there may be things the rest of our society, our community, really, can do that will give them a step up and possibly start them on an alternate path. Of course I realize that many of these behaviors will be difficult (and in some cases impossible) to change, but that doesn't mean that any and all efforts should be immediately abandoned.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 24, 2014, 11:54:22 AM
It's interesting how many arguments basically come down to a variant of Nature vs. Nurture. On the one side, there's the argument that "they are this way. They choose to be this way." On the other hand, it's argued that "they are in this because of situation. Their surroundings caused their condition."

And in so many of these arguments, it's almost certainly a blend of the two.

Here's my anecdote: I was born in relative poverty. Family of six with a single, small income. My parents are very different from each other. One was a consistently hard worker who made purchases based on logic, need and common sense. The other was mostly concerned with wants. I developed habits from each of them, and still struggle because I see myself behaving in ways that I know, logically, to be bad. But I am doing well, overall, because of good logical decisions (and a lot of fortunate opportunities!) I like to quote The Mexican and say that I "Forrest Gump'd my way through it" to get where I am, stumbling across little lucky events that led me to my talents and profession, my education and my career.

Given my belief that individuals in poverty are partially a product of their environment and partially in their situations because of choices they've made (and that much of their behavior is the logical extension of the situations they've been exposed to throughout their lives), the question is what those that may (or may not) have the ability to change their situation can and should do. I do not believe that everything is already in place and that each of those individuals should (and can) just abruptly change all of their decision-making so that it leads to a successful life, free from poverty. So I think there may be things the rest of our society, our community, really, can do that will give them a step up and possibly start them on an alternate path. Of course I realize that many of these behaviors will be difficult (and in some cases impossible) to change, but that doesn't mean that any and all efforts should be immediately abandoned.

Bravo!   Well said!

I am completely for this provided we do not start them on a path that requires us to continue to take care of them forever or requires them to do nothing to improve their situation.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: netskyblue on December 24, 2014, 02:11:37 PM
Food deserts really do exist.  For instance, until recently there was no supermarket in Chester, PA because the residents were so poor that they kept shoplifting food and the supermarket had to close down because they couldn't make profits.  Public transportation in Chester is terrible and the closest supermarket was miles away so people had to depend on fast food and premade rice and beans at the corner bodega.  That is the reality for a lot of poor people.

Recently, a new supermarket opened in Chester because it was developed and funded as a cooperative by members of the entire community who are operating it like a credit union.  Capitalism failed them so they have turned to socialism.

And what about rural areas?  I grew up 30 miles away from the grocery store, doesn't mean we didn't still shop there.  It was just a weekly, or less frequent, occurrence.  And no, there wasn't any fast food or anything closer.  The nearest gas station was 10 miles away. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 26, 2014, 09:33:54 AM
Are there folks in here that would NOT agree that advertising victimizes us all?

Irritates, bores, angers, and instills hatred of certain companies? Yes! Victimizes? How so? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Advertising has been a major catalyst or user of social-psychological research.  Marketers know WHAT we think, HOW we react, and WHEN, WHERE, AND WHY we buy.  They know you better than you do according to your purchase history.  Have you ever wondered why Target sent you an advertisement focusing on baby-related items?  It's because they know that you are 30, married, and recently bought a dress two sizes larger than previous.  Doesn't it creep you out that (besides MMM's website) the internet is filled with appealing advertisements for things that you have recently been researching on the internet?  Weird, huh?!

Advertising is actually pretty easy to avoid. For all the talk about the untold millions that McDonald's spends on advertising, I can't remember ever seeing a McDonald's ad.

MMM even said in one article that one of the best defences against buying stuff is not knowing what is available to buy. That definitely describes me.

GREAT THOUGHT!!!!  The problem with this is corporate/public tie-ins, such as school lunches sponsored by McDonald's, public bus stops flashing advertisements for Wal-Mart, billboards on the side of public freeways, etc!!  We are not asked if we want to be advertised to.  Our public spaces are overrun by private interests!  And if you think that "not paying attention" is the best answer, research "Partial Attention Realities."  The best way to contradict advertising is to DIRECTLY ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE ONE.  Read it outloud and say NO.  Just as an experiment, try to do this for one day.  Every single ad you see, intentionally address it.  You will realize that we are surrounded by private interests, and you will be exhausted by the end of the day!

It's interesting how many arguments basically come down to a variant of Nature vs. Nurture. On the one side, there's the argument that "they are this way. They choose to be this way." On the other hand, it's argued that "they are in this because of situation. Their surroundings caused their condition."

And in so many of these arguments, it's almost certainly a blend of the two.

Here's my anecdote: I was born in relative poverty. Family of six with a single, small income. My parents are very different from each other. One was a consistently hard worker who made purchases based on logic, need and common sense. The other was mostly concerned with wants. I developed habits from each of them, and still struggle because I see myself behaving in ways that I know, logically, to be bad. But I am doing well, overall, because of good logical decisions (and a lot of fortunate opportunities!) I like to quote The Mexican and say that I "Forrest Gump'd my way through it" to get where I am, stumbling across little lucky events that led me to my talents and profession, my education and my career.

Given my belief that individuals in poverty are partially a product of their environment and partially in their situations because of choices they've made (and that much of their behavior is the logical extension of the situations they've been exposed to throughout their lives), the question is what those that may (or may not) have the ability to change their situation can and should do. I do not believe that everything is already in place and that each of those individuals should (and can) just abruptly change all of their decision-making so that it leads to a successful life, free from poverty. So I think there may be things the rest of our society, our community, really, can do that will give them a step up and possibly start them on an alternate path. Of course I realize that many of these behaviors will be difficult (and in some cases impossible) to change, but that doesn't mean that any and all efforts should be immediately abandoned.

Bravo!   Well said!

I am completely for this provided we do not start them on a path that requires us to continue to take care of them forever or requires them to do nothing to improve their situation.

+1!!!!!

If you know the story Sisyphus, imagine that you are Sisyphus, your personal health and welfare are the boulder, and Public Intervention can determine the angle of the hill.  Bad policy will increase the angle, making the weight of the boulder greater; good policy will decrease the angle, making the boulder lighter.  I do not believe that we should push Poor Folks' boulders, just that we should not be ignorant to the fact that Bad Policy in the last 50 years, specifically related to corporate overreach, has increased the angle.  AND I hope that Mustachians can recognize that and stop yelling at those too weak to roll the boulder higher.  MMM gets us all stronger, making the boulder feel lighter, but just b/c we are strong doesn't mean that the hill is appropriately angled.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 26, 2014, 10:03:01 AM
EDSMedS applause

right on the spot.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on December 26, 2014, 12:32:06 PM
I really wish life was as simple as you seem to think it is, because it would be really comforting.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad people out there who would love to get their hands on some little kids for bad reasons.  That's why the adoption process is so long and expensive.  They do their very best to weed out dangerous people (although it still often doesn't work.)

Besides, there may be a big "market" for couples to adopt cute little babies, but who is going to adopt the surly 12 year olds with mental illnesses from neglect and abuse?  Frequently, these kids are removed from their parents' houses and put into foster homes which turn out to be even worse than where they came from.  You can do a Google search and come up with thousands of examples of that.

Usually, the best option is to keep kids with their parents, even if their parents are less than ideal.  It's a heck of a lot better than most other options for them.

The adoption process is as long as it is because it's moronic.   In theory it has to do with protecting the children but it's really about petty control and budgets.

You are right, nasty people might adopt a child.  It's easier to just give birth to one, less red tape and the child has no protections other than God (who mostly appears to have other priorities), so that's what most of them do.   

Background checks don't take that long to do.  As I said, one can get a Secret security clearance which requires a financial, criminal, coworker, neighbors and friends background check (over a decade's worth of past history) in a tiny fraction of the time it takes to adopt a child.   There aren't many traitors that get thru it, either.

As for your comment about adopting surly 12 year olds, let's think that thru a bit.  Personally, I've never seen or heard of any one being born as a 12 year old.   Someone born to folks who cannot and never have been able to afford children would be placed with functional parents right away.  They would never be exposed to the corrupting influence of their dysfunctional birth parents.  Problem solved for that case.  (Except for the crack addicts who give birth to children who addicted at birth...  No solution for that one, sorry, other than to say the sooner the kid is away from them the better.)

You may not be aware of this, but there are LOTS of great American families that try to adopt older kids, too.  They system is so screwed up that most of them just can't make it happen.  They just can't continue to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars as the years of bureaucratic dithering drag on and on and on.  If the process were more reasonable even more would adopt.   Provided, of course, that restrictions on who can adopt the child as set up by the birth parents are tossed in the trash can where they belong.   Problem solved here, too.

I know several families that have gone thru the adoption process.  I've had them explain to me, in detail, the kinds of moronic things they have to go thru.  It's insane.

As for foster homes, of course some are bad.   Duh.  Some birth parents are bad, too.  Some adoptive parents will be bad, too.   We have to balance the likely benefits of getting a child situated in a permanent home with parents who want them and can take care of them vs. doing reasonable background checks.   If we make the adoption process faster we'll need fewer foster parents which means we can get a better quality of them on average.   

There are ZERO guarantees in life.  Any course of action we take can go wrong.   The current system and the self-toxic belief and action structure it has created is so grotesquely flawed that we have to act to change it.  We can be certain the current system will lead to worse and worse results.

I work in protective services.  There are so many problems with this view, I can't let it stand unchallenged.

1.  A background check provides pretty minimal information and will not tell you whether a person should adopt a child.  Even a home study is limited in its ability to assess whether someone can accept the issues older child adoption brings with it.

2.  The vast majority of children who have been removed from their parents and are available for adoption are older children.  You cannot remove a newborn because you believe the parents are dysfunctional.  You cannot remove a child because of poverty issues. 

3.  There are not lots of Americans who want to adopt, at least not from child protective services.  There are thousands more children waiting for adoption than there are people who want to adopt.

4.  It costs nothing to adopt a child through protective services.  In fact, people who adopt are very often granted subsidies to assist them in caring for their adoptive child.

5.  And, finally, perhaps the poster's biggest error in judgement:  Children do not want to be adopted by better, more financially-sound parents.  They want to remain with their own parents, no matter how poor, or abusive, or neglectful they are.  In fact, it is very, very common for children who were adopted to return to their biological parents when they turn eighteen.

I agree that children who grow up in poverty and dysfunction need better chances.  Adoption is not the solution.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cassie on December 26, 2014, 02:24:41 PM
Years ago I was a social worker in protective services & all your points are 100% true.  The only adoptions that cost $ are private ones.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Leisured on December 27, 2014, 12:11:01 AM
Poor people can believe they are victims, and make being a victim a way of life, and the term I have seen on this forum is ‘complainypants’. The most obvious example is Muslim extremists who see themselves as being discriminated against by the rest of the world. They are professional victims, complainypants; the discrimination is an illusion, but the extremists do not care. The implication is that they have nothing better to do than be a professional victim.

I have posted elsewhere on this forum about the Australian phenomenon of the ‘battler’. Battlers live payday to payday by design, and seek bragging rights about being a battler. Battlers live on Struggle Street and Do It Tough. Battlers see being a battler as a life achievement, the implication being that they have nothing better to do.

I understand that there is no clear parallel to the battler in American society, but I expect that living a victim lifestyle gets close.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 27, 2014, 01:35:13 AM
Poor people can believe they are victims, and make being a victim a way of life, and the term I have seen on this forum is ‘complainypants’. The most obvious example is Muslim extremists who see themselves as being discriminated against by the rest of the world. They are professional victims, complainypants; the discrimination is an illusion, but the extremists do not care. The implication is that they have nothing better to do than be a professional victim.

I have posted elsewhere on this forum about the Australian phenomenon of the ‘battler’. Battlers live payday to payday by design, and seek bragging rights about being a battler. Battlers live on Struggle Street and Do It Tough. Battlers see being a battler as a life achievement, the implication being that they have nothing better to do.

I understand that there is no clear parallel to the battler in American society, but I expect that living a victim lifestyle gets close.
Could you please define what a "muslim extremist" is, so that I can try to understand this?
As far as I knwo muslims are victims by a lot of people, especially the ones making all of the billion muslim extremists.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 27, 2014, 06:42:41 AM
Poor people can believe they are victims, and make being a victim a way of life, and the term I have seen on this forum is ‘complainypants’. The most obvious example is Muslim extremists who see themselves as being discriminated against by the rest of the world. They are professional victims, complainypants; the discrimination is an illusion, but the extremists do not care. The implication is that they have nothing better to do than be a professional victim.

I have posted elsewhere on this forum about the Australian phenomenon of the ‘battler’. Battlers live payday to payday by design, and seek bragging rights about being a battler. Battlers live on Struggle Street and Do It Tough. Battlers see being a battler as a life achievement, the implication being that they have nothing better to do.

I understand that there is no clear parallel to the battler in American society, but I expect that living a victim lifestyle gets close.
Could you please define what a "muslim extremist" is, so that I can try to understand this?
As far as I knwo muslims are victims by a lot of people, especially the ones making all of the billion muslim extremists.
I'll take a shot.  Muslim extremists are those muslims who view their mission in life as the violent overthrow of all nations and imposition of a world-wide Caliphite.  They compose a tiny minority of muslims who I will agree are often victims, usually of their own governments who work overtime to direct the rage of their citizens at Israel, the US and the western world to divert the citizen's attention from the awful economic and human rights abuses of their own government.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on December 27, 2014, 07:39:08 AM
Poor people can believe they are victims, and make being a victim a way of life, and the term I have seen on this forum is ‘complainypants’. The most obvious example is Muslim extremists who see themselves as being discriminated against by the rest of the world. They are professional victims, complainypants; the discrimination is an illusion, but the extremists do not care. The implication is that they have nothing better to do than be a professional victim.

I have posted elsewhere on this forum about the Australian phenomenon of the ‘battler’. Battlers live payday to payday by design, and seek bragging rights about being a battler. Battlers live on Struggle Street and Do It Tough. Battlers see being a battler as a life achievement, the implication being that they have nothing better to do.

I understand that there is no clear parallel to the battler in American society, but I expect that living a victim lifestyle gets close.
Could you please define what a "muslim extremist" is, so that I can try to understand this?
As far as I knwo muslims are victims by a lot of people, especially the ones making all of the billion muslim extremists.
I'll take a shot.  Muslim extremists are those muslims who view their mission in life as the violent overthrow of all nations and imposition of a world-wide Caliphite.  They compose a tiny minority of muslims who I will agree are often victims, usually of their own governments who work overtime to direct the rage of their citizens at Israel, the US and the western world to divert the citizen's attention from the awful economic and human rights abuses of their own government.
ah, OK. That "obvious" was a pure quality measurement, not a quantity measurement.
I prefer examples that are plainly visible to anyone. Like people who dont get treatment at hospitals or are unnecessarily stopped and searched or even shot by police because they are black.
If it is pure quality, then for the US I would say the people who are known innocents and still hold at guantanamo bay. Who got there because the government of the US worked overtime to direct the rage of their citizen on Iran, Irak and everyone with a long beard to divert from the awful economic and human rights abuses by US government and private entities esp. in the so-called third world countries.

We are all victims in one or more meanings, but the important thing is: can you change that (get out of it, survive, be freee, whatever) and how hard is that?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: resy on December 27, 2014, 12:30:03 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.
W...T...F... dude. Some people REALLY don't know better. You know, kinda like you don't seem to know better about basic human compassion; I'm not going to get all judgy though, just going to take a moment and reflect on the type of life you could have that has made you so harsh then try to redirect you according to that... same approach we should be taking with poverty.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: resy on December 27, 2014, 12:49:25 PM
Huh?  Trolling?  No, just trying to make an honest economic evaluation. 

Just b/c you don't like my conclusion doesn't make me a troll.  Perhaps we should all conform to your point of view with no dissenting thoughts?  Maybe then I could be your favorite forum pal, instead of a Troll.

It's your tone not your conclusion. It's unneeded. Maybe try having a discussion without having to through in your little parentheticals.  There's no need for it. Maybe even leave out the politics. Your assertions also just seem silly. Poor people don't want decent food, really? Drawing the conclusion that no grocery store means poor people don't want one makes no sense. Maybe that don't build it b/c it's higher crime areas, or poorer people will spend less, or ... Those are just as valid as your conclusion. It's hard for me to imagine that you have ever actually worked with people in theses circumstances or have been there yourself.
you know, its funny because when I read this guy's "poor" childhood I more of "middle class kid among richer kids" type of vibe. Newsflash: poor kids don't bring brown bag lunches to school, they eat the free cafeteria food.
also, this guy is just filled with so much anger, you can literally feel it... I wish that anger was turned into something more positive than the arrogance he has going on.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: iris lily on December 27, 2014, 12:54:08 PM
Poor people can believe they are victims, and make being a victim a way of life, and the term I have seen on this forum is ‘complainypants’. The most obvious example is Muslim extremists who see themselves as being discriminated against by the rest of the world. They are professional victims, complainypants; the discrimination is an illusion, but the extremists do not care. The implication is that they have nothing better to do than be a professional victim.

I have posted elsewhere on this forum about the Australian phenomenon of the ‘battler’. Battlers live payday to payday by design, and seek bragging rights about being a battler. Battlers live on Struggle Street and Do It Tough. Battlers see being a battler as a life achievement, the implication being that they have nothing better to do.

I understand that there is no clear parallel to the battler in American society, but I expect that living a victim lifestyle gets close.

That's very interesting about your "battlers" in Oz.

I think it is common among blue collar/working class here to consider themselves tougher than the soft middle class because they are out in the world struggling, both physically and mentally. And then there is the underclass here, usually non-working, who rely on their street smarts to get by and they have disdain for middle class people and values since we (the great middle) are considered too stupid to live on The Street. And I suppose that we are.   
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LokiMom on December 28, 2014, 06:13:32 PM
It is really hard to get out of the poverty trap.  I did it, but it wasn't easy or pleasant.  If you don't have a lot of sheer stubbornness and strength of will you aren't going to get out.  That isn't common, not among the poor or the middle class.  How many middle class people would be where they are today if they hadn't been born into it?  Not many. 
My point is that it takes an exceptional person to drag themselves out of the way of life they were born into, raised to be a member of and strongly discouraged from leaving.  You have no support from the place you are coming from and no support from the place you're going to.

It's really not as simple as saying that people have to work harder and not be lazy to get out of poverty.  You not only don't have a support system or good role models, you actively have people trying to drag you back and make you like them.  They act like you're insulting them when you want a better life. 

Then you have the people who are in that class you're striving to get to.  They look at you as some lazy piece of trash that can't be trusted and doesn't deserve a break, because if you weren't so lazy you wouldn't need a break, you'd make your own success.

Yes, there are opportunities out there, thankfully many more now than there were 30 years ago.  But unless a child is getting support from family and friends they are rarely going to be able to take advantage of those opportunities. 

Poverty is is not just financial circumstances, it is behavior and limiting beliefs that are taught to children and reinforced by example each and every day.  Until you can stop that you're going to have very few who succeed in getting out of generational poverty.
 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 28, 2014, 06:21:30 PM
Poor people want to be poor, because if they wanted to be rich they would be rich.  It's so easy to be rich.  All you have to do is ask your Dad for some seed money for your business or to at least put you up at home while you design websites on the computer he bought for you (with the lessons he paid for).  Another easy way to get rich is to ask your Dad to call his friends and get a job for you at one of their firms.  It's so simple.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 28, 2014, 08:49:20 PM
It is really hard to get out of the poverty trap.  I did it, but it wasn't easy or pleasant.  If you don't have a lot of sheer stubbornness and strength of will you aren't going to get out.  That isn't common, not among the poor or the middle class.  How many middle class people would be where they are today if they hadn't been born into it?  Not many. 
My point is that it takes an exceptional person to drag themselves out of the way of life they were born into, raised to be a member of and strongly discouraged from leaving.  You have no support from the place you are coming from and no support from the place you're going to.

It's really not as simple as saying that people have to work harder and not be lazy to get out of poverty.  You not only don't have a support system or good role models, you actively have people trying to drag you back and make you like them.  They act like you're insulting them when you want a better life. 

Then you have the people who are in that class you're striving to get to.  They look at you as some lazy piece of trash that can't be trusted and doesn't deserve a break, because if you weren't so lazy you wouldn't need a break, you'd make your own success.

Yes, there are opportunities out there, thankfully many more now than there were 30 years ago.  But unless a child is getting support from family and friends they are rarely going to be able to take advantage of those opportunities. 

Poverty is is not just financial circumstances, it is behavior and limiting beliefs that are taught to children and reinforced by example each and every day.  Until you can stop that you're going to have very few who succeed in getting out of generational poverty.
 

Congratulations!!!  And welcome to the discontent middle class (which I was born into)!  I'd love to hear about some of the mechanisms of your march-away-from-poverty, including what marked you as "in poverty," what actions you took to get out, and what marks you now as "not in poverty."  If you have a journal on the forums, please drop a link!

Poor people want to be poor, because if they wanted to be rich they would be rich.  It's so easy to be rich.  All you have to do is ask your Dad for some seed money for your business or to at least put you up at home while you design websites on the computer he bought for you (with the lessons he paid for).  Another easy way to get rich is to ask your Dad to call his friends and get a job for you at one of their firms.  It's so simple.

WHOA! LOL!!

After reading the thoughtful post from LokiMom, I about did a spit-take from your first two sentences.  Thank my Dad's friends that I learned to read everything before judging anything when I was 4!

I could say that I "clawed" my way higher up the middle-class ladder through hard work and determination, but I would not be where I am if I were not male, white, supported by my family, with a strong body (military) and natural curiosity (data analysis).  I'm lucky!  I hope we can all seriously appreciate luck when we experience it.

If there are any bootstrappers left in here that havent been turned off by all the mushy social oppression speak, I'd love to hear some discussion from (polite) opposing viewpoints. 

I'll spark another flame: if corporations were assessed a flat tax, we could provide FREE work training and education, thereby increasing skilled labor, wages, product quality, and satisfaction.  Currently, corporations generally pay $0 annual taxes due to massive investment in tax lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, and "relocation" to tax havens.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 28, 2014, 09:31:41 PM
Quote
I could say that I "clawed" my way higher up the middle-class ladder through hard work and determination, but I would not be where I am if I were not male, white, supported by my family, with a strong body (military) and natural curiosity (data analysis).  I'm lucky!  I hope we can all seriously appreciate luck when we experience it.

If there are any bootstrappers left in here that havent been turned off by all the mushy social oppression speak, I'd love to hear some discussion from (polite) opposing viewpoints. 

Bootstrapper here again! I did crappy menial jobs for years, eventually working my way up to entry-level office work (think photocopying and making coffee). Could I have "clawed" by way up the corporate ladder from humble beginnings? Who knows, because I couldn't be bothered to try! Why not? Because it's completely unnecessary. I can live a great life, travel frequently, and retire young while working as an office clerk in a low stress, relaxed office.

You could say I had some luck, but it was limited mostly to the kinds most people we're talking about also have, like living in a civilized country, public schooling, public libraries, internet access (well, we didn't have this until  I was a teenager), and having food, clothing, and shelter. Honestly, if your goal is just to live a healthy and comfortable life, you DON'T NEED special advantages, family connections, or any of that. You just need to seek out free, readily available information.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on December 29, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.

Or the poor person sold them to afford heat, rent, daycare etc.

There are other programs that provide assistance for those things (e.g. Section 8 housing). Considering that all these programs are interrelated and therefore everyone who has successfully obtained food stamps has also been informed of the other programs, your scenario seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 29, 2014, 02:54:52 PM
Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.

Or the poor person sold them to afford heat, rent, daycare etc.

There are other programs that provide assistance for those things (e.g. Section 8 housing). Considering that all these programs are interrelated and therefore everyone who has successfully obtained food stamps has also been informed of the other programs, your scenario seems unlikely.
Don't bother, there will always be another excuse.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 29, 2014, 03:01:04 PM
Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.


Or the poor person sold them to afford heat, rent, daycare etc.

There are other programs that provide assistance for those things (e.g. Section 8 housing). Considering that all these programs are interrelated and therefore everyone who has successfully obtained food stamps has also been informed of the other programs, your scenario seems unlikely.


My brother who suffers from debilitating mental illness recently was left homeless when his live-in girlfriend kicked him out of the apartment they had been sharing for a year.  He had no savings because he wasn't able to hold a job due to his mental illness and he lost his Medicaid because he had temporarily taken on part-time seasonal employment for minimum wage.  While he was living in a borrowed tent camping out illegally on public land because our parents refused to let him stay with them because they were afraid of his mental illness, he tried applying for housing assistance.  The county government told him that he would have to be homeless for 90 days before they could offer any help.  I honestly don't know what he's going to do now because it's getting pretty cold out there.  There's only one homeless shelter in the county that will provide a bed to a single male and that shelter is always full up because it has only 30 beds.  I live hundreds of miles away in another state, so I couldn't help him more than to wire him a little bit of money as a Christmas gift.

Maybe I should just take him out behind the barn and put him out of his misery.  What do all you experts on social policy think?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 29, 2014, 03:27:25 PM
It's interesting how many arguments basically come down to a variant of Nature vs. Nurture. On the one side, there's the argument that "they are this way. They choose to be this way." On the other hand, it's argued that "they are in this because of situation. Their surroundings caused their condition."

And in so many of these arguments, it's almost certainly a blend of the two.

Here's my anecdote: I was born in relative poverty. Family of six with a single, small income. My parents are very different from each other. One was a consistently hard worker who made purchases based on logic, need and common sense. The other was mostly concerned with wants. I developed habits from each of them, and still struggle because I see myself behaving in ways that I know, logically, to be bad. But I am doing well, overall, because of good logical decisions (and a lot of fortunate opportunities!) I like to quote The Mexican and say that I "Forrest Gump'd my way through it" to get where I am, stumbling across little lucky events that led me to my talents and profession, my education and my career.

Given my belief that individuals in poverty are partially a product of their environment and partially in their situations because of choices they've made (and that much of their behavior is the logical extension of the situations they've been exposed to throughout their lives), the question is what those that may (or may not) have the ability to change their situation can and should do. I do not believe that everything is already in place and that each of those individuals should (and can) just abruptly change all of their decision-making so that it leads to a successful life, free from poverty. So I think there may be things the rest of our society, our community, really, can do that will give them a step up and possibly start them on an alternate path. Of course I realize that many of these behaviors will be difficult (and in some cases impossible) to change, but that doesn't mean that any and all efforts should be immediately abandoned.

Very well said.  The key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results.  Educated people will mostly agree that some sort of welfare is required to maintain an advanced society.  The ultra-conservative view is to provide only enough to avoid social unrest - Adam Smith himself held this view.  The liberal view is that a rich society has a moral duty to provide a floor which no person can fall below.

But how much money should be expended, and how is it most effectively allocated?  This is where the devil lies & where two otherwise reasonable people can come unglued...

Do we have a moral duty to our fellow man to provide a floor no person can fall below?  And where is that floor - food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash?  Where does it end?  And how do we measure the effectiveness of these programs?




Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 29, 2014, 03:45:00 PM
My brother who suffers from debilitating mental illness recently was left homeless when his live-in girlfriend kicked him out of the apartment they had been sharing for a year.  He had no savings because he wasn't able to hold a job due to his mental illness and he lost his Medicaid because he had temporarily taken on part-time seasonal employment for minimum wage.  While he was living in a borrowed tent camping out illegally on public land because our parents refused to let him stay with them because they were afraid of his mental illness, he tried applying for housing assistance.  The county government told him that he would have to be homeless for 90 days before they could offer any help.  I honestly don't know what he's going to do now because it's getting pretty cold out there.  There's only one homeless shelter in the county that will provide a bed to a single male and that shelter is always full up because it has only 30 beds.  I live hundreds of miles away in another state, so I couldn't help him more than to wire him a little bit of money as a Christmas gift.

Maybe I should just take him out behind the barn and put him out of his misery.  What do all you experts on social policy think?

I think that doesn't sound like a situation that can be fixed by handouts. He sounds like he needs to be institutionalized or live in some sort of heavily supervised housing. I don't think anyone here has argued that mental health services should not exist. We're talking about people who make bad financial decisions, not people who require psychiatric care.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: NumberJohnny5 on December 29, 2014, 03:59:55 PM
It is really hard to get out of the poverty trap.  I did it, but it wasn't easy or pleasant.  If you don't have a lot of sheer stubbornness and strength of will you aren't going to get out.  That isn't common, not among the poor or the middle class.  How many middle class people would be where they are today if they hadn't been born into it?  Not many. 
My point is that it takes an exceptional person to drag themselves out of the way of life they were born into, raised to be a member of and strongly discouraged from leaving.  You have no support from the place you are coming from and no support from the place you're going to.

This is extremely true.

It's really not as simple as saying that people have to work harder and not be lazy to get out of poverty.  You not only don't have a support system or good role models, you actively have people trying to drag you back and make you like them.  They act like you're insulting them when you want a better life.

This described my wife's mother to a T. She (my wife) said the only way her mom would be happy with her, would be if she lived in a run-down house, barefoot and pregnant. Anything she did to better herself (work at McDonald's, go to college, become a nurse, move to another country) was met with fierce resistance. I don't want to share too much, but suffice to say, it was not the most nurturing of environments.

Truth be told, even things that should technically be holding us back (like having a third kid) were met with unkind words. So maybe her mom wasn't trying to pull her down, she was just spiteful? I dunno. Nonetheless, she never heard a kind word from her family about any of her accomplishments.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 29, 2014, 04:53:55 PM
Very well said.  The key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results.  Educated people will mostly agree that some sort of welfare is required to maintain an advanced society.  The ultra-conservative view is to provide only enough to avoid social unrest - Adam Smith himself held this view.  The liberal view is that a rich society has a moral duty to provide a floor which no person can fall below.

But how much money should be expended, and how is it most effectively allocated?  This is where the devil lies & where two otherwise reasonable people can come unglued...

Do we have a moral duty to our fellow man to provide a floor no person can fall below?  And where is that floor - food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash?  Where does it end?  And how do we measure the effectiveness of these programs?

I don't believe there is a "floor no person can fall below."  That doesn't stop me from believing that our current status - we are the wealthiest union in the history of humankind, yet in 2009 the top 20% of American wealthy own 88.5% of the wealth! - is ideal, great, good, or even acceptable.  Doesn't the line go something like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  Seems difficult to achieve liberty, or pursue happiness for that matter, when it is seen as justice that an average McDonald's wage for 635,000 employees is $9/hr ($19,000/yr), while the CEO makes $8,750,000 (in PAY, mind you, not to mention gains on investment), they spend $2,000,000,000* on worldwide advertising, and the annual profit is $5,500,000,000 (20% profit margin, thanks to shitty pay, cheap/terrible ingredients, etc.).

*I stated ~$1B earlier, but recently discovered that that represents US ads.  International ad campaigns total ~$2B!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 29, 2014, 05:48:07 PM
Very well said.  The key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results.  Educated people will mostly agree that some sort of welfare is required to maintain an advanced society.  The ultra-conservative view is to provide only enough to avoid social unrest - Adam Smith himself held this view.  The liberal view is that a rich society has a moral duty to provide a floor which no person can fall below.

But how much money should be expended, and how is it most effectively allocated?  This is where the devil lies & where two otherwise reasonable people can come unglued...

Do we have a moral duty to our fellow man to provide a floor no person can fall below?  And where is that floor - food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash?  Where does it end?  And how do we measure the effectiveness of these programs?

I don't believe there is a "floor no person can fall below."  That doesn't stop me from believing that our current status - we are the wealthiest union in the history of humankind, yet in 2009 the top 20% of American wealthy own 88.5% of the wealth! - is ideal, great, good, or even acceptable.  Doesn't the line go something like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  Seems difficult to achieve liberty, or pursue happiness for that matter, when it is seen as justice that an average McDonald's wage for 635,000 employees is $9/hr ($19,000/yr), while the CEO makes $8,750,000 (in PAY, mind you, not to mention gains on investment), they spend $2,000,000,000* on worldwide advertising, and the annual profit is $5,500,000,000 (20% profit margin, thanks to shitty pay, cheap/terrible ingredients, etc.).

*I stated ~$1B earlier, but recently discovered that that represents US ads.  International ad campaigns total ~$2B!

It's simple economics.  All else being equal, wages of the lowest laborer are determined by the requirements of the laborer to meet his basic needs.  In a rich and growing country, a laborer will require higher wages for the same type of work.  In a poor country, the lowest laborer will require only what is necessary to meet his bare subsistence requirements.  As a worker becomes more valuable to the employer, he has more bargaining power to name his price.  The relationship between value added and compensation is not linear - it's exponential.  The CEO is managing one of the largest enterprises in human history and, according to the profit figures you reference, I'd say he is running it exceptionally well.

As for the 635k laborers, last I checked, every single one of them is free to go at any time.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 29, 2014, 06:27:30 PM
Very well said.  The key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results.  Educated people will mostly agree that some sort of welfare is required to maintain an advanced society.  The ultra-conservative view is to provide only enough to avoid social unrest - Adam Smith himself held this view.  The liberal view is that a rich society has a moral duty to provide a floor which no person can fall below.

But how much money should be expended, and how is it most effectively allocated?  This is where the devil lies & where two otherwise reasonable people can come unglued...

Do we have a moral duty to our fellow man to provide a floor no person can fall below?  And where is that floor - food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash?  Where does it end?  And how do we measure the effectiveness of these programs?

I don't believe there is a "floor no person can fall below."  That doesn't stop me from believing that our current status - we are the wealthiest union in the history of humankind, yet in 2009 the top 20% of American wealthy own 88.5% of the wealth! - is ideal, great, good, or even acceptable.  Doesn't the line go something like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  Seems difficult to achieve liberty, or pursue happiness for that matter, when it is seen as justice that an average McDonald's wage for 635,000 employees is $9/hr ($19,000/yr), while the CEO makes $8,750,000 (in PAY, mind you, not to mention gains on investment), they spend $2,000,000,000* on worldwide advertising, and the annual profit is $5,500,000,000 (20% profit margin, thanks to shitty pay, cheap/terrible ingredients, etc.).

