For the GOP being the official party of big money, they seem to barely be a blip on the radar. This was surprising to me. Then again, I'd never heard of ActBlue either so apparently I'm not up on political donors at all.
I can't vouch for the veracity of opensecrets.org - anyone ever heard of it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nope, but it's an interesting site to navigate. The results it presents are surprising.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a nonprofit nonpartisan group from I believe the mid 80s? Founded by two congresscritters I think.
As for the list, I don't have time to read it right now and dig into it, but I suspect that especially lately, it's not so straightforward to track campaign contributions at all.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Pretty much what I would expect. Unions are hard dem, NRA, oil and energy hard rep while banks and big business play both sides.
Posted by vineyarddawg (Member # 13007) on :
The only implication I would draw from that data is that Democratic donors tend to concentrate their PAC money into fewer sources with larger "pools" of money, while Republican donors tend to spread theirs out into more sources with smaller pools of money. Certainly the spending on campaigns isn't as lopsided as the top-line data at that page might seem to imply at first glance.
The data makes empirical sense, too, as labor unions have long been Democratic stalwarts, and they comprise a much larger concentration of individuals, generally speaking, than the republican-leaning organizations on the list such as the NRA and corporations like Altria (Philip Morris), RJR, and Exxon Mobil.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
I'm pretty sure the Koch donations in 2012 were somewhere along the lines of $122 million. Maybe that's their "money spent" and this is just tracking direct donations or something. Seems misleading to look at it this way? I could be wrong.
... Or possibly because they gave their own money to PACs and it wasn't Koch Industries? Not sure.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
This is a pretty damning revelation, especially when you consider the ideological leanings of those that demand we "get money out of politics" the loudest and most often.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I'm pretty sure the Koch donations in 2012 were somewhere along the lines of $122 million. Maybe that's their "money spent" and this is just tracking direct donations or something. Seems misleading to look at it this way? I could be wrong.
... Or possibly because they gave their own money to PACs and it wasn't Koch Industries? Not sure.
The figure in the table is direct, traceable donations but the Kochs also have AFP and many other non-profits to funnel money through that don't show up on such charts.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: This is a pretty damning revelation, especially when you consider the ideological leanings of those that demand we "get money out of politics" the loudest and most often.
Remeber, capax: if there is a straightforward finding on an enormously complicated, only partially understood dynamic, accept it at once at face value if it appears to confirm your bias.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A couple of things to remember. First, PACs and SuperPACs are not really show on this list. Second, bear in mind the number of people each of those groups listed represents. Unions, for example, represent the interests of many thousands of people. The Koch brothers may be further down the list but they represent the interests of...well, the Koch brothers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A couple of things to remember. First, PACs and SuperPACs are not really show on this list.
Exactly! The list is exactly what it purports to be but if people take this as the total representation of money (corporate or otherwise) into politics, and you can't even alt+f something like "Restore Our Future" (conservative PAC, raised $153,741,731) or "American Crossroads" (conservative PAC, raised $117,472,407) in it, you're making a huge mistake.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: A couple of things to remember. First, PACs and SuperPACs are not really show on this list. Second, bear in mind the number of people each of those groups listed represents. Unions, for example, represent the interests of many thousands of people. The Koch brothers may be further down the list but they represent the interests of...well, the Koch brothers.
Let's be fair. The Koch Brothers represent the interests of American Billionaire Sociopaths. So it's like at least 10 people.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Because the Democratic party doesn't have Megalomaniacal billionaires running things as well...
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because the Democratic party doesn't have Megalomaniacal billionaires running things as well...
Hey look is on the crazy train "Soros" bandwagon!
2016 is going to be amazing.
quote: This is a pretty damning revelation, especially when you consider the ideological leanings of those that demand we "get money out of politics" the loudest and most often.
Meaningless buzzwords, also undermines your supposed point, if the party that is against money in politics is the biggest benefactor as you seem to believe wouldn't that make them more principled?
That and, what's wrong with getting money out of politics? Shouldn't it be about the issues with both sides using an roughly equal amount of public funds for their campaigns? Or rather, a plethora, a dodecahedron if you will, of sides who now have a chance to make their views known without having to be outspent 10:1 by either the DNC or GOP?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Hey look is on the crazy train "Soros" bandwagon!
#1: Pronouns are important. #2: I'm not talking about George Soros, though he is one of them. I'm talking about Bill Gates (That whole MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, or did you not know that? Yes, the channel that spends more time talking about what they said on Fox News the other day rather than things that are relevant.) and Warren Buffett (How much money do you think he had to donate before someone was willing to try and pass a law with his name on it?) and a load of other Billionaires that support the machines of the Democratic party.
They most certainly exist and push the Democratic party just like they exist and push the Republican party. Or did you not realize that modern politics was the only real way that billionaires can get their kicks?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because the Democratic party doesn't have Megalomaniacal billionaires running things as well...
I said billionaire sociopaths, not megalomaniacal billionaires. There's a difference.
quote: #2: I'm not talking about George Soros, though he is one of them. I'm talking about Bill Gates (That whole MS in MSNBC stands for Microsoft, or did you not know that? Yes, the channel that spends more time talking about what they said on Fox News the other day rather than things that are relevant.) and Warren Buffett (How much money do you think he had to donate before someone was willing to try and pass a law with his name on it?) and a load of other Billionaires that support the machines of the Democratic party.
First off, I am as quick to say that I think BIll Gates is a horrific influence on education in the US as I would be if he was a Republican. And don't even get me started on his business practices. His other work is a site better than that being pursued by the Koch Brothers, and even his education stuff, while it infuriates me, isn't exactly self-serving.
Same goes for Warren Buffet, frankly. While he's indeed a powerful player, he has made very plain statements about what should be done in terms of taxation, and none of it was in his favor. He's on record as saying that our system is tipped unfairly in his own favor.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
Anyway, it should be pointed out that both Gates and Buffet are trying to build legacies for themselves now. Why else is it the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" and not something less, I don't know, vain?
And Warren Buffet's statements are very similar. He's trying to make himself remembered. He's gonna be dead within the next few decades, so who cares if what he says about taxation is *actually* a good idea? But it *does* play into the social stigmas of a specific group of people and gets him a pass from the fact that he is *still a freaking billionaire* and didn't get there by being a nice guy.