*I stated ~$1B earlier, but recently discovered that that represents US ads.  International ad campaigns total ~$2B!

It's simple economics.  All else being equal, wages of the lowest laborer are determined by the requirements of the laborer to meet his basic needs.  In a rich and growing country, a laborer will require higher wages for the same type of work.  In a poor country, the lowest laborer will require only what is necessary to meet his bare subsistence requirements.  As a worker becomes more valuable to the employer, he has more bargaining power to name his price.  The relationship between value added and compensation is not linear - it's exponential.  The CEO is managing one of the largest enterprises in human history and, according to the profit figures you reference, I'd say he is running it exceptionally well.

As for the 635k laborers, last I checked, every single one of them is free to go at any time.

Your assertion reflects my basic beef with capitalism: money/profit = good.
- http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 (http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1)
- http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/ (http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/)
- "Another study by investigators from U.C. Berkeley and Columbia University found that teenagers whose schools are within one-tenth of a mile of a fast food outlet are more likely to be obese than those whose schools are farther away." (Lethal But Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health, Nicholas Freudenberg, 2014, p103)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LokiMom on December 29, 2014, 06:51:14 PM
"Poor people want to be poor, because if they wanted to be rich they would be rich.  It's so easy to be rich.  All you have to do is ask your Dad for some seed money for your business or to at least put you up at home while you design websites on the computer he bought for you (with the lessons he paid for).  Another easy way to get rich is to ask your Dad to call his friends and get a job for you at one of their firms.  It's so simple."
____________________________________

Wow!  Mitt Romney posts here! 

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: StartingEarly on December 29, 2014, 07:25:43 PM
I am amazed how so many of you fail to understand sarcasm, it's severely depressing.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on December 29, 2014, 07:47:02 PM
It's incredibly common for folks in any social group to try to hold others back from moving upwards into another social group. 

Part of the advice we need to give poor folks who want to climb out of poverty is to expect to need to get new friends.  Or at least totally ignore their current friends and family when they try to hold them back.

Rather than use this (and everything else) as an excuse for not trying, why not just better prepare them for what they can expect so they aren't surprised.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 29, 2014, 07:53:17 PM
Very well said.  The key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results.  Educated people will mostly agree that some sort of welfare is required to maintain an advanced society.  The ultra-conservative view is to provide only enough to avoid social unrest - Adam Smith himself held this view.  The liberal view is that a rich society has a moral duty to provide a floor which no person can fall below.

But how much money should be expended, and how is it most effectively allocated?  This is where the devil lies & where two otherwise reasonable people can come unglued...

Do we have a moral duty to our fellow man to provide a floor no person can fall below?  And where is that floor - food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash?  Where does it end?  And how do we measure the effectiveness of these programs?

I don't believe there is a "floor no person can fall below."  That doesn't stop me from believing that our current status - we are the wealthiest union in the history of humankind, yet in 2009 the top 20% of American wealthy own 88.5% of the wealth! - is ideal, great, good, or even acceptable.  Doesn't the line go something like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  Seems difficult to achieve liberty, or pursue happiness for that matter, when it is seen as justice that an average McDonald's wage for 635,000 employees is $9/hr ($19,000/yr), while the CEO makes $8,750,000 (in PAY, mind you, not to mention gains on investment), they spend $2,000,000,000* on worldwide advertising, and the annual profit is $5,500,000,000 (20% profit margin, thanks to shitty pay, cheap/terrible ingredients, etc.).

*I stated ~$1B earlier, but recently discovered that that represents US ads.  International ad campaigns total ~$2B!

It's simple economics.  All else being equal, wages of the lowest laborer are determined by the requirements of the laborer to meet his basic needs.  In a rich and growing country, a laborer will require higher wages for the same type of work.  In a poor country, the lowest laborer will require only what is necessary to meet his bare subsistence requirements.  As a worker becomes more valuable to the employer, he has more bargaining power to name his price.  The relationship between value added and compensation is not linear - it's exponential.  The CEO is managing one of the largest enterprises in human history and, according to the profit figures you reference, I'd say he is running it exceptionally well.

As for the 635k laborers, last I checked, every single one of them is free to go at any time.

Your assertion reflects my basic beef with capitalism: money/profit = good.
- http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 (http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1)
- http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/ (http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/)
- "Another study by investigators from U.C. Berkeley and Columbia University found that teenagers whose schools are within one-tenth of a mile of a fast food outlet are more likely to be obese than those whose schools are farther away." (Lethal But Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health, Nicholas Freudenberg, 2014, p103)

I totally agree that capitalism coupled with democracy isn't always perfect.  It has flaws, yes.  But show me another economic structure - a real example, not some theory, which has provided as much freedom, social mobility, and economic opportunity to the masses.  Sure, money and power collect at the top - but that will happen regardless.  Look at how communism has worked out - a handful of oligarchs and an oppressed, starving populace.  At least with capitalism, all the agents have freedom to pursue their own interests.  Those fast food workers have every right to demand higher wages if they can get them - and are doing so now.  They also have the freedom to choose whether to work there at all.  With capitalism the poor actually have a choice about whether or not to get healthy, get educated, actually move up the economic ladder.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 29, 2014, 08:42:05 PM
Very well said.  The key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results.  Educated people will mostly agree that some sort of welfare is required to maintain an advanced society.  The ultra-conservative view is to provide only enough to avoid social unrest - Adam Smith himself held this view.  The liberal view is that a rich society has a moral duty to provide a floor which no person can fall below.

But how much money should be expended, and how is it most effectively allocated?  This is where the devil lies & where two otherwise reasonable people can come unglued...

Do we have a moral duty to our fellow man to provide a floor no person can fall below?  And where is that floor - food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash?  Where does it end?  And how do we measure the effectiveness of these programs?

I don't believe there is a "floor no person can fall below."  That doesn't stop me from believing that our current status - we are the wealthiest union in the history of humankind, yet in 2009 the top 20% of American wealthy own 88.5% of the wealth! - is ideal, great, good, or even acceptable.  Doesn't the line go something like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?  Seems difficult to achieve liberty, or pursue happiness for that matter, when it is seen as justice that an average McDonald's wage for 635,000 employees is $9/hr ($19,000/yr), while the CEO makes $8,750,000 (in PAY, mind you, not to mention gains on investment), they spend $2,000,000,000* on worldwide advertising, and the annual profit is $5,500,000,000 (20% profit margin, thanks to shitty pay, cheap/terrible ingredients, etc.).

*I stated ~$1B earlier, but recently discovered that that represents US ads.  International ad campaigns total ~$2B!

It's simple economics.  All else being equal, wages of the lowest laborer are determined by the requirements of the laborer to meet his basic needs.  In a rich and growing country, a laborer will require higher wages for the same type of work.  In a poor country, the lowest laborer will require only what is necessary to meet his bare subsistence requirements.  As a worker becomes more valuable to the employer, he has more bargaining power to name his price.  The relationship between value added and compensation is not linear - it's exponential.  The CEO is managing one of the largest enterprises in human history and, according to the profit figures you reference, I'd say he is running it exceptionally well.

As for the 635k laborers, last I checked, every single one of them is free to go at any time.

Your assertion reflects my basic beef with capitalism: money/profit = good.
- http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 (http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf?nocdn=1)
- http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/ (http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/)
- "Another study by investigators from U.C. Berkeley and Columbia University found that teenagers whose schools are within one-tenth of a mile of a fast food outlet are more likely to be obese than those whose schools are farther away." (Lethal But Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health, Nicholas Freudenberg, 2014, p103)

I totally agree that capitalism coupled with democracy isn't always perfect.  It has flaws, yes.  But show me another economic structure - a real example, not some theory, which has provided as much freedom, social mobility, and economic opportunity to the masses.  Sure, money and power collect at the top - but that will happen regardless.  Look at how communism has worked out - a handful of oligarchs and an oppressed, starving populace.  At least with capitalism, all the agents have freedom to pursue their own interests.  Those fast food workers have every right to demand higher wages if they can get them - and are doing so now.  They also have the freedom to choose whether to work there at all.  With capitalism the poor actually have a choice about whether or not to get healthy, get educated, actually move up the economic ladder.

Canadian socialism seems to work pretty well.  I'd actually like it if the USA had a system like that.  Canadians may not have it on easy street, but they have nowhere near the number of worries that Americans have.  When you are sick in Canada, you get care instead of going bankrupt.  When you get old, you get a pension.  In addition, it's actually possible to have a career in the Arts in Canada because they actually value and fund Arts programs, unlike the USA where the Arts are pretty much just for trust fund babies.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: iris lily on December 29, 2014, 09:24:42 PM
...
I like Canada, but it's not some kind of dream land socialist haven. The USA is actually a cheaper country to live in.
A certain MMM gentleman seems to agree.

All of that said, I LIKE Canada, Canadians, and would consider moving there.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: terrier56 on December 30, 2014, 12:08:15 AM
I feel like the system of handouts perpetuates the problem. For example giving your child something means they will enjoy it less than if they had earned that same thing. MMM reiterates this in many articles. In much the same way payouts can weaken someones drive to earn.

I will also add that no developed country has a good system for dealing with mental health. They should really be put in a separate pile when examining the poor (or complainy-pants's).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Leisured on December 30, 2014, 02:37:49 AM


/quote]I'll take a shot.  Muslim extremists are those muslims who view their mission in life as the violent overthrow of all nations and imposition of a world-wide Caliphite.  They compose a tiny minority of muslims who I will agree are often victims, usually of their own governments who work overtime to direct the rage of their citizens at Israel, the US and the western world to divert the citizen's attention from the awful economic and human rights abuses of their own government.

Thank you davisgang90 for your reply; my reply was delayed by Xmas festivities. I thought Muslim extremists are a well known, if very small, social phenomenon. I do not agree with your view that they are manipulated by their governments so as to distract attention from the failings of those governments, interesting idea though it is. I believe Muslim extremism is a bottom up phenomenon rather than top down.


Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Leisured on December 30, 2014, 02:48:35 AM

Quote
I think it is common among blue collar/working class here to consider themselves tougher than the soft middle class because they are out in the world struggling, both physically and mentally. And then there is the underclass here, usually non-working, who rely on their street smarts to get by and they have disdain for middle class people and values since we (the great middle) are considered too stupid to live on The Street. And I suppose that we are.

Interesting idea, Iris Lily. Your description of the American 'Tough Guy' seems to be the American equivalent to the Australian 'Battler' that I have been looking for. Either way, what matters is that the Tough Guy / Battler has nothing better to do in life than to to brag about being a Tough Guy. Become a doctor, or lawyer, or mayor, or contribute thoughtful blogs to MMM forum? Nah.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 30, 2014, 10:07:12 AM

On the other hand, I have a more optimistic view of humanity. I don't view poor people as helpless individuals compelled by marketing to eat three Big Macs per day.

I think many of the "defenders" of poor people in this thread actually have the most offensive views about them, acting like they are base animals lacking higher mental function, unable to do anything about their own situations.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on December 30, 2014, 11:50:00 AM

On the other hand, I have a more optimistic view of humanity. I don't view poor people as helpless individuals compelled by marketing to eat three Big Macs per day.

I think many of the "defenders" of poor people in this thread actually have the most offensive views about them, acting like they are base animals lacking higher mental function, unable to do anything about their own situations.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 30, 2014, 12:41:02 PM

On the other hand, I have a more optimistic view of humanity. I don't view poor people as helpless individuals compelled by marketing to eat three Big Macs per day.

I think many of the "defenders" of poor people in this thread actually have the most offensive views about them, acting like they are base animals lacking higher mental function, unable to do anything about their own situations.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.

This type of thought can be dangerous b/c it can prevent important assistance.  It is like saying that we should not help pull someone out of quicksand while we stand safely on solid ground because they have hands and arms and the knowledge to pull and a vine within reach.  I agree that women and those in poverty - and just for fun, let's throw in the obese! -  have agency and the capability to learn, grow, improve, act, and succeed.  I agree that it is condescending to act "like they are base animals lacking higher mental function, unable to do anything about their own situations."  However, this thread is not aimed at talking down to these groups.  Instead, the aim is to discuss how we - the lucky, wealthy, and wise MMMers that we are - can assist agency; more specifically, how we can prevent obstacles to agency.

One consistent argument that is leveled against those in poverty, especially in these forums, is that information is available to succeed and therefore those that do not succeed are willfully ignorant.  There is certainly truth in the belief that information can be powerful: consider anti-smoking ads in the past 20 years (which some of the more staunch capitalists amongst us may demonize as "nanny state propaganda" or "interference with the market system") and the correlated decrease in smoking related deaths.  But information is very difficult to filter in our age of info-saturation.

This is the exact reason that I continue to reference the BILLIONS of dollars in expenditures for corporate advertising campaigns.  The intention of advertisements is to inform, specifically regarding your issues (hunger, loneliness) and consumer solutions (Drive on down to McD's and grab a Big Mac!).  Campaigns driven by social-psychological research has specifically targeted our base urges and semi-consciousness b/c they are shown to reduce agency.  Advertising drills into our brains until we give in to brand loyalty and "Ba dup bup bot ba."

It is ridiculous to say that we are calling those in poverty incapable while millions that are not in poverty are also duped by the deceptive "information" system our capitalist economy perpetuates.  WE ARE ALL VICTIMS of this ridiculous norm, those in poverty are a great point of entry into the discussion b/c they just happen to die or barely live due to this norm while the rest of us just have to wait longer to retire in our McMansions.  Health and wellness have become victims of our economy instead of our economy supporting health and wellness.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 30, 2014, 01:08:11 PM
So how do you propose we prevent obstacles to agency?    And what system is better than democratic capitalism to enable the poor to lift themselves up, and allow people like you or me to freely express views, raise money, take action, campaign for what we believe in?

Furthermore, I fail to see how your prejudice views and overt generalizations toward the "lucky, wealthy, McMansion dwelling" class are helping anyone's case.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 30, 2014, 01:54:58 PM
So how do you propose we prevent obstacles to agency?    And what system is better than democratic capitalism to enable the poor to lift themselves up, and allow people like you or me to freely express views, raise money, take action, campaign for what we believe in?

Check my previous posts in this thread for a few suggestions concerning decreasing corporate omniscience, which is the fastest way to increase the power of the individual.  I think capitalism has strengths, such as consolidating production, increasing overall wealth, and making unnecessary objects a powerful social force (i.e. SUV), but properly managing natural resources, providing accurate/actionable information, and caring for the disadvantaged are, at best, of peripheral interest to a capitalist.

I generally support a more socialist democratic model, but appreciate elements of classical anarchy.

Furthermore, I fail to see how your prejudice views and overt generalizations toward the "lucky, wealthy, McMansion dwelling" class are helping anyone's case.

Am I not allowed to poke fun at a highly-advantaged group?  Especially one of which I consider myself to be a member (except for the McMansion part)?  If it hurts their (our) feelings, they (we) can just support a PAC that will pay a politician to change the laws and prevent me from being too mean.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on December 30, 2014, 06:16:05 PM
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on December 30, 2014, 07:12:52 PM
She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven. 
rent $500/month. 
heat and electricity $100/month. 
$600/month in food stamps [should] cover her food costs. 
state-funded day care.
pays $200/month for her car,
$200/month for insurance,
$200/month for gas. 
She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school. 
Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Good questions and good to have a real example.  Some thoughts:
1.  Reduce insurance cost by adjusting policy options
2.  At least in the short term, gas cost will be ~1/2 of the past several years' amount.
3.  How does $360/wk gross become $300/wk net with her income and dependents?  That doesn't make sense at first glance - can you elaborate?

See below for a summary, including guesswork (e.g. no state/local taxes) that may or may not be accurate.


CategoryMonthly amt.CommentsAnnual
Salary/Wages$1,500$18,000
Federal Adj. Gross Inc.$1,500$18,000
Federal tax-$3332014 rates, stand. ded., 5 exemptions-$4,000
Soc. Sec.$93Assumes 1 earner paying$1,116
Medicare$22$261
Total income taxes-$219-$2,628
Income before other expenses  $1,719$20,628
Monthly Expenses:
Rent$500$6,000
Car Insurance$200$2,400
Electricity$100$1,200
Non-mortgage total$800$9,600
Loans:
Car$200$2,400
Total Expense$1,000$12,000
Available for other expenses and investment:$719$8,628
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 30, 2014, 07:40:14 PM
Good advice there, but I think that case study goes to show that poor people in America absolutely are not victims.  This woman has government subsidized housing, a generous food allowance, child care, electricity, running water - I presume both hot and cold, a vehicle, and a freaking life coach to help her figure it all out!

Do you think the 1/3 of the human race that lives without access to clean drinking water would consider her a victim?

Look, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of social programs like those being administered to this woman.  And it sounds like she is the perfect candidate - working to improve her family's situation and outlook.  The poor should get assistance and a helping hand in this, the richest country in the world.  But to assert that they're being victimized and oppressed seems preposterous to me.  The starving and terrorized villagers in North Korea are victims of a corrupt system.  The Cubans are victims.  Poor people in America are not victims.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 05:08:48 AM
Thanks so much for the example, fields!

Good advice there, but I think that case study goes to show that poor people in America absolutely are not victims.  This woman has government subsidized housing, a generous food allowance, child care, electricity, running water - I presume both hot and cold, a vehicle, and a freaking life coach to help her figure it all out!

Do you think the 1/3 of the human race that lives without access to clean drinking water would consider her a victim?

Look, I'm not trying to diminish the importance of social programs like those being administered to this woman.  And it sounds like she is the perfect candidate - working to improve her family's situation and outlook.  The poor should get assistance and a helping hand in this, the richest country in the world.  But to assert that they're being victimized and oppressed seems preposterous to me.  The starving and terrorized villagers in North Korea are victims of a corrupt system.  The Cubans are victims.  Poor people in America are not victims.

I am an accountant, so numbers speak to me, but I am an auditor as well so I realize that numbers are rarely the whole story.  Our corporate complex is outpacing our ability to act in our own interest.  MMM has so many (adult) Suckas to rail against b/c corporations are fucking effective at targeting our base drives, which prevents real choosing and supports zombie consumerism.  Ads targeting children are probably the most heinous of the lot b/c they seek to create brand Suckas that lack an understanding of the world broad enough to realize they are being victimized.

One element that is not considered in the above budgeting - not to mention the failure to account for costs associated with healthcare, dental care, eye care, or clothing - is the daily experience of her children and their influence on the family finances.  On average, kids ages 2-11 see 25,600 ads per year!  Four children, seeing ~70 ads/day, amounts to ~8,500 ads/month screaming that they must buy buy buy.  No matter how hard-working their mother is - in this case she seems to really have her shit together - she will be competing with corporate giants and their partner marketing firms filled with psychologists that know exactly how to target her children's drives for love, fear, mastery, fantasy, humor, collection value, and mirror effect (Childhood Under Siege, Joel Bakan, 2011, p.18).  If they can force her to spend $1 for every 11 ads they consume, that $8,628 is gone in a flash! 

Best of luck to this woman that is obviously working harder than I am.  Statistically though, her and her kids are in for a lifelong fight.
http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/factsheets/11-Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Poverty.pdf (http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/factsheets/11-Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Poverty.pdf)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 06:21:54 AM
My kids ask for stuff they've seen on TV.  No is a powerful word.  More people should use it.

More complainypants.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 06:24:04 AM
My kids ask for stuff they've seen on TV.  No is a powerful word.  More people should use it.

More complainypants.

If you are advocating saying NO in the home, why would you not extend that to the society?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 06:33:16 AM
I applaud the use of the word No in society, that's what I use to keep myself from buying stuff I don't need.  Not sure why we need to protect society from advertisers.

What other portions of free speech and free enterprise do you propose restricting?  Why not educate people instead?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 07:07:53 AM
What other portions of free speech and free enterprise do you propose restricting?  Why not educate people instead?

1) Restrict the ability for corporations to target children
2) Eliminate corporate sponsorship of governing bodies
3) Eliminate corporate/public adspace
4) Eliminate corporate/public partnerships

Free speech should belong to people, not corporations.  When you work for a corporation, your interests are subverted to the interests of profit.

Free enterprise is a joke.  It has historically been a song of the wealthy and has been used to support slavery, child labor, and the rape of natural resources.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 08:46:34 AM
What other portions of free speech and free enterprise do you propose restricting?  Why not educate people instead?

1) Restrict the ability for corporations to target children
2) Eliminate corporate sponsorship of governing bodies
3) Eliminate corporate/public adspace
4) Eliminate corporate/public partnerships

Free speech should belong to people, not corporations.  When you work for a corporation, your interests are subverted to the interests of profit.

Free enterprise is a joke.  It has historically been a song of the wealthy and has been used to support slavery, child labor, and the rape of natural resources.

Right, you're the one who dislikes capitalism, the system of the world-wide economy.  Cause all the other systems work so much better. 

Who made the computer you use to access the internet?  Government? Non-profit? or a For-Profit Corporation?  Why?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: iris lily on December 31, 2014, 09:06:07 AM
I applaud the use of the word No in society, that's what I use to keep myself from buying stuff I don't need.  Not sure why we need to protect society from advertisers.

What other portions of free speech and free enterprise do you propose restricting?  Why not educate people instead?

For me, shopping can be a game. I'll decide that I am interested in a product, I'll go to a store, look it over, and if not sufficiently grabbed by it, I'll leave thinking "yay! I won/they lost." My real goal, deeply seated in my brain, is to get out of the store before buying anything.

There are many instances over the years where DH and I can easily afford several things but leave the store because I quickly become board with all of the choices and I decide to keep what we've got.

"education" about ads is good, but to me it's part of imparting family values at the dinner table. I remember my parents making sarcastic remarks about advertisements and other influential societal messages in my youth, and that trained me up to be skeptical about consumer messages.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 09:17:09 AM
What other portions of free speech and free enterprise do you propose restricting?  Why not educate people instead?

1) Restrict the ability for corporations to target children
2) Eliminate corporate sponsorship of governing bodies
3) Eliminate corporate/public adspace
4) Eliminate corporate/public partnerships

Free speech should belong to people, not corporations.  When you work for a corporation, your interests are subverted to the interests of profit.

Free enterprise is a joke.  It has historically been a song of the wealthy and has been used to support slavery, child labor, and the rape of natural resources.

Right, you're the one who dislikes capitalism, the system of the world-wide economy.  Cause all the other systems work so much better. 

Who made the computer you use to access the internet?  Government? Non-profit? or a For-Profit Corporation?  Why?

I have discussed benefits that Capitalism can provide, but that does not mean that unchecked Capitalism - which we have been moving closer and closer towards since deregulation of commerce and communication in the 1980s - is a healthy solution.  Corporate driven Capitalism has imposed itself on Democracy.  It has claimed to be the victim of unions, regulators/regulations, academia, and do-gooders, all the while gaining power, destroying the environment, demoralizing workers, stratifying citizens, misinforming, manipulating, creating consumer zombies, buying politicians, and blaming the individual.

Why do you believe that Capitalism is the best solution?  Is ubiquity really a strong argument for suitability?  Do you have any thoughts on the 4 recommendations posted above, or the other recommendations posed throughout this thread?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 09:19:02 AM
Quote
I could say that I "clawed" my way higher up the middle-class ladder through hard work and determination, but I would not be where I am if I were not male, white, supported by my family, with a strong body (military) and natural curiosity (data analysis).  I'm lucky!  I hope we can all seriously appreciate luck when we experience it.

If there are any bootstrappers left in here that havent been turned off by all the mushy social oppression speak, I'd love to hear some discussion from (polite) opposing viewpoints

Bootstrapper here again! I did crappy menial jobs for years, eventually working my way up to entry-level office work (think photocopying and making coffee). Could I have "clawed" by way up the corporate ladder from humble beginnings? Who knows, because I couldn't be bothered to try! Why not? Because it's completely unnecessary. I can live a great life, travel frequently, and retire young while working as an office clerk in a low stress, relaxed office.

You could say I had some luck, but it was limited mostly to the kinds most people we're talking about also have, like living in a civilized country, public schooling, public libraries, internet access (well, we didn't have this until  I was a teenager), and having food, clothing, and shelter. Honestly, if your goal is just to live a healthy and comfortable life, you DON'T NEED special advantages, family connections, or any of that. You just need to seek out free, readily available information.
Another bootstrapper here. Dad walked away from the family and left my SAHP of 15 years Mom and us 3 kids homeless. Moved in with Grandma into her 500 sf apt. Mom, a stubborn German immigrant who didn't even drive and would never go on welfare or ask my Dad for anything, worked 2 full time minimum wage factory jobs until she got on her feet (and learned to drive, got her license and a car) and gt us a place to live. Went to school to re-train in her old data entry pre-marriage job and eventually got a decent paying job. Bought a modest house. Us kids worked since we were 14 doing whatever. I joined the Coast Guard after high school, stayed many years, learned a trade, did cool interesting stuff, paid for college, got a government job when I got out, got a pension (combo military time and gov. job time), bought a house, paid it off fast, saved some money, retired at 42 debt free and with a stash to live on until I would be old enough to get my pension (at age 50).  I was lucky but I was also very hard working and determined to do whatever was needed to be self-sufficient and independent.

You and yours sound like badasses!!  Definitely not the norm.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 09:31:07 AM
What other portions of free speech and free enterprise do you propose restricting?  Why not educate people instead?

1) Restrict the ability for corporations to target children
2) Eliminate corporate sponsorship of governing bodies
3) Eliminate corporate/public adspace
4) Eliminate corporate/public partnerships

Free speech should belong to people, not corporations.  When you work for a corporation, your interests are subverted to the interests of profit.

Free enterprise is a joke.  It has historically been a song of the wealthy and has been used to support slavery, child labor, and the rape of natural resources.

Right, you're the one who dislikes capitalism, the system of the world-wide economy.  Cause all the other systems work so much better. 

Who made the computer you use to access the internet?  Government? Non-profit? or a For-Profit Corporation?  Why?

I have discussed benefits that Capitalism can provide, but that does not mean that unchecked Capitalism - which we have been moving closer and closer towards since deregulation of commerce and communication in the 1980s - is a healthy solution.  Corporate driven Capitalism has imposed itself on Democracy.  It has claimed to be the victim of unions, regulators/regulations, academia, and do-gooders, all the while gaining power, destroying the environment, demoralizing workers, stratifying citizens, misinforming, manipulating, creating consumer zombies, buying politicians, and blaming the individual.

Why do you believe that Capitalism is the best solution?  Is ubiquity really a strong argument for suitability?  Do you have any thoughts on the 4 recommendations posted above, or the other recommendations posed throughout this thread?
On your 4 recommendations, 1 and 2 have some merit, 3 and 4 are ridiculous.  Corporations not allowed to advertise in the public space and all corporate/public partnerships are bad?  Those are fairly sweeping changes not seen even in the socialist "utopias" of Europe.  Perhaps you can site some countries where these rules have been enacted resulting in great benefits.

Also, on the topic of the environment, the air and water in the US is cleaner now than in 1970 so not sure how your comment is true except that over regulation and lack of new infrastructure construction has caused us to outsource our pollution to other countries along with many of the jobs. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 09:53:19 AM
Davisgang90:  thank you for engaging in this discussion even though you obviously disagree with my arguments!

Can you provide defense for any elements of #1/#2 that you find offensive?  It would be easy to say "imposing on the free market" but taking the free market to it's logical conclusion is very rarely agreeable even to a staunch capitalist.

In defense of my opinion on corporate/public partnerships, consider CHANNEL ONE NEWS.  This is 1) how we teach kids to respect the media, 2) how we inform kids about the world, 3) mandatory.
- http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/education/channel-one (http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/education/channel-one)
- http://www.obligation.org/2014-03-01-channel-one-news-the-company-that-brought-junk-food-advertising-into-american-classrooms (http://www.obligation.org/2014-03-01-channel-one-news-the-company-that-brought-junk-food-advertising-into-american-classrooms)

In defense of my opinion on corporate/public ad space:
Perhaps you can site some countries where these rules have been enacted resulting in great benefits.

A work in progress and "results" won't be known for some time, but I think 70% satisfaction with anything is pretty remarkable...
https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Without_Ads.html (https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Without_Ads.html)

I especially like the comment by Zadie Smith at the end of this article!
http://qz.com/303234/hate-billboards-move-to-frances-advertising-free-town/ (http://qz.com/303234/hate-billboards-move-to-frances-advertising-free-town/)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 10:26:11 AM
So ALL corporate/public partnerships should be outlawed because you don't like the impact of one? 

PBS has corporate sponsors so I guess it has to go too.  Ditto NPR.

Corporate partnerships with the NIH would be out too.  I guess improving public health through biomedical research isn't worth it.  http://ppp.od.nih.gov/

I'm no fan of billboards, but I'm not sure banning all outdoor advertisement makes a lot of sense.

As to #1 and #2 I said I saw some merit to those two, not sure what you are asking me to do.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 31, 2014, 10:42:19 AM
So ALL corporate/public partnerships should be outlawed because you don't like the impact of one? 

PBS has corporate sponsors so I guess it has to go too.  Ditto NPR.

Corporate partnerships with the NIH would be out too.  I guess improving public health through biomedical research isn't worth it.  http://ppp.od.nih.gov/

I'm no fan of billboards, but I'm not sure banning all outdoor advertisement makes a lot of sense.

As to #1 and #2 I said I saw some merit to those two, not sure what you are asking me to do.

I actually cut way back on watching/supporting PBS and NPR once the corporate money came rolling in.  Now they are basically owned and operated by the Walton Foundation (Walmart), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Microsoft), the George Lucas Foundation, and the Koch Brothers.  Officially, they fund programming through their non-profit foundations, but actually they are using their funding to alter the message of PBS and NPR to support their own ideologies, such as the push for public school privatization for profit.  Advertising really sucks.  I do everything in my power to avoid advertising -- such as by cancelling all magazine subscriptions, listening only to satellite radio, watching video online with ad-blocking plug-ins or time-shifting over-the-air broadcasts with my new DVR, etc.  Advertising brainwashes people and tricks them into spending money they shouldn't/needn't spend.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 10:48:44 AM
You should quit patronizing MMM, he has ads on his site.  Filthy capitalist!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on December 31, 2014, 10:59:09 AM
You should quit patronizing MMM, he has ads on his site.  Filthy capitalist!

What ads?  I've never seen any ads on this site (other than the blog posts suggesting services/products, some of which I have used by his recommendation.)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 11:11:42 AM
I'm at work trying desperately not to run out and buy a Ford because I saw a Ford ad on MMM.  I think I will be victorious!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 31, 2014, 11:24:54 AM
Oh the horrors of living in a country so rich that an entire industry exists to try and capture a portion of the overflowing surplus of money sloshing around.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 12:37:42 PM
I'm at work trying desperately not to run out and buy a Ford because I saw a Ford ad on MMM.  I think I will be victorious!

That's funny, but insanely ignorant.  I bet you know at least 3 Ford slogans.  I bet you know at least 5 Ford models.  I bet you know the price of at least 2 Fords.  I bet you can list features, awards, MPG, and dealerships in your local area.  Can you name one local organization aiming to conserve natural resources?

You need to learn about Partial Attention Realities.  Advertising is most effective when you DON'T pay attention.  This has been the aim of the most successful ad campaigns since the late 80's.  Things like interactive games filled with Hamburglers, Ronald McDonald's, and that fucking purple oaf, that are flanked by colorful, bright, blinking ads, invade the unconscious space in developing brains.  Have you heard of "stickiness?"  It is the idea that making something addictive is the best form of advertising.  That is why advertisers target base emotions that humans experience routinely, generate those emotions at a cyclical rate through "entertainment" and "news," and then tie consumer solutions to the experience.  Love: kay's jewelers.  Fear: glock.  Anxiety: McD's.

Just b/c you think you have figured out the code to staying conscious doesn't mean that your kids, neighbors, and coworkers are not being actively manipulated.

Oh the horrors of living in a country so rich that an entire industry exists to try and capture a portion of the overflowing surplus of money sloshing around.

Funny.  I like the image of sloshing money.  It reminds me of the Scrooge McDuck cartoons I used to watch on Disney between commercials.

You are missing the point, though.  Surplus money DOES exist - thank *dog* for capitalism - so why are we not providing opportunity for everyone?  Corporations were originally thought to be interested in social improvement (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/ (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/)) and were actually "terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm," but have since proven to be far more interested in generating/retaining profit for the wealthy than in the betterment of their own employees or society at large, and they're getting damn good at it.  Ad agencies are excited when they can deceive you into becoming unhealthy, b/c then they will have another contract to advertise health technology!  Dig a hole then fill it in.  Yay for synergy!!!

Our health/wellness is being sacrificed to our economic system instead of our economic system supporting our health/wellness.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on December 31, 2014, 12:44:31 PM
Oh the horrors of living in a country so rich that an entire industry exists to try and capture a portion of the overflowing surplus of money sloshing around brainwash and indoctrinate the public to serve corporate interests.

FTFY. And yes, it is horrific.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 01:14:07 PM
That's funny, but insanely ignorant.  I bet you know at least 3 Ford slogans.  I bet you know at least 5 Ford models.  I bet you know the price of at least 2 Fords.  I bet you can list features, awards, MPG, and dealerships in your local area.

How much money would you put on that bet? $1,000? $10,000? $1,000,000? Because it sounds like a poor investment to me.

You might be right about davisgang90, but it's definitely not a sure thing. If you had posed the bet to me, you would have lost. I don't know a single Ford slogan. I can't name or identify any Ford. I do not know the price of a Ford. If I see a car on the street or in a parking lot, I have no idea how to tell whether it is made by Ford. I have never been to a dealership nor do I know where any are.

Despite your lofty statements, it really is easy to avoid learning about what products exist to buy. I have managed pretty well. I am blissfully ignorant about what I could even spend my money on if I wanted to. It's actually an excellent frugality technique as it will help you avoid spending money if you don't know what you could spend it on! MMM has even recommended the same thing on his blog.

Sure.

I was definitely swinging for the fence there, but if you broaden it beyond vehicles, do your answers still stand?  How bout this one: I bet you could sing some jingles for products that you hate... 

I agree that avoidance is the best strategy.  The point stands that corporations try to put us in corners and advertise to us.  Ask one of the 7 Million kids in the US that are forced to watch CHANNEL ONE NEWS.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 01:49:29 PM
Who is forced to watch a news program? I have never watched TV news in my life.

7.7 million students in the US. -->http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/education/channel-one (http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/education/channel-one)

Until around a year ago, I did used to read text news online, but I've stopped reading that now too.

Isn't that sad to you?  Wouldn't you like to know what is going on in the world without having to dodge corporate infiltration?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on December 31, 2014, 02:04:58 PM
Just grabbed the mail: Ads...
- Venus.com
- Mazda
- Consumer Reports
- xfinity
- bank of america
- ANOTHER visa card

Only two of these have I ever had any interaction with before and NONE of them did I request...
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on December 31, 2014, 03:49:42 PM
Just grabbed the mail: Ads...
- Venus.com
- Mazda
- Consumer Reports
- xfinity
- bank of america
- ANOTHER visa card

Only two of these have I ever had any interaction with before and NONE of them did I request...
WHAT A NIGHTMARE!!!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 31, 2014, 04:08:59 PM
Ok, here's my problem w/ the poor people are victims camp.  You seem to completely ignore the personal responsibility side of the equation.  When presented with the idea, you refer back to the billions being spent on advertising & ask how the little man is supposed to stand a chance.  Other than acknowledging that "personal responsibility" is a counter argument to your own beliefs, you seem to give the concept no merit. 

I can tell you, having spent time in poor communities and mentoring poor children, that overwhelmingly the problem is all about personal choices.  The parents usually don't work, don't seek out paid employment because they fare better collecting government benefits and lounging around.  This is the norm.  Yes, this is just an anecdotal observation, and maybe all the other poor communities are different, but this has been my experience.  So they are victims of their own poor work ethic, their own weak will, lack of ability to think long term.  Go visit a third world country, watch a 2yr old drink from a mud puddle, see parents who can't feed or even clothe their dying children.  Then come back & tell me America's poor are victims of the ills of capitalism.

I've never net someone in America who, with true drive and determination, wasn't able to rise above poverty.  It's definitely not easy, but it's easier to do here than any place in the world - and any place throughout history.  Your biggest issue is that the poor get bombarded with ads while watching tv in a warm home with full bellies.  Any one of those people can decide at any time to cancel cable, get to work, educate themselves at the library, and generally improve their situation.  Sure, it'll take years of good decision making, self discipline and long term thinking.  But, guess what, that is the price one has to pay to achieve success.  And it's not for everyone.  We all have the choice.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on December 31, 2014, 04:52:15 PM
Kind of disappointed that not many took on the challenge of how my client could improve her circumstances, but not surprised, because I've been working with her for years and haven't been able to help her improve her situation.  Here's what's happened recently:  She was evicted because she got far behind in paying her portion of the rent.  She wasn't able to find a less expensive apartment because she didn't have first, last, and security to put down on a new place.  She had to go into a shelter placement, which meant she couldn't continue school or her job, and she lost her Section 8 voucher.  She's now in a much worse position than she was.

Although people here are complaining about how much poor people like my client receive in benefits, I'd like to point out that even with all the assistance she was getting, she still could not get ahead.  She tried really hard, and it didn't work.  And no one here was able to offer a way forward for her, either (although there was a suggestion about reducing her insurance costs, and someone noted that she would get tax credits--but those only come once a year, not as needed.)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on December 31, 2014, 05:04:54 PM
Kind of disappointed that not many took on the challenge of how my client could improve her circumstances, but not surprised, because I've been working with her for years and haven't been able to help her improve her situation.  Here's what's happened recently:  She was evicted because she got far behind in paying her portion of the rent.  She wasn't able to find a less expensive apartment because she didn't have first, last, and security to put down on a new place.  She had to go into a shelter placement, which meant she couldn't continue school or her job, and she lost her Section 8 voucher.  She's now in a much worse position than she was.

Although people here are complaining about how much poor people like my client receive in benefits, I'd like to point out that even with all the assistance she was getting, she still could not get ahead.  She tried really hard, and it didn't work.  And no one here was able to offer a way forward for her, either (although there was a suggestion about reducing her insurance costs, and someone noted that she would get tax credits--but those only come once a year, not as needed.)
Sorry to hear things are worse.

Was she having taxes withheld from her pay?  If so that's unfortunate because, knowing her tax situation, she could have submitted a W-4 to stop withholding and keep all her earnings.

As someone noted she likely had expenses beyond what you listed.  It seemed, however, that she had enough buffer not to fall behind in rent...?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 31, 2014, 05:29:51 PM
I'm not trying to be callous or unsympathetic to your client.  Nor did I ever complain about the benefits being offered.  Quite the contrary, I am thankful that our capitalistic democracy produces such abundance as to be able to accommodate the poorest members of society with basic needs and comforts.

Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

30 hrs per week at $12 is clearly not cutting it.  Not a single self-made "rich" person I've ever heard of got there by working 30 hrs per week.  In fact, most of them had weeks when they only slept 30 & spent the rest of the time trying to get ahead.

Priority #1: find more work.  Preferably higher paid.  Spend every possible waking hour applying for more work, networking, trying to build relationships with people who can help.  Go door to door offering to perform household chores, offer to clean peoples houses, wash cars, rake leaves.  Find something that works then keep doubling down.  Let's say she becomes an excellent house cleaner.  She can network and gain more referrals, expanding her business.  Ultimately she could hire employees under her.  But none of that can ever happen if she keeps working 30 hrs per week at $12 / hr with $200 in fuel expenses.  Will she face rejection, difficulties, obstacles?  Hell yes.  If her will is strong enough she'll overcome and succeed.  If not, she won't.  If she needs help caring for the kids, ask a neighbor, try to work something out with the daycare, maybe the 7 yr old has to grow up a little early and help carry some of the load around the house.  Not ideal, but neither is her situation.

Ultimately, she has to have a desire to pull herself up and take action, work smart & make sacrifices.  And not just for a month or two.. Year in, year out for a very long time.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 31, 2014, 05:54:43 PM
Thanks Cathy - perfect link.

Really though, how can this case even be taken seriously.  "Able bodied 25yo works 30 hrs per week and can't afford to pay the bills.  What ever should she do???"
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on December 31, 2014, 06:05:29 PM
Cathy, the time I spend working with this client directly is limited, however she and her children have had numerous in-home services and so I think your point holds--however, I have another client who received over $15000 in a retro disability check and now, less than four months later, it's all gone and she has nothing to show for it.

Bbub, she was working 30 hours a week and going to school.  She was out of the house for more than twelve hours a day, and was having friends and neighbors watch her kids for those hours not covered by her subsidized day care.  I do agree that she chose the wrong type of employment, but it's very hard to dissuade people from getting trained in these types of jobs when local for-profit schools market them as avenues to success, and $12/hour seems like a lot to them. 

MDM, she was having taxes withheld (either because she didn't know how not to, or because she wanted the refund) and did not have enough of a buffer (she was bringing home $1200/month and basic expenses were $1200.) 

Really, I'm not as interested in how to help adults out of poverty as I am how to help children.  But how???
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on December 31, 2014, 06:12:32 PM
Really though, how can this case even be taken seriously.  "Able bodied 25yo works 30 hrs per week and can't afford to pay the bills.  What ever should she do???"
There is the not so minor point that she is a single parent with four kids.  Pretty poor planning on that count for sure, but one has to consider the situation as it exists today.

Still don't understand why she fell behind on rent but "time with her kids" should be considered as a mitigating factor before one assumes she just didn't try hard enough.  Having four kids under 10 years took time and that was with two parents, one staying at home.  Ultimately well worth it but that's another story....
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on December 31, 2014, 06:33:41 PM
Really, I'm not as interested in how to help adults out of poverty as I am how to help children.  But how???

Book could be (and have been) written trying to answer that.  Best I can do in a few words is "help the parent(s) get their own act together so they can (and do) spend more time with the children."  Yes, much easier said than done....
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: totoro on December 31, 2014, 08:07:20 PM
I disagree with most of what has been said so far.

I grew up poor.  Really poor.  We never went to McDonalds - it wasn't in the budget.  I can't see how people on welfare can afford this today either.  Maybe it is different in the US - but in Canada we don't have food stamps.  People get a monthly amount and the have to buy lentils or cheap grocery food like ground burger, cheap bread, rice, lentils, KD, carrots and bananas.  Convenience foods are expensive.

I don't recall one occasion growing up where we ate in a restaurant or had take-out.  Not one. 

My take on welfare-poor living is that the people are often there because of addictions, single parent status, lack of education/ability or mental health issues.

In order to get people out of poverty you need to address these issues.  All of these situations need more social supports to create a better society without creating a situation of dependence.  I'm sad when I look at the US system, happier to be Canadian and look wistfully to Scandinavia.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kyle Schuant on December 31, 2014, 08:20:07 PM
She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  [...]
She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.
Good questions and good to have a real example.  Some thoughts:
And once again in this discussion, nobody asks, "Where is the father of these four children?" Or fathers.

To improve your finances, increase your income and/or decrease spending. Her household income should be able to increase from the father or fathers doing their part. In her case, she is a victim - of irresponsible men, and of a society that does not force men to be responsible.

It's easy to say, "be tough with your kids, say no." Looking after FOUR children on your own on a low income after your children were ABANDONED by their father or fathers... I'm a happily-married father of ONE kid, and I want to spoil him. In her position it'd be hard to turn the kids down. She might need to for everyone's long-term good, but it'd be hard to.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: totoro on December 31, 2014, 08:59:56 PM
In Canada a single parent of two on welfare gets net $1035.58 per month in my province plus a child tax credit of net $592.91 a month for a total of approx. $1625/month net plus any child support payments which are not treated as income.  Shelter costs in subsidized housing are no more than 30% of income - or $500.  This leaves $1125 plus child support payments for everything else.  I'm not sure what the US scenario is like. I imagine it varies from state to state and appears to be less than this amount based on a google search.

McDonalds is not "around half the price" in the US.  McDonalds is 5.82% cheaper in the US than Canada.  Cheap restaurants are about 10% less.  However, groceries at the grocery store are often a lot less (see milk and produce which are 30%-50% cheaper in the US) which would, in my opinion, make it much less expensive to buy from the store rather than eat at McDonalds in the US than in Canada. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Canada&country2=United+States. 

Please do some research before you set out "facts" which are really your beliefs.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this annoying.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: totoro on December 31, 2014, 09:21:38 PM
I see.   So the fact that grocery store produce is 30%-50% cheaper and McDonalds is, on average 5.8% cheaper but up to 50% cheaper depending on product/state makes it affordable for those on social assistance in the US to eat at McDonalds rather than grocery stores vs. Canada?

How exactly does that add up?  If Canadian grocery prices are 30-50% higher on average and McDonalds averages 5.8% but up to 50% higher it seems like the grocery would win when you calculate calories for dollar value in either country and it would work out the same. 

The only differential is the SA payment.  It appears that the poor in the US receive less than the poor in Canada unless I am missing something. You may wish to canvass the payments to a single parent with two children in your state plus the cost of subsidized housing  vs. the cost of McDonalds vs. the cost of groceries in your state so we can accurately compare. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on December 31, 2014, 09:59:14 PM
Sorry to backtrack, but...

Furthermore, I fail to see how your prejudice views and overt generalizations toward the "lucky, wealthy, McMansion dwelling" class are helping anyone's case.

Edsmeds:
Am I not allowed to poke fun at a highly-advantaged group?  Especially one of which I consider myself to be a member (except for the McMansion part)?  If it hurts their (our) feelings, they (we) can just support a PAC that will pay a politician to change the laws and prevent me from being too mean.

You are certainly allowed but do so at the risk of compromising your credibility.  I get the humor, but undermining the very group you are trying to convince doesn't seem like the best way forward for your case.

In the context of this debate, calling the wealthy "lucky McMansion dwellers" is no less ignorant or divisive than calling the poor "lazy bigscreen watching, air Jordan wearers".
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: iris lily on December 31, 2014, 10:17:03 PM
I don't think that seriously poor families eat at McDonalds, that's crazy. McDonald's is ridiculously expensive for what you get.

Now, "working poor" families--maybe sometimes, too often eat at McDonald's. I don't know the statistics.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 01, 2015, 04:16:02 AM
If you are serious, it's because you use AdBlock Plus or a similar program... which is fine. As I said above, I avoid advertising as well (and I consider it rather easy to avoid). The great thing about a free society is that although somebody can put ads on their website, you're free to choose what you want your computer to display, including blocking ads.
You know that companies have urged to outlaw adblockers?
That technical implementations make it impossible to forward advertisements if you recorded a TV program?

Also you do not seem to know what corporate/public partnerships means - or it means something different in your country then mine und the poster you were answering.

Quote
WHAT A NIGHTMARE!!!
Yes! For me, having a to have more space for post just to contain the crap, having to use more space just for throwing it away (and such costing me more), and oh, then there is this nature thing.

Quote
own poor work ethic, their own weak will, lack of ability to think long term.
Yes. Now please read what was written on this before.

Quote
Instead of spending $33,280 on you, the state could have directly given that to the client, and -- if managed responsibly -- it would have been way more than enough to escape poverty. In fact, it would have been enough to fully support her for years
It was surely not one client.
But what you suggest is ot possible, because for people saying that the poor choose to stay poor this would be a first class waste of money. The poor should just try hard!

Quote
She can network
That is one thing the "poor should just try" cant understand: For some people it is impossible to "network". You could say "she just have to sing a lot and then she would be a millionaire singer" - it is the same.

regarding McDonalds: The statistics I know say that poor people eat more of the "expensive unhealthy" food then "rich". Thats part of the spiral they are in.
Mother feed their children McDonald, so the Children are used to and only want McDonald later in lafe. They possibly never have eat something healthy! And it takes 8 meals of something to get used to it and be able to eat it without having to force yourself to do it. (part of natures way to prevent we eat somehting thats bad for us)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on January 01, 2015, 07:07:38 AM

Quote
own poor work ethic, their own weak will, lack of ability to think long term.
Yes. Now please read what was written on this before. 

I did.  You cherry picked that half sentence out of an entire post. Please read the rest of the post and provide meaningful feedback.


Quote
She can network
That is one thing the "poor should just try" cant understand: For some people it is impossible to "network". You could say "she just have to sing a lot and then she would be a millionaire singer" - it is the same.
[quote/]

I'm glad you are not my advocate.  With that mindset I'd be poor too.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: totoro on January 01, 2015, 10:21:55 AM
I never claimed that the poor are prone to eating at McDonald's or anything like that. In fact, I explicitly said I did not believe that (see http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/poor-folks-are-victims/msg498588/#msg498588).

My post above that you criticised was just a generic "gosh, the USA is cheap" post with a tongue-in-cheek comment about McDonald's.

Sorry Cathy - did not realize that :)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 01, 2015, 03:59:21 PM
I'm glad you are not my advocate.  With that mindset I'd be poor too.
As I said "you people" just cannot understand it. Like "you people" with "normal" sight cant understand what a colorblind sees or not sees and the other way.

Please explain to me, what "networking" for you is - then I will write down what networking for e.g. me is (because I am one of the people who is not able to).

Of course it is always possible - its just incomprehensible hard to do it for some people.
That reminds me of Temple Grandin. Perhaps you have heard of her. There is even a film about her.
Thats a perfect example for one who did it dispite the problems she had - but you cant expect everyone to be so strong, especially when the parents are not helpful.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on January 01, 2015, 07:31:07 PM

Quote
She can network
That is one thing the "poor should just try" cant understand: For some people it is impossible to "network". You could say "she just have to sing a lot and then she would be a millionaire singer" - it is the same.
[quote/]

I'm glad you are not my advocate.  With that mindset I'd be poor too.

Bravo!   

I'll grant that people with Autism will have a really hard time networking.  Ditto with Asberger's, though I know some who get by well enough.

But those are mental issues, not simple poverty.

The fact of it is that damn near everyone who is not mentally ill or mentally retarded or severely ill/injured can learn to do most any skill at a passable level -- if they put in the work and time to do so and if their teachers expect it of them.

Sounds like this "helper" doesn't expect much of them and they therefore live down to those expectations.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on January 01, 2015, 07:42:23 PM
A lot of you appear to believe that poor people are just too stupid, retarded, or otherwise socially impaired to be taught the basic, simple steps that Dave Ramsey or MMM teach for financial well-being.

If you fall into that bunch of hooey, I would like to tell you about the Pygmalion Effect.  Here's a link to a synopsis:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect).

In short, when teachers expect great results from their students they generally get them and when they expect the opposite, that's what they get, too.

So, please, if you deal with the poor, for their sake and ours, learn about this and fully communicate that you expect them to do what needs doing.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on January 01, 2015, 09:10:17 PM
Networking - interact with other people to exchange information and develop contacts, especially to further one's career.

I'm not positive & you may want to fact check it, but I'm pretty sure our Homo Sapien ancestors figured this out.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 02, 2015, 06:48:39 AM
Networking - interact with other people to exchange information and develop contacts, especially to further one's career.

I'm not positive & you may want to fact check it, but I'm pretty sure our Homo Sapien ancestors figured this out.
Well, for some Homo Sapiens this is:
Doing things you dont know about, with people you see no reason to meet, and talk with them about topics you are not interested in, using a social code that is a total mystery to you in situations you tremble from fear.

Even if you find a teacher who will hold your hand for the 2-3 years it would take you minimum to learn that and even if you would found the time and money to do it and even if you found the strength somewhere to bear it - there is no guaratee that is works.

It's no wonder that only a very few people manage that.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 08:17:49 AM
Bootstrappers: what is the role of society?

Arguments for individualism often ignore humans' deeply ingrained reliance on society.  Isn't the whole point of Capitalism to specialize for the purpose of efficiency and productivity?  Don't all of you bootstrappers live in homes made by someone else, drink "clean" water pumped by someone else, eat food created by someone else?  Weren't you given education, security, guidance, and opportunity?  And if not, doesn't that piss you off?!  Why, then, should we require everyone in poverty to be expert at diet, fitness, personal finance, family planning, psychology (to combat the BILLIONS spent to deceive them), and raising kids in order to maintain a reasonably comfortable life?  Isn't that what society is for?  Rich folks can and do PAY for dietitians, fitness trainers, birth control or abortions, CFPs, and harvard-prep daycare.

A lot of you appear to believe that poor people are just too stupid, retarded, or otherwise socially impaired to be taught the basic, simple steps that Dave Ramsey or MMM teach for financial well-being.

If you fall into that bunch of hooey, I would like to tell you about the Pygmalion Effect.  Here's a link to a synopsis:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect).

In short, when teachers expect great results from their students they generally get them and when they expect the opposite, that's what they get, too.

So, please, if you deal with the poor, for their sake and ours, learn about this and fully communicate that you expect them to do what needs doing.

Interesting but dangerous, and certainly misapplied to this discussion.  Negative expectations are much more deterministic than positive expectations, b/c positive expectations still require structure, effort, talent/luck, and assistance.  Assisting someone is not the same as establishing negative expectations or calling them incapable: schools are structured social solutions and teachers still provide assistance to those that need it.  Setting up social structure to support basic predictable requirements, or identifying and eliminating impediments to managing requirements, is not the same as establishing negative expectations or calling individuals worthless. 

Granted, expectations are important and negative expectations will often come true; throwing someone in the deep end and yelling "I know you can learn to swim" while they drown, however, is irresponsible.  We fail to provide structured education about the most important elements of life - making food, handling waste, managing personal finances, communicating, relationships, dealing with emotions - and we leave this task to the economy!  Are blogs, hucksters, corporate "education" affiliates, and tv personalities really our best swim coaches?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on January 02, 2015, 08:42:37 AM
Networking - interact with other people to exchange information and develop contacts, especially to further one's career.

I'm not positive & you may want to fact check it, but I'm pretty sure our Homo Sapien ancestors figured this out.
Well, for some Homo Sapiens this is:
Doing things you dont know about, with people you see no reason to meet, and talk with them about topics you are not interested in, using a social code that is a total mystery to you in situations you tremble from fear.

Even if you find a teacher who will hold your hand for the 2-3 years it would take you minimum to learn that and even if you would found the time and money to do it and even if you found the strength somewhere to bear it - there is no guaratee that is works.

It's no wonder that only a very few people manage that.

And what's the alternative?  Take no action, do not seek to improve ones situation, accept failure? Honestly I'm having a hard time even responding to you because your outlook saddens me.

It's all about attitude & desire.  These deeply personal attributes can be developed if one is willing to put in the effort and seek out help.  That's what I choose to believe anyway.  You can choose to believe that too, and for your own sake, I hope you do.  Good luck.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on January 02, 2015, 08:49:46 AM
Bootstrappers: what is the role of society?

Arguments for individualism often ignore humans' deeply ingrained reliance on society.  Isn't the whole point of Capitalism to specialize for the purpose of efficiency and productivity?  Don't all of you bootstrappers live in homes made by someone else, drink "clean" water pumped by someone else, eat food created by someone else?  Weren't you given education, security, guidance, and opportunity?  And if not, doesn't that piss you off?!  Why, then, should we require everyone in poverty to be expert at diet, fitness, personal finance, family planning, psychology (to combat the BILLIONS spent to deceive them), and raising kids in order to maintain a reasonably comfortable life?  Isn't that what society is for?  Rich folks can and do PAY for dietitians, fitness trainers, birth control or abortions, CFPs, and harvard-prep daycare.

A lot of you appear to believe that poor people are just too stupid, retarded, or otherwise socially impaired to be taught the basic, simple steps that Dave Ramsey or MMM teach for financial well-being.

If you fall into that bunch of hooey, I would like to tell you about the Pygmalion Effect.  Here's a link to a synopsis:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect).

In short, when teachers expect great results from their students they generally get them and when they expect the opposite, that's what they get, too.

So, please, if you deal with the poor, for their sake and ours, learn about this and fully communicate that you expect them to do what needs doing.

Interesting but dangerous, and certainly misapplied to this discussion.  Negative expectations are much more deterministic than positive expectations, b/c positive expectations still require structure, effort, talent/luck, and assistance.  Assisting someone is not the same as establishing negative expectations or calling them incapable: schools are structured social solutions and teachers still provide assistance to those that need it.  Setting up social structure to support basic predictable requirements, or identifying and eliminating impediments to managing requirements, is not the same as establishing negative expectations or calling individuals worthless. 

Granted, expectations are important and negative expectations will often come true; throwing someone in the deep end and yelling "I know you can learn to swim" while they drown, however, is irresponsible.  We fail to provide structured education about the most important elements of life - making food, handling waste, managing personal finances, communicating, relationships, dealing with emotions - and we leave this task to the economy!  Are blogs, hucksters, corporate "education" affiliates, and tv personalities really our best swim coaches?

In this country we have legions of social workers, community organizers, nonprofits, outreach organizations, churches, charities and advocates like you.  Is there ever a point where you would concede that enough is enough and accept that certain percentage of the population will be poor regardless?  Or would you continue to expend resources indefinitely to ensure that every person lives a structured, comfortable life regardless of their personal choices along the way?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 09:10:20 AM
Bootstrappers: what is the role of society?

Arguments for individualism often ignore humans' deeply ingrained reliance on society.  Isn't the whole point of Capitalism to specialize for the purpose of efficiency and productivity?  Don't all of you bootstrappers live in homes made by someone else, drink "clean" water pumped by someone else, eat food created by someone else?  Weren't you given education, security, guidance, and opportunity?  And if not, doesn't that piss you off?!  Why, then, should we require everyone in poverty to be expert at diet, fitness, personal finance, family planning, psychology (to combat the BILLIONS spent to deceive them), and raising kids in order to maintain a reasonably comfortable life?  Isn't that what society is for?  Rich folks can and do PAY for dietitians, fitness trainers, birth control or abortions, CFPs, and harvard-prep daycare.

A lot of you appear to believe that poor people are just too stupid, retarded, or otherwise socially impaired to be taught the basic, simple steps that Dave Ramsey or MMM teach for financial well-being.

If you fall into that bunch of hooey, I would like to tell you about the Pygmalion Effect.  Here's a link to a synopsis:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect).

In short, when teachers expect great results from their students they generally get them and when they expect the opposite, that's what they get, too.

So, please, if you deal with the poor, for their sake and ours, learn about this and fully communicate that you expect them to do what needs doing.

Interesting but dangerous, and certainly misapplied to this discussion.  Negative expectations are much more deterministic than positive expectations, b/c positive expectations still require structure, effort, talent/luck, and assistance.  Assisting someone is not the same as establishing negative expectations or calling them incapable: schools are structured social solutions and teachers still provide assistance to those that need it.  Setting up social structure to support basic predictable requirements, or identifying and eliminating impediments to managing requirements, is not the same as establishing negative expectations or calling individuals worthless. 

Granted, expectations are important and negative expectations will often come true; throwing someone in the deep end and yelling "I know you can learn to swim" while they drown, however, is irresponsible.  We fail to provide structured education about the most important elements of life - making food, handling waste, managing personal finances, communicating, relationships, dealing with emotions - and we leave this task to the economy!  Are blogs, hucksters, corporate "education" affiliates, and tv personalities really our best swim coaches?

In this country we have legions of social workers, community organizers, nonprofits, outreach organizations, churches, charities and advocates like you.  Is there ever a point where you would concede that enough is enough and accept that certain percentage of the population will be poor regardless?  Or would you continue to expend resources indefinitely to ensure that every person lives a structured, comfortable life regardless of their personal choices along the way?

You can blow away the smoke but the fire will burn on.  Social workers, community organizers, nonprofits, outreach organizations, churches, charities, and advocates are burning in the fire of corporate consumption and greed.  Corporations are externalization machines, fanning the flames and wreaking havoc on everything but their bottom line: the environment, the society, the individual.

I understand that individualism can seem appealing b/c it provides some sense of agency in a complex world driven by obfuscation and profit.  But individual solutions will never allow us to address the flames, we will continue to blow smoke and burn.

Extinguishing the ember - corporate overreach - is the only solution to poverty.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 02, 2015, 09:35:13 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 02, 2015, 09:43:44 AM
Networking - interact with other people to exchange information and develop contacts, especially to further one's career.

I'm not positive & you may want to fact check it, but I'm pretty sure our Homo Sapien ancestors figured this out.
Well, for some Homo Sapiens this is:
Doing things you dont know about, with people you see no reason to meet, and talk with them about topics you are not interested in, using a social code that is a total mystery to you in situations you tremble from fear.

Even if you find a teacher who will hold your hand for the 2-3 years it would take you minimum to learn that and even if you would found the time and money to do it and even if you found the strength somewhere to bear it - there is no guaratee that is works.

It's no wonder that only a very few people manage that.

And what's the alternative?  Take no action, do not seek to improve ones situation, accept failure? Honestly I'm having a hard time even responding to you because your outlook saddens me.

It's all about attitude & desire.  These deeply personal attributes can be developed if one is willing to put in the effort and seek out help.  That's what I choose to believe anyway.  You can choose to believe that too, and for your own sake, I hope you do.  Good luck.
Ah, okay, I thought the "why" intersted you. If that isn't the case, we could have saved the time.



Of course, if you are just willing to put the effort in and seek out help, you can do everything. End wars, stop the climate change, end hunger.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 09:47:33 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.

Bro, you have provided very little to this conversation besides snipey, blithe, callous sarcasm.  Please depart with my best wishes.

There will always be someone that has less than someone else.  There was poverty before corporations.  Understood.
 If you can say that it is justice for one person to have $81,000,000,000 and for 47,000,000 people in the US to require government assistance for food, shelter, and clothing, then your opinion is noted and you will likely not provide much benefit to this discussion.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on January 02, 2015, 09:56:59 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the complete lack of forgiveness the general public has for those who make mistakes in their lives.  Everyone thinks that if one is not 100% perfect in every way, then one is completely useless and should be left to the wolves.  I know that Christianity -- which promotes forgiveness as one of its central values -- isn't as popular as it used to be, but when did we all become so arrogant and callous?  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 10:06:44 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

TRUE!  There are better social services now to assist than in "ye olde olden tymes" (lol).  That change wasn't made available through individualism, though.

The reason I continue to argue is this: what is there to aspire to?  The middle class is unsatisfied, house poor, and fat.  Even the wealthy feel encroached on.  Corporate consumption, marketing, and the obfuscation of expense has driven us all batty!

MMM's message is powerful not b/c it makes us rich, but it demands that we step out of the normalized cycle of dissatisfaction, consumption, elation, and dissatisfaction that is supported by wage-slavery, billion dollar marketing campaigns created by psychologists, and horrible regulatory oversight.

Poor Folks are victims b/c we are all victims, but they experience the worst of it and are statistically less likely to escape it.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 02, 2015, 10:33:31 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the complete lack of forgiveness the general public has for those who make mistakes in their lives.  Everything thinks that if one is not 100% perfect in every way, then one is completely useless and should be left to the wolves.  I know that Christianity -- which promotes forgiveness as one of its central values -- isn't as popular as it used to be, but when did we all become so arrogant and callous?  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).
Except that isn't anywhere near true.  Folks are fatigued that despite the incredible number of safety nets available today there are always more excuses: "It's greedy corporations spending money advertising", "It's the Rich not paying their fair share" etc. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 10:54:14 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the complete lack of forgiveness the general public has for those who make mistakes in their lives.  Everything thinks that if one is not 100% perfect in every way, then one is completely useless and should be left to the wolves.  I know that Christianity -- which promotes forgiveness as one of its central values -- isn't as popular as it used to be, but when did we all become so arrogant and callous?  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).
Except that isn't anywhere near true.  Folks are fatigued that despite the incredible number of safety nets available today there are always more excuses: "It's greedy corporations spending money advertising", "It's the Rich not paying their fair share" etc.

Your argument, then, is that we need to reduce/eliminate safety nets?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on January 02, 2015, 10:58:12 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the complete lack of forgiveness the general public has for those who make mistakes in their lives.  Everyone thinks that if one is not 100% perfect in every way, then one is completely useless and should be left to the wolves.  I know that Christianity -- which promotes forgiveness as one of its central values -- isn't as popular as it used to be, but when did we all become so arrogant and callous?  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).
Except that isn't anywhere near true.  Folks are fatigued that despite the incredible number of safety nets available today there are always more excuses: "It's greedy corporations spending money advertising", "It's the Rich not paying their fair share" etc.

Your argument, then, is that we need to reduce/eliminate safety nets?

The typical conservative knee-jerk response to anyone having difficulty seems to be "kick them while they are down."
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 11:01:44 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the complete lack of forgiveness the general public has for those who make mistakes in their lives.  Everyone thinks that if one is not 100% perfect in every way, then one is completely useless and should be left to the wolves.  I know that Christianity -- which promotes forgiveness as one of its central values -- isn't as popular as it used to be, but when did we all become so arrogant and callous?  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).
Except that isn't anywhere near true.  Folks are fatigued that despite the incredible number of safety nets available today there are always more excuses: "It's greedy corporations spending money advertising", "It's the Rich not paying their fair share" etc.

Your argument, then, is that we need to reduce/eliminate safety nets?

The typical conservative knee-jerk response to anyone having difficulty seems to be "kick them while they are down."

Unless it is a corporation, lol, then welfare is "stimulating the economy"--> (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/ (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/))
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 02, 2015, 11:04:35 AM
So before the firestorm of Corporate Advertising caused poverty, we still had poverty.

You've picked an interesting windmill to tilt at there Don.
And less opportunity to get out of it with no social welfare programs to help. Anyone remember the Great Depression (OK so I'm not THAT old :-)!) and the bread lines and massive homelessness? Until things like welfare programs and SS were enacted you pretty much had no other options but to do something, anything, to survive or die. In comparison, today's poor, if they don't suffer from physical or mental illness or drug addiction, have more opportunity then ever to advance in life - maybe not become rich or even middle class, but to have a working class life. Even those people who make very bad choices in their lives, like the person above who had a friend who had 4 kids before 25 by for different men, has opportunity. She can be on welfare and go to school to learn a trade until the kids are old enough to be on their own and then she can find employment. That's not something people had the option for back in ye olde olden tymes before social welfare programs.

Sometimes I have to wonder about the complete lack of forgiveness the general public has for those who make mistakes in their lives.  Everything thinks that if one is not 100% perfect in every way, then one is completely useless and should be left to the wolves.  I know that Christianity -- which promotes forgiveness as one of its central values -- isn't as popular as it used to be, but when did we all become so arrogant and callous?  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7).
Except that isn't anywhere near true.  Folks are fatigued that despite the incredible number of safety nets available today there are always more excuses: "It's greedy corporations spending money advertising", "It's the Rich not paying their fair share" etc.

Your argument, then, is that we need to reduce/eliminate safety nets?
Nope.  I think we need to outlaw corporations and all advertising to save the poor. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 11:21:42 AM
Poignant.  Glad we could convince you.  :D
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 02, 2015, 11:36:01 AM
There is one thing that didt crop up here (or I forget it) - for whatever reason.