Let's also not forget that in his professional world, he does just as much to avoid taxation as every other billionaire. His words and actions don't exactly mesh (Yes, I know he lives in the same 6000 square foot house he bought in the 70s. How many other properties does he own?) The fact that he supports the same ideals as you shouldn't excuse him from the same scrutiny you place on people who support opposing ideals.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QB] Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
This is an irrelevant and unqualified assertion.
But lets get to the crux of why your argument is bullshit, you are trying to draw with zero evidence a false equivalence; you are literally saying that because the Democrats also have wealthy backers, the Democrats are 'just as bad' and for some reason this means not actually trying to fix whatever is the current issue that's wrong with the system.
It is only sufficient to point out that your argumentation is composed nearly entirely of weak rationalizations and dismiss it as the waste of time that it is.
It is also sufficient to point out that the super rich backing the GOP are actively looting the American middle class, while the Democratic ones it is sufficient that they aren't Randoids.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
But they are not synonymous. And for the purposes of refuting my statement, treating them as such is unfair.
quote: Let's also not forget that in his professional world, he does just as much to avoid taxation as every other billionaire. His words and actions don't exactly mesh (Yes, I know he lives in the same 6000 square foot house he bought in the 70s. How many other properties does he own?) The fact that he supports the same ideals as you shouldn't excuse him from the same scrutiny you place on people who support opposing ideals
He's not above my scrutiny, believe me. And were I him, frankly I hope I would do what I think I would do, which would be *not* to be him.
But at the same time, he argues against the status quo that enables him to be so powerful *because* he doesn't see another rational way to act. He argues that rational actors don't *not* take advantage of our tax system and our financial system, and for that reasons, he wants those systems changed. For me, at least, that's much preferable to a person who pretends that everything's just fine in a system that allows a single person to wield such dizzying influence on society.
[ February 19, 2014, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [qb] Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
But they are not synonymous. And for the purposes of refuting my statement, treating them as such is unfair.
Wasn't attempting to refute, just pointing out that the problem of excessive individual financial power drives both sides of the political spectrum in the US.
As for the way it works, with individuals getting so much power, first I'd like to point out that calling it irrational is a serious misuse of the term. The system follows rules and has a great deal of logic behind it. The proof of that is the simple fact that individuals are able to take advantage of the system to obtain power. An irrational system would be completely random in its selection of power. Monarchy is an irrational system. Capitalism is not irrational.
Now, you could say it is immoral, and you'd be fairly accurate, but the reality is that capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of the system in any way. This is because the system follows, very closely, the laws of natural selection and nature. Kill or be killed, hunt or be hunted, etc. Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Personally, I would rather try to inject some morality into the system than try to burn it down. There are a lot of companies that are being extremely successful by acting with an eye toward morality (Google, though they are getting less so as they grow, and CostCo, for instance). Personally, I think the best way to fix the system is for moral people to work their way into the system and change it from the inside, rather than trying to get the government to tear it down.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I've always wondered why super-rich folks who argue that they don't pay their fair share don't voluntarily "true up" and write a check for the amount they think they should be paying. From what I've been told, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that.
Not trying to being facetious, but how is it not hypocritical to declare yourself as someone who benefits from unfair income taxation, but still keep the money? Is it because as one individual (albeit a rich one) your "true up" wouldn't make that much of a difference, so why bother? That your message is to impact broader policy and not intended as a tactical comment on your 2014 return? Or maybe lots of people are quietly paying extra and we never hear about it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I think we should also consider the fact that before he said anything about taxation, most people under 50 probably thought Warren Buffet was a really good Island rock singer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Now, you could say it is immoral, and you'd be fairly accurate, but the reality is that capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of the system in any way. This is because the system follows, very closely, the laws of natural selection and nature. Kill or be killed, hunt or be hunted, etc. Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
First, I should say I disagree pretty strongly that capitalism and capitalistic impulses are necessarily amoral, either of themselves or because they flow (somewhat) from notions of natural selection. In amoral nature, where the vast majority of organisms cannot be said to have even a sliver of self-awareness, 'nature red in tooth and claw' can fairly be said to be amoral.
However, as human beings we are both of nature yet not in a state of nature. It can no longer be said that for a powerful human to act on predatory impulses which certainly exist in nature at the expense of less powerful humans is amoral, is simply being natural. The lion doesn't carefully consider whethe it needs a particular numbe of calories at a given time-it hunts pretty much anytime it hasn't recently gorged, or is engaged in moving or defense or mating. Those same impulses don't hold true for being amoral in capitalism. The billionaire, whether Koch or Buffett, under no rational evaluation needs another million dollars, but will often make decisions that harm the livelihoods of many less powerful humans. Sometimes this results in a greater net good, but that's basically never the primary motivation. If we encountered a lion that hunted strictly or mostly from a joy in killing, having left intact kills behind it to pursue another hunt, we would probably think something was wrong.
Capitalism is a system of economics, and so as a whole it can be said I think that it is amoral. A case can be made there. But by no means does it then follow that all practitioners are amoral when they engage in capitalism. Gambling is amoral, to my mind at least. Gambling to excess is not.
As for the rest, I fail to see how this transitions into an examination of monarchies-a political rather than economic system, and it doesn't even transition perfectly to a comparison to communism which is not just economic. But even if it did, your criticism of communism seems to cut capitalism as well, because communism must surely be equally amoral in theory by your standards, but in practice it becomes something different.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: I've always wondered why super-rich folks who argue that they don't pay their fair share don't voluntarily "true up" and write a check for the amount they think they should be paying. From what I've been told, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that.
Not trying to being facetious, but how is it not hypocritical to declare yourself as someone who benefits from unfair income taxation, but still keep the money? Is it because as one individual (albeit a rich one) your "true up" wouldn't make that much of a difference, so why bother? That your message is to impact broader policy and not intended as a tactical comment on your 2014 return? Or maybe lots of people are quietly paying extra and we never hear about it.
Because in this case Warren knows that maybe he can do more good through I dunno, activism? Through joining his voice to the public debate just as much as the various Very Serious People who think raising the minimum wage to a living wage is Socialism?
The whole feed a man a fish/teach a man a fish parable might be useful here, giving charity organizations a billion dollars might help a lot of people, but getting more Democrats elected insures a lot MORE people are helped.