Under the premise that poor means no (or not much) income and wealth, the only possibility to get away from beeing poor is to make money.
You can do that in 3 ways:
1) passive - not possible for poor
2) working self-employed - especially hard for poor people, because for most self-employed work you first need money to start and survive the first month
3) working for seomone else

But 3) simply cannot be the solution for ALL poor - there are more people who want to earn money then can be employed (and, for that goal, its the some for 2)
Even if poor A gets a job that just means that poor B, C and D cannot get this job. Or even that E lost its job.

Also, from mustachian perspective, we aim at making a lot less jobs by reducing consumption.

There is enough wealth to distribute.
The distribution through jobs is just impossible to succeed.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: BBub on January 02, 2015, 11:56:38 AM
I'm out.  This thread is full of whining, complaining wannabe revolutionaries grasping for a cause.  I'm going to go back to building my stash & associating with people who share my values.

Good luck with your war on poverty (but not too good because I'll be investing mostly in evil
Corporations).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on January 02, 2015, 12:15:59 PM
I know I've mentioned this elsewhere, but if we're going to practice Social Darwinism then we shouldn't be half-assed about it and just practice full-on Darwinism.  Then, when poor people don't have the economic skills to survive, they can resort to using their other "gifts" like physical strength or marksmanship to overpower "less fit" pencil-necks and take their money.  As far as I can tell, that's how the French Revolution happened and I could see it happening again with the way things are going in America right now.

Social safety nets aren't perfect solutions, but they are a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.  We have plenty of historical events that demonstrate this to us (Russian October Revolution, French Revolution, Chinese Maoist Revolution, constant turmoil in African and South American nations, etc.)  Either you provide people with the opportunity to escape poverty or they will kill you.  It's unpleasant, but that's how the real world works.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: infogoon on January 02, 2015, 12:41:42 PM
Either you provide people with the opportunity to escape poverty or they will kill you.  It's unpleasant, but that's how the real world works.

That seems to be the cycle. The reason that we invented things like inheritance taxes, food stamps, and socialism was to lengthen the amount of time between "a society is founded" and "the poor people in that society launch a revolution and kill everyone".
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 12:42:48 PM
I'm out.  This thread is full of whining, complaining wannabe revolutionaries grasping for a cause.  I'm going to go back to building my stash & associating with people who share my values.

Good luck with your war on poverty (but not too good because I'll be investing mostly in evil
Corporations).

Bye!  Glad our bullying revolutionism has shown effective!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 02, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
I really shouldn't be so flippant, but it is so easy to reflect the flippancy of others!

ARGUMENT HIGHLIGHTS:
- don't use "victim," try "survivor" to increase agency
- lazy and stupid will always exist
- those in poverty are choosing to remain in poverty even though plenty of opportunities exist
- projection bias can prevent perception of the real struggles of poverty
- people willingly eat McD's, against their own financial interests
- LENTILS!!! http://www.zazzle.com/keep+calm+lentils+mugs (http://www.zazzle.com/keep+calm+lentils+mugs)
- accountability for actions is a major problem in the US, not just for poor people
- we should be able to bash on bad choices that those in poverty make just like we bash on bad choices that rich folks make!
- food desserts exist (or not) that make it difficult for good food choices to be made
- inherited poverty passes traits from generation to generation (in this context, bad choices)
- junk food is a pleasure not a necessity
- your own social class can prevent you from trying to improve yourself
- funding schools with property taxes creates a vicious downward cycle
- capitalism is what gives us everything we have
- local accountability and a minimum of waste on administrative empires through reduction of federal agency authority will decrease education problems
- if you don't graduate high school, you should not be considered a full citizen
- information is available, so it is your fault if you don't seek it out
- poor + vehicle = complainypants
- we need to eat poor peoples' babies
- we are all stupid and lazy, but those in poverty have less allowances
- focusing on children is the most efficient solution
- A school lunch program, properly run, would ensure that students from poor households get at least one good meal a day
- taking kids out of negative family homes is a complex solution, potentially helpful & potentially dangerous
- community is important to development
- Nature vs Nurture is the essential argument of poverty
- Battlers in Australia CHOOSE to live life the toughest they can!
- it is difficult to escape poverty, but possible if you are stubborn and have a strong will
- society should better manage the mentally unstable
- the key is determining the optimal point of equilibrium between expended resources and actual results
- Canada is awesome/horrible
- saying NO to ads is easy and effective
- the education to say NO to ads is a family responsibility
- pygmalion effect supposes that improvement is impeded when expectations are low
- social nets are a drain on society and are ineffective

PHEW!  I'm sweating.  Cheers to all.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: DarinC on January 02, 2015, 01:54:17 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.
That's flat out wrong in so many ways. Most people in poverty are there because of their situations, not because they're lazy or unintelligent.

Those situations can be due to physical or mental health problems, financial problems, factors in the environment, etc.. Sure, there will be bad apples, but in general poor people are not unintelligent or lazy.

Many people eat fast food because it's high calorie, tastes OK, and they don't have the time for anything else. In most places a 1.5 wage family at whatever the local minimum is will have trouble allocating time for anything, as well as stress, etc.. Fast food is just that, fast. This is compounded in some areas by having few grocery stores nearby. If you don't have a car, and the McBurgers is .5 miles away, while the supermarket is 3.5 miles away, and you have to watch the kids for the day then go to your 20 hour/week night shift, guess which place you'll likely choose.

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/why-are-low-income-and-food-insecure-people-vulnerable-to-obesity/

There are substantial barriers to people in poverty getting out of poverty. It's not impossible, but it is difficult for normal healthy poor people, and for people who are poor in part because they have problems with mental and/or physical health, it can be incredibly difficult if not impossible.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lithy on January 04, 2015, 06:03:43 AM
In regard to the client earlier in the thread, she needed a new job.  Not even a new job with higher pay.  Because of the transportation required, she is effectively choosing to work for $8/hour.  If she could walk or bike to work, its more like $7/hour. 

Current Job
$12/hour
30 hours per week
$360/week income
~$140/week in vehicle expenses alone
$220/week net remaining income after simply going between work and home

Theoretical Job
$8/hour
30 hours per week
$240/week
~$25/week in transportation expenses (bus pass of a little over $100/month)
$215/week net remaining income after simply going between work and home

Preferable Job
$10/hour (this should be easily attainable in a lot of different administrative support jobs)
30 hours per week
$300 hours per week
Choose housing within walking/biking distance or if nearby housing is too expensive choose to live on a public transit line that services the job
She now just about ~15k annually and while not luxurious living, with the additional food stamp and other benefits can be a workable situation until her education is finished.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lithy on January 04, 2015, 06:41:52 AM
A couple contentions reading through a lot of the posts about advertising. 

The first is advertising in public.  Advertising outdoors or in a place where you can see it when you leave your house is not "public" space.  That is, land owned by the people.  And while in principal I disagree with any public ownership of land it exists so there is a need to distinguish it from private land.  Public lands are held by the government in trust for the people (in theory).  Most land like this comprises our national park system.  Unless I just haven't been to the right national parks, I never see billboards in them, I might see small 'corporate sponsorship' type signage but that's about all I can think of.  Private property in the public space should not be* considered public in the sense of public property. 

*Of course with anti-smoking laws creating a hazy distinction between what people consider public, I feel as if this distinction is lost on most people.  A restaurant is not public space, it is private property that you are allowed on to receive a service if you choose.  If you don't like the smoke you can choose to not patronize the restaurant, the restaurateur would have no right to pass a law stating that you had to eat at his restaurant.  So, the idea that the client would have the right to tell the property owner how to manage his property seems preposterous to me.

The second thing to address is that mythical corporations seem to shoulder all of the blame when it comes to government policy.  Much like our poor helpless poor folks, it seems as if government politicians are hopeless and helpless in the face of advertising.  They only do what the corporations tell them to, or so I hear.  Mindless drones that jump when told how high.  Certainly none of the blame for how our bastardized capitalism works can be laid at their feet because how can you say no to a golf weekend?  Instead of asking your congressperson to pass a law banning whatever form of corporate advertising you don't like, how about instead following their votes and electing a principled representative that would vote in your favor?  Maybe we could ask them how voting for corn subsidies which mostly help to keep cheap foods cheap is helping the poorest people who are buying nutrient deficient foods with benefits.  I suppose because then you can't be a complainypants that will talk simultaneously about how all of the money in politics has corrupted it but that voting for a third party is throwing a vote away.

This conversation seems to get frustrating when posters want 'corporations' to shoulder the blame for how people live.  Not even poor people, all people.  We are all just robots programmed by mythical corporations to run on Big Macs and recharge in front of a glowing screen for a few hours each night.  Corporations have managed to infiltrate every portion of our lives that they'll offer you a free night at the Holiday Inn with 5 nights stayed with your mistress when they notice your pattern of being 'out of town' every Wednesday night.  Thus we need myriad social programs to combat the evil burden that corporations place on us.   

Tell me how these programs will be effective, tell me how long a person can receive these benefits, and tell me how people will be expected to use these programs as a step up rather than a bench to sit on.  I once told my family when the Swiss guaranteed minimum income proposition came up that I would gladly stop work tomorrow if the government told me I would get ~10k/year no questions asked.  They seemed upset that as an able bodied person I wouldn't work, I simply asked if that wasn't allowed under the proposed law. 

Long, mostly ranty post over.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: GetItRight on January 04, 2015, 07:24:14 AM
Poor folks make their choices. Yes advertising such as McDonalds can be tempting. The flipside is eatng at McDonalds can be relatively cheap too... Three $1 doubles is enough to sustain a person all day. Sure, lentils and rice are cheaper but my point is fast food does not have to be expensive, that's another choice. McDonalds spends $1 billion on advertising, but it is an entirely voluntary transcation that can be relatively cheap if you want it to, or you can opt to to partake.

The biggest evil that keeps the poor down is the government. The government subsidizes poverty to the tune of Trillions of dollars annually, so of course you get more of it. Poor people are used to living a poor lifestyle... So if they get a bunch of stolen money for doing nothing, it may not be worth actually working. Welfare, unemployment, social security/disability, food stamps/EBT, etc... Fit certain criteria and it can really pay well. Have a kid or two and get a raise, get to spend all your time with your kids. Heck that sounds like Mustachian values right there. This payout for fatherless families has destroyed the family structure of poor families, particularly hardest hit are black folks. Young black men cannot compete with what the government pays when they are just starting out with $10/hr or less jobs, so families are broken, crime promoted, children suffer, and the cycle continues for generations.

The government has a vested interest in keeping these people poor and dependent. The poor have a vested interest in the government stealing money from others at gunpoint and giving it to them. See how that works?

Reading material:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/)
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf)
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/03/05/black-people-duped-n1803339/page/full (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/03/05/black-people-duped-n1803339/page/full)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth/)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/thomas-sowell/the-dissolution-of-the-black-family/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/thomas-sowell/the-dissolution-of-the-black-family/)
http://www.garynorth.com/public/11601.cfm (http://www.garynorth.com/public/11601.cfm)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 04, 2015, 08:08:50 AM
Poor folks make their choices. Yes advertising such as McDonalds can be tempting. The flipside is eatng at McDonalds can be relatively cheap too... Three $1 doubles is enough to sustain a person all day. Sure, lentils and rice are cheaper but my point is fast food does not have to be expensive, that's another choice. McDonalds spends $1 billion on advertising, but it is an entirely voluntary transcation that can be relatively cheap if you want it to, or you can opt to to partake.

The biggest evil that keeps the poor down is the government. The government subsidizes poverty to the tune of Trillions of dollars annually, so of course you get more of it. Poor people are used to living a poor lifestyle... So if they get a bunch of stolen money for doing nothing, it may not be worth actually working. Welfare, unemployment, social security/disability, food stamps/EBT, etc... Fit certain criteria and it can really pay well. Have a kid or two and get a raise, get to spend all your time with your kids. Heck that sounds like Mustachian values right there. This payout for fatherless families has destroyed the family structure of poor families, particularly hardest hit are black folks. Young black men cannot compete with what the government pays when they are just starting out with $10/hr or less jobs, so families are broken, crime promoted, children suffer, and the cycle continues for generations.

The government has a vested interest in keeping these people poor and dependent. The poor have a vested interest in the government stealing money from others at gunpoint and giving it to them. See how that works?

Reading material:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/)
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf)
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/03/05/black-people-duped-n1803339/page/full (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/03/05/black-people-duped-n1803339/page/full)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth/)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/thomas-sowell/the-dissolution-of-the-black-family/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/thomas-sowell/the-dissolution-of-the-black-family/)
http://www.garynorth.com/public/11601.cfm (http://www.garynorth.com/public/11601.cfm)

Beeing a slave is even better! Here you dont have to worry about money or how to get food, thats the responsibility of the slave holder! No worries at all as a slave!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 04, 2015, 08:41:51 AM
A couple contentions reading through a lot of the posts about advertising. 

The first is advertising in public.  Advertising outdoors or in a place where you can see it when you leave your house is not "public" space.  That is, land owned by the people.  And while in principal I disagree with any public ownership of land it exists so there is a need to distinguish it from private land.  Public lands are held by the government in trust for the people (in theory).  Most land like this comprises our national park system.  Unless I just haven't been to the right national parks, I never see billboards in them, I might see small 'corporate sponsorship' type signage but that's about all I can think of.  Private property in the public space should not be* considered public in the sense of public property

*Of course with anti-smoking laws creating a hazy distinction between what people consider public, I feel as if this distinction is lost on most people.  A restaurant is not public space, it is private property that you are allowed on to receive a service if you choose.  If you don't like the smoke you can choose to not patronize the restaurant, the restaurateur would have no right to pass a law stating that you had to eat at his restaurant.  So, the idea that the client would have the right to tell the property owner how to manage his property seems preposterous to me.

The second thing to address is that mythical corporations seem to shoulder all of the blame when it comes to government policy.  Much like our poor helpless poor folks, it seems as if government politicians are hopeless and helpless in the face of advertising.  They only do what the corporations tell them to, or so I hear.  Mindless drones that jump when told how high.  Certainly none of the blame for how our bastardized capitalism works can be laid at their feet because how can you say no to a golf weekend?  Instead of asking your congressperson to pass a law banning whatever form of corporate advertising you don't like, how about instead following their votes and electing a principled representative that would vote in your favor?  Maybe we could ask them how voting for corn subsidies which mostly help to keep cheap foods cheap is helping the poorest people who are buying nutrient deficient foods with benefits.  I suppose because then you can't be a complainypants that will talk simultaneously about how all of the money in politics has corrupted it but that voting for a third party is throwing a vote away.

This conversation seems to get frustrating when posters want 'corporations' to shoulder the blame for how people live.  Not even poor people, all people.  We are all just robots programmed by mythical corporations to run on Big Macs and recharge in front of a glowing screen for a few hours each night.  Corporations have managed to infiltrate every portion of our lives that they'll offer you a free night at the Holiday Inn with 5 nights stayed with your mistress when they notice your pattern of being 'out of town' every Wednesday night.  Thus we need myriad social programs to combat the evil burden that corporations place on us.   

Tell me how these programs will be effective, tell me how long a person can receive these benefits, and tell me how people will be expected to use these programs as a step up rather than a bench to sit on.  I once told my family when the Swiss guaranteed minimum income proposition came up that I would gladly stop work tomorrow if the government told me I would get ~10k/year no questions asked.  They seemed upset that as an able bodied person I wouldn't work, I simply asked if that wasn't allowed under the proposed law. 

Long, mostly ranty post over.

Great thoughts!

1) Public/Private:  what constitutes public space?  You mention national parks, but that seems depressingly narrow.  That would mean that I have no right to share space unless I am in a home that I pay for/rent or in a national park.  That's depressing.  I'm sure I'm missing something, so please explain further!

2) Governments/Corporations:  in 2014, lobbying expenses were $2,410,000,000 and there were 11,509 registered lobbyists.  It is not imagination to say that corporations are dominating our legislative process. (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/ (https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/))  You would be hard pressed to find a "successful" politician that has not received funding from corporate sponsors, no matter how you vote.  Our information system is set-up to obfuscate connections between politicians and donors.  Our media is supposed to bridge this gap but often is owned by the same corporate interests.

Poor folks make their choices. Yes advertising such as McDonalds can be tempting. The flipside is eatng at McDonalds can be relatively cheap too... Three $1 doubles is enough to sustain a person all day. Sure, lentils and rice are cheaper but my point is fast food does not have to be expensive, that's another choice. McDonalds spends $1 billion on advertising, but it is an entirely voluntary transcation that can be relatively cheap if you want it to, or you can opt to to partake.

The biggest evil that keeps the poor down is the government. The government subsidizes poverty to the tune of Trillions of dollars annually, so of course you get more of it. Poor people are used to living a poor lifestyle... So if they get a bunch of stolen money for doing nothing, it may not be worth actually working. Welfare, unemployment, social security/disability, food stamps/EBT, etc... Fit certain criteria and it can really pay well. Have a kid or two and get a raise, get to spend all your time with your kids. Heck that sounds like Mustachian values right there. This payout for fatherless families has destroyed the family structure of poor families, particularly hardest hit are black folks. Young black men cannot compete with what the government pays when they are just starting out with $10/hr or less jobs, so families are broken, crime promoted, children suffer, and the cycle continues for generations.

The government has a vested interest in keeping these people poor and dependent. The poor have a vested interest in the government stealing money from others at gunpoint and giving it to them. See how that works?

Reading material:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/)
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf)
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/03/05/black-people-duped-n1803339/page/full (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/03/05/black-people-duped-n1803339/page/full)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/thomas-sowell/the-minimum-wage-is-anti-black-youth/)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/thomas-sowell/the-dissolution-of-the-black-family/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/thomas-sowell/the-dissolution-of-the-black-family/)
http://www.garynorth.com/public/11601.cfm (http://www.garynorth.com/public/11601.cfm)

Interesting.  Is your opinion that Corporations are more altruistic?  Do they have less of an interest in oppression?  Perpetuation of an image-based consumption strategy that drives debt, despair, helplessness, and division of the populace is far more destructive than a reactionary assistance strategy.

I think revealing political/corporate affiliation is one of the strongest steps to take towards offering choice.  Until then, corporations are government are oppression.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: GetItRight on January 04, 2015, 09:12:47 AM
Interesting.  Is your opinion that Corporations are more altruistic?  Do they have less of an interest in oppression?  Perpetuation of an image-based consumption strategy that drives debt, despair, helplessness, and division of the populace is far more destructive than a reactionary assistance strategy.

I think revealing political/corporate affiliation is one of the strongest steps to take towards offering choice.  Until then, corporations are government are oppression.

Altruism is irrelevant. Neither government or business is inherently altruistic. Part of my point was that government relies on the poor for political power (the tyranny of the majority), the poor (not transient poor that move up) are content at that level (bread and circus, foodstamps and subsidized sports).

A business may be considered somewhat altruistic in the sense that to survive a business must produce something of value to a customer, must hire and compensate people to produce that product or service, etc. All of this is voluntary interaction mutually beneficial to the business owner(s), stock holders, employees, and customers. If it is not beneficial to all parties, the business eventually fails. There is no coercion in business, only voluntary interactions.

(https://40.media.tumblr.com/3a3aa3449daaf1bb6953e7ddbbbe2c46/tumblr_mjyodfzsqr1r54qfqo1_500.jpg)

Business has no interest in oppression. If you think they do, go to any board of directors and propose borrowing the billions or more in capital required to built an army and that it be used for oppression, either of whatever individuals or of other businesses. They will look at you like you grew a second head. It would never happen for so many reasons it's just flat out absurd for a business to have any interest in oppression.

Government by it's very nature is not altruistic and is oppressive. What is government? Government is the monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area. Government is powerless unless it is willing to cage or kill over every law it creates.

The political/corporate affiliation you elude to can only exist when the government has used its monopoly on violence to extort the funds necessary to raise an army. Then there is a standing army (police, military, etc.) paid for with money stolen with the threat of violence and can enforce whatever laws and actions can be bought. Such a system is ripe for corruption, which is why you have the massive welfare/warfare state. Part of that is welfare to individuals, required for support of politicians to maintain the status quo. The other part is corporate welfare, which includes "defense", medicaid/medicare/obamacare, bank bailouts, auto manufacturer bailouts, etc... Until government steps back toa Constitutional and ethical role of protecting individual liberty there will be no end to the use of force to steal money from the productive and give it to the unproductive, while the government take a nice fat slice off the top to line their own pockets.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8505/8456628030_15b335e9c3.jpg)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 04, 2015, 09:45:09 AM
GetItRight, that was awesome!  Government is not doing us favors.  They provide false rhetoric while growing richer.  They utilize disagreement to prevent real discussion.  They lie, cheat, and steal.

What I don't understand is how you think business is dealing more positively with the situation.  Can you explain?  From what I have researched, corporations take great pride in "externalizing" as much expense as possible while gaining profit.  How does that prevent oppression?  Consider the privatization of water.  Does it make sense to allow a corporation control over this natural resource, allow a government to determine the system of distribution, or require individuals to figure it out themselves?

For me it comes down to understanding the stated goal of either business or government.  Businesses exist for profit, which requires reduced expense (not OVERALL reduction, just reduction of responsibility for expense: thus, externalization).  Government exists to protect, support, and encourage life, liberty, and happiness.  Whether they are fully accomplishing the stated goal is another story.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 04, 2015, 12:35:10 PM
GetItRight, that was awesome!  Government is not doing us favors.  They provide false rhetoric while growing richer.  They utilize disagreement to prevent real discussion.  They lie, cheat, and steal.

What I don't understand is how you think business is dealing more positively with the situation.  Can you explain?  From what I have researched, corporations take great pride in "externalizing" as much expense as possible while gaining profit.  How does that prevent oppression?  Consider the privatization of water.  Does it make sense to allow a corporation control over this natural resource, allow a government to determine the system of distribution, or require individuals to figure it out themselves?

For me it comes down to understanding the stated goal of either business or government.  Businesses exist for profit, which requires reduced expense (not OVERALL reduction, just reduction of responsibility for expense: thus, externalization).  Government exists to protect, support, and encourage life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Whether they are fully accomplishing the stated goal is another story.
Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: DollarBill on January 04, 2015, 07:10:51 PM
If I was provided food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash then I too would do nothing. Where is the incentive?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: NumberJohnny5 on January 04, 2015, 07:19:30 PM
If I was provided food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash then I too would do nothing. Where is the incentive?

Would you truly do nothing? Not even as a hobby? Lots of innovations came about as someone's side project. Of course, a lot also came about due to people being slaves to their employer. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: DollarBill on January 04, 2015, 08:30:11 PM
All of those innovations were to better their life in some way. If everything was given to me then yes I would not do anything. I would just complain how bad I had it incase I could get more...why would you do more if you already had everything you wanted??
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 05, 2015, 02:25:21 AM
If I was provided food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash then I too would do nothing. Where is the incentive?
In the human nature.
And if you woudl do nothgin, where is the problem anyway? That would save a lot of pollution then.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 05, 2015, 03:15:26 AM
GetItRight, that was awesome!  Government is not doing us favors.  They provide false rhetoric while growing richer.  They utilize disagreement to prevent real discussion.  They lie, cheat, and steal.

What I don't understand is how you think business is dealing more positively with the situation.  Can you explain?  From what I have researched, corporations take great pride in "externalizing" as much expense as possible while gaining profit.  How does that prevent oppression?  Consider the privatization of water.  Does it make sense to allow a corporation control over this natural resource, allow a government to determine the system of distribution, or require individuals to figure it out themselves?

For me it comes down to understanding the stated goal of either business or government.  Businesses exist for profit, which requires reduced expense (not OVERALL reduction, just reduction of responsibility for expense: thus, externalization).  Government exists to protect, support, and encourage life, liberty, and happiness.  Whether they are fully accomplishing the stated goal is another story.
Businesses have to deal more positively than government or they cease to be a business.  Worst case for government is some elected officials are replaced with new bodies who end up in the same routine of being beholden to special interests.  If you want to have an impact on our society, I think you start with real campaign finance reform (like no one donates, each candidate is given a small amount of money to advertise and that is it).  The other thing that would help is term limits for Congress.  The position was never meant to be a career.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: DollarBill on January 05, 2015, 05:55:13 AM
If I was provided food, water, clothing, education, housing, healthcare, air conditioning, cell phones, internet, cash then I too would do nothing. Where is the incentive?
In the human nature.
And if you woudl do nothgin, where is the problem anyway? That would save a lot of pollution then.

What??
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 05, 2015, 10:11:05 AM
What what?
Have you never heard of the word motivation or pollution?
Please explain your confusion.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: wepner on January 06, 2015, 05:01:25 PM
Business has no interest in oppression. If you think they do, go to any board of directors and propose borrowing the billions or more in capital required to built an army and that it be used for oppression, either of whatever individuals or of other businesses. They will look at you like you grew a second head. It would never happen for so many reasons it's just flat out absurd for a business to have any interest in oppression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion

Literally one of the first corporations seemed to take quite an interest in oppression. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on January 06, 2015, 09:01:27 PM
Business has no interest in oppression. If you think they do, go to any board of directors and propose borrowing the billions or more in capital required to built an army and that it be used for oppression, either of whatever individuals or of other businesses. They will look at you like you grew a second head. It would never happen for so many reasons it's just flat out absurd for a business to have any interest in oppression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion

Literally one of the first corporations seemed to take quite an interest in oppression.

Plenty of examples in American history of corporations hiring armed men to oppress people working for them.

Corporations - like any human-based organization with wealth and power - has to be kept in check or it will run roughshod over people.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kyle Schuant on January 07, 2015, 12:54:16 AM
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/3a3aa3449daaf1bb6953e7ddbbbe2c46/tumblr_mjyodfzsqr1r54qfqo1_500.jpg)

Possible. Not necessary.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lithy on January 07, 2015, 02:52:50 AM
Business has no interest in oppression. If you think they do, go to any board of directors and propose borrowing the billions or more in capital required to built an army and that it be used for oppression, either of whatever individuals or of other businesses. They will look at you like you grew a second head. It would never happen for so many reasons it's just flat out absurd for a business to have any interest in oppression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion

Literally one of the first corporations seemed to take quite an interest in oppression.

Plenty of examples in American history of corporations hiring armed men to oppress people working for them.

Corporations - like any human-based organization with wealth and power - has to be kept in check or it will run roughshod over people.

By who though?  The government?  In both cases mentioned above, the corporation was given preferential treatment by the government. 

I won't say that business can do no wrong or that it is moralistic, but when held to the same standards as the people, it has very few choices but to be generally good (or at least not bad).  When the government acts in collusion with business you tend to create problems.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 07, 2015, 07:24:16 AM
1) Oppression does not require an army.

2) I'd like to flip the burden to the "business is beautiful" crowd: name one corporation that has not been shown to have horrible practices regarding either nature, society, or individuals.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: wepner on January 07, 2015, 07:41:46 AM
Business has no interest in oppression. If you think they do, go to any board of directors and propose borrowing the billions or more in capital required to built an army and that it be used for oppression, either of whatever individuals or of other businesses. They will look at you like you grew a second head. It would never happen for so many reasons it's just flat out absurd for a business to have any interest in oppression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion

Literally one of the first corporations seemed to take quite an interest in oppression.

Plenty of examples in American history of corporations hiring armed men to oppress people working for them.

Corporations - like any human-based organization with wealth and power - has to be kept in check or it will run roughshod over people.

By who though?  The government?  In both cases mentioned above, the corporation was given preferential treatment by the government. 

I won't say that business can do no wrong or that it is moralistic, but when held to the same standards as the people, it has very few choices but to be generally good (or at least not bad).  When the government acts in collusion with business you tend to create problems.

By who though? The government?

Please explain what preferential treatment the East India company got, and how amassing an army of thousands of private soldiers naturally follows that preferential treatment.

Are you saying if the English government didn't exist that the same group of rich dudes wouldn't have pooled their money in the same exact way and tried to gain the resources using the same strong arm tactics they ended up using? What makes you think that?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lithy on January 07, 2015, 08:47:39 AM
Business has no interest in oppression. If you think they do, go to any board of directors and propose borrowing the billions or more in capital required to built an army and that it be used for oppression, either of whatever individuals or of other businesses. They will look at you like you grew a second head. It would never happen for so many reasons it's just flat out absurd for a business to have any interest in oppression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion

Literally one of the first corporations seemed to take quite an interest in oppression.

Plenty of examples in American history of corporations hiring armed men to oppress people working for them.

Corporations - like any human-based organization with wealth and power - has to be kept in check or it will run roughshod over people.

By who though?  The government?  In both cases mentioned above, the corporation was given preferential treatment by the government. 

I won't say that business can do no wrong or that it is moralistic, but when held to the same standards as the people, it has very few choices but to be generally good (or at least not bad).  When the government acts in collusion with business you tend to create problems.

By who though? The government?

Please explain what preferential treatment the East India company got, and how amassing an army of thousands of private soldiers naturally follows that preferential treatment.

Are you saying if the English government didn't exist that the same group of rich dudes wouldn't have pooled their money in the same exact way and tried to gain the resources using the same strong arm tactics they ended up using? What makes you think that?

EIC had a royal charter for a monopoly on Indian trade for nearly 100 years before the crown attempted to allow competition.  Of course, by that point they were locking the barn after the cow was out, so they renewed the charter for another 100+ years.  They had sole rights to trade, there was no one to subjugate except Indians.  Had there been competing companies, I doubt the crown would have let them slaughter each other for territorial control. 

In any case, it looks to me like they began using troops in 1750 and instead of being held accountable the crown simply signed on in 1773.  According to a regulatory act, "acquisition of sovereignty by the subjects of the Crown is on behalf of the Crown and not in its own right."

A government not being held accountable by its people can commit acts like the EIC in India.  So yes, you would have to rely on the government to treat people (and by extension, companies) equally.  If they don't, they should be held accountable by vote or revolution.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 07, 2015, 10:08:10 AM
1) Oppression does not require an army.

2) I'd like to flip the burden to the "business is beautiful" crowd: name one corporation that has not been shown to have horrible practices regarding either nature, society, or individuals.
Deborah Grooms Photography http://www.deborahgrooms.com/ couldn't find any complaints about horrible practices. 

Oh did you not mean an LLC?  How about Google?  Their goal is to be carbon neutral, I don't think they have had a huge negative impact on society and their employees are satisfied.  Of course their main business is the dreaded "advertising" you hate so much.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 07, 2015, 10:22:10 AM
1) Oppression does not require an army.

2) I'd like to flip the burden to the "business is beautiful" crowd: name one corporation that has not been shown to have horrible practices regarding either nature, society, or individuals.
Deborah Grooms Photography http://www.deborahgrooms.com/ couldn't find any complaints about horrible practices. 

Oh did you not mean an LLC?  How about Google?  Their goal is to be carbon neutral, I don't think they have had a huge negative impact on society and their employees are satisfied.  Of course their main business is the dreaded "advertising" you hate so much.

Google owns you, bro. 

- http://www.techvibes.com/blog/google-owns-you-2014-04-22 (http://www.techvibes.com/blog/google-owns-you-2014-04-22)
- http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_ways_google_is_destroying_privacy_and_collecting_your_data_partner/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_ways_google_is_destroying_privacy_and_collecting_your_data_partner/)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 07, 2015, 11:37:50 AM
1) Oppression does not require an army.

2) I'd like to flip the burden to the "business is beautiful" crowd: name one corporation that has not been shown to have horrible practices regarding either nature, society, or individuals.
Deborah Grooms Photography http://www.deborahgrooms.com/ couldn't find any complaints about horrible practices. 

Oh did you not mean an LLC?  How about Google?  Their goal is to be carbon neutral, I don't think they have had a huge negative impact on society and their employees are satisfied.  Of course their main business is the dreaded "advertising" you hate so much.
Google is constantly syping on people, not respecting laws by democratic governments and so on.
Google is definitely NOT not evil.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 07, 2015, 11:48:17 AM
1) Oppression does not require an army.

2) I'd like to flip the burden to the "business is beautiful" crowd: name one corporation that has not been shown to have horrible practices regarding either nature, society, or individuals.
Deborah Grooms Photography http://www.deborahgrooms.com/ couldn't find any complaints about horrible practices. 

Oh did you not mean an LLC?  How about Google?  Their goal is to be carbon neutral, I don't think they have had a huge negative impact on society and their employees are satisfied.  Of course their main business is the dreaded "advertising" you hate so much.

Google owns you, bro. 

- http://www.techvibes.com/blog/google-owns-you-2014-04-22 (http://www.techvibes.com/blog/google-owns-you-2014-04-22)
- http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_ways_google_is_destroying_privacy_and_collecting_your_data_partner/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/4_ways_google_is_destroying_privacy_and_collecting_your_data_partner/)
Lol, just wanted to see if you were paying attention.  I picked them specifically based on your hatred of all things advertising.  Google takes that to infinity.

You didn't find any dirt on Debbie Grooms though did you?  Her business is a corporation.

As for Google, they own you, they only rent me.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: libertarian4321 on January 07, 2015, 01:26:29 PM


Poor Folks are victims b/c we are all victims, but they experience the worst of it and are statistically less likely to escape it.

Damn it.  I was born poor, so there is no way I can get ahead.  I may as well just give up.

And I thought that after the first million or two, I was doing okay.  Guess I was wrong.

Now, I realize I'm just another victim of evil corporations and advertising (or whatever this guy was ranting about).

Boo Hoo
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on January 07, 2015, 08:07:47 PM
2) I'd like to flip the burden to the "business is beautiful" crowd: name one corporation that has not been shown to have horrible practices regarding either nature, society, or individuals.

Tactics, Inc.   It was a great company to work for or hire.  Treated its customers and employees well.   Didn't pollute, oppress, etc.
Software Research and Design.  My own company.   Haven't oppressed anyone yet.  Ditto on pollution. 
Just hired a plumber and an electrician.   They both own their own companies.   Great work, good price, good service.
I run into fine corporations all the time.

The world is full of them.

Every labor union is incorporated...  (Though some of them have been oppressive...)
Most non-profits are incorporated...

The poster's point above is inane.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: iris lily on January 08, 2015, 10:03:58 PM


Poor Folks are victims b/c we are all victims, but they experience the worst of it and are statistically less likely to escape it.

Damn it.  I was born poor, so there is no way I can get ahead.  I may as well just give up.

And I thought that after the first million or two, I was doing okay.  Guess I was wrong.

Now, I realize I'm just another victim of evil corporations and advertising (or whatever this guy was ranting about).

Boo Hoo

Just send me all of your money and fulfill your destiny. Stop fighting it!

  :)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 09, 2015, 02:13:34 AM
Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.

This is an old comment that I just came across, but I'm curious about it. Is there an example of this "modern Western feminism" that's particularly illustrative that you're able to share? My feeling is that anyone who feels this way is not actually a feminist, so I'd be interested to read examples of what you're objecting to to see if my feeling is accurate.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 09, 2015, 05:22:28 AM
Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.

This is an old comment that I just came across, but I'm curious about it. Is there an example of this "modern Western feminism" that's particularly illustrative that you're able to share? My feeling is that anyone who feels this way is not actually a feminist, so I'd be interested to read examples of what you're objecting to to see if my feeling is accurate.

Modern feminism seems to deny women's agency as a standard procedure, so no problem!

Choose to not pursue a career and focus on family? Brainwashed by the patriarchy!

Choose to become a nurse rather than an engineer? Societal pressures decided that for you!

Choose to do more than half the housework or child care in your relationship? Societal expectations of women, oh, and this is a Really Serious Problem that Society Needs to Fix!

Then of course there's demands for affirmative action, quotas on boards, women-only scholarships, etc.

And my personal favourite: Choose not to identify as a feminist? You clearly have no understanding of what feminism is, and would call yourself a feminist if only you were educated! In other words, the only correct conclusion a person can come to is to agree with feminism - anything else is a socially-pressured choice caused by the patriarchy and internalized misogyny.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 09, 2015, 05:29:14 AM
Bravo!  ^^^^
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: lakemom on January 09, 2015, 07:35:24 AM
Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.

This is an old comment that I just came across, but I'm curious about it. Is there an example of this "modern Western feminism" that's particularly illustrative that you're able to share? My feeling is that anyone who feels this way is not actually a feminist, so I'd be interested to read examples of what you're objecting to to see if my feeling is accurate.

Modern feminism seems to deny women's agency as a standard procedure, so no problem!

Choose to not pursue a career and focus on family? Brainwashed by the patriarchy!

Choose to become a nurse rather than an engineer? Societal pressures decided that for you!

Choose to do more than half the housework or child care in your relationship? Societal expectations of women, oh, and this is a Really Serious Problem that Society Needs to Fix!

Then of course there's demands for affirmative action, quotas on boards, women-only scholarships, etc.

And my personal favourite: Choose not to identify as a feminist? You clearly have no understanding of what feminism is, and would call yourself a feminist if only you were educated! In other words, the only correct conclusion a person can come to is to agree with feminism - anything else is a socially-pressured choice caused by the patriarchy and internalized misogyny.

Very well stated!!  For at least 25 years I've made the statement the REAL feminine empowerment is to support a woman in whatever her life choices are...whether becoming a stay at home parent to 6 or becoming a single rocket scientist.  NOT condemning all women who make traditional choices while exalting those who follow a "traditionally male" life path.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cassie on January 09, 2015, 11:23:46 AM
totally agree Spartana!!!!!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 09, 2015, 12:28:41 PM
Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.

This is an old comment that I just came across, but I'm curious about it. Is there an example of this "modern Western feminism" that's particularly illustrative that you're able to share? My feeling is that anyone who feels this way is not actually a feminist, so I'd be interested to read examples of what you're objecting to to see if my feeling is accurate.

Modern feminism seems to deny women's agency as a standard procedure, so no problem!

Choose to not pursue a career and focus on family? Brainwashed by the patriarchy!

Choose to become a nurse rather than an engineer? Societal pressures decided that for you!

Choose to do more than half the housework or child care in your relationship? Societal expectations of women, oh, and this is a Really Serious Problem that Society Needs to Fix!

Then of course there's demands for affirmative action, quotas on boards, women-only scholarships, etc.

And my personal favourite: Choose not to identify as a feminist? You clearly have no understanding of what feminism is, and would call yourself a feminist if only you were educated! In other words, the only correct conclusion a person can come to is to agree with feminism - anything else is a socially-pressured choice caused by the patriarchy and internalized misogyny.

You misunderstood me. When I said "is there an example," I meant an example of a self-described feminist actually saying these things, like in a book or article. Without actual quotes from actual feminists, your argument that "feminism treats women like incompetent children" remains unproven.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: marblejane on January 09, 2015, 12:36:50 PM
Bingo, Cressida.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on January 09, 2015, 12:44:54 PM
You misunderstood me. When I said "is there an example," I meant an example of a self-described feminist actually saying these things, like in a book or article. Without actual quotes from actual feminists, your argument that "feminism treats women like incompetent children" remains unproven.
Don't know whether Blonde Lawyer would describe herself as a feminist, but the comment in http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/looking-for-thoughts-or-advice-wife-taking-a-year-off-with-newborn/msg511483/#msg511483 seems an example of what Zikoris describes:

If she decides to quit work until the youngest goes back to school..or forever,  you should support that decision too.
Sorry, but I don't agree with the "or forever" part of your statement.  If they have enough money at that point to retire early and be financially independent than sure.  But I disagree that an able bodied adult that isn't taking care of the kids should just stay home all day and not contribute towards the family's end financial goal.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 09, 2015, 01:46:25 PM
Totally. It's the same problem I have with modern Western feminism - it treats women like incompetent children, incapable of making free decisions, needing all kinds of protection and support. I find that highly offensive to women.

This is an old comment that I just came across, but I'm curious about it. Is there an example of this "modern Western feminism" that's particularly illustrative that you're able to share? My feeling is that anyone who feels this way is not actually a feminist, so I'd be interested to read examples of what you're objecting to to see if my feeling is accurate.

Modern feminism seems to deny women's agency as a standard procedure, so no problem!

Choose to not pursue a career and focus on family? Brainwashed by the patriarchy!

Choose to become a nurse rather than an engineer? Societal pressures decided that for you!

Choose to do more than half the housework or child care in your relationship? Societal expectations of women, oh, and this is a Really Serious Problem that Society Needs to Fix!

Then of course there's demands for affirmative action, quotas on boards, women-only scholarships, etc.

And my personal favourite: Choose not to identify as a feminist? You clearly have no understanding of what feminism is, and would call yourself a feminist if only you were educated! In other words, the only correct conclusion a person can come to is to agree with feminism - anything else is a socially-pressured choice caused by the patriarchy and internalized misogyny.

You misunderstood me. When I said "is there an example," I meant an example of a self-described feminist actually saying these things, like in a book or article. Without actual quotes from actual feminists, your argument that "feminism treats women like incompetent children" remains unproven.
This article on the Jezebel site seems to tick many of the boxes mentioned above.  http://jezebel.com/5991343/the-feminist-housewife-is-such-bullshit

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-wives-are-helping-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

Or this one: http://gawker.com/kaley-cuoco-im-not-a-feminist-and-i-love-feeling-like-1676352429
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 09, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
]This article on the Jezebel site seems to tick many of the boxes mentioned above.  http://jezebel.com/5991343/the-feminist-housewife-is-such-bullshit

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-wives-are-helping-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

Or this one: http://gawker.com/kaley-cuoco-im-not-a-feminist-and-i-love-feeling-like-1676352429

Thank you, davisgang90. I will read these and comment when I have a bit more time.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 09, 2015, 11:04:41 PM
Modern feminism seems to deny women's agency as a standard procedure, so no problem!

Choose to not pursue a career and focus on family? Brainwashed by the patriarchy!

Choose to become a nurse rather than an engineer? Societal pressures decided that for you!

Choose to do more than half the housework or child care in your relationship? Societal expectations of women, oh, and this is a Really Serious Problem that Society Needs to Fix!

Then of course there's demands for affirmative action, quotas on boards, women-only scholarships, etc.

And my personal favourite: Choose not to identify as a feminist? You clearly have no understanding of what feminism is, and would call yourself a feminist if only you were educated! In other words, the only correct conclusion a person can come to is to agree with feminism - anything else is a socially-pressured choice caused by the patriarchy and internalized misogyny.

You misunderstood me. When I said "is there an example," I meant an example of a self-described feminist actually saying these things, like in a book or article. Without actual quotes from actual feminists, your argument that "feminism treats women like incompetent children" remains unproven.
This article on the Jezebel site seems to tick many of the boxes mentioned above.  http://jezebel.com/5991343/the-feminist-housewife-is-such-bullshit

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-wives-are-helping-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

Or this one: http://gawker.com/kaley-cuoco-im-not-a-feminist-and-i-love-feeling-like-1676352429

On the Jezebel piece: This article is written by a feminist. However, it does not treat women like incompetent children. Instead, it argues that, even though a particular woman might enjoy being a housewife, it is not helpful to spew gender stereotypes about which gender is better at housework.

On the Atlantic piece: This article is written by a feminist. However, it does not treat women like incompetent children. Instead, it argues that American society values paid work over housework, and that this is a particular problem because housework is so heavily gendered at present. It also argues that this is a particularly pernicious problem because nonworking wives are disproportionately wealthy, meaning that wealthy and powerful men are accustomed to having nonworking wives and therefore tend to believe that women as a class are unworthy (see “American society values paid work over housework,” above). The author suggests that part of the solution would be for women to stop “staying at home,” but she does ignore the fact that the other part of the solution would be for men to “stay home” in equal numbers.

On the Gawker piece: This article appears to be irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Look. I probed for further clarification from Zikoris because it makes me unhappy to see people claim that feminism is bad for women. Without feminism, women wouldn't be able to vote, employers could fire pregnant women, and job listings would be segregated by gender. Does anyone really want to go back to that? If not, stop shitting all over feminism. Feminism isn't perfect. Like most liberal causes, it's terrible at messaging and falls all over itself trying to get people to like it. But that doesn't mean it's not a good ideology at bottom.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 10, 2015, 05:31:49 AM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 03:27:23 PM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.

I don't agree with most of what you just wrote, but I'm not going to argue about it. When I said that feminism is bad at messaging, I meant that they're utterly unable to sell their product, a fact made painfully clear by the reluctance to adopt the label among the general public. Feminism took care of most of the easy stuff (the vote etc.), most of which involves women entering traditionally male spheres. The next step is obviously to work toward men entering traditionally female spheres, because we won't have achieved equality as a society until people don't even think in terms of "male" and "female" spheres anymore. But there's no organized move toward this, which baffles me.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Peacefulwarrior on January 10, 2015, 04:12:03 PM
What--there are no white people in poverty?!  Would you like to ban mcdonalds and force everyone to eat lentils?  The poor are poor for a reason--unintelligent and lazy.  They CHOOSE to eat at mcdonalds b/c they like the way it tastes and is "easier" than cooking.  They arent smart enough to realize "hey gee, eating this is making me both fatter and poorer at the same time...maybe I should eat some fucking vegetables!"  There is no "cure" for poverty.  Quit making excuses for people and labeling them a "victim."  It is up to people to be more intelligent and own up to their poor decisions.

It's definitely possible to go from an abusive, poor, non-loving, non-educative upbringing to the life of your dreams by being intelligent and working hard. No doubt about it. But it's much much harder than it is for people who was brought up in the opposite end of the spectrum, and thus much rarer. Your mindset is everything, and if you were brought up to believe that you were not worth a whole lot your mindset is most likely not in the best condition. It's still possible to turn everything upside down, but please remember that not everybody comes from the same background, and show them some respect.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 10, 2015, 05:19:16 PM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.

I don't agree with most of what you just wrote, but I'm not going to argue about it. When I said that feminism is bad at messaging, I meant that they're utterly unable to sell their product, a fact made painfully clear by the reluctance to adopt the label among the general public. Feminism took care of most of the easy stuff (the vote etc.), most of which involves women entering traditionally male spheres. The next step is obviously to work toward men entering traditionally female spheres, because we won't have achieved equality as a society until people don't even think in terms of "male" and "female" spheres anymore. But there's no organized move toward this, which baffles me.
What are these female spheres?  Nurse? Teacher? Homemaker? That has already happened.  Not sure what other sphere you mean.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Peacefulwarrior on January 10, 2015, 05:23:09 PM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.

I don't agree with most of what you just wrote, but I'm not going to argue about it. When I said that feminism is bad at messaging, I meant that they're utterly unable to sell their product, a fact made painfully clear by the reluctance to adopt the label among the general public. Feminism took care of most of the easy stuff (the vote etc.), most of which involves women entering traditionally male spheres. The next step is obviously to work toward men entering traditionally female spheres, because we won't have achieved equality as a society until people don't even think in terms of "male" and "female" spheres anymore. But there's no organized move toward this, which baffles me.
What are these female spheres?  Nurse? Teacher? Homemaker? That has already happened.  Not sure what other sphere you mean.

Deep down I'm sure she's talking about giving birth ;-)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 10, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
Quote
Look. I probed for further clarification from Zikoris because it makes me unhappy to see people claim that feminism is bad for women. Without feminism, women wouldn't be able to vote, employers could fire pregnant women, and job listings would be segregated by gender. Does anyone really want to go back to that? If not, stop shitting all over feminism. Feminism isn't perfect. Like most liberal causes, it's terrible at messaging and falls all over itself trying to get people to like it. But that doesn't mean it's not a good ideology at bottom.

This is a logically fallacious argument.

The United States government abolished slavery under a Republican president. By your logic, that means that black people should not oppose the modern Republican party - after all, does anyone want to go back to slavery?

It is irrelevant what feminism has done in the past. It is only relevant what feminists are doing now, and what positions are being put forward now.

And it turns out that a lot of people - men and women - disagree with mainstream feminist positions. For instance, it is a mainstream feminist position that the reason why women are a minority of STEM workers is because of discrimination. Never mind the fact that women in these fields get explicit preference and advantages.

What if you think that women - like men - have enough agency to make their own free choices? Then you come into conflict with feminist positions.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 05:55:54 PM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.

I don't agree with most of what you just wrote, but I'm not going to argue about it. When I said that feminism is bad at messaging, I meant that they're utterly unable to sell their product, a fact made painfully clear by the reluctance to adopt the label among the general public. Feminism took care of most of the easy stuff (the vote etc.), most of which involves women entering traditionally male spheres. The next step is obviously to work toward men entering traditionally female spheres, because we won't have achieved equality as a society until people don't even think in terms of "male" and "female" spheres anymore. But there's no organized move toward this, which baffles me.
What are these female spheres?  Nurse? Teacher? Homemaker? That has already happened.  Not sure what other sphere you mean.

No, it hasn't. There's immense societal pressure on men to be the breadwinner. Far, far, far more women than men work part-time or not at all. When there are as many male homemakers as there are female doctors and lawyers, we can talk.

I recognize that men *on this forum* are all trying their hardest to distance themselves from paid work, sort of by definition. But Mustachians are not typical, as we know.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 05:58:53 PM
Quote
Look. I probed for further clarification from Zikoris because it makes me unhappy to see people claim that feminism is bad for women. Without feminism, women wouldn't be able to vote, employers could fire pregnant women, and job listings would be segregated by gender. Does anyone really want to go back to that? If not, stop shitting all over feminism. Feminism isn't perfect. Like most liberal causes, it's terrible at messaging and falls all over itself trying to get people to like it. But that doesn't mean it's not a good ideology at bottom.

This is a logically fallacious argument.

The United States government abolished slavery under a Republican president. By your logic, that means that black people should oppose the modern Republican party - after all, does anyone want to go back to slavery?

It is irrelevant what feminism has done in the past. It is only relevant what feminists are doing now, and what positions are being put forward now.

And it turns out that a lot of people - men and women - disagree with mainstream feminist positions. For instance, it is a mainstream feminist position that the reason why women are a minority of STEM workers is because of discrimination. Never mind the fact that women in these fields get explicit preference and advantages.

What if you think that women - like men - have enough agency to make their own free choices? Then you come into conflict with feminist positions.

I was talking about feminism (the ideology), not feminists (the people). I did not defend the latter in my comments. So my argument was not fallacious.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 10, 2015, 06:01:56 PM
Quote
I was talking about feminism (the ideology), not feminists (the people). I did not defend the latter in my comments. So my argument was not fallacious.

It is still fallacious.

It makes no sense to claim that one must support feminist ideology now, simply because they support feminist positions of the past.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
Quote
I was talking about feminism (the ideology), not feminists (the people). I did not defend the latter in my comments. So my argument was not fallacious.

It is still fallacious.

It makes no sense to claim that one must support feminist ideology now, simply because they support feminist positions of the past.

I see where the confusion is. The feminist ideology, at bottom, is simply that men and women should be treated equally. That has not changed since women were first trying to get the vote. So again, my argument was not fallacious, since "men and women should not be treated equally" is not a defensible position. Rather, your argument is the incoherent one, because its premise is that feminist ideology has changed over time. It hasn't.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 10, 2015, 07:07:00 PM
Quote
I see where the confusion is. The feminist ideology, at bottom, is simply that men and women should be treated equally. That has not changed since women were first trying to get the vote. So again, my argument was not fallacious, since "men and women should not be treated equally" is not a defensible position. Rather, your argument is the incoherent one, because its premise is that feminist ideology has changed over time. It hasn't.

It is outrageously incorrect to claim that feminist ideology consists of the belief that men and women should be treated equally, therefore if one holds that belief, one must support feminism.

If that claim is reflective of your arguments, then I see no further point in discussion.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: pbkmaine on January 10, 2015, 07:24:43 PM
OK. I'm confused. Here I've been calling myself a feminist for the past oh, 45 years or so, and it turns out I may have no idea what it actually is. So, if it's not equal pay for equal work, then what is it?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 10, 2015, 09:04:14 PM
OK. I'm confused. Here I've been calling myself a feminist for the past oh, 45 years or so, and it turns out I may have no idea what it actually is. So, if it's not equal pay for equal work, then what is it?

Good luck getting feminists to ever hammer out an actual definition - it turns to jello so fast it makes your head spin when you try to nail down specifics.

I would think that two beliefs are pretty critical to be a feminist:
1. Women are currently disadvantaged/oppressed
2. #1 above should be corrected

If you think #1 is bullshit like I do (obviously exempting third world countries, war zones, etc), it's a bit of a stretch to call yourself feminist.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: pbkmaine on January 10, 2015, 09:27:29 PM
Well, I'm a capitalist, not a socialist. In fact, I worked on Wall Street for many years. But I am also a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work. It still does not exist in many places. Things are much better in the United States than they were 45 years ago, when I took my first job at the age of 13, but equality? Not when the first thing they mention about a female CEO is what she's wearing.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 10:38:06 PM
Quote
I see where the confusion is. The feminist ideology, at bottom, is simply that men and women should be treated equally. That has not changed since women were first trying to get the vote. So again, my argument was not fallacious, since "men and women should not be treated equally" is not a defensible position. Rather, your argument is the incoherent one, because its premise is that feminist ideology has changed over time. It hasn't.

It is outrageously incorrect to claim that feminist ideology consists of the belief that men and women should be treated equally, therefore if one holds that belief, one must support feminism.

What part is incorrect? That feminist ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated equally, or that one shouldn't support that belief?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 10, 2015, 11:00:34 PM
Quote
I see where the confusion is. The feminist ideology, at bottom, is simply that men and women should be treated equally. That has not changed since women were first trying to get the vote. So again, my argument was not fallacious, since "men and women should not be treated equally" is not a defensible position. Rather, your argument is the incoherent one, because its premise is that feminist ideology has changed over time. It hasn't.

It is outrageously incorrect to claim that feminist ideology consists of the belief that men and women should be treated equally, therefore if one holds that belief, one must support feminism.

What part is incorrect? That feminist ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated equally, or that one shouldn't support that belief?

The problem is feminism claiming a monopoly on the concept of equality. Individual groups don't get to claim ownership of moral principles - just like supporting animal rights doesn't make you a PETA supporter, or believing in "do unto others" doesn't make you a Christian. You can believe in the concept of equality without being a feminist - you could consider yourself egalitarian, for example. It's simply false to say that believing in principle X = mandatory identification with group Y.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 11:25:02 PM
Quote
I see where the confusion is. The feminist ideology, at bottom, is simply that men and women should be treated equally. That has not changed since women were first trying to get the vote. So again, my argument was not fallacious, since "men and women should not be treated equally" is not a defensible position. Rather, your argument is the incoherent one, because its premise is that feminist ideology has changed over time. It hasn't.

It is outrageously incorrect to claim that feminist ideology consists of the belief that men and women should be treated equally, therefore if one holds that belief, one must support feminism.

What part is incorrect? That feminist ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated equally, or that one shouldn't support that belief?

The problem is feminism claiming a monopoly on the concept of equality. Individual groups don't get to claim ownership of oral principles - just like supporting animal rights doesn't make you a PETA supporter, or believing in "do unto others" doesn't make you a Christian. You can believe in the concept of equality without being a feminist - you could consider yourself egalitarian, for example. It's simply false to say that believing in principle X = mandatory identification with group Y.

Hey, if we're agreeing that men and women should be treated equally, I'm not going to argue. I'm just not sure who out there is defending and prioritizing this position that you agree with ... apart from feminists. Just saying.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 10, 2015, 11:29:02 PM
What part is incorrect? That feminist ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated equally, or that one shouldn't support that belief?[/quote]

It seems that you are deliberately misinterpreting people's statements.

It is incorrect and dishonest to claim that feminist ideology consists of nothing more than the claim that men and women should be treated equally. If that was the extent of feminist positions, then most people would support it (as evidenced by polls where most people support equality between men and women).

But in reality, there is much more to feminist ideology than that, including many positions that are not nearly as popular.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 10, 2015, 11:37:56 PM
Quote from: Cressida
What part is incorrect? That feminist ideology is the belief that men and women should be treated equally, or that one shouldn't support that belief?

It seems that you are deliberately misinterpreting people's statements.

It is incorrect and dishonest to claim that feminist ideology consists of nothing more than the claim that men and women should be treated equally. If that was the extent of feminist positions, then most people would support it (as evidenced by polls where most people support equality between men and women).

But in reality, there is much more to feminist ideology than that, including many positions that are not nearly as popular.

I have a feeling this is going to devolve into semantics pretty quickly. But I'll try. Let's start with Wikipedia. Opening statement:

Quote
Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common stated aim: to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist generally self-defines as advocating for or supporting the rights and equality of women.

What's unpopular here? Spell it out.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 11, 2015, 12:06:26 AM
Quote
I have a feeling this is going to devolve into semantics pretty quickly. But I'll try. Let's start with Wikipedia. Opening statement:

Semantics have nothing to do with this. There are actual, concrete feminist positions than people disagree with or oppose.

Example: Feminists assert that domestic violence is a gendered phenomenon, with men as perpetrators and women as victims. And if women do commit domestic violence, it is not as bad as when men do. E.g. The Duluth Model: www.theduluthmodel.org/about/faqs.html

Many people disagree with this claim, since there are literally hundreds of studies that show that domestic violence is equally committed by men and women: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Feminists assert that it is the responsibility of all men, whether they commit violence or not, to end domestic violence against women. E.g. White Ribbon: http://www.whiteribbon.ca/

Many people disagree with this claim, as non-violent men have no responsibility for the actions of other men. Just as law-abiding women have no responsibility for the actions of other women who commit false rape claims.

Example: Feminists assert that the fact that most politicians and CEOs in America are male, proves that men are privileged and women are oppressed.

Many people disagree with this claim, as the first fact does nothing to prove the second claim. Just as the fact that most prisoners, suicides, workplace deaths, and educational drop-outs are male does not prove that men are oppressed and women are privileged.

Example: Feminists at a university opposed the creation of a men's centre, despite the existence of a women's centre (common in most schools), with flimsy arguments: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/long-live-the-mens-centre/

Many people disagree with this opposition. There are plenty more examples where that came from, including feminist groups protesting talks about men's issues, via immoral actions such as physically blocking entrances to buildings, and illegally pulling fire alarms to shut down events (which was a crime in the city in question).

I could go on for a long time, but the bottom line is that there are many, many feminist positions and aspects of ideology that are unpopular - for good reason.

So it is incredibly dishonest to claim that "if a person believes men and women should be treated equally, then they are, or should be, a feminist."

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 11, 2015, 12:44:24 AM
Quote
I have a feeling this is going to devolve into semantics pretty quickly. But I'll try. Let's start with Wikipedia. Opening statement:

Semantics have nothing to do with this. There are actual, concrete feminist positions than people disagree with or oppose.

Example: Feminists assert that domestic violence is a gendered phenomenon, with men as perpetrators and women as victims. And if women do commit domestic violence, it is not as bad as when men do. E.g. The Duluth Model: www.theduluthmodel.org/about/faqs.html

Many people disagree with this claim, since there are literally hundreds of studies that show that domestic violence is equally committed by men and women: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Feminists assert that it is the responsibility of all men, whether they commit violence or not, to end domestic violence against women. E.g. White Ribbon: http://www.whiteribbon.ca/

Many people disagree with this claim, as non-violent men have no responsibility for the actions of other men. Just as law-abiding women have no responsibility for the actions of other women who commit false rape claims.

Example: Feminists assert that the fact that most politicians and CEOs in America are male, proves that men are privileged and women are oppressed.

Many people disagree with this claim, as the first fact does nothing to prove the second claim. Just as the fact that most prisoners, suicides, workplace deaths, and educational drop-outs are male does not prove that men are oppressed and women are privileged.

Example: Feminists at a university opposed the creation of a men's centre, despite the existence of a women's centre (common in most schools), with flimsy arguments: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/long-live-the-mens-centre/

Many people disagree with this opposition. There are plenty more examples where that came from, including feminist groups protesting talks about men's issues, via immoral actions such as physically blocking entrances to buildings, and illegally pulling fire alarms to shut down events (which was a crime in the city in question).

I could go on for a long time, but the bottom line is that there are many, many feminist positions and aspects of ideology that are unpopular - for good reason.

So it is incredibly dishonest to claim that "if a person believes men and women should be treated equally, then they are, or should be, a feminist."

None of your links reference feminism or feminists. Try again.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 11, 2015, 02:29:34 AM
None of your links reference feminism or feminists. Try again.
These are examples of things self-proclaimed feminists groups state as truth.
If there are no actual people mentioned in the links (I didnt read) that doesnt change the fact.
I can confirm that f. groups exists who claim that above or do similar things.

I personally had a not-so-nice run in with 2 of them trying to convince me that I am somehow reponsible for rapes because... including the beloved "distance yourself from people you never even heard about" mantra. Which basically means the 2 called me an asshole+ and they got aggressive when I just turned away after a while of trying to friendly end the "conversation".
These extremist groups give the majority (we want equality) a bad name - like burn down building to "protect animals".


And since I do not want to be an aggressive atheist I wont mention how much this reminds me of religious missionaries - the same "we have the truth you just have to learn it" stance that makes them so hard to tolerate ;)
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 11, 2015, 02:37:31 AM
None of your links reference feminism or feminists. Try again.
I can confirm that f. groups exists who claim that above or do similar things.

Can you? So do so. I'm waiting.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 11, 2015, 04:55:32 AM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.

I don't agree with most of what you just wrote, but I'm not going to argue about it. When I said that feminism is bad at messaging, I meant that they're utterly unable to sell their product, a fact made painfully clear by the reluctance to adopt the label among the general public. Feminism took care of most of the easy stuff (the vote etc.), most of which involves women entering traditionally male spheres. The next step is obviously to work toward men entering traditionally female spheres, because we won't have achieved equality as a society until people don't even think in terms of "male" and "female" spheres anymore. But there's no organized move toward this, which baffles me.
What are these female spheres?  Nurse? Teacher? Homemaker? That has already happened.  Not sure what other sphere you mean.

No, it hasn't. There's immense societal pressure on men to be the breadwinner. Far, far, far more women than men work part-time or not at all. When there are as many male homemakers as there are female doctors and lawyers, we can talk.

I recognize that men *on this forum* are all trying their hardest to distance themselves from paid work, sort of by definition. But Mustachians are not typical, as we know.
Here we reach the root of the disagreement.  Feminism doesn't want women to be treated equally as men but that the two sexes should be viewed as the same.  They aren't.  You can ignore the realities of biology in both sexes if you want, but good luck legislating biology, maternal and paternal instincts out of our species.  As I said earlier, I'm all for a woman being able to make her own decisions about career and family, but that doesn't align with feminist philosophy which says until we have as many stay at home dads as stay at home moms, women are still oppressed. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 11, 2015, 01:18:55 PM
Quote
None of your links reference feminism or feminists. Try again.

The Duluth Model was created by feminists based on feminist theory.

The White Ribbon organization is a feminist group.

I personally have seen hundreds of self-identified feminists claim that the fact that most politicians and CEOs in America are male, proves that men are privileged and women are oppressed.

The SFU Women's Centre is a feminist group.

It appears that you are just trolling now.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 11, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
It's the No True Scotsman defense.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: NumberJohnny5 on January 11, 2015, 02:12:16 PM
None of your links reference feminism or feminists. Try again.
I can confirm that f. groups exists who claim that above or do similar things.

Can you? So do so. I'm waiting.

What are you waiting for exactly? Do you want links where people talk about feminist groups doing such things? Ok, here you go:

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/poor-folks-are-victims

That must be what you want, since first-person reports aren't good enough.

Perhaps being a feminist used to mean what you state. If so, then it's definitely changed. It'll be unfortunate if we have to use yet another term to mean what feminism used to mean, but that seems to happen with the English language quite often. Just see MMM's attempts to redefine "retirement" to mean "financial independence".

I'm a stay at home dad. When asked for my job, I put down "homemaker". I can only think of one male who spoke ill against that (my father, so not sure if that should count). I have had multiple women say something about it, ranging from "Giving mom a break today?" to "One day your wife will realize how you're taking advantage of her and leave your lazy ass." I can recall ONE time that a woman (younger aged, early 20s maybe?) who made a statement supporting my homemaker status. My daughter had a button that was about to come off, and the lady said "your dad's going to have to sew that to keep it from falling off." I remember that statement because it's so rare.

I know, this is just one stay at home dad's experience. By itself it doesn't mean that much. Get enough of these types of stories together, and a pattern emerges.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 11, 2015, 03:29:50 PM
What are these female spheres?  Nurse? Teacher? Homemaker? That has already happened.  Not sure what other sphere you mean.
No, it hasn't. There's immense societal pressure on men to be the breadwinner. Far, far, far more women than men work part-time or not at all. When there are as many male homemakers as there are female doctors and lawyers, we can talk.

I recognize that men *on this forum* are all trying their hardest to distance themselves from paid work, sort of by definition. But Mustachians are not typical, as we know.
Here we reach the root of the disagreement.  Feminism doesn't want women to be treated equally as men but that the two sexes should be viewed as the same.  They aren't.  You can ignore the realities of biology in both sexes if you want, but good luck legislating biology, maternal and paternal instincts out of our species.  As I said earlier, I'm all for a woman being able to make her own decisions about career and family, but that doesn't align with feminist philosophy which says until we have as many stay at home dads as stay at home moms, women are still oppressed.

You're assuming that there are inherent differences between male and female brains, differences that have biological causes rather than social ones. But this has never been proven.

Anyway, even if they had, what exactly is your argument here? That men and women are hopelessly different, therefore we shouldn't care that men aren't equally represented in the domestic sphere? That position is as oppressive to men as it is to women.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 11, 2015, 05:20:29 PM
I'm saying that it is a ridiculous metric to say women remain oppressed until 50% or greater of stay at home parents are male.

Hard to take a movement seriously that holds such ridiculous views.   
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 11, 2015, 06:24:00 PM
Quote
None of your links reference feminism or feminists. Try again.
The Duluth Model was created by feminists based on feminist theory.

The White Ribbon organization is a feminist group.

I personally have seen hundreds of self-identified feminists claim that the fact that most politicians and CEOs in America are male, proves that men are privileged and women are oppressed.

The SFU Women's Centre is a feminist group.

It appears that you are just trolling now.

Fine, let's say you're right. Let's use your first point as an example. I think you're saying that this Duluth Model (1) is backed by "feminism" and (2) claims that men commit more domestic violence than women, which is untrue; therefore (3) feminism should not be supported because it makes this bad argument.

First of all, the claim that men and women commit domestic violence equally is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense (so who's the troll here? hmmmm). So we can dismiss that part.

Why don't we find an ostensibly neutral source about this Duluth Method? Wikipedia says, "It is based in feminist theory positing that 'domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners.'" It also says that the method "is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship."

In other words: When men batter, it's because they've grown up in a culture that associates maleness with power and violence. Is that actually true? I have no idea; I'm not a domestic violence expert.

But if it *were* true, I should point out that "associating maleness with power and violence" is an example of "treating men and women differently." It all comes back to this. If our society didn't treat men and women differently by propagating stereotypes, then that influence would disappear as a cause of domestic violence.

As I said, I'm not saying that this explanation for domestic violence is accurate. What I'm saying is that Celda's citation is just another example of the fact that the underlying ideology of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. Period. That's it. If you're going to argue against the fundamental ideology of feminism, that is what you're arguing against.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 11, 2015, 06:45:22 PM
Quote
First of all, the claim that men and women commit domestic violence equally is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense (so who's the troll here? hmmmm).

Are you reading what I am saying? I already linked to this in my first post: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

Quote
As I said, I'm not saying that this explanation for domestic violence is accurate. What I'm saying is that Celda's citation is just another example of the fact that the underlying ideology of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. Period. That's it. If you're going to argue against the fundamental ideology of feminism, that is what you're arguing against.