What good is giving a billion to charity if the Republicans will just end up doubling the number of people who need charity? Its better to simply not have people who need it, prevention is superior to the cure.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: I've always wondered why super-rich folks who argue that they don't pay their fair share don't voluntarily "true up" and write a check for the amount they think they should be paying. From what I've been told, there's nothing that would prevent them from doing that.
Not trying to being facetious, but how is it not hypocritical to declare yourself as someone who benefits from unfair income taxation, but still keep the money? Is it because as one individual (albeit a rich one) your "true up" wouldn't make that much of a difference, so why bother? That your message is to impact broader policy and not intended as a tactical comment on your 2014 return? Or maybe lots of people are quietly paying extra and we never hear about it.
Because in this case Warren knows that maybe he can do more good through I dunno, activism? Through joining his voice to the public debate just as much as the various Very Serious People who think raising the minimum wage to a living wage is Socialism?
The whole feed a man a fish/teach a man a fish parable might be useful here, giving charity organizations a billion dollars might help a lot of people, but getting more Democrats elected insures a lot MORE people are helped.
What good is giving a billion to charity if the Republicans will just end up doubling the number of people who need charity? Its better to simply not have people who need it, prevention is superior to the cure.
You know, it always boggles my mind that people so often use the term, "Living wage". That is about as vague and arbitrary a term as I've ever seen (You know, aside from "social justice").
I mean, I "lived" on about 450 dollars a month during two years of my life (When the minimum wage at the time would have had me making double that). In college I "lived" on student loans and 30 dollars a week (for perspective, two years of student loans equaled 12000 dollars for me). What, exactly, is a "living wage"? Quantify it. Seriously. Try it. Also, how many people do you think would actually benefit from an increase to minimum wage, that *aren't* teenagers and college students? Because an estimated 75% of all individuals making minimum wage right now are under 25. College age.
And do you realize that by raising the minimum wage, you are basically also raising the cost of every necessity required to live? Raise the wage of grocery store workers and the grocery stores have to raise prices to cover the difference. Did you also know that if you were to raise the average Walmart employee's wage by 3 dollars an hour it would put Walmart about 20-30 billion dollars a year into the red? I mean this is very simple cause and effect stuff here.
Also, getting more democrats elected would probably only *help* the democrats that get elected. Have you seriously examined the welfare system in the US? Do you realized that it keeps more people *in* poverty than it helps out of poverty? 60% of people on welfare stay on welfare for longer than a year. Only 19-20% actually use welfare for less than a year, which is how it would work for everyone the way you guys describe the "Social safety net". Unless of course, your definition of "help" is to "maintain apathy."
What you don't seem to realize is that the very thing people in poverty need is absolutely impossible for the government to provide. People in poverty need someone to give a crap about them. Actually get to know them and figure out what they really *need*. Money is a resource that allows people to get things they want, but it doesn't always help people get what they *need*.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You know, it always boggles my mind that people so often use the term, "Living wage". That is about as vague and arbitrary a term as I've ever seen (You know, aside from "social justice").
Or "job creator." Or "pro-life." Right?
----------
quote:People in poverty need someone to give a crap about them. Actually get to know them and figure out what they really *need*. Money is a resource that allows people to get things they want, but it doesn't always help people get what they *need*.
But in the interim, they need money. Because we can't legislate caring, but we can legislate a solution that gets them enough to feed their kids.
quote:Raise the wage of grocery store workers and the grocery stores have to raise prices to cover the difference.
You know which retailers are doing badly right now? The ones that cater to the poor and middle class, because the poor and middle class have no money. Giving the poor and middle class more money will help those retailers more than it will hurt them in lost wages.
We are actually living in an era of record corporate profits. Why not pressure them to give some of those profits back in the form of wages?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You know, it always boggles my mind that people so often use the term, "Living wage". That is about as vague and arbitrary a term as I've ever seen (You know, aside from "social justice").
Or "job creator." Or "pro-life." Right?
In case he doesn't answer: right!
Well, mostly right. All those terms are designed to elicit an emotion response in lieu of an actual argument. Some of them are more disconnected or nonsensical than others. But yeah, they're all bad except maybe as a shorthand reference to a well known position.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:And do you realize that by raising the minimum wage, you are basically also raising the cost of every necessity required to live?
Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
*boom headshot*
I'm also hearing a whole lot of "whaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn", my entire University engineering education is free thanks to the social safety net and when I graduate I'll be making 50,000 a year in many entree level positions and whatever debts I do have gone after maybe a year or two depending on how diligent I am in paying them down.
How do you like that? That I, across the border did not have to suffer any of your humiliating lack of basic human dignity, its not fair isn't it?
Because life isn't fair, there is NO such thing as a Just World and that the only way to change that is to FORCE IT to be more fair through redistribution of wealth. Which in many First World Western countries is accomplished through the Social Safety net and progressive taxation and strong labour laws.
But you instead want to stay ranks somewhere a little above Zimbobwe and below Somalia because otherwise your own personal suffering would have been for nothing and proof of even less than nothing, and you can't have that can you, you poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire you!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
Interestingly, this is not the "headshot" you expect, Blayne. McDonald's has three primary cost sinks, and labor is one of them. If they redesign their stores so they require more cashiers, the burgers do need to get more expensive or volume needs to go up disproportionately. It's telling that so many companies are moving to remote drive-through call centers, just to cut down on that one employee at the window.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The direct relation between wages->costs is what's flawed though, which studies show something like an 80% rise in wages would only at best, translate to around 23% rise in the cost to the consumer (and since most consumers are the same people being paid minimum wage this is sustainable).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Except that is not what happens. Wealth (and attendant power) is, in the US, as almost as much a matter of lineage as any monarchy. The major determining factor of how much wealth you end up with is how much wealth your parents have. This wasn't always true and there are some exceptions but it is getting worse. Wealth mobility in the US is considerably worse than in more progressive countries where people really can rise to the top based on drive and desire and merit.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
Interestingly, this is not the "headshot" you expect, Blayne. McDonald's has three primary cost sinks, and labor is one of them. If they redesign their stores so they require more cashiers, the burgers do need to get more expensive or volume needs to go up disproportionately. It's telling that so many companies are moving to remote drive-through call centers, just to cut down on that one employee at the window.