You are not making any sense.

I provided some concrete examples of feminist positions and claims. Which are quite different than "men and women should be treated equally". And needless to say, many of these feminist positions and claims are a lot less popular than the position that men and women should be treated equally.

And that is why it makes sense for people to believe men and women should be treated equally, but also not support feminism.

If you don't understand that simple point, then there is no point in continuing a discussion.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 11, 2015, 06:49:49 PM
I'm saying that it is a ridiculous metric to say women remain oppressed until 50% or greater of stay at home parents are male.

Hard to take a movement seriously that holds such ridiculous views.   

jesus this is getting boring.

You're strawmanning my position in two ways. First, the goal is for the domestic sphere to no longer be coded as female. If there is some other indication that that goal has been met, there's no need for the numbers to be exactly equal. Second, "women are oppressed" is a misrepresentation of the problem. Treating men and women differently hurts both men and women.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 12, 2015, 04:21:39 AM
I'm saying that it is a ridiculous metric to say women remain oppressed until 50% or greater of stay at home parents are male.

Hard to take a movement seriously that holds such ridiculous views.   

jesus this is getting boring.

You're strawmanning my position in two ways. First, the goal is for the domestic sphere to no longer be coded as female. If there is some other indication that that goal has been met, there's no need for the numbers to be exactly equal. Second, "women are oppressed" is a misrepresentation of the problem. Treating men and women differently hurts both men and women.

To be more accurate, I'm not straw-manning your position I'm applying Reductio ad absurdum to it, although not much is required in this case.

You brought up the numbers being equal a couple times.

Quote
but she does ignore the fact that the other part of the solution would be for men to “stay home” in equal numbers
Quote
Anyway, even if they had, what exactly is your argument here? That men and women are hopelessly different, therefore we shouldn't care that men aren't equally represented in the domestic sphere? That position is as oppressive to men as it is to women.

Until they figure out how men can have the babies, the domestic sphere will remain "coded" as female.  It is changing and I would love to be a stay at home dad (and will when I retire) but this is just pure silliness.  This is why modern feminism isn't taken seriously.  Men and women are treated differently because they are different.  They should be treated equally, but can't be treated the same.  They should have the same opportunities and we should continue to encourage that, but basic biology can't be re-coded.

Is it your contention that when a woman has a child and desires to stay home and raise that child that feeling is completely dictated by a culture that demands women be the homemakers?  Because I'd bet a lot of stay-at-home moms would disagree with that contention. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Left on January 12, 2015, 05:30:54 AM
saw this post above
Quote
NOT condemning all women who make traditional choices while exalting those who follow a "traditionally male" life path.
and with the feminism posts, just wonder why aren't the anti-feminist guys considering becoming more "feminine" instead of holding onto an "outdated?" ideal of masculinity? Feminism to me came around during WWII when the men were off at war, the women worked the factories and other "male" professions and pushed for why they should keep the jobs after the war. With modern technology "working" the factory jobs, more and more jobs that were traditionally female jobs like office work/service jobs/healthcare (outside of doctors) are now jobs that everyone wants. So fields that were women dominated now have men flooding the markets. My question to anti-feminist ideas is why should the women just step aside and let the men in any more than how the men step aside and let the women into the factories in past generations? The second part is these jobs were seen to suit women because they were "feminine" and could handle social situations better (?) so why don't men learn from this and do the same instead of trying to be "masculine/macho/bravado"? In population dense Japan, a lot in the west would say the men aren't as "masculine". Just pointing out an example of where a men still dominated work force don't necessarily act masculine (to the West). Though people could point that many females also step out of the work force once they are married too, but that happens here as well. Even male dominated STEM jobs (engineers/programmers/etc) don't exactly strike up the "masculine" male image. So what role does claiming gender roles in workplace hold these days? Should be a free for all which feminism pushed for imo.

Trying to spin this out of the domestic sphere and into work sphere? Wondering how I posted this in a victim thread since it's so off topic, but still intriguing to see where it heads

Though myself, I would like to see a political push to get rid of ALL social "nets" food stamps/section 8/social security/minimum wage etc related to income and have a flat "basic" income for everyone. This I assume would put at least everyone on a very mustachian lifestyle. Then if they want more, they have to work for it. With no minimum wage, the companies would be forced to pay enough as incentive to get people off their couches since their basic living is already covered. Not sure if people would decide to work for $1/hr just to get out of the house and not be bored, but hey if they want to, why should I get in the way? And if people wanted to not be "mustachian" in retirement, they would be encouraged to save their "working" income since they can live on the "basic" one for life, or spend it along the way.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 12, 2015, 05:38:59 AM
saw this post above
Quote
NOT condemning all women who make traditional choices while exalting those who follow a "traditionally male" life path.
and with the feminism posts, just wonder why aren't the anti-feminist guys considering becoming more "feminine" instead of holding onto an "outdated?" ideal of masculinity? Feminism to me came around during WWII when the men were off at war, the women worked the factories and other "male" professions and pushed for why they should keep the jobs after the war. With modern technology "working" the factory jobs, more and more jobs that were traditionally female jobs like office work/service jobs/healthcare (outside of doctors) are now jobs that everyone wants. So fields that were women dominated now have men flooding the markets. My question to anti-feminist ideas is why should the women just step aside and let the men in any more than how the men step aside and let the women into the factories in past generations? The second part is these jobs were seen to suit women because they were "feminine" and could handle social situations better (?) so why don't men learn from this and do the same instead of trying to be "masculine/macho/bravado"? In population dense Japan, a lot in the west would say the men aren't as "masculine". Just pointing out an example of where a men still dominated work force don't necessarily act masculine (to the West). Though people could point that many females also step out of the work force once they are married too, but that happens here as well. Even male dominated STEM jobs (engineers/programmers/etc) don't exactly strike up the "masculine" male image. So what role does claiming gender roles in workplace hold these days? Should be a free for all which feminism pushed for imo.

Trying to spin this out of the domestic sphere and into work sphere? Wondering how I posted this in a victim thread since it's so off topic, but still intriguing to see where it heads
Not sure what this word salad actually says.  Huh?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Left on January 12, 2015, 05:44:29 AM
Not sure what this word salad actually says.  Huh?
no idea myself :) I've been up all night lol
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 11:58:07 AM
You brought up the numbers being equal a couple times.

Now you're just wilfully misunderstanding me. Equality is a concept. It doesn't have to mean "50.00% at all times." I'm sure you're aware of this, but I guess you just like to argue.

Until they figure out how men can have the babies, the domestic sphere will remain "coded" as female.  It is changing and I would love to be a stay at home dad (and will when I retire) but this is just pure silliness.  This is why modern feminism isn't taken seriously.  Men and women are treated differently because they are different.  They should be treated equally, but can't be treated the same.  They should have the same opportunities and we should continue to encourage that, but basic biology can't be re-coded.

I don't know why you would say this. Pregnancy takes nine months. The domestic sphere exists in perpetuity. Men and women can certainly be treated the same outside of the short span of pregnancy.

Is it your contention that when a woman has a child and desires to stay home and raise that child that feeling is completely dictated by a culture that demands women be the homemakers?  Because I'd bet a lot of stay-at-home moms would disagree with that contention.

No, but at least you asked this time instead of going for the straw man immediately.

Culture doesn't "demand that women be homemakers." It's far more complicated than that. There's a pervasive idea in our society that breadwinning is male and homemaking is female. In the past decades, women have started participating in breadwinning in large numbers, but men have not started participating in homemaking in large numbers. This is largely because femaleness has historically been valued lower than maleness, so it's OK for females to act male but not OK for males to act female. As a result of men's lack of participation in homemaking, many women have found it easier to prioritize homemaking over breadwinning, because if they don't, the homemaking doesn't get done.

Sure, there are some women who enjoy homemaking. But there are also some women who hate it but continue to do it because of the influences described above. That's what needs to go away. And it won't go away until domestic work is no longer viewed as female, because it's self-reinforcing. Men won't do the homemaking, so women pick up the slack and do the homemaking, so a majority of homemaking is done by women, so it's seen as women's work, so men won't do the homemaking, repeat.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 12, 2015, 12:05:23 PM
Great news!  The homemaking sphere has been recoded in my household!  For the last decade I've handled 95% of the cooking and most of the cleaning as well.

Alert Gloria Steinam.  Down with the patriarchy!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 12, 2015, 12:18:02 PM

Culture doesn't "demand that women be homemakers." It's far more complicated than that. There's a pervasive idea in our society that breadwinning is male and homemaking is female. In the past decades, women have started participating in breadwinning in large numbers, but men have not started participating in homemaking in large numbers. This is largely because femaleness has historically been valued lower than maleness, so it's OK for females to act male but not OK for males to act female. As a result of men's lack of participation in homemaking, many women have found it easier to prioritize homemaking over breadwinning, because if they don't, the homemaking doesn't get done.

Sure, there are some women who enjoy homemaking. But there are also some women who hate it but continue to do it because of the influences described above. That's what needs to go away. And it won't go away until domestic work is no longer viewed as female, because it's self-reinforcing. Men won't do the homemaking, so women pick up the slack and do the homemaking, so a majority of homemaking is done by women, so it's seen as women's work, so men won't do the homemaking, repeat.

I think this is a really good example of why most people don't see feminism as being relevant in today's society - women choosing to do more housework than their partners is considered an actual serious issue in your movement, rather than the trivial bs the non-feminist majority considers it.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 12, 2015, 12:39:24 PM

Culture doesn't "demand that women be homemakers." It's far more complicated than that. There's a pervasive idea in our society that breadwinning is male and homemaking is female. In the past decades, women have started participating in breadwinning in large numbers, but men have not started participating in homemaking in large numbers. This is largely because femaleness has historically been valued lower than maleness, so it's OK for females to act male but not OK for males to act female. As a result of men's lack of participation in homemaking, many women have found it easier to prioritize homemaking over breadwinning, because if they don't, the homemaking doesn't get done.

Sure, there are some women who enjoy homemaking. But there are also some women who hate it but continue to do it because of the influences described above. That's what needs to go away. And it won't go away until domestic work is no longer viewed as female, because it's self-reinforcing. Men won't do the homemaking, so women pick up the slack and do the homemaking, so a majority of homemaking is done by women, so it's seen as women's work, so men won't do the homemaking, repeat.

I think this is a really good example of why most people don't see feminism as being relevant in today's society - women choosing to do more housework than their partners is considered an actual serious issue in your movement, rather than the trivial bs the non-feminist majority considers it.
It is an outrageous outrage!!!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 01:46:16 PM
I think this is a really good example of why most people don't see feminism as being relevant in today's society - women choosing to do more housework than their partners is considered an actual serious issue in your movement, rather than the trivial bs the non-feminist majority considers it.

I see what you did there, but it's not a free choice in many cases, and yes, that is a problem.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 01:48:40 PM
Great news!  The homemaking sphere has been recoded in my household!  For the last decade I've handled 95% of the cooking and most of the cleaning as well.

Alert Gloria Steinam.  Down with the patriarchy!

Since you love to cite logical fallacies, try this: "unwarranted extrapolation."
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 12, 2015, 02:20:28 PM
I think this is a really good example of why most people don't see feminism as being relevant in today's society - women choosing to do more housework than their partners is considered an actual serious issue in your movement, rather than the trivial bs the non-feminist majority considers it.

I see what you did there, but it's not a free choice in many cases, and yes, that is a problem.

If someone's got a gun to your head making you scrub floors, you have a problem. But the problem is that your partner is a criminal and you need to go to the police, not that there's a lack of feminism in society.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 12, 2015, 02:23:59 PM
Great news!  The homemaking sphere has been recoded in my household!  For the last decade I've handled 95% of the cooking and most of the cleaning as well.

Alert Gloria Steinam.  Down with the patriarchy!

Since you love to cite logical fallacies, try this: "unwarranted extrapolation."
So I'm doing my part as the patriarch to ensure a more equitable distribution of work in the homemaking sphere and that's all I get? 

I get the feeling you aren't really serious about feminism at all.  You leave me no choice but to report you to your local Womyns' Center for re-education. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: EDSMedS on January 12, 2015, 03:17:20 PM
Choice is limited or expanded by gender thanks to unconscious and socially reinforced beliefs. --> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/) 

Feminism is a reactive position to a sometimes hidden but often blatantly sexist society, just as Welfare is a reactive program to a binary of wealth supported by untethered capitalism.  Neither is ideal but they are both currently necessary.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 03:36:48 PM
I think this is a really good example of why most people don't see feminism as being relevant in today's society - women choosing to do more housework than their partners is considered an actual serious issue in your movement, rather than the trivial bs the non-feminist majority considers it.
I see what you did there, but it's not a free choice in many cases, and yes, that is a problem.
If someone's got a gun to your head making you scrub floors, you have a problem. But the problem is that your partner is a criminal and you need to go to the police, not that there's a lack of feminism in society.

Right. The only thing that can ever constrain behavior is a gun to the head. Sure.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 12, 2015, 03:51:28 PM
I think this is a really good example of why most people don't see feminism as being relevant in today's society - women choosing to do more housework than their partners is considered an actual serious issue in your movement, rather than the trivial bs the non-feminist majority considers it.
I see what you did there, but it's not a free choice in many cases, and yes, that is a problem.
If someone's got a gun to your head making you scrub floors, you have a problem. But the problem is that your partner is a criminal and you need to go to the police, not that there's a lack of feminism in society.

Right. The only thing that can ever constrain behavior is a gun to the head. Sure.

Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: mm1970 on January 12, 2015, 03:53:26 PM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.
You know I keep hearing people talk about what feminism is like this.

But I'm a feminism and it's not like this.  And I've never actually met another feminist like this.

So I'm puzzled as to where all these crazy feminists are.  Oh, maybe they exist and all, I just haven't met them.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 12, 2015, 04:49:07 PM
Obviously nobody on this forum wants to go back to women not having the vote or being able to work.  The point is that sometimes feminism's piss poor messaging leaves women with the impression they should delay their family (even if they don't want to) otherwise it diminishes the "cause" of feminism.  Women should be free to have a full career, part of a career around having children or the sole career of raising a family and running a household if her finances permit.

Feminism tends to discount and shun the second and third options and feminism's record with regard to demonizing the male of the species is well known.  You say it is bad messaging.  I think there is more to it than that and their are elements of the movement that spend the majority of their time railing against the "patriarchy" and hating men.  Obviously a movement as large and amorphous as feminism doesn't necessarily speak with one voice.  Those holding the microphone today aren't doing the rest of you any favors.
You know I keep hearing people talk about what feminism is like this.

But I'm a feminism and it's not like this.  And I've never actually met another feminist like this.

So I'm puzzled as to where all these crazy feminists are.  Oh, maybe they exist and all, I just haven't met them.
These are from page 6. 

This article on the Jezebel site seems to tick many of the boxes mentioned above.  http://jezebel.com/5991343/the-feminist-housewife-is-such-bullshit

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-wives-are-helping-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

Or this one: http://gawker.com/kaley-cuoco-im-not-a-feminist-and-i-love-feeling-like-1676352429

And here's a fairly crazy one: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 05:16:56 PM
Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.

Nope, not as simple as that. You aren't going to choose someone with whom you're 100% compatible; it's not possible. If household and family work is an area where you're not compatible, and if that doesn't become evident until after the kids come, you're not "a doormat" if you choose to stay in the relationship - you're simply doing a cost-benefit analysis. It's a choice, but it's a constrained one; it's not what you would do in an ideal world.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 12, 2015, 05:56:46 PM
Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.

Nope, not as simple as that. You aren't going to choose someone with whom you're 100% compatible; it's not possible. If household and family work is an area where you're not compatible, and if that doesn't become evident until after the kids come, you're not "a doormat" if you choose to stay in the relationship - you're simply doing a cost-benefit analysis. It's a choice, but it's a constrained one; it's not what you would do in an ideal world.

Being incapable of negotiating tasks within a relationship certainly counts as "doormat". It's not that hard to figure out if you're compatible with someone before having kids - live with them for some time and you should know very quickly how your household expectations match up.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Metta on January 12, 2015, 06:04:40 PM
It's not that hard to figure out if you're compatible with someone before having kids - live with them for some time and you should know very quickly how your household expectations match up.

The current divorce rate is 17%, so obviously some people cannot predict long-term compatibility.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Primm on January 12, 2015, 08:09:18 PM
Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.

Nope, not as simple as that. You aren't going to choose someone with whom you're 100% compatible; it's not possible. If household and family work is an area where you're not compatible, and if that doesn't become evident until after the kids come, you're not "a doormat" if you choose to stay in the relationship - you're simply doing a cost-benefit analysis. It's a choice, but it's a constrained one; it's not what you would do in an ideal world.

Being incapable of negotiating tasks within a relationship certainly counts as "doormat". It's not that hard to figure out if you're compatible with someone before having kids - live with them for some time and you should know very quickly how your household expectations match up.

There are a hell of a lot of ways of exerting control over someone short of holding a gun to their head. The classic is to use charm to win someone over, then gradually changing one's own behaviour over a long period of time, sometimes even years. The "doormat" often doesn't even realise that's happening, friends don't call attention to it (if they are even aware of it - often the abuser is charming in public) because they believe that the relationship is mutually beneficial.

My ex honestly had me believing I had some sort of untreatable psychiatric illness. No point going to the doctor, they won't be able to help. My kids would be taken away from me if I was officially diagnosed and left him. That sort of thing. And I'm a tertiary educated nurse, for fuck's sake!

It's a real thing. He left me and I thought it was the end of the world. Then I realised it was actually the beginning.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 12, 2015, 08:42:17 PM
People who identify as feminist generally tend to believe that people - especially women - are incapable of making their own free choices, are heavily coerced by societal pressures, and that many/most observable facts about women (e.g. women work less hours than men on average) are primarily due to external forces (discrimination) rather than internal desires and actions.

People who oppose feminism generally tend to believe that people have the agency to make their own free choices, are not unreasonably coerced by societal pressures, and that most observable facts are due to personal agency.

So I am not surprised that about 80% of Americans do not identify as feminist.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 09:02:16 PM
People who identify as feminist generally tend to believe that people - especially women - are incapable of making their own free choices, are heavily coerced by societal pressures, and that many/most observable facts about women (e.g. women work less hours than men on average) are primarily due to external forces (discrimination) rather than internal desires and actions.

No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 12, 2015, 09:30:11 PM
Quote
No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

That is strange, considering that people in this very thread have put forth that exact position.

I also find it strange that you have abandoned your nonsensical statement that feminism is solely about men and women being treated equally, therefore one must be a feminist if they believe that men and women should be treated equally.

Quote
I have only my data point, no actual statistics, but I disagree with your first statement.  I identify as a feminist, and I don't think people "are incapable of making their own choices."

I didn't say that all feminists believe that. I said that feminists generally tend to believe...

You cannot deny that it is a mainstream feminist position to claim that the primary reason why few women are in STEM fields etc. is because of discrimination rather than internal choices and actions.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 09:53:47 PM
Quote
No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

That is strange, considering that people in this very thread have put forth that exact position.

Given that I'm the only feminist in this thread, and given that I'm pretty sure I said nothing of the kind, you are wrong.

I also find it strange that you have abandoned your nonsensical statement that feminism is solely about men and women being treated equally, therefore one must be a feminist if they believe that men and women should be treated equally.

Your statement is a non sequitur. I said that ignorant people mistakenly believe that feminists think women have no agency blah blah. That hardly contradicts anything I've said so far.

At least 50 posts ago, I suggested that if people want to convince anyone that feminists treat women like incompetent children, they should come up with actual examples of actual feminists saying that. So far no one has been able to.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 12, 2015, 11:52:40 PM
Quote
First of all, the claim that men and women commit domestic violence equally is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense (so who's the troll here? hmmmm).

Are you reading what I am saying? I already linked to this in my first post: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

And I'm saying that's garbage, prima facie.

Quote
As I said, I'm not saying that this explanation for domestic violence is accurate. What I'm saying is that Celda's citation is just another example of the fact that the underlying ideology of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. Period. That's it. If you're going to argue against the fundamental ideology of feminism, that is what you're arguing against.

You are not making any sense.

LOL yeah, not to you.

Quote
I provided some concrete examples of feminist positions and claims. Which are quite different than "men and women should be treated equally". And needless to say, many of these feminist positions and claims are a lot less popular than the position that men and women should be treated equally.

And I showed that you were wrong, and that one of the positions you cited does indeed reduce to "men and women should be treated equally." I didn't bother fisking all of them, but I could, if you're interested.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 13, 2015, 12:00:47 AM
Quote
And I'm saying that's garbage, prima facie.

This is another reason why people do not support or identify with feminism. When faced with evidence that contradicts their belief, they simply ignore it or lie and say it's false.

Quote
And I showed that you were wrong, and that one of the positions you cited does indeed reduce to "men and women should be treated equally." I didn't bother fisking all of them, but I could, if you're interested.

No, you did not. You simply made the nonsensical claim that a tangible feminist position about domestic violence being a gendered phenomenon (men = perpetrators, women = victims) is equivalent to the position that "men and women should be treated equally".

This is ridiculous on the face of it.

Quote
However, for anybody like Celda who is interested in learning about what feminism is actually about, my favourite Feminism 101 series is the following: http://www.shakesville.com/2010/01/feminism-101.html

Cathy, I am quite familiar with feminist positions and actions. And that is why I oppose it. Many people who oppose feminism are knowledgeable about it, and in many cases were previously self-identified feminists.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 13, 2015, 12:41:44 AM
Quote
And I'm saying that's garbage, prima facie.

This is another reason why people do not support or identify with feminism. When faced with evidence that contradicts their belief, they simply ignore it or lie and say it's false.

Quote
And I showed that you were wrong, and that one of the positions you cited does indeed reduce to "men and women should be treated equally." I didn't bother fisking all of them, but I could, if you're interested.

No, you did not. You simply made the nonsensical claim that a tangible feminist position about domestic violence being a gendered phenomenon (men = perpetrators, women = victims) is equivalent to the position that "men and women should be treated equally".

This is ridiculous on the face of it.

I'm going to let the record speak for itself here. Just read what I wrote. Not you, Celda; you can jump off a cliff for all I care.

But I will reiterate that "women commit more domestic violence than men" is a garbage assertion. That the opposite is true doesn't reflect badly on "men" (since that seems to be super important), it reflects badly on "men who abuse." But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context, no matter what some dude with an axe to grind wrote a "paper" about one time.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 13, 2015, 01:36:07 AM
Wow. It turns out the bibliographer isn't just drawing distorted conclusions. He often outrights misrepresents what the paper says.

I just looked up the actual "Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988)" paper referenced above. The study found that
- women report being abused in relationships more often than men reported it,
- 7% of men compared to 1% of women believe that violence is a legitimate tool in a relationship,
- more women reported being sexually abused as children than men,
- women were more likely than men to have been subjected to corporal punishment by parents when they were children

Basically, the study suggests that women have been the victims of violence more often than men. While it is true that that doesn't mean that men committed it more (since the perpetrators could have also been female), it's certainly a more likely conclusion that men perpetuated it more than that women did. The bibliography that Celda linked to basically completely misrepresented what the paper actually said. That's just one in the list, but it's sufficient to conclude that the bibliographer is dishonest.

MRAs being dishonest! I am SHOCKED. I will never think of MRAs the same way again.

p.s. seriously, thanks Cathy.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 13, 2015, 04:11:31 AM
I think it would be nice if we could go away from the feminism-foam of the last page to the topic of the thread.


Poor folks are victims because they dont have the money to charter oil tanker to make a guaranteed profit in one year (info: 1-year oil future is 60$, oil price is under 50$, difference - charter cost = profit)
How many barrels of oil are in a big tanker anyway?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 13, 2015, 01:40:05 PM
Quote
But I will reiterate that "women commit more domestic violence than men" is a garbage assertion. That the opposite is true doesn't reflect badly on "men" (since that seems to be super important), it reflects badly on "men who abuse." But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context, no matter what some dude with an axe to grind wrote a "paper" about one time.

Cressida, the propensity for stating that something is true and does not require proof (even in the face of contradictory evidence) is another reason why feminism is not popular. Which brings me back to my original point, that there is quite a difference between feminist ideology and believing that men and women should be treated equally. And that is why there is such a large gap between the amount of people who identify as feminist and who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Sorry Cathy, dismissing literally hundreds of studies because you don't like them is not a valid response. It may be common among feminists, but that does not make it acceptable.

As for your claim that the Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988) study was inaccurately described, there is no reason to believe you without proof. Go ahead and link to the study, showing that it was inaccurately described.

I'll go ahead and show an example of accurate presentation:

Quote
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007).  Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence.  American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947.  (A sample of 11,370 young adults <46% male, 54% female; 70% white, 15% black, 10.7% Hispanic, 4.3 % other> aged 18-28, who were drawn from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, responded to a modified version of the CTS.  Results indicate that almost 24% of all relationships had some physical violence and that half the violence was reciprocal.  In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time.

Is this an accurate description of the study? Let's look at the abstract of the study itself.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Quote
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

What do you know...it is an accurate representation.

But even if God came down and asserted that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men, that still wouldn't change the fact that, despite what people are saying here, believing that men and women should be treated equally does not mean that one is (or should be) a feminist.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 13, 2015, 04:50:57 PM
Quote
But I will reiterate that "women commit more domestic violence than men" is a garbage assertion. That the opposite is true doesn't reflect badly on "men" (since that seems to be super important), it reflects badly on "men who abuse." But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context, no matter what some dude with an axe to grind wrote a "paper" about one time.

Cressida, the propensity for stating that something is true and does not require proof (even in the face of contradictory evidence) is another reason why feminism is not popular. Which brings me back to my original point, that there is quite a difference between feminist ideology and believing that men and women should be treated equally. And that is why there is such a large gap between the amount of people who identify as feminist and who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Sorry Cathy, dismissing literally hundreds of studies because you don't like them is not a valid response. It may be common among feminists, but that does not make it acceptable.

As for your claim that the Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988) study was inaccurately described, there is no reason to believe you without proof. Go ahead and link to the study, showing that it was inaccurately described.

I'll go ahead and show an example of accurate presentation:

Quote
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007).  Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence.  American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947.  (A sample of 11,370 young adults <46% male, 54% female; 70% white, 15% black, 10.7% Hispanic, 4.3 % other> aged 18-28, who were drawn from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, responded to a modified version of the CTS.  Results indicate that almost 24% of all relationships had some physical violence and that half the violence was reciprocal.  In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time.

Is this an accurate description of the study? Let's look at the abstract of the study itself.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Quote
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

What do you know...it is an accurate representation.

But even if God came down and asserted that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men, that still wouldn't change the fact that, despite what people are saying here, believing that men and women should be treated equally does not mean that one is (or should be) a feminist.

Dude, you're just repeating yourself. If you have any new arguments, I'll respond to them (maybe). I've addressed everything you have to say.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Primm on January 13, 2015, 07:14:30 PM
Is this an accurate description of the study? Let's look at the abstract of the study itself.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Quote
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

What do you know...it is an accurate representation.

But even if God came down and asserted that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men, that still wouldn't change the fact that, despite what people are saying here, believing that men and women should be treated equally does not mean that one is (or should be) a feminist.

My DV relationship was "reciprocally violent". He abused me for many years, and at the end I snapped and smacked him across the face one time and left prawn heads in his car air vents (funny now, I was really angry at the time).

So my marriage fell into the, what was it?, 49.7% of "reciprocally violent" relationships. I'm sure even you can see that years of bruises, being locked in my room and having money taken away from me isn't even close to being evened up by a smack to the face.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Zikoris on January 13, 2015, 07:39:50 PM
My DV relationship was "reciprocally violent". He abused me for many years, and at the end I snapped and smacked him across the face one time and left prawn heads in his car air vents (funny now, I was really angry at the time).

So my marriage fell into the, what was it?, 49.7% of "reciprocally violent" relationships. I'm sure even you can see that years of bruises, being locked in my room and having money taken away from me isn't even close to being evened up by a smack to the face.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

The exact same thing happens to men, except they're much more likely than women to be arrested and thrown in jail if they ever fight back against their abusers.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 13, 2015, 09:42:58 PM
Quote
I have access to most popular journals, but I am not permitted to redistribute that content. You are free to purchase the paper from the publisher. I actually really dislike the whole academic publishing system, because it hides knowledge behind really high prices (typically over $30 for a single paper), but it is what it is.

So you claim that the bibliography inaccurately describes the study, but won't provide proof. There is no reason to believe you.

Quote
As you note, there are hundreds of documents mentioned in the bibliography. (Not all of them are papers or studies.)

I never said or implied that anyone should investigate every source listed in the bibliography. What I said was that, if you are claiming it is inaccurately describing studies, then you are obligated to provide some proof.

And it is hardly the only evidence for the claim of approximate gender parity when it comes to domestic violence.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Quote
Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

Quote
Overall, a similar proportion of males and females reported having experienced spousal violence in the previous 5 years (Table 1.2). When asked about their experiences within the preceding 12 months, the proportion of Canadians who reported spousal violence dropped to 2% (Table 1.3). Again, the finding was similar for males and females.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 14, 2015, 12:37:18 AM
Hey Celda:

According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, 85% of domestic violence victims are women. Their source is the following:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.

Please analyze the above document and prove that it is incorrect. Otherwise "there is no reason to believe you."

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: DoubleDown on January 14, 2015, 01:20:26 PM
Please reconcile this dilemma for me:

(1) Assume we accept that men do, in fact, commit more violent acts than women (including domestic violence). Just accept it as a premise for the purposes of this argument, even if you want to argue about the legitimacy of statistics above. I for one would agree that it is likely and intuitively true, as our typical observation tends to back it up (I observe many more physical conflicts involving men than women, men overwhelmingly represent violent crime offenders, etc.)

(2) If the above is true, then men behave differently than women for some reason (biology, culture, rearing ...)

(3) Men and women are "equal," or should be treated "equal"

How can (2) and (3) be reconciled if men and women are different at such a primitive level?

Corollary: If (2) and (3) can be reconciled, than how do we justify or differentiate not treating equally any other two things that behave differently (e.g., chimpanzees and humans)?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 14, 2015, 01:39:49 PM
Quote
Please analyze the above document and prove that it is incorrect. Otherwise "there is no reason to believe you."

You don't get it. I never made any claim about that document (never even heard of it), therefore I have no obligation to do anything about it. I am only obligated to prove the things I say myself, not things I didn't say.

In contrast, Cathy claimed that the bibliography linked earlier is dishonest. Therefore, she is obligated to prove that claim.

This is basic logical reasoning, and the fact that you do not seem to understand that is quite telling.

I did claim that there is approximate gender parity in domestic violence - so I am obligated to provide some proof for that claim. And in fact, I did provide several sources of statistics.

Quote
(2) If the above is true, then men behave differently than women for some reason (biology, culture, rearing ...)

(3) Men and women are "equal," or should be treated "equal"

How can (2) and (3) be reconciled if men and women are different at such a primitive level?

Quite simply.

Even if God came down and stated for a fact that men and women were fundamentally different in certain ways, that would be irrelevant.

All we would have to do is treat men and women who act the same, equally.

E.g. let's assume that men are fundamentally more violent than women, or let's assume that women are fundamentally lazier than men.

Even if this difference was an undeniable fact, that would not matter at all. Violent men would just need to be treated the same as violent women, and hardworking men would need to be treated the same as hardworking women.

Even if the percentage of women who were lazy was higher than the percentage of men who are lazy, that would be irrelevant to equal treatment.

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: DoubleDown on January 14, 2015, 02:14:35 PM
But, if I'm understanding correctly, the premise is not "treat people equally who act the same" -- instead, it's "treat people equally even if they don't act the same." So I agree with what you have stated above, but it doesn't seem consistent with the feminist ideology (as put forth by Cressida) to treat everyone equal regardless of any differences.

To put it in real terms using your example, I'd have to hire a violent man just as much as I'd hire a violent woman, or hire a lazy woman just as much as I'd hire a hardworking man. Do I have this right? If so, do you see the logical dilemma I'm reaching in regards to feminism?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 14, 2015, 03:19:14 PM
Please reconcile this dilemma for me:

(1) Assume we accept that men do, in fact, commit more violent acts than women (including domestic violence). Just accept it as a premise for the purposes of this argument, even if you want to argue about the legitimacy of statistics above. I for one would agree that it is likely and intuitively true, as our typical observation tends to back it up (I observe many more physical conflicts involving men than women, men overwhelmingly represent violent crime offenders, etc.)

(2) If the above is true, then men behave differently than women for some reason (biology, culture, rearing ...)

(3) Men and women are "equal," or should be treated "equal"

How can (2) and (3) be reconciled if men and women are different at such a primitive level?

Corollary: If (2) and (3) can be reconciled, than how do we justify or differentiate not treating equally any other two things that behave differently (e.g., chimpanzees and humans)?

The idea is that they will begin to behave the same when we begin treating them the same. As things are now, we treat boys and girls differently from the womb onwards; it's no wonder people tend to believe they're different species.

It doesn't work so well retrospectively. If a man is influenced to act on his violent tendencies by a society that more or less expects him to be violent, then he still has to go to jail.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 14, 2015, 03:26:17 PM
Quote
Please analyze the above document and prove that it is incorrect. Otherwise "there is no reason to believe you."
You don't get it. I never made any claim about that document (never even heard of it), therefore I have no obligation to do anything about it. I am only obligated to prove the things I say myself, not things I didn't say.

In contrast, Cathy claimed that the bibliography linked earlier is dishonest. Therefore, she is obligated to prove that claim.

This is basic logical reasoning, and the fact that you do not seem to understand that is quite telling.

I did claim that there is approximate gender parity in domestic violence - so I am obligated to provide some proof for that claim. And in fact, I did provide several sources of statistics.

As usual, you're the one who doesn't get it. My post was intended to demonstrate, by analogy, the ridiculousness of your position. You came to this thread, referenced a paper by some dude that purports to show that women and men commit domestic violence equally, and suggested that the rest of us had to either accept that conclusion or else spend the time to debunk your random citation. Despite the rhetorical appearance of my comment, its intended audience was the thread at large, not you (you're beyond reason).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 14, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Quote
But, if I'm understanding correctly, the premise is not "treat people equally who act the same" -- instead, it's "treat people equally even if they don't act the same.

No one has said this. Not even feminist ideology says this.

I don't see feminists or anyone else saying that a violent man and a non-violent man deserves jail.

I do see people saying that assumptions should not be made (e.g. a woman who you know nothing about should be treated the same as a man you know nothing about), rather than assuming that the woman will do X simply because she's a woman.

And it seems reasonable to say you should not judge someone solely due to their gender.

Of course, feminists also say that any statistical difference between men and women are due entirely to social norms and biology is has zero effect, which is a lot less defensible.

Quote
You came to this thread, referenced a paper by some dude that purports to show that women and men commit domestic violence equally, and suggested that the rest of us had to either accept that conclusion or else spend the time to debunk your random citation.

What you mean is, I came to this thread, made some claims, and supported those claims by providing proof.

It is not a difficult concept - those who make claims have a burden of proof. As opposed to simply saying "But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context".
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 14, 2015, 09:49:19 PM
It is not a difficult concept - those who make claims have a burden of proof. As opposed to simply saying "But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context".

You're the one who made the initial claims about domestic violence. I only objected to your claims. So you have the burden of proof, by your own admission.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 14, 2015, 09:52:23 PM
Quote
You're the one who made the initial claims about domestic violence. I only objected to your claims. So you have the burden of proof, by your own admission.

Yes, that is right. Which is why I provided several sources to show what I meant.

If I had simply asserted that I was correct but did not support it, then I would be in the wrong.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 14, 2015, 11:06:43 PM
Quote
You're the one who made the initial claims about domestic violence. I only objected to your claims. So you have the burden of proof, by your own admission.

Yes, that is right. Which is why I provided several sources to show what I meant.

If I had simply asserted that I was correct but did not support it, then I would be in the wrong.

You cited exactly one "source" - one that wasn't even a primary source - that purported to show that women commit more domestic violence than men. (You cited a couple of others that claimed that the numbers were equal or that men committed more domestic violence than women. Those do not support your position.) Is this the hill you want to die on? Fine.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e (abstract)
The lifetime and 12-month prevalences of rape by an intimate partner for women were an estimated 8.8% and 0.8%, respectively; an estimated 0.5% of men experienced rape by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, although the case count for men reporting rape by an intimate partner in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 15.8% of women and 9.5% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, whereas an estimated 2.1% of both men and women experienced these forms of sexual violence by a partner in the 12 months before taking the survey. Severe physical violence by an intimate partner (including acts such as being hit with something hard, being kicked or beaten, or being burned on purpose) was experienced by an estimated 22.3% of women and 14.0% of men during their lifetimes and by an estimated 2.3% of women and 2.1% of men in the 12 months before taking the survey. Finally, the lifetime and 12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for women was an estimated 9.2% and 2.4%, respectively, while the lifetime and 12-month prevalence for men was an estimated 2.5% and 0.8%, respectively.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet.pdf (p. 2)
Nearly 3 in 10 women and 1 in 10 men in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250e.pdf (p. 18)
In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder.

http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publication-detail.aspx?ncjnumber=181867 (abstract)
Among the survey findings are that intimate partner violence is pervasive in U.S. society, with nearly 25 percent of surveyed women and 7.6 percent of surveyed men reporting that they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime; 1.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men said the were raped and/or physically assaulted by a partner in the previous 12 months.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf (p.1)
The majority of domestic violence was committed against females (76%) compared to males (24%).


Now go find at least four more on your side. Real links, not MRA hatchet job summaries. Otherwise I've brought better evidence than you have.

I would also note that this is not even particularly important. For purposes of this discussion, I don't really care who commits more domestic violence; that's a side issue. But I'm not going to stand by while some douche spews bullshit about how women abuse men and therefore feminism is wrong.

p.s. If "douche" gets the thread locked, I would not be heartbroken. I'm not too hopeful, though.

MOD NOTE: Don't undermine your own points and look silly with the personal attacks.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Celda on January 15, 2015, 12:27:27 AM
Quote
You cited exactly one "source" - one that wasn't even a primary source - that purported to show that women commit more domestic violence than men.

I never said that women commit more domestic violence than men. You have lied about this multiple times despite my correcting you each time. I said that domestic violence is not a gendered phenomenon and there is approximate gender parity (i.e. it is close to 50/50 male/female perpetrators).

I also did not cite "only one source that was not a primary source", which is another lie on your part. I cited a collection of 200+ studies: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

As well as Statistics Canada figures (which is a primary source):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

A specific study with an 11,000 sample size (which is a primary source): http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

And a newspaper article that discusses British government statistics (those statistics are also a primary source):
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

You have continued to lie and argue in bad faith and claim that these are "MRA hatchet jobs" - which is incredibly dishonest of you.

Quote
But I'm not going to stand by while some douche spews bullshit about how women abuse men and therefore feminism is wrong.

You have lied multiple times, made logically invalid arguments, and repeatedly make personal attacks. I have criticized the merit (namely, the lack thereof) of your arguments, as who you are is completely irrelevant in an online discussion. Only what you say is relevant.

Even here, you continue to lie about my arguments. I am not saying that "women commit domestic violence almost as much as men do, therefore feminism is wrong."

I am simply saying, which was my original point from the start and still is, that there are many feminist positions and claims that are not equivalent to "women and men should be treated equally" - one of which is the claim that domestic violence is gendered (men = abusers, women = victims). Which is why it is false for you to say that "if someone believes men and women should be treated equally, they are a feminist".

That is what I have been saying all along, and it would remain true even if it was proven beyond doubt that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cressida on January 15, 2015, 01:12:08 AM
I provided more primary sources than you did. I have not lied repeatedly. I have not made multiple personal attacks. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

I'm ending this conversation. I stopped trying to educate you long ago, but I continued to respond for the record. But as important as I think that is, even I have my limits. Given your relationship with reality, undoubtedly you'll conclude you scored a victory, to which I say, knock yourself out. You say that I am a hateful liar, but I think we both know the truth.

Please continue to enjoy your MRA ideology. I'm certain it provides you great joy.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on January 15, 2015, 02:21:18 AM
pleasae continue the foam per PM, you are only making a personal conversation in/of this post.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: 2lazy2retire on January 22, 2015, 08:33:42 AM
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting, and you are assuming things about someone you do not know.

And your plan to change my mind on this issue is to refer to a mostly-FICTION writer from 19th century Britain?  Seriously?

Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

As for me, I grew up relatively poor, by american standards.  I wore hand-me down clothes all the way up until the time I started to make my own money.  We didn't have the latest Nintendo, or the latest anything, and I brown-bagged bologna sandwiches all the way thru school.  I wasn't the coolest kid, or the most popular, but I worked my ass off ( while my peers were doing drugs and going to parties), got nearly all A's, and graduated 4th in my class.  I love to learn, and still do.  I will do whatever it takes to be successful.  I chose to get a degree in chemical engineering PURPOSEFULLY b\c it had the highest starting salary.  It was no accident, and  making it thru a ChE program was pretty damn hard--you try it sometime!  I ate ramen noodles all thru college.  Hell, I was too poor to even afford MacDonald's.

Yeah, it sucked at the time, but I now realize that growing up so "poor" was actually the best thing for me.  Being poor can actually be a very good motivator to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART.  Not many people are.  Most poor kids would rather beat the shit out the kids who try hard in school, than try to work hard themselves.  Sad fact in america.  That's why we have to import high-tech workers from other countries, who have experienced REAL poverty (not the fake kind we have in america), and will put in any amount of work to become successful.  So no, I do not feel sorry for the poor.  Anyone can become rich in america, if they have the right work ethic.  Not many do.  So much to say about this issue but I will end it here for now.

Have you ever taken the time to look at this from another perspective. I mean should you not thank evolution/luck/god or whatever you believe in for giving you the ability to make good choices and stop bashing those less fortunate.
What makes one poor person sit and watch TV all day and another person get up and go to work, I suspect we do not yet have an answer for this, yes I agree there is a choice to be made right there  but do we know why different choices are made. In my opinion its simply a product of wiring and to a lesser extent environment. You made the point in your post "to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART" - so can you tell me what made you SMART, if you cannot then I suggest you not be so quick to judge.
 I suspect history will not look kindly on our treatment of those less fortunate, any less kindly than we currently judge those in our past who mistreated persons of different races/religions/sex/sexual orientation etc. Its just part of evolution as we become more enlightened we will cringe at our treatment of others.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gwyddyon on January 22, 2015, 12:22:49 PM
Until they figure out how men can have the babies, the domestic sphere will remain "coded" as female.  It is changing and I would love to be a stay at home dad (and will when I retire) but this is just pure silliness.

As a stay-at-home dad, I agree - your statement there is pure silliness. My wife carried a fetus, delivered it, and nursed it (because we chose to). There is absolutely no other portion of her duties or mine in the home that has a biological necessity or advantage attached to it. As a man who stays at home with his children, does the laundry and cooking and sweeping and all the rest, and changes the overwhelming majority of diapers, it is very clear to me that the domestic sphere is coded female purely as a result of societal pressures and archaic sexism. What you are quite clearly implying, since it is a logical and necessary extension of your arguments here as far as I can see, is that my wife would be a better housekeeper and stay at home parent than me purely because she happened to give birth to our children. That's an offensive load of crap, besides being a hilarious misunderstanding of biology and a blatant appeal to science when it doesn't actually back you up.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 22, 2015, 02:08:46 PM
Until they figure out how men can have the babies, the domestic sphere will remain "coded" as female.  It is changing and I would love to be a stay at home dad (and will when I retire) but this is just pure silliness.

As a stay-at-home dad, I agree - your statement there is pure silliness. My wife carried a fetus, delivered it, and nursed it (because we chose to). There is absolutely no other portion of her duties or mine in the home that has a biological necessity or advantage attached to it. As a man who stays at home with his children, does the laundry and cooking and sweeping and all the rest, and changes the overwhelming majority of diapers, it is very clear to me that the domestic sphere is coded female purely as a result of societal pressures and archaic sexism. What you are quite clearly implying, since it is a logical and necessary extension of your arguments here as far as I can see, is that my wife would be a better housekeeper and stay at home parent than me purely because she happened to give birth to our children. That's an offensive load of crap, besides being a hilarious misunderstanding of biology and a blatant appeal to science when it doesn't actually back you up.
Given the fact you think your wife delivered and nursed a fetus, you my friend are the one with a hilarious misunderstanding of biology.  Quick tip: at some point before or certainly by the moment of birth, the fetus magically becomes a baby. 

I said the sphere is coded female in part due to biology.  You disagree and say that it is 100% due to societal pressures and archaic sexism.  I believe many women make the decision to stay home with their children for other reasons.  They must not be smart enough to realize that the joy they feel is false and just caused by "The Man" keeping them down.

To be clear, I think you are doing a great thing and I'd like to see more stay at home dads.  I just think there are other reasons for moms to choose to stay home than the "patriarchy" that come into play.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gwyddyon on January 23, 2015, 06:51:13 AM
She carried a fetus. I'm sorry it was unclear that I know a baby, once delivered, is not a fetus.


In any case, no, I'm not saying women only stay home because of sexism. I'm saying biological necessity or adaptation has precisely NOTHING to do with it after the first few weeks and that your claims to the contrary are flat-out wrong and insulting. Go ahead and continue to conflate rejection of bad science with denial of female agency, but that's really just low-grade trolling.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 23, 2015, 06:55:52 AM
She carried a fetus. I'm sorry it was unclear that I know a baby, once delivered, is not a fetus.


In any case, no, I'm not saying women only stay home because of sexism. I'm saying biological necessity or adaptation has precisely NOTHING to do with it after the first few weeks and that your claims to the contrary are flat-out wrong and insulting. Go ahead and continue to conflate rejection of bad science with denial of female agency, but that's really just low-grade trolling.
Except I never made those claims. I made the claim that maternal instincts are a real thing and play a large role in a woman's decision whether to stay home with their children or not.  You seem to want to dismiss them in favor of the old saw that both sexes are the same when they are clearly different. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gwyddyon on January 23, 2015, 06:58:20 AM
No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on January 23, 2015, 09:40:01 AM
No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
It relies on the fact that women carry the child for 9 months and have certain instincts to nurture and care for their offspring.  If you think those instincts are junk science let me know why.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Emilyngh on January 23, 2015, 05:20:56 PM
No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
It relies on the fact that women carry the child for 9 months and have certain instincts to nurture and care for their offspring.  If you think those instincts are junk science let me know why.

"Cultures around the world have long assumed that women are hardwired to be mothers. But a new study suggests that caring for children awakens a parenting network in the brain—even turning on some of the same circuits in men as it does in women. The research implies that the neural underpinnings of the so-called maternal instinct aren't unique to women, or activated solely by hormones, but can be developed by anyone who chooses to be a parent."

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/05/parenting-rewires-male-brain

As a woman who has carried a child for 9 months and have a spouse who is a very good parent, I can also add the anecdotal evidence that, nope, I had no more child-caring "instincts" than he.   I also had and have *no* desire to be a SAHP, whereas he loves it.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 25, 2015, 10:08:24 AM
Wow this topic got OT.

"Hard-wired to be mothers" - the  "Any other Child-free by Choice People like me?" thread (here on Off-topic) is full of women who seem to not have that "hard-wired" maternal instinct.  It is always possible that if they had had a baby it would have turned on, but it certainly was not pushing them to have a baby.  Historically many/most upper-class women (and lots of middle-class ones as well) left the child care to nurses and governesses.  Again, it does not seem to have been that hard-wired in them.  And historically "revolving hatches" for illegitimate babies were common, where mothers could leave unwanted babies - so much for their maternal urges, other factors in their lives were more pressing.  If it were that hard-wired, nothing would overcome that urge.

Anecdotally, until recently women did child and house care because it was expected, and was their main option in life.  A woman could be a nun, she could be a pitied spinster (who was usually treated as free labour by her family), or she could be married.  And without birth control, she would then be a mother.  And since almost everyone was farming, being a housewife meant a lot more than it does now in terms of what she was responsible for, and the husband would still be at "home", just out in the fields or the barns.  The big change was the industrial revolution, when work moved from the home to the factory.  And everyone worked - children as well as women and men.  It was a sign of affluence for a family that the wife didn't have to work, since her husband made enough for the family.

This forum has a lot of middle/upper class earners, but I have friends who were blue-collar (and not the high-paying blue collar jobs) all their lives - hard physical work, and then coming home to house work, and husbands who didn't help - the two-job situation was there for them.  And a lot of husbands talked the talk (and walked the walk) but once their wives were home on maternity leave, they figured she could do everything, they were off the hook - and once she went back to work, they stayed off the hook.  And not just blue-collar, I have seen it happen in the marriages of most of my friends, and they were definitely white-collar.

I have no idea of the ages of the previous posters, except Cressida, but they sound young to me.  Life in your 30's and 40's (and 50's and 60's) is a lot different from life in your 20's.  And I feel for the girlfriends/wives of some of the guys posting here, if their posts here are a reflection of their behaviour in real life.

No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
It relies on the fact that women carry the child for 9 months and have certain instincts to nurture and care for their offspring.  If you think those instincts are junk science let me know why.

"Cultures around the world have long assumed that women are hardwired to be mothers. But a new study suggests that caring for children awakens a parenting network in the brain—even turning on some of the same circuits in men as it does in women. The research implies that the neural underpinnings of the so-called maternal instinct aren't unique to women, or activated solely by hormones, but can be developed by anyone who chooses to be a parent."

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/05/parenting-rewires-male-brain

As a woman who has carried a child for 9 months and have a spouse who is a very good parent, I can also add the anecdotal evidence that, nope, I had no more child-caring "instincts" than he.   I also had and have *no* desire to be a SAHP, whereas he loves it.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cassie on January 27, 2015, 01:50:13 PM
Too funny spartana!!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kyle Schuant on January 27, 2015, 03:58:37 PM
Since I started working from home I've gone from doing about 2/3 the housework to 9/10 the housework.

My wife has become quite content with this.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Robert Platt Bell on March 19, 2015, 11:39:47 AM
15% of Americans live below the government defined poverty line.

Which is a lot different than "15% of Americans are actually living in Poverty".  The poverty line is an artificial number, and if you add in all the free stuff you qualify for, from Uncle Sam, you can actually live pretty well.

[MOD NOTE: Personal blog links removed.  Please see forum rules on spamming/promotion.]

The average "poor" person in America has a refrigerator, microwave, air conditioner, television set, automobile, and a place to live. 

The largest single health problem among the "poor" in America is obesity and as a result life expectancy can be 10 years shorter than average (68 instead of 78)

In Africa, the average "poor" person has a life expectancy of 35, owns nothing, and hasn't eaten in three days.   We need to put our "poverty" in perspective.  Hard to feel sorry for poor people who eat (and smoke) themselves to death, while others literally starve.

How you define poverty determines how many people are "poor" just as how you define homelessness determines how many people are "homeless".

Some States define "homeless" as people who lives with friends, family, in a trailer park, a motel, or a hotel.   Seems like an odd definition of "homeless" to me.  My sister lived in a trailer park, and I don't think she considered herself homeless.

[MOD NOTE: Personal blog links removed.  Please see forum rules on spamming/promotion.]

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad that the poor get ripped off in this country.  Whether we can fix this, or should, is another question.

[MOD NOTE: Personal blog links removed.  Please see forum rules on spamming/promotion.]
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on March 19, 2015, 02:42:31 PM
Typical conservative talking points:  "If you aren't currently and immediately dying like the poor wretches in sub-Saharan Africa, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a refrigerator -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1918 and is available for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "If you have a cell phone -- a common piece of technology that costs a few dollars at Walmart and is necessary to be able to get work -- then you aren't poor."  "If you subsist on dollar store snack foods devoid of nutrition because you are addicted to fats, sugar, and salt that make you obese even though you are malnourished, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a television set -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1923 and can easily be obtained for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "Poor people have it easy with food stamps and housing assistance that are really difficult to obtain (especially in Red States) and lead to constant public humiliation."  Etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but it has all gotten really old.  We get that you think you are pretty fucking awesome, but there are a lot of people who don't live an easy life like you.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on March 19, 2015, 06:12:55 PM
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Robert Platt Bell on March 19, 2015, 08:18:41 PM
Typical conservative talking points:  "If you aren't currently and immediately dying like the poor wretches in sub-Saharan Africa, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a refrigerator -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1918 and is available for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "If you have a cell phone -- a common piece of technology that costs a few dollars at Walmart and is necessary to be able to get work -- then you aren't poor."  "If you subsist on dollar store snack foods devoid of nutrition because you are addicted to fats, sugar, and salt that make you obese even though you are malnourished, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a television set -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1923 and can easily be obtained for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "Poor people have it easy with food stamps and housing assistance that are really difficult to obtain (especially in Red States) and lead to constant public humiliation."  Etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but it has all gotten really old.  We get that you think you are pretty fucking awesome, but there are a lot of people who don't live an easy life like you.

Really?  And the poor in America have it so hard because they can't have a new Rolls Royce or what?

Oh, I see, you are buying into that "relative poverty" argument.  Someone with a nice house, car, appliances, cell phone, and 40 pounds of excess body fat is "poor and disadvantaged" because they FEEL BAD because their neighbor has a nicer house, car, appliances, etc.

And by the way, what relevance is it what year the refrigerator or telephone was invented?  These are appliances that the REAL POOR in the world don't own.   Your thinking is clouded if you think that sort of data is relevant in determining what poverty is or isn't. 

Please, be real.  No one is starving in America.  Our poor are some of the richest poor in the world.  If you are living on welfare in America or earning the minimum wage, you are in the top 90% of income for the planet.

If your NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM is being GROSSLY OVERWEIGHT you cannot be "poor" by any sane definition.

If your standard of living is in the top 90% for the Planet, you cannot be poor by definition.

Sorry, but no sale.   I was "poor" once.  I don't "have it easy" because someone gave me a bunch of money.  I worked those shitty minimum-wage jobs.   You really have no idea about what I went through and are in no position to make such idiotic blanket statements about my life.  I presume you worked your way through 14 years of college too?  Or did Mommy and Daddy pay for it all?  Who had the "easy life" here?

It took a lot of hard work, years of savings, and yes, realizing that a lot of my financial habits were "poor" - in every sense of the world, to get ahead.   What makes the "poor" really "poor" is POOR CHOICES - in nearly everything.

And that is why these payday loan places, title pawn loan places and other rip-off deals are always in poor neighborhoods.

Stop feeling sorry for others, particularly when they don't need feeling sorry for.

Think about your own poor choices.  The middle class plays this "victim" game too - saying they are living "paycheck to paycheck" when they are racking up credit card debt to get "miles" and making other dumb financial moves like serial refinancing.

The "Poverty Line" is a number created by the GOVERNMENT that represent an artificial cutoff arbitrarily set, that does not reflect real poverty (indeed, it is not even indexed for local cost of living!).

Just as the government now counts children living in trailer parks as "homeless"....


Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Robert Platt Bell on March 19, 2015, 08:29:50 PM
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?

You make a good point.  In in a normal family, the father would step up to the plate and contribute to the raising of he kids.  And in fact, she can sue for child support from these Dads, and I am sure there is a social services lawyer who will do just that.

Having four children without any means of supporting them?  I can see the first, but then why would you have #2, #3, and #4?

And why is she not collecting ADC?  Free Obamaphone?  Oh, and her medical care is free as well (Medicare).

But I love these scenarios with the made-up numbers. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on March 20, 2015, 02:35:29 AM
If your NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM is being GROSSLY OVERWEIGHT you cannot be "poor" by any sane definition.
I suggest you inform yourself on health a bit more.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on March 20, 2015, 05:48:23 AM
Robert Bell et al,

The answers to your questions are, in my experience, love and abuse.  Recall that the client grew up in foster care.  A child who grows up in care (who is not adopted) typically experiences multiple placements and disruptions, as many as ten or twelve in their eighteen years. They enter adulthood desperate for love, connection, family, yet without any of the skills that make it possible for them to create those things in positive, sustainable ways.  So, the client meets a man who says he loves her, and gives her all the things she's longed for all her life--attention, affection, a sense of belonging. Of course she has a baby with him!  She's trying to create the family she's always wanted!  At some point, usually before the baby is born, he becomes abusive and the client gets out of the relationship.  She has the baby and avoids any contact with father, including child support (BTW, there are no "social services lawyers" available to women in these situations, at least in my state), because she doesn't want more trouble and because he has no money anyway.

And then she tries again to get the love and family she needs, with another man. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: WranglerBowman on March 20, 2015, 10:36:26 AM

Do you want to ban MacDonalds?  In poor neighborhoods? 

StashDaddy, I agree with just about everything you've posted so far, and believe that anyone can be successful in America IF you're willing to work for it...but please for Christ precious love it's McDonalds...Mc...Donalds...Mc Mc Mc...NOT "Mac".  A weird statistic through personal experiences, 100% of the people who say "Mac"Donalds are African American, can anyone explain how "Mc" became "Mac"!?  This drives me total insane!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kris on March 20, 2015, 10:38:53 AM

Do you want to ban MacDonalds?  In poor neighborhoods? 

StashDaddy, I agree with just about everything you've posted so far, and believe that anyone can be successful in America IF you're willing to work for it...but please for Christ precious love it's McDonalds...Mc...Donalds...Mc Mc Mc...NOT "Mac".  A weird statistic through personal experiences, 100% of the people who say "Mac"Donalds are African American, can anyone explain how "Mc" became "Mac"!?  This drives me total insane!

Because their signature sandwich is a Big Mac.  I think it's relatively easy for people not to pay attention to the actual spelling, because when they go there, they don't see a big "McDonalds", they see the golden arches. 

It bugs me, too, but it's completely understandable.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on March 20, 2015, 11:34:38 AM
Robert Bell et al,

The answers to your questions are, in my experience, love and abuse.  Recall that the client grew up in foster care.  A child who grows up in care (who is not adopted) typically experiences multiple placements and disruptions, as many as ten or twelve in their eighteen years. They enter adulthood desperate for love, connection, family, yet without any of the skills that make it possible for them to create those things in positive, sustainable ways.  So, the client meets a man who says he loves her, and gives her all the things she's longed for all her life--attention, affection, a sense of belonging. Of course she has a baby with him!  She's trying to create the family she's always wanted!  At some point, usually before the baby is born, he becomes abusive and the client gets out of the relationship.  She has the baby and avoids any contact with father, including child support (BTW, there are no "social services lawyers" available to women in these situations, at least in my state), because she doesn't want more trouble and because he has no money anyway.

And then she tries again to get the love and family she needs, with another man.

You can't reason with people with this kind of information because they are just so hateful.  Nobody cares that people in these situations are nearly 100% suffering from mental illnesses.  They just say "Screw you.  Bootstraps."
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on March 20, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
Moneycat,
I think it's really difficult for people who have lived a protected life to understand what people like my client experience.  No amount of "bootstraps" is going to make any difference. You cannot reason or educate people out of their emotional needs.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: fields on March 20, 2015, 12:13:35 PM
Cathy, you raise a good point. There ARE people who have made good choices despite having had very difficult childhood experiences.  There's been a lot of research to try and determine why they are able to (ie, are resilient) when most others have not. Some key factors have been identified but as far as I know few programs have successfully built resilience in struggling children and families thus far.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on March 26, 2015, 09:30:02 AM
Moneycat,
I think it's really difficult for people who have lived a protected life to understand what people like my client experience.  No amount of "bootstraps" is going to make any difference. You cannot reason or educate people out of their emotional needs.

And you can't pay them out of those either...

Imho society should focus on the kids and directly invest in them via pre-school, schools, healthy food, sports etc and foster parents if things go downhill too far. Preferrably before another child is damaged for life.

There is no way xyz more EUR or USD per month is curing the mental and emotional issues on the bottom of a lot of troubled lifes of adults.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on March 26, 2015, 09:35:24 AM
Personally, I continue to find it very surprising that MoneyCat assumes that everybody who has made good choices has an easy, leisurely, "protected" life. Newsflash: Just because you make good choices such as not having six children when you can't afford one child, doesn't mean you have an easy, fantastic life. Your life could still suck a lot. Making good choices can help make your life better, but it doesn't guarantee an easy life.

+1

A lot of people think having your shit together is proof of you having had it easy. Just like not being in debt is evidence of you being 'lucky'.

I remember a poster over in a discussion on un-mustachian families telling how his parents always tell him how easy he had it and how he just 'can't understand' because unlike his parents he's not addicted to any drug...
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on March 26, 2015, 09:48:50 AM
Cathy, you raise a good point. There ARE people who have made good choices despite having had very difficult childhood experiences.  There's been a lot of research to try and determine why they are able to (ie, are resilient) when most others have not. Some key factors have been identified but as far as I know few programs have successfully built resilience in struggling children and families thus far.

Perry preschool comes to mind. Unfortunately few politicians (or NGOs) are willing to invest a dollar today to save society seven dollars in twenty years.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gin1984 on March 27, 2015, 01:27:26 PM
Quote
No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

That is strange, considering that people in this very thread have put forth that exact position.

I also find it strange that you have abandoned your nonsensical statement that feminism is solely about men and women being treated equally, therefore one must be a feminist if they believe that men and women should be treated equally.

Quote
I have only my data point, no actual statistics, but I disagree with your first statement.  I identify as a feminist, and I don't think people "are incapable of making their own choices."

I didn't say that all feminists believe that. I said that feminists generally tend to believe...

You cannot deny that it is a mainstream feminist position to claim that the primary reason why few women are in STEM fields etc. is because of discrimination rather than internal choices and actions.
Given that those who are feminists are telling you that you are wrong and feminists don't think that way, chances are, you are wrong. 
I am in STEM field and I spoke to a professor about going forward, a male professor if that matters.  And he flat out said to get where he was, he needed to be in the top 10%, but for me as a woman, I'd need to be in top 2%.  There is a lot of research into the field of psychology, specifically social psychology and how our cultures effect us and our behavior.
 For example, a university had two online courses, one run by a male professor, one by a female.  In each of those courses, half the students thought the professor was male and the other thought the professor was female.  It was one of the best designed research experiments.  And guess what, male and female alike judged the professor who they thought was female to be a worst instructor, no matter the actual gender of the professor. 
You want to ignore data because it makes you feel better, but that does not mean the data does not exists. Yes, I want men and women judges equally, but we don't do that here.  And pretending that that we do shows a lot of ignorance.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gin1984 on March 27, 2015, 01:30:22 PM
Quote
You cited exactly one "source" - one that wasn't even a primary source - that purported to show that women commit more domestic violence than men.

I never said that women commit more domestic violence than men. You have lied about this multiple times despite my correcting you each time. I said that domestic violence is not a gendered phenomenon and there is approximate gender parity (i.e. it is close to 50/50 male/female perpetrators).

I also did not cite "only one source that was not a primary source", which is another lie on your part. I cited a collection of 200+ studies: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

As well as Statistics Canada figures (which is a primary source):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

A specific study with an 11,000 sample size (which is a primary source): http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

And a newspaper article that discusses British government statistics (those statistics are also a primary source):
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

You have continued to lie and argue in bad faith and claim that these are "MRA hatchet jobs" - which is incredibly dishonest of you.

Quote
But I'm not going to stand by while some douche spews bullshit about how women abuse men and therefore feminism is wrong.

You have lied multiple times, made logically invalid arguments, and repeatedly make personal attacks. I have criticized the merit (namely, the lack thereof) of your arguments, as who you are is completely irrelevant in an online discussion. Only what you say is relevant.

Even here, you continue to lie about my arguments. I am not saying that "women commit domestic violence almost as much as men do, therefore feminism is wrong."

I am simply saying, which was my original point from the start and still is, that there are many feminist positions and claims that are not equivalent to "women and men should be treated equally" - one of which is the claim that domestic violence is gendered (men = abusers, women = victims). Which is why it is false for you to say that "if someone believes men and women should be treated equally, they are a feminist".

That is what I have been saying all along, and it would remain true even if it was proven beyond doubt that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men.
You really don't seem to understand the definition of primary source.  A newspaper is not a primary source, even if they use data from a primary source.  Using data from a primary source, is called a secondary source.
ETA: You also don't seem to understand the information posted in some of your sources.  Stating that there is reciprocal violence does not equal both genders have equal rates of domestic violence.  If someone attacks me, and I defend myself it is reciprocal violence, however, the attacked does matter.  The fact that someone defends themselves does not mean they were not the victim of the attack. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: dsmexpat on March 27, 2015, 01:35:36 PM
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?
It's worth pointing out that there is a lot of resistance to teaching kids how to control their reproductive health and an awful lot of social pressure to keep unwanted pregnancies from groups who are nowhere to be found when it's time to care for the newborn. Bad choices shouldn't be celebrated but nor should they be removed from their context so they can be ridiculed in isolation.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on March 27, 2015, 01:57:32 PM
I'm Christian, so that drives my interest in helping the poor (other than my own life experience of actually being poor.)  Let's see what the Bible has to say about this issue:

Quote
Deut. 15:7:
 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Quote
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?

Quote
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Quote
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Quote
Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Quote
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”

Quote
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help

Quote
Ezek. 22:29,31
 “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Quote
James 5:1-6
 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on and on and on, of course, but I trust I've made my point.  I suppose the disciples of the false prophet Ayn Rand won't listen to these arguments, though.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: enigmaT120 on March 27, 2015, 04:12:34 PM
You missed the one where Jesus said you can't worship both God and Mammon.  I can't get over the crop of modern politicians who claim to be Christians but also claim to revere the book Atlas Shrugged. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on March 27, 2015, 04:26:11 PM
You missed the one where Jesus said you can't worship both God and Mammon.  I can't get over the crop of modern politicians who claim to be Christians but also claim to revere the book Atlas Shrugged.

Good call.

Quote
Matthew 6:24:
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

In my own case, I don't really want to be wealthy for the sake of having a lot of money.  I want to be independent so I can live my life the way it is meant to be lived: Helping people, doing good deeds, creating instead of destroying.  Greed is a horrible thing and it makes people stop seeing other people as human beings.  Pope Francis has spoken about this issue of how people are treating their fellow human beings like they are disposable trash.  It's wrong.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: SwordGuy on March 29, 2015, 05:52:00 PM
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?
It's worth pointing out that there is a lot of resistance to teaching kids how to control their reproductive health and an awful lot of social pressure to keep unwanted pregnancies from groups who are nowhere to be found when it's time to care for the newborn. Bad choices shouldn't be celebrated but nor should they be removed from their context so they can be ridiculed in isolation.
You are quite right on those points.  Sadly, I'm not allowed to flog people who cause that problem and they are quite impervious to facts.

That means that, until that problem can be solved, we need to find other ways to teach kids what they need to know.  It starts with each of us not standing silently by and adding wisdom to discussions whenever possible.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: cavewoman on March 29, 2015, 09:46:01 PM
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on March 30, 2015, 10:23:42 AM
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Well said!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Tony H on April 07, 2015, 07:05:01 PM

It's your tone not your conclusion. It's unneeded. Maybe try having a discussion without having to through in your little parentheticals.  There's no need for it. Maybe even leave out the politics. Your assertions also just seem silly. Poor people don't want decent food, really? Drawing the conclusion that no grocery store means poor people don't want one makes no sense. Maybe that don't build it b/c it's higher crime areas, or poorer people will spend less, or ... Those are just as valid as your conclusion. It's hard for me to imagine that you have ever actually worked with people in theses circumstances or have been there yourself.