Also McDonald's can afford a small loss at a particular store due to its massive size. The loss can be absorbed throughout the corporation. Especially if it's expected to be temporary.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
But it cannot afford an increase in the minimum wage to 10.10$ an hour? Well maybe it deserves to fail then. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Except that is not what happens. Wealth (and attendant power) is, in the US, as almost as much a matter of lineage as any monarchy. The major determining factor of how much wealth you end up with is how much wealth your parents have. This wasn't always true and there are some exceptions but it is getting worse. Wealth mobility in the US is considerably worse than in more progressive countries where people really can rise to the top based on drive and desire and merit.
Got a cite handy for that claim?
If not that's cool, I can google it later. I'm not trying to pick an argument, just genuinely curious where this was reported and what methodologies were used. It's interesting to me. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
But you instead want to stay ranks somewhere a little above Zimbobwe and below Somalia because otherwise your own personal suffering would have been for nothing and proof of even less than nothing, and you can't have that can you, you poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire you!
Somalia is above Zimbabwe? I'm a bit surprised by that.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Because in this case Warren knows that maybe he can do more good through I dunno, activism?
So it's one or the other? "My secretary pays a higher income tax rate than I do and it's not right. I'm definitely keeping the resulting cash, mind you, but I'm here to tell you that this is unfair and should be changed."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Problem there is, yknow, in the case of the secretary that wasn't actually said, since it's being used as an example.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Yes, it's a semi-hypothetical but I believe the net result is both valid and common. Hey I get it, they want to wait until everyone has to comply before they personally contribute to the changes they are advocating. It actually makes perfect sense. And it's hypocritical, IMO.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:And do you realize that by raising the minimum wage, you are basically also raising the cost of every necessity required to live?
Does McDonald's hiring another cashier raise the price of a burger?
*boom headshot*
I'm also hearing a whole lot of "whaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaihn", my entire University engineering education is free thanks to the social safety net and when I graduate I'll be making 50,000 a year in many entree level positions and whatever debts I do have gone after maybe a year or two depending on how diligent I am in paying them down.
How do you like that? That I, across the border did not have to suffer any of your humiliating lack of basic human dignity, its not fair isn't it?
Because life isn't fair, there is NO such thing as a Just World and that the only way to change that is to FORCE IT to be more fair through redistribution of wealth. Which in many First World Western countries is accomplished through the Social Safety net and progressive taxation and strong labour laws.
But you instead want to stay ranks somewhere a little above Zimbobwe and below Somalia because otherwise your own personal suffering would have been for nothing and proof of even less than nothing, and you can't have that can you, you poor temporarily embarrassed millionaire you!
Blayne, I'm going to try to respond respectfully to this, despite the complete lack of it coming from you...
1. Yes, hiring an extra cashier will increase the cost of a burger if that cashier is not cashiering. There is a lot more complexity and planning that goes into hiring practices than you realize.
2. Do you actually have a signed contract with a company saying that they will hire you after you graduate? If not, you should not expect that 50,000 dollar entry level job to be there for you. Doing so is delusional. And given your level of maturity and significant difficulties in dealing with actual people that most of your posts exhibit, I doubt very seriously you will be able to get a job that pays that much in short order, and you are going to have a very difficult time making much more than that. Engineering may not require much in the way of personality, but you'll very quickly realize that being too abrasive with people will cripple your career. I realize you have some disabilities in that area, but if people don't want to work with you on a team, you're never going to get anywhere.
3. Did I say I *currently* live on 450 a month? No. I didn't. In fact, I currently make 10 times that after taxes and the significant amount I donate to charity. I work as an IT consultant. I've earned about double the average IT admin salary for 3 years now. 5 years before that, I made a quarter of what I make now. Would you like to know how I did that? I learned how the system works and used it to my advantage.
About 5 years ago I was suffering financially and finally decided to get my butt in gear on building my knowledge and skills. I got my first IT certification. Then I made some goals and disciplined myself to meet them. I forced myself to stop playing video games until I got an MCSA. It took 3 months. 1 month later I was an MCSE. 3 months after that the company I worked for gave me a 4,000 dollar raise (at the time this was more than 10%). I was grateful, but while discussing the raise with my boss I told him I had a friend across the country who wanted to get me a job with the company he worked for at twice the pay. A week later I received another raise for an additional 12,000 dollars. I used a strangely misunderstood rule of business to my advantage. You are worth what someone is willing to pay you. If you think you are worth more than you make, go out and prove it.
4 months later I had another friend that offered to get me a job working with a government contractor. Because of my certifications and the fact that I got a DoD secret clearance after less than a week of arbitration they offered me a job for an additional 12,000 dollars a year.
Now, all of this basically adds up to me nearly doubling my paycheck in less than a year. Guess when this all happened...from September 2008 to May 2009. During the *worst recession in several decades* I went from 34000 a year to 62,000 a year. I got 10 percent more a year later when I got sick of government consulting (totally an eye opening experience) and went back to private sector work. This means that during the height of the recession I got 3 different jobs and had no more than 2 weeks of unemployment. And all of this happened because I finally decided that I was sick of just scraping by and started doing what I could to change my situation.
One more anecdote. My father works in the Electrical Contracting industry. He never went to college (until I was a teenager and he took some math courses at Community College in NC). He raised a family of 5 kids without a dual income for 15 years on 30-40 thousand dollars a year. This lasted until I was about 13 years old and we got our first computer. With it, my father taught himself to program in Basic, then Visual basic, then he taught himself to program PLCs for industrial machinery. Within 3 years he had started his own business, and was subcontracting for the company he worked for as an industrial programmer. Right now he's a millionaire, vice president of the company he still works for after 24 years, and currently spending about a thousand dollars a month to help my sister, who is a recovering drug addict and makes just enough to not qualify for any kind of government support, but not nearly enough to care for two kids on her own (Though she, too, is gaining traction in her career as a CPA). And then, would you like me to tell you about my brother, who started out as an engineer, but is currently working his way to C level executive with great speed (he's a millionaire now, too).
So I'll just use this to explain why, when someone complains about how people in the US can't succeed any more because rich people this and rich people that, I can't help but call that a load of hogwash. My experience and the experiences of just about everyone in my life have proven that to be completely untrue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Question, Boris: did your family take advantage of the substantial Mormon safety net and network of government consultants? Because your story isn't that uncommon, but the only people I know personally who have that background got their first "career-launching" jobs by being Mormon around Mormons.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Blayne, I'm going to try to respond respectfully to this, despite the complete lack of it coming from you...
There is a profound lack of empathy for the suffering of everyday Americans, suffering that would be vastly and substantially eliminated by adopting reforms that were proven effective in any developing country you could name; and only fairly disingenuous and unresearched hem-hawing as to why 'the greatest country in the world' can't reduce poverty.
quote: 1. Yes, hiring an extra cashier will increase the cost of a burger if that cashier is not cashiering. There is a lot more complexity and planning that goes into hiring practices than you realize.
This is largely a Non-sequitor that doesn't address the actual economics of wages, which again, by example look at Canada, I'm paid 10.10$ to do Software QA, i.e Quebecs minimum wage and yet where's the societal collapse?
quote: 2. Do you actually have a signed contract with a company saying that they will hire you after you graduate? If not, you should not expect that 50,000 dollar entry level job to be there for you. Doing so is delusional. And given your level of maturity and significant difficulties in dealing with actual people that most of your posts exhibit, I doubt very seriously you will be able to get a job that pays that much in short order, and you are going to have a very difficult time making much more than that. Engineering may not require much in the way of personality, but you'll very quickly realize that being too abrasive with people will cripple your career. I realize you have some disabilities in that area, but if people don't want to work with you on a team, you're never going to get anywhere.
This is hilariously off topic, again, address the actual argument; I have a subsidized University education, I thus have job mobility to not work terrible dehumanizing work in order to achieve my life goals. My point, is to show how pointless your suffering is, and completely unremarkable except to highlight the unfairness embedded in "American Exceptionalism", which, in case it isn't clear, I say with complete sarcasm.
quote: 3. Did I say I *currently* live on 450 a month? No. I didn't. In fact, I currently make 10 times that after taxes and the significant amount I donate to charity. I work as an IT consultant. I've earned about double the average IT admin salary for 3 years now. 5 years before that, I made a quarter of what I make now. Would you like to know how I did that? I learned how the system works and used it to my advantage.
I do not believe I said or implied this was your current arrangement, only that, well, see above.
quote: So I'll just use this to explain why, when someone complains about how people in the US can't succeed any more because rich people this and rich people that, I can't help but call that a load of hogwash. My experience and the experiences of just about everyone in my life have proven that to be completely untrue
Here's the problem, you do not understand economics, or trends, or how they relate to each other and to everyday people. You seem to rely a lot on rather irrelevant personal anectdotes about how you "bootstrapped" your way to success (disregarding you know, how they're is obviously a lot of stuff, government subsidized stuff, you took advantage of in some way or other) but its not germane to the actual situation.
What is German is that the middle class is being squeezed, that the rich are richer than they have ever been, more unaccountable than they have ever been, and never been less willing to pay their fairshare or invest in their home country than ever before; and yet all too willing to pool their substantial wealth into picking winners, losers, and enriching themselves at the expense of the average American (i.e, Tax cuts) and that there are consequences to society when 80% of the wealth is being hoarded.
Why is the American infrastructure allowed to crumble? Why are government jobs and funding for programs being cut? Why are food stamps and SNAP aid being cut? Education funding? Well because to pay for these things taxation is required and the rich have thrown a large amount of money into not having to pay for it; and these are things, that are not debatable, they are required for a civil society to function.
Thanks to Obamacare hundreds of thousands no longer need to remain employed to afford basic access to healthcare; and yet, this is something, that you would appear to believe isn't right; that there isn't a social contract to mandate this.
There are clear economic benefits for having a population that is education, and not stuck in perpetual poverty or forced to work multiple jobs.
CEO wages have increased by over 15 fold since the 40's but the average factory workers wages have remained static, there are consequences, and we're seeing them clear as day; the United States economy is not healthy.
quote: So it's one or the other? "My secretary pays a higher income tax rate than I do and it's not right. I'm definitely keeping the resulting cash, mind you, but I'm here to tell you that this is unfair and should be changed."
Because at the end of the day he is still a capitalist, just one with enough empathy to point out the injustice and work some gestures to salve his conscience but he isn't going to turn over his business over to the workers.
The United States is a two party capitalist dictatorship, that all of the capitalist class are class enemies doesn't change that its clearly recognizable that some are not as obviously evil as the Koch brothers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Two party capitalist dictatorship'.
I...Elison, I *know* you're familiar with all three of the most common definitions of that last term there. So you're perfectly aware, or should be, of how silly that description is. It's a dictatorship...governed by *two* political parties...whose members are chosen in free though flawed public elections?
I realize this is that thing you do where connotation and actual definitions bleed together and you expect everyone else to net roll with it, but that's a tedious and counteproductive way to go about a discussion. I say that as someone who disagrees pretty strongly with the capitalist paradise Boris imagines the US to be based on anecdotes, and scorns the notion that the 1% opposes a raise in minimum wage for anything other than capitosfic-that is, self-interest-reasons.
Put down the Kool-Aid, and come back to the rest of the letters of the political alphabet, not just the X-Files.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, Boris, a quick once over reveals at least three or four points in which your story of heroic self-improvement becomes a little more complicated than 'I did it through hard work and discipline'. I'd be interested in talking about it, but if you're as devoted to that narrative as it seems I'm skeptical there would be much point in it.
Just as an example for either NC or AZ, your father's income as you described it would be as much as roughly 40-90% more than the state mean income. That's just for starters, right on up into the 90s.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Question, Boris: did your family take advantage of the substantial Mormon safety net and network of government consultants? Because your story isn't that uncommon, but the only people I know personally who have that background got their first "career-launching" jobs by being Mormon around Mormons.
No, they didnt. I grew up in north carolina, so that whole working for other mormons thing doesnt apply. I went to byu idaho, but studied english, not IT. I am completely self taught in my professional life. My brother went to byu, and graduated with a 3.9 gpa, so he had companies across the countey foaming at the mouth to get him. But you have just made an interesting point I dont think you realize. That being that a privately run organization is very capable of helping people succeed, and in fact does a significantly better job than the federal government at doing so.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Incidentally, Boris, a quick once over reveals at least three or four points in which your story of heroic self-improvement becomes a little more complicated than 'I did it through hard work and discipline '. I'd be interested in talking about it, but if you're as devoted to that narrative as it seems I'm skeptical there would be much point in it.