Well, if you want an example, I once knew a single woman with 3 kids.  She lived within 3 blocks of the grocery store that I shopped at so she didn't even need the car that she had to get there.  I knew her because I was dating and trying to impress her mother.

Long story short.  The mother told me that the water line to her daughter's washer was leaking.  Wanting to impress the mother I offered to see if I could fix it.  I went over and the spigot was leaking because the hose was too loose.  HUH?? This gal was going to college on the government dollar.  She couldn't figure that out?  BTW, no "Thank you." after I tightened the hose.

Then I noticed that her lawn in the backyard was very long.  I offered the use of my electric lawn mower because her mower was not working.  She proceeded to run over my power cord.  $30 for the cord out of my pocket and she didn't even say, "I'm sorry."

While this was going on, I of course saw inside the house.  Five(5) party size bags of different chips on the living room coffee table, open with chips all over the place.  On the table and floor.  What a mess!  The daughter in the course of all this told me that she just didn't get enough money from the government to feed her three children well.  I said "Gee that is too bad.".

I walked away from mother and daughter and never looked back. 

This woman didn't want anything but for someone or something to take care of her and her kids. 

Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Tony H on April 07, 2015, 07:49:19 PM
I'm Christian, so that drives my interest in helping the poor (other than my own life experience of actually being poor.)  Let's see what the Bible has to say about this issue:

Quote
Deut. 15:7:
 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Quote
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?

Quote
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Quote
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Quote
Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Quote
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”

Quote
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help

Quote
Ezek. 22:29,31
 “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Quote
James 5:1-6
 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on and on and on, of course, but I trust I've made my point.  I suppose the disciples of the false prophet Ayn Rand won't listen to these arguments, though.

I guess I'm not Christian.  I thought I was but according to you I ain't.  Oh well...  On a personal level, I am and always will be willing to help someone that is trying to help them self.   I dig my heels in when the force of government forces me to go against my personal beliefs.  Doesn't do me much good but I try.  :)

I could go on and on about people who don't even try to take care of them selves but I won't as YOU won't hear me.  Try reading the whole bible instead of just bits and pieces of it.  Read it by the chapter instead of by verse.  It would do you well!

Now as far as Aynn Rand....   She was trying to show the evils of socialism and communism in the 40s and 50s.  She grew up in Russia and escaped as a teenager.  She was trying to show the evils of that sort of government.  She actually does a pretty good job of that aspect of what she tried to say though in the doing so she went a little overboard to prove her points, just as you are doing in your quotes from the Bible... 

I suggest that you both reread the Bible in total and learn about Aynn Rand's life story and then reread Aynn Rand.  It will be eye opening on both scores!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kris on April 07, 2015, 08:24:28 PM
I'm Christian, so that drives my interest in helping the poor (other than my own life experience of actually being poor.)  Let's see what the Bible has to say about this issue:

Quote
Deut. 15:7:
 If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Quote
1 John 3:17
But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him–how can God’s love be within him?

Quote
Lev. 19:19
Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Quote
Prov. 14:31
Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

Quote
Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Quote
2 Cor. 9:9
It is as the Scriptures say: “The godly man gives generously to the poor. His good deeds will be an honor to him forever.”

Quote
Isa. 58:7
I want you to share your food with the hungry and bring right into your own homes those who are helpless, poor, and destitute. Clothe those who are cold, and don’t hide from relatives who need your help

Quote
Ezek. 22:29,31
 “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice… Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD.

Quote
James 5:1-6
 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. …Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

I could go on and on and on, of course, but I trust I've made my point.  I suppose the disciples of the false prophet Ayn Rand won't listen to these arguments, though.

I guess I'm not Christian.  I thought I was but according to you I ain't.  Oh well...  On a personal level, I am and always will be willing to help someone that is trying to help them self.   I dig my heels in when the force of government forces me to go against my personal beliefs.  Doesn't do me much good but I try.  :)

I could go on and on about people who don't even try to take care of them selves but I won't as YOU won't hear me.  Try reading the whole bible instead of just bits and pieces of it.  Read it by the chapter instead of by verse.  It would do you well!




I think Moneycat's point is, it's not according to him, it's according to the Bible.

By the way, "The Lord helps those who help themselves," which seems to be your motto, does not come from the Bible.  Jesus seemed to be particularly interested precisely in helping those who could not help themselves.

I would be interested, though, in your providing some examples where the chapter contradicts the verses cited here.  Do tell.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 08, 2015, 05:29:25 AM
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Well said!

This is one of my post FIRE plans. With a working class background of my own I think just the fact that I was able to quit working on somebody else's terms would probably make enough of an impression to get the attention of a smart kid.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: cavewoman on April 08, 2015, 08:59:29 AM
For anyone who believes in helping the kids born to parents who made/make "poor choices", a good option to help is mentoring. After you RE, you'll have plenty of time for it. And having one positive adult influence can make a HUGE impact on future success.
Well said!

This is one of my post FIRE plans. With a working class background of my own I think just the fact that I was able to quit working on somebody else's terms would probably make enough of an impression to get the attention of a smart kid.

Absolutely! In college we had an urban studies class for social work. Social work students generally have a wide variety of socio economic backgrounds. The first day we were asked 'why are you here? Why are you in college when some of your peers are in trouble? What's the difference?"
And the answer was at least one positive adult influence. Parent, teacher, coach, pastor, mentor, whatever. Someone somewhere convinced us we could do something. Occasionally I'll wish I had followed my math skills and gone into a more lucrative career, but most days I'm glad to be in a helping profession. Feels good.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kris on April 08, 2015, 11:11:29 AM
Relevant. And funny.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p,35922/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 08, 2015, 01:06:04 PM
Nice cartoon on the topic, even if it is aimed at white privilege and not "rich privilege"

http://boingboing.net/2015/04/08/simple-comic-strip-explains-th.html
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Kris on April 08, 2015, 01:07:38 PM
Nice cartoon on the topic, even if it is aimed at white privilege and not "rich privilege"

http://boingboing.net/2015/04/08/simple-comic-strip-explains-th.html
Nice!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Bob W on April 10, 2015, 01:16:44 PM
If by victim you mean situational determined I would agree.   Poor folks in Russia, China, Africa, South America were and still are poor primarily due to their situations.  One of those situations is ignorance and laziness but systemic influence is huge.

So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.

And by the way,  if your a single adult male you are pretty much screwed by the welfare system.   No Medicaid for you bud but here is 90 bucks for food this month and you can wait your turn for a bed at the homeless shelter. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Cassie on April 10, 2015, 01:58:59 PM
Bob, it used to be no medicaid but no more. I have a male single friend that makes less then 20k/year & is on medicaid.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 10, 2015, 03:00:17 PM
So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.
I dont know when Johnson was, but that today are more poor is more likely because the war on poverty stopped then the other way round. Compared to european countries the US welfare system is at about 100 years back. And of course because the creation of wealth was mainly distributed to the already wealthy.
If you look at e.g. Norway, Finland and Denmark(highest), they have huge taxes and huge welfare system. Result is a more leveled wealth distribution, less really poor (like homeless) and the happiest population on earth (Denmark 1st, Norway 2nd, Finland 7th).
That doesnt mean that a good money distribution and big welfare system is the single key to happiness, but it definitely isnt bad for it.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: iris lily on April 10, 2015, 07:49:05 PM
Bob, it used to be no medicaid but no more. I have a male single friend that makes less then 20k/year & is on medicaid.
Doesn't that depend on which state he is in?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 11, 2015, 01:22:01 AM
So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.
I dont know when Johnson was, but that today are more poor is more likely because the war on poverty stopped then the other way round. Compared to european countries the US welfare system is at about 100 years back. And of course because the creation of wealth was mainly distributed to the already wealthy.
If you look at e.g. Norway, Finland and Denmark(highest), they have huge taxes and huge welfare system. Result is a more leveled wealth distribution, less really poor (like homeless) and the happiest population on earth (Denmark 1st, Norway 2nd, Finland 7th).
That doesnt mean that a good money distribution and big welfare system is the single key to happiness, but it definitely isnt bad for it.

I beg to differ. The nordic states do not only have high taxes and welfare programs, they are also intervening into the lives of troubled families early anf heavily. A single teenage mom in Sweden will be monitored while pregnant and during infancy of her kid without something going bad first. Just distributing money (what we have been doing for decades) does not have the same effect. Kids grow up in families where nobody had a steady job for generations and they are lost by the time the German state starts to care about them, when they are 6-7 and need to start school. Our welfare related NGOs have been telling us that poverty is rising since forever and that we should distribute more (half of all state expenses is not sufficient, obviously). They also deliberately obscure how much we pay already (how could somebody live on just a few hundred euros a months??? Ahm, yes, this and having his rent paid, and his heating bills, and health insurance, and all sorts of discounts for e.g. public transport...). Just throwing money at the problem does not help it. And throwing so much money on it that a family of four is better of on welfare than with a minimum wage worker is creating moral hazard on one side and resentment on the other.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on April 11, 2015, 12:35:25 PM

So yeah,  situations do have a major impact.   That doesn't mean that social welfare spending programs work to any significant degree.  Remember the so called war on poverty started under the Johnson administration and today there are more folks in poverty than then.

 

Maybe in terms of pure numbers there may be more people in poverty today, but in terms of percentages poverty is way down thanks for our nation's social programs.  In 1959, 22% of all Americans were in poverty.  In 2007, that number had dropped to 12.5%.  That's a significant difference.  Before Medicare, 30% of senior citizens were in poverty.  By 2008, that was down to 13.8%. 

Minorities have seen the biggest drops in poverty rates due to America's social safety net.  55% of African Americans were in poverty in 1959 and by 2009 that had dropped to 25.9%.

So, the next time you hear someone say that welfare doesn't work, go give them a good kick in the shin.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 11, 2015, 02:41:21 PM
I beg to differ. The nordic states do not only have high taxes and welfare programs, they are also intervening into the lives of troubled families early anf heavily. A single teenage mom in Sweden will be monitored while pregnant and during infancy of her kid without something going bad first. Just distributing money (what we have been doing for decades) does not have the same effect. Kids grow up in families where nobody had a steady job for generations and they are lost by the time the German state starts to care about them, when they are 6-7 and need to start school. Our welfare related NGOs have been telling us that poverty is rising since forever and that we should distribute more (half of all state expenses is not sufficient, obviously). They also deliberately obscure how much we pay already (how could somebody live on just a few hundred euros a months??? Ahm, yes, this and having his rent paid, and his heating bills, and health insurance, and all sorts of discounts for e.g. public transport...). Just throwing money at the problem does not help it. And throwing so much money on it that a family of four is better of on welfare than with a minimum wage worker is creating moral hazard on one side and resentment on the other.
Why do you think it is deliberately obscured? You are talking about Hartz-4, right?
Its all written down in your Bescheid. A single gets about 700€ maximum plus 127€ (last time I looked) health insurance. That btw. should be the same rate you get if you earn the same money through working.
2 person household its 2x120€ rent for example.
And I dont think there is a single country (with a meaningful welfare system) on the whole earth where a single minimum wage earner gets more money then welfare for 4.
Of course Hartz-4 does not not elevate people above the poverty treshold. Again looking at the whole world there is no welfare system that does it, I am quite sure. Apart from where the people are the problem, it does give everyone a warm place and food, even if it is not enough for the "socio cultural minimum" that it is supposed to give. (And here is really a lot of work gone into obscuration and statistical trickery)
Or what did you mean with problem?


Quote
55% of African Americans were in poverty in 1959 and by 2009 that had dropped to 25.9%.
I beg to differ ^^ But with due respect to the "ethnic" problem, I dont think it is fair to compare numbers from before race seggregation (still was 1959, right? But even if not, it was not long ago.) and after. The reason of poverty are more based in race problem that then in welfare problem. I would even go so far to say that it is still the case. We just had a comic on this, right? lol
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 12, 2015, 02:56:50 PM
I beg to differ. The nordic states do not only have high taxes and welfare programs, they are also intervening into the lives of troubled families early anf heavily. A single teenage mom in Sweden will be monitored while pregnant and during infancy of her kid without something going bad first. Just distributing money (what we have been doing for decades) does not have the same effect. Kids grow up in families where nobody had a steady job for generations and they are lost by the time the German state starts to care about them, when they are 6-7 and need to start school. Our welfare related NGOs have been telling us that poverty is rising since forever and that we should distribute more (half of all state expenses is not sufficient, obviously). They also deliberately obscure how much we pay already (how could somebody live on just a few hundred euros a months??? Ahm, yes, this and having his rent paid, and his heating bills, and health insurance, and all sorts of discounts for e.g. public transport...). Just throwing money at the problem does not help it. And throwing so much money on it that a family of four is better of on welfare than with a minimum wage worker is creating moral hazard on one side and resentment on the other.
Why do you think it is deliberately obscured? You are talking about Hartz-4, right?
Its all written down in your Bescheid. A single gets about 700€ maximum plus 127€ (last time I looked) health insurance. That btw. should be the same rate you get if you earn the same money through working.
2 person household its 2x120€ rent for example.
And I dont think there is a single country (with a meaningful welfare system) on the whole earth where a single minimum wage earner gets more money then welfare for 4.
Of course Hartz-4 does not not elevate people above the poverty treshold. Again looking at the whole world there is no welfare system that does it, I am quite sure. Apart from where the people are the problem, it does everyone a warm place and food, even if it is not enough for the "socio cultural minimum" that it is supposed to give. (And here is really a lot of work gone into obscuration and statistical trickery)
Or what did you mean with problem?

By NGOs and politicians deliberately obscuring the issue I mean the frequent statement along the lines of 'how could anybody live on 399 eur per month?!?', while in reality it's that, plus rent, plus heating, plus health care, plus one time payments e.g. for furniture, plus all sorts of discounts. One can and ai have lived for less without feeling poor.

Imho our definition of poverty 'less than 60% of average' is a little nuts. My father grew up in 'more children than pairs of shoes in the house' poverty, he just shakes his head when people with flat scren TVs and iphones talk about being poor.

By 'problem' I mean the fact that for the standard of living of a family it does not matter if at least one of the parents works for minimum wage or if they just all stay on welfare. This is plain wrong. And would easily be resolved by a gliding entry into the 'Sozialabgaben' (social security contributions) and/or a negative income tax concept. I don't get why this has not been done years or rather decades ago. Do we want to permanently fund millions of adults? Or do we think it's acceptable for small and medium earners to have 1.5 less children than they would like to have (because they make the 'mistake' of thinking twice whether they can afford them) while they pay for the children of couples who can effectively end their need to look for a job by having 2+ children?
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 13, 2015, 12:52:10 AM
By NGOs and politicians deliberately obscuring the issue I mean the frequent statement along the lines of 'how could anybody live on 399 eur per month?!?', while in reality it's that, plus rent, plus heating, plus health care, plus one time payments e.g. for furniture, plus all sorts of discounts. One can and ai have lived for less without feeling poor.

Imho our definition of poverty 'less than 60% of average' is a little nuts. My father grew up in 'more children than pairs of shoes in the house' poverty, he just shakes his head when people with flat scren TVs and iphones talk about being poor.

By 'problem' I mean the fact that for the standard of living of a family it does not matter if at least one of the parents works for minimum wage or if they just all stay on welfare. This is plain wrong. And would easily be resolved by a gliding entry into the 'Sozialabgaben' (social security contributions) and/or a negative income tax concept. I don't get why this has not been done years or rather decades ago. Do we want to permanently fund millions of adults? Or do we think it's acceptable for small and medium earners to have 1.5 less children than they would like to have (because they make the 'mistake' of thinking twice whether they can afford them) while they pay for the children of couples who can effectively end their need to look for a job by having 2+ children?
Its not deliberating obscuring, because the normal politician cannot live on 399€ (+rent etc.).
Also I think you still confuse "existing" with the "socio economic minimum", which broadly means that everyone should be able to do what a normal person does. If flying to the moon is somewhere in the future what everyone does 3 times a year then the s-o min would be that you are able to do it at least once every 2 years.
It is comparative living, as it  it is comparitive poorness. Thats the 60% and that is not mine but international standard.

And if you ask if we want to permanently fund millions of adults: Well, we do. More then ever before. And older then ever before. We fund less children then ever before btw. And we have a "gliding" entry. Every money is earn is subtracted - but not in full. If you earn 500€, then from your Hartz-4 80% of that (after 100€) is substracted. If you want it more gliding, like 50%, then you will have a great moaning because a lot of people more will be eligible - the people who are now considered middle class. (Thanks to statistical trickeries to show that the middle class is not falling apart, you are now middle class slightly above the poverty line).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Hey It's Me on April 13, 2015, 04:53:46 AM
If food stamps allowed them to "eat like kings", I don't think they would be lining up at the soup kitchen.  I will admit that the crowds are much bigger toward the end of the month, after the food stamps have run out.

It's illegal to sell food stamps. However, that doesn't stop it from happening. Part of the reason people still show up at soup kitchens despite the existence of food stamps is that they're selling them so they can buy things that otherwise wouldn't be approved.

As an aside, my neighborhood farmer's market doubles the value when purchasing with food stamps. Since (I'm told) food stamps sell in the range of 50 cents on the dollar, if some not-poor person were willing to act unethically they could get their fancy organic food at a 75% discount.

Stealth wealth is one thing but I admit I would probably be embarrassed to use food stamps.

Apparently, food stamps aren't actually stamps these days. Instead, they come on a card that you swipe just like a credit/debit card. Even the next person in line at the checkout shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Nobody should be embarrassed to use food stamps that he was given by the government.

However, a person should be ashamed to be using ones bought from somebody else, because he's enabling that person's drug habit.

The person behind you would very much know that you're using food stamps. the EBT card is kind of a distinct blue, and there is an ID check and a PIN entry required where I'm from for food stamp purchases.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 13, 2015, 05:27:05 AM
By NGOs and politicians deliberately obscuring the issue I mean the frequent statement along the lines of 'how could anybody live on 399 eur per month?!?', while in reality it's that, plus rent, plus heating, plus health care, plus one time payments e.g. for furniture, plus all sorts of discounts. One can and ai have lived for less without feeling poor.

Imho our definition of poverty 'less than 60% of average' is a little nuts. My father grew up in 'more children than pairs of shoes in the house' poverty, he just shakes his head when people with flat scren TVs and iphones talk about being poor.

By 'problem' I mean the fact that for the standard of living of a family it does not matter if at least one of the parents works for minimum wage or if they just all stay on welfare. This is plain wrong. And would easily be resolved by a gliding entry into the 'Sozialabgaben' (social security contributions) and/or a negative income tax concept. I don't get why this has not been done years or rather decades ago. Do we want to permanently fund millions of adults? Or do we think it's acceptable for small and medium earners to have 1.5 less children than they would like to have (because they make the 'mistake' of thinking twice whether they can afford them) while they pay for the children of couples who can effectively end their need to look for a job by having 2+ children?
Its not deliberating obscuring, because the normal politician cannot live on 399€ (+rent etc.).
Also I think you still confuse "existing" with the "socio economic minimum", which broadly means that everyone should be able to do what a normal person does. If flying to the moon is somewhere in the future what everyone does 3 times a year then the s-o min would be that you are able to do it at least once every 2 years.
It is comparative living, as it  it is comparitive poorness. Thats the 60% and that is not mine but international standard.

And if you ask if we want to permanently fund millions of adults: Well, we do. More then ever before. And older then ever before. We fund less children then ever before btw. And we have a "gliding" entry. Every money is earn is subtracted - but not in full. If you earn 500€, then from your Hartz-4 80% of that (after 100€) is substracted. If you want it more gliding, like 50%, then you will have a great moaning because a lot of people more will be eligible - the people who are now considered middle class. (Thanks to statistical trickeries to show that the middle class is not falling apart, you are now middle class slightly above the poverty line).

I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.

Regarding the socio-cultural definition of povery: I do understand the concept, I just happen to disagree. Anything I would define as cultural is cheap as dirt and was well within my means when I lived below the so-called poverty line. Books can be lended for free and bought for cheap, music is cheap, all sorts of Vereine are cheap, museums are cheap for people who can't affird the regular fee, same for public transport, inner European travel can be very cheap if you do it right. I don't think that I need to continue. The real 'poverty' in Germany is one of the spirit and soul. That's why ever increasing money transfers are not going to fix it. It had been very well explained above already. No money in the world would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had in order to feel loved and needed.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 13, 2015, 03:50:59 PM
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

Quote
No money in the world would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had in order to feel loved and needed.
And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?


But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 13, 2015, 09:33:37 PM
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: hexdexorex on April 16, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

If the budget is not increased for those extra children than society is holding the children responsible for the mistakes of their parents (assuming the extra money is spent on the children).

Much of the worlds economic structure is setup to favor those that are on this planet the longest or come from legacy wealth. Those born from parents that make bad decisions start out on the lowest leg of opportunity.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on April 16, 2015, 04:51:02 PM
Much of the worlds economic structure is setup to favor those that are on this planet the longest or come from legacy wealth. Those born from parents that make bad decisions start out on the lowest leg of opportunity.

Yeah, tell me about it.  People who haven't lived it have a really difficult time understanding.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 17, 2015, 01:00:10 AM
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

If the budget is not increased for those extra children than society is holding the children responsible for the mistakes of their parents (assuming the extra money is spent on the children).


How exactly do I hold the child responsible if I'm willing to pay for family sized appartments, good schools, afternoon activities in those schools, mandatory checkups of children from troubled families, mandatory and good preschools, breakfast and lunches, etc? What I would not do (if I had the choice) is increase the cash budget of bad decision makers for each child they have. This simply creates an incentive to make even more bad decisions (have more children). As a high earner my objection to this is more rational than emotional, as a low earner, not having children because I could not afford them, I would be livid. And coming from a working class (emphasis on working, not on class) backgroung myself I could just as well tell everybody else: 'you just don't understand...'
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: hexdexorex on April 17, 2015, 10:23:02 AM
I'm talking about social security systems and there is no gliding entry. That's why so many working-class women are stuck im minijobs. The sudden threshold applied by the Renten- and Krankenkasse is a recipe for creating wide-spread poverty among female seniors.
Its actually cheaper for a company to pay you 500€ Sozialversicherungspflichtig then to pay you a 450€ minijob (at same hourly rate of course). And then there is the gliding zone up to 900(? was 800€ when 400€ job).

You're right, the Hartz reform introduced the so called midijobs which did not obliterate but mitigate the suddenness of the entry (it's still there for the "Arbeitnehmeranteil", but less pronounced). See illustration here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Minijob_Midijob_SV_2015_Beitragssatz_Prozent_0_1500.svg

And no amount of NOT spending money would turn a neglected and possibly abused 24 year-old into a great mom for the three children she had. So why not give at least the children a chance? Even if it is just the 50€ a month for playing football? Or perhaps even - if I may be so bold - the 150€ for piano lessons?

But I think we are getting foamy with the german system here.

I don't think handing the mother another 50-150 EUR means "giving the children a chance". Better offer music lessons as a free or next to free activity (Personally, I think piano lessons are in most cases a sign of ivy-league-pre-school-syndrom. A normal kid who does not really burn for music will profit from any musical lessons up to the point it abondons them as a grumpy teenager :-) ). You can only spend each tax dollar once and either hand it to the parents or invest directly in infrastructure servicing children. Remember when the "Regelsätze" have been calculated and all politicians were shocked to discover that the working working-class spend less per child (something else than "for the child") then the non-working poor? That should have surprised nobody doing the simple math of comparing a family where income increases with familiy size vs one where it does not. The question one needs to be asking is "is it ok to take a worker's taxes and invest it in A, B or C?". And as long as family sizes correspond to the reported numbers of children people would like to have only on both ends of the spectrum (high earners and families on welfare) but not in the middle (where people have 1.something children less than they want because they don't think they can make it work) it simply is not ok to further increase the general budget of parents who obviously do not stop and think "can I afford a/one more child?" at the expense of couples who do.

If the budget is not increased for those extra children than society is holding the children responsible for the mistakes of their parents (assuming the extra money is spent on the children).


How exactly do I hold the child responsible if I'm willing to pay for family sized appartments, good schools, afternoon activities in those schools, mandatory checkups of children from troubled families, mandatory and good preschools, breakfast and lunches, etc? What I would not do (if I had the choice) is increase the cash budget of bad decision makers for each child they have. This simply creates an incentive to make even more bad decisions (have more children). As a high earner my objection to this is more rational than emotional, as a low earner, not having children because I could not afford them, I would be livid. And coming from a working class (emphasis on working, not on class) backgroung myself I could just as well tell everybody else: 'you just don't understand...'

I think there is massive agreement on making sure welfare type money is spent on the right things. The issue comes down to enforce ability and who decides what is wrong and right?

When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue. It might not be the right fix but it is a good temp solution till a proper regulatory structure is setup to enforce where welfare money goes. Honestly if schools just give kids in those food insecure house holds lunch and dinner everyday that's a great start....and a huge investment in those kids climbing the economic ladder.

So, yes the most rational thing is people that cant afford kids don't have kids, but the world isn't rational. Once society lets these families have kids, part of raising that child because societies responsibility. The proper economic thing to do is to setup programs to educate parents, and lift their status economically / or education level so they wont have children they cannot afford.

Personally growing up my mother raised three kids below the poverty line as a single parent. We never relied on public assistance, and had many friends that took advantage of it through loops holes. Is this abuse discusting? Yes. But now that have a high salary job I see many of my friends using tax loopholes to get around paying tens of thousands of dollars in tax. This IMO is more disgusting and has a much much bigger impact on the federal budget.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 17, 2015, 11:25:51 AM

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue. It might not be the right fix but it is a good temp solution till a proper regulatory structure is setup to enforce where welfare money goes. Honestly if schools just give kids in those food insecure house holds lunch and dinner everyday that's a great start....and a huge investment in those kids climbing the economic ladder.
Actually free school meals is the most effective thing you can do. Its not only cost effective (because you can cook a lot of meals at once), but also has a lot of "side effects" like children go to school more often, learn better and dsiturb others less (because they are not hungry) and so on.
Of course this statistic is from the really poor countries. Thats why so many of them have adopted the free school meal policy even with their limited money. In same cases school attendence increased dramatically just because of that. Which also tells a lot about the conditions the parents must have to face every day...
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on April 21, 2015, 07:48:23 PM
When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue.

That obvious answer is wrong, because it skips a step: before you throw money at solving a "problem," you have to determine that it actually is a genuine problem first.

Do y'all actually know what the definition of "food insecurity" is? It basically means that at some point in the last year you wanted food but didn't have enough money to immediately go buy it. If you've ever said to yourself "man, this organic produce is too expensive! I'll just skip serving a vegetable with this meal" then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever thought about taking a trip to the grocery store but then decided to wait until payday, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever tried to buy a snack from a vending machine but couldn't because you didn't have enough spare change in your pocket that day, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! (I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) Take a look at the question and grading scale on this survey (http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Security_in_the_United_States/Food_Security_Survey_Modules/short2012.pdf) used to assess food insecurity, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You see that ridiculous "21%" statistic quoted above and think "OMG, that's huge!" But that's because its not a real measure of anything important. Actual persistent lack of food, which the government calls "very low food security," is closer to 5% of households (or less).
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gin1984 on April 21, 2015, 08:13:11 PM
When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue.

That obvious answer is wrong, because it skips a step: before you throw money at solving a "problem," you have to determine that it actually is a genuine problem first.

Do y'all actually know what the definition of "food insecurity" is? It basically means that at some point in the last year you wanted food but didn't have enough money to immediately go buy it. If you've ever said to yourself "man, this organic produce is too expensive! I'll just skip serving a vegetable with this meal" then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever thought about taking a trip to the grocery store but then decided to wait until payday, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! If you've ever tried to buy a snack from a vending machine but couldn't because you didn't have enough spare change in your pocket that day, then congratulations, you're food-insecure! (I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) Take a look at the question and grading scale on this survey (http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Security_in_the_United_States/Food_Security_Survey_Modules/short2012.pdf) used to assess food insecurity, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

You see that ridiculous "21%" statistic quoted above and think "OMG, that's huge!" But that's because its not a real measure of anything important. Actual persistent lack of food, which the government calls "very low food security," is closer to 5% of households (or less).
Actually your statement was grossly exaggerated.  They are talked about needing food and going without based on that. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on April 21, 2015, 08:23:37 PM
They are talked about needing food and going without based on that.

Yeah, one day in a year. Even if they're drowning in food the other 364 days of the year they still count as "food-insecure," and that flawed way of measuring inflates the statistics. Those skewed statistics, in turn, lead to bad public policy. After all, the solution to the problem of somebody going hungry because he had to take unpaid time off one day which caused his paycheck to be short is very, very different from the solution to the problem of a family trying to subsist for months on end on nothing but peanut butter sandwiches.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gin1984 on April 21, 2015, 08:29:02 PM
They are talked about needing food and going without based on that.

Yeah, one day in a year. Even if they're drowning in food the other 364 days of the year they still count as "food-insecure," and that flawed way of measuring inflates the statistics. Those skewed statistics, in turn, lead to bad public policy. After all, the solution to the problem of somebody going hungry because he had to take unpaid time off one day which caused his paycheck to be short is very, very different from the solution to the problem of a family trying to subsist for months on end on nothing but peanut butter sandwiches.
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.  Also that link is a limited survey which is used when the others are not able to be used and it has been shown to get a reliable result compared to those other surveys.  Food insecure is not deciding to not get a certain organic produce.  And personally, I would consider that if one day off caused someone to go hungry, that is very insecure indeed.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Jack on April 21, 2015, 08:58:43 PM
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.

No, they would report "sometimes."
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on April 21, 2015, 09:22:29 PM

From http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1565415/err173.pdf, the source given by http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html (which in turn was the source for
Quote
"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."
(http://s23.postimg.org/fhw5utw4b/screenshot_65.png) (http://postimage.org/)
There are likely to be slight differences because the chart is for 2013 while the posted quote refers to 2012.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Gin1984 on April 21, 2015, 09:23:52 PM
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.

No, they would report "sometimes."
Actually no, most people don't.  That is why one would use a three point scale like that. 
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 21, 2015, 10:59:10 PM
When you see stats like this...

"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."

The obvious answer is to throw money at the issue.

That obvious answer is wrong, because it skips a step: before you throw money at solving a "problem," you have to determine that it actually is a genuine problem first,

And you need to evalute which ways of 'throwing money' would help, which would do nothing more than make the one doing the throwing feel good and which would do serious harm on top of not helping. If the reason for a family being food insecure is an alcohol or drug habit of the adults and you respond by 'throwing money', the results of this would only benefit the liquor industry or dealer. Several children from addicted parents report that days when the parents had some cash on their hands were the very worst.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: Lyssa on April 21, 2015, 11:06:42 PM
Actually given the question answers are: always, never and sometimes, most people with a rarely would report never.

No, they would report "sometimes."
Actually no, most people don't.  That is why one would use a three point scale like that.

It really depends. Some do not apply for the help they would be elegible for and would always report 'never' even if they frequently went to bed hungry. Others would report 'sometimes' because they had to think twice what to throw in their cart after buying a new smartphone a day earlier.
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: LennStar on April 22, 2015, 05:07:49 AM

From http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1565415/err173.pdf, the source given by http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html (which in turn was the source for
Quote
"More than one in five American kids lived in a “food insecure” household in 2012, according to the newest annual Map the Meal Gap report from anti-hunger charity Feeding America. The food insecurity rate for children nationwide is 21.6 percent."
There are likely to be slight differences because the chart is for 2013 while the posted quote refers to 2012.
So at least 0,9% have real food problems, thats we can all agree on, right?
That means in the US, with the highest per-capita income of all big states, nearly 3 million people hunger or are malnourished.
Thats a f****** bad numer, that one!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MDM on April 22, 2015, 09:33:33 AM
So at least 0,9% have real food problems, thats we can all agree on, right?
That means in the US, with the highest per-capita income of all big states, nearly 3 million people hunger or are malnourished.
I think all agree that, for various reasons, there are children not receiving proper nutrition - and, pretty much by definition (i.e., because they are children) this is through no fault of their own.

There are also adults not receiving proper nutrition.  Here there is a split - for some (e.g., genetic medical problems) it is also through no fault of their own, for others it is due to poor life choices.

The 0.9% is out of "U.S. households with children" so the denominator is 38.5 million.  Of course there could be >1 child per household.  Assuming 2 children/household, we get 0.9% * 38.5 million * 2 = ~700,000. 

That is still a very large number, but nowhere near the size implied by the misleading "one in five American kids..." quote.  Whenever people - from any political perspective - cite a misleading statistic, it causes me to think less of their opinion.  YMMV.

As for "how much underfed?" - that is difficult to know.  One could posit that people would not admit to a problem unless it is severe (leading to an under count of problems), or posit that counting "ever in the past 12 months" is not indicative of a real problem (leading to an over count of real problems).


Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: MoneyCat on April 26, 2015, 08:41:36 PM
After three years, my brother finally recovered from his mental illness and he was able to get his nursing certification back so he can work again.  He starts next week.  I'm so proud of him.  Now he won't have to eat rotten vegetables from the food bank anymore.  If it was up to many people on this board, he would be dead.  I hope those people are proud of themselves.  You are all so amazing.  Boot straps!
Title: Re: Poor Folks are Victims
Post by: davisgang90 on April 27, 2015, 07:23:50 AM
After three years, my brother finally recovered from his mental illness and he was able to get his nursing certification back so he can work again.  He starts next week.  I'm so proud of him.  Now he won't have to eat rotten vegetables from the food bank anymore.  If it was up to many people on this board, he would be dead.  I hope those people are proud of themselves.  You are all so amazing.  Boot straps!
Glad he was able to make use of the food bank and glad he is getting back on his feet. 

Not so glad for your overwhelming snarkiness.