Yes, i know that having good friends did a lot as well, but the jobs made available to me through those connections would have been completely unavailable to me without the effort made at self improvement. If there are other points you are welcometo voice them. (Tablet keypads suck)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not suggesting you didn't do hard work to get where you are, I'm pointing out that your hard work was able to take you much further than someone without those numerous connections-and that your ability to do that hard work was impacted substantially by circumstances which you did little yourself to deserve, because of the lottery of birth.
Your father, as stated, made a significant amount greater than the state average. Potentially a great deal more, but you stated it in a way that seemed to suggest he struggled to get by. You don't mention your mother, so I don't know whether you had a two parent household. For argument's sake let's say you did.
Right there are two substantial to major indicators of adult success-number of parents and income. Your hard work had nothing to do with either of these things. I'm assuming your parents instilled values and hopefully education when you were young such that you were less likely to fall into the difficulties of substance abuse or very young parenthood-two more boons in your favor that you won thanks to a lottery, though your own discipline comes more into play here.
Skipping ahead a bit, you apparently were at leisure when younger to work a bit and otherwise goof off playing video games-potentially a pretty expensive hobby. Fresh out of high school, do you think that's an option for everyone? You mention college, so fresh out of *college* in fact.
Who paid for that college that you apparently by your own story don't use for your job now? Whether through your parents or your own academics, had you been born to less affluent presumably forward thinking, ambitious parents, do you think it's just as likely you would have gone to college? Even if you took on student loans entirely, which doesn't sound like it's the case, is this truly an equal option for everyone?
Long story short-too late!-it's not about anyone, well anyone not waiting for the revolution-saying you didn't work hard. Mostly it's about pointing out that depending on circumstances unrelated to your hard work, some of which may simply have been luck, your hard work returns minimal, solid, huge or even negative outcomes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That being that a privately run organization is very capable of helping people succeed, and in fact does a significantly better job than the federal government at doing so.
Organizations who can cherry-pick the candidates they want to help succeed do indeed do better than organizations that are supposed to help everyone, especially the poorest candidates with the fewest personal connections.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Hey I get it, they want to wait until everyone has to comply before they personally contribute to the changes they are advocating. It actually makes perfect sense. And it's hypocritical, IMO.
No, it's not that at all. It's that one person, even one of the wealthiest in America, is not in a position to meaningfully and sustainably affect the changes they advocate through unilateral action. If he pays higher taxes, even *much* higher taxes, but no one else does it's just a blip on the radar. Meanwhile a portion of the fortune he's amassed and already committed to philanthropic purposes would essentially disappear into the ether.
It's the same reason that I advocate for universal healthcare, even if it's going to cost a lot of money, but don't intend to write a check for the balance of my 401k to my local hospital. It's a good policy to advocate (IMO, of course) but not one I can implement on my own and I'm not being a hypocrite by failing to make a futile token gesture in that direction.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting you didn't do hard work to get where you are, I'm pointing out that your hard work was able to take you much further than someone without those numerous connections-and that your ability to do that hard work was impacted substantially by circumstances which you did little yourself to deserve, because of the lottery of birth.
Your father, as stated, made a significant amount greater than the state average. Potentially a great deal more, but you stated it in a way that seemed to suggest he struggled to get by. You don't mention your mother, so I don't know whether you had a two parent household. For argument's sake let's say you did.
I make a good deal of money in terms of the local economy (150% of average, though it wouldn't be considered much in the States). That I was able to take the risks that I did to pursue the career path I have is thanks, in no minor part, to my parentage and to my parent's money.
Just the idea that I won't starve if I don't work for a year or more has made me willing to take professional risks, and try things my friends without that level of support haven't been able to. Just this year, the month I got married, I left one job for a chance to work on something more interesting, for half the pay. The new job turned into something that payed more than the previous position.
I would never have taken that risk if I hadn't had rich parents. Never. Not afraid to admit that. Why should I be?
What baffles me about the conservative narrative is that people are really able to tell themselves that they succeed on their own- that their circumstances don't heavily influence their opportunities (if not their chances of success). You don't have to believe you don't deserve what you have, to understand that you are lucky.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [qb] Megalomaniacal and Sociopathic are not exclusionary conditions.
But they are not synonymous. And for the purposes of refuting my statement, treating them as such is unfair.
Wasn't attempting to refute, just pointing out that the problem of excessive individual financial power drives both sides of the political spectrum in the US.
Meh. False equivalence. Money corrupts, verily. But financial power has driven the conservative side of the spectrum in America far, far harder. You want to make some quibble about it corrupting liberals, fine. It does. But the effects of its corruptive power in the hands of conservatives is, in all practical terms, the real problem.
quote: As for the way it works, with individuals getting so much power, first I'd like to point out that calling it irrational is a serious misuse of the term. The system follows rules and has a great deal of logic behind it. The proof of that is the simple fact that individuals are able to take advantage of the system to obtain power. An irrational system would be completely random in its selection of power. Monarchy is an irrational system. Capitalism is not irrational.
No, capitalism is not, in itself, rational as an economic system. While it is based in the notion of rational actors, the sum of rational decisions does not, alone, produce rational results. A system that is non-rational is not de facto *irrational,* but following a system that doesn't produce rational results without severely qualified exceptions is irrational on its face. It is irrational to follow a non-rational approach.
quote: Now, you could say it is immoral, and you'd be fairly accurate, but the reality is that capitalism is amoral. Morality is not a part of the system in any way. This is because the system follows, very closely, the laws of natural selection and nature. Kill or be killed, hunt or be hunted, etc.
Aside from your creepy social-darwinism here, you're not accurately characterizing either "the laws of natural selection," nor economic theory very accurately. Or with any degree of accuracy.
I can understand why your fringe understanding of natural selection helps you sleep at night, forced as you are to collocate your sense of fear at the possibility that you live in a basically random universe, with the knowledge that you are lucky. You clearly want to justify your luck in life as the result of your natural "selection," to succeed. Well, you were selected, but calling such a process natural, or rational, is a stretch and a half.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: What baffles me about the conservative narrative is that people are really able to tell themselves that they succeed on their own- that their circumstances don't heavily influence their opportunities (if not their chances of success). You don't have to believe you don't deserve what you have, to understand that you are lucky.
And the thing that baffles me about the liberal narrative is that you constantly tell people that hard work wasn't the real key to their success and it was all luck, but then act surprised when there is a massive disparity in wealth. Do you really think the only explanation for that disparity is "Wealthy people are greedy and crapping on everyone else?" Do you not think that the massive surge of pessimism against success has a hand in people not trying to achieve greater things?
quote: I can understand why your fringe understanding of natural selection helps you sleep at night, forced as you are to collocate your sense of fear at the possibility that you live in a basically random universe, with the knowledge that you are lucky. You clearly want to justify your luck in life as the result of your natural "selection," to succeed. Well, you were selected, but calling such a process natural, or rational, is a stretch and a half.
You really are very passive aggressive, you know that? You should probably work on that. Yes. I realize that luck had a lot to do with my success, but so did effort. I could have chosen not to study more about the field I work in and gotten by happily for years. And many people do just that.
What I don't get is how you don't seem to realize that telling people, "It isn't your fault you're poor, it's someone else's fault" is horribly destructive and doing them a phenomenal disservice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Also, don't you think it's better that anyone with the necessary drive and desire can rise to the top than being randomly selected by a matter of lineage, such as in Monarchy? Or would you prefer a system where only the brown-nosers succeed, which is what has become of every attempt at wide-spread national level communism to date?
Except that is not what happens. Wealth (and attendant power) is, in the US, as almost as much a matter of lineage as any monarchy. The major determining factor of how much wealth you end up with is how much wealth your parents have. This wasn't always true and there are some exceptions but it is getting worse. Wealth mobility in the US is considerably worse than in more progressive countries where people really can rise to the top based on drive and desire and merit.
Got a cite handy for that claim?
If not that's cool, I can google it later. I'm not trying to pick an argument, just genuinely curious where this was reported and what methodologies were used. It's interesting to me.
And as you can hardly consider The Economist a liberal rag, here is an article that is a bit out of date but warns of the same things. It has only gotten worse and the "rays of sun" is mention toward the end have spectacularly failed to pan out. http://www.economist.com/node/3518560 Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: What baffles me about the conservative narrative is that people are really able to tell themselves that they succeed on their own- that their circumstances don't heavily influence their opportunities (if not their chances of success). You don't have to believe you don't deserve what you have, to understand that you are lucky.
And the thing that baffles me about the liberal narrative is that you constantly tell people that hard work wasn't the real key to their success and it was all luck, but then act surprised when there is a massive disparity in wealth. Do you really think the only explanation for that disparity is "Wealthy people are greedy and crapping on everyone else?" Do you not think that the massive surge of pessimism against success has a hand in people not trying to achieve greater things?
No, I think the massive surge in pessimism against *wealth* (not success as you deem to characterize it), is a symptom of wealthy, greedy people actually crapping on everyone else.
As for your characterization of the liberal point of view, I can't speak for all of us, but I do believe that hard work is the key to capitalizing on luck. And I do believe that if you are poor, it is probably not your "fault," in the sense that it is unlikely to have arisen from a fault in your makeup as a person, but in a lack of avenues through which productive energy could flow. That is: lack of economic opportunity. In that sense, it is our societal "fault," for not, yes, scary as it sounds, actively ensuring economic opportunity through education and other systems of support.
quote:
quote: I can understand why your fringe understanding of natural selection helps you sleep at night, forced as you are to collocate your sense of fear at the possibility that you live in a basically random universe, with the knowledge that you are lucky. You clearly want to justify your luck in life as the result of your natural "selection," to succeed. Well, you were selected, but calling such a process natural, or rational, is a stretch and a half.
Yes. I realize that luck had a lot to do with my success, but so did effort. I could have chosen not to study more about the field I work in and gotten by happily for years. And many people do just that.
Your efforts mean but little in the face of your circumstances. Know how I know that? Plenty of people poorer than you ever were have achieved successes far greater than yours. And many of your same background have soared to even greater heights.
It is not to say that in this calculus of success, effort does not play a role. Lincoln would not have become President had he not had the wherewithal to teach himself algebra on the back of a shovel. But your efforts have reaped you very much the same as they reaped for your parents. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. And that's true of almost everyone: if you're born poor, and you try hard, you may be a little less poor, and you're unlikely to be rich. If you're born rich, you may get a little less rich, and you may get even richer, but you're likely to be just about as rich as your parents were before you. If you the best you can say about your efforts is that they have gained you a static position in the economy, then you're not actually trying very hard, are you? Do you think a person born with half your wealth would have to put forth more effort to reach your level, or the same? If not more, then why are you yourself not richer?
quote: What I don't get is how you don't seem to realize that telling people, "It isn't your fault you're poor, it's someone else's fault" is horribly destructive and doing them a phenomenal disservice.
Your mistake is in assuming that my belief that it is not the fault of the poor that they are poor is concomitant with a belief that the fault rests with anyone else. It does not, inasmuch as it is not a fault, but a consequence of social interactions revolving around capital. In essence, it is a consequence of capitalism, and not the fault of capitalists. It becomes their fault to the degree that they fail to protect society from those consequences.
quote: You really are very passive aggressive, you know that? You should probably work on that.
Why? You make it so easy to get under your skin. You should work on that.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
The problem with those articles is that they are taking measured statistics (42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults vs 25 percent in some other country and 32 percent in another country) and then attaching meaning that is *not* supported by the data they have: "It is harder to rise economically in the US than other nations." That type of statement cannot logically be applied to the data in the study because the statistics themselves do not explain *why* this phenomenon exists, only that it exists.
That statistic is a 10,000 mile view. It's useful for seeing changes in the world but useless for explaining the causes of those changes.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Your efforts mean but little in the face of your circumstances. Know how I know that? Plenty of people poorer than you ever were have achieved successes far greater than yours. And many of your same background have soared to even greater heights.
Yes...I just started 5 years ago, realistically. Before that I wasn't trying for crap. Right now I'm perfectly happy with my situation because I have a fantastic boss and a job I enjoy, but I am also continuing to improve myself. I'm trying to teach myself to write fiction in my spare time and also studying Russian for fun. I'm quickly reaching the limit of what I can do working for someone else, so I'm paying down my debts and saving money so I can start my own business without having to deal with too great a financial risk. Your mistake is assuming I'm done.
quote: Why? You make it so easy to get under your skin. You should work on that.
So you're trying to get under my skin? Doesn't that make you a troll?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you really think the only explanation for that disparity is "Wealthy people are greedy and crapping on everyone else?"
FWIW, I think that's one of the single biggest causes of wealth disparity, yes.
quote:You really are very passive aggressive, you know that? You should probably work on that.
If only it were possible to get Internetitudes bronzed and hung on the wall....
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: Your efforts mean but little in the face of your circumstances. Know how I know that? Plenty of people poorer than you ever were have achieved successes far greater than yours. And many of your same background have soared to even greater heights.
Yes...I just started 5 years ago, realistically. Before that I wasn't trying for crap. Right now I'm perfectly happy with my situation because I have a fantastic boss and a job I enjoy, but I am also continuing to improve myself. I'm trying to teach myself to write fiction in my spare time and also studying Russian for fun. I'm quickly reaching the limit of what I can do working for someone else, so I'm paying down my debts and saving money so I can start my own business without having to deal with too great a financial risk. Your mistake is assuming I'm done.
No, I'm not assuming you're done, but I am assuming, and rightly because it's true, that your ambitions only extend mildly beyond your real opportunities.
Don't get offended. That's the usual case. But see, you get to relax and think about writing a novel. Because you don't need to think about some way of making enough to live in basic security and to afford basic necessities and health care, food on the table, and other things. And it's not that these things were exactly *guaranteed* to you when you were born, but they were, for all intents and purposes, mostly assured.
Now imagine you're you, except you're black. That, and perhaps you didn't have a father around, your mom didn't have time to read with you, so you didn't read until you applied yourself later on. The school you went to was substandard, and you never learned to speak well or to express yourself with much authority. White people look upon you with suspicion. You didn't have the money to enter a university, and nobody would give you responsibility at any job you had. But just to fit in with your peers, you had to act in a way that was antithetical to success in white society. You didn't want to be an outcast at home (who does?), so you became an outcast to all of society.
You're still you though. Just that you didn't have anything *you* Boris, had growing up. Do you think, honestly, that you, Boris, would be sitting back and saving money to start your own business? Would you have the friends and support network you needed to get the job you have now? Access to a computer? Money for school? People who would trust you to work for them? A way to get to the jobs on offer? Just think about that. And this is still you, in every other respect. Would you be thinking about writing a novel right now if that was you? Honestly?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Hey, guess what, I was an outcast among my peers. I was bullied so heavily i had to be taken out of public school. I sat and taught myself in homeschool for 4 years and then got a GED. And before you say something about me having a parent that could spend the time to homeschool me, you should realize that the only thing i did in homeschool was take and ace an annual test. I could have obtained my ged at age 12if it had been legal in nc,
I was also emotionally and physically tortured by a mentally ill sister for the first 6 years of my life. I have ADD, PTSD, depression, severe social anxiety and an auditory processing disorder that makes it nearly impossible for me to learn from spoken instruction and pay attention when people talk to me.
Don't assume that my life had no difficulties to overcome. and
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks Kate! I still hadn't googled it so you saved me the trouble. I'll take a look a some point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Hey, guess what, I was an outcast among my peers. I was bullied so heavily i had to be taken out of public school. I sat and taught myself in homeschool for 4 years and then got a GED. And before you say something about me having a parent that could spend the time to homeschool me, you should realize that the only thing i did in homeschool was take and ace an annual test. I could have obtained my ged at age 12if it had been legal in nc,
I was also emotionally and physically tortured by a mentally ill sister for the first 6 years of my life. I have ADD, PTSD, depression, severe social anxiety and an auditory processing disorder that makes it nearly impossible for me to learn from spoken instruction and pay attention when people talk to me.
So it's truly remarkable what money can do to ensure that even the hardest cases have a chance to succeed.
I'm not assuming you've had no difficulties. We all of difficulties. I am assuming, correctly, that your difficulties were the kind that didn't rob you of economic opportunity.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: So it's truly remarkable what money can do to ensure that even the hardest cases have a chance to succeed.
Really? My parents were dead broke (on the brink of bankruptcy through my entire childhood due to debts incurred during the economic difficulties of the 1970s and a significant period of unemployment during the late 80s) and I didn't rely on them for a single thing after leaving home. My father didn't have a positive net worth until I was 90% of the way through college. How exactly did my parents' money help me overcome these issues?
Also:
quote: No, I think the massive surge in pessimism against *wealth* (not success as you deem to characterize it), is a symptom of wealthy, greedy people actually crapping on everyone else.
Through this very thread you and others have been urgently striving to convince me that my hard work had a minimal impact on my success. You most definitely are pessimistic about what it takes to succeed and you try your best to tear down anyone who does so and convince them that is was just dumb luck.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I find this discussing interesting, in that probably the largest and most overlooked institution affecting change in social class in the US is it's military. Overlooked because almost all of that change is from lower to middle class, almost none of it from middle to upper middle or upper class.
Generally speaking, though, the largest demographic of people joining the military are troubled young men on the road to violence and joblessness. The military teaches them how to speak properly and with confidence and authority, teaches discipline and self control, teaches them a trade, then sends them back out into society with 4 years of free college education and a stipend to live on during those years.
While veteran unemployment is a big problem, almost invariably they end up better off than they were before the military. And I'd be willing to bet that, over a lifetime, the federal government probably makes back more in increased tax revenue from those veterans (who probably would have otherwise remained jobless, or minimum wage at best) than they spent training them.
I would be interested to see this broadened to a more general "social service" civilian equivilent - i.e, if you do 4 years doing really hard, crappy work for the government, in exchange you're taught a basic trade and are given 4 years of free college - but I honestly don't know how it would be implemented.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Through this very thread you and others have been urgently striving to convince me that my hard work had a minimal impact on my success. You most definitely are pessimistic about what it takes to succeed and you try your best to tear down anyone who does so and convince them that is was just dumb luck.
This is what I was afraid of. I'm not the only one who *explicitly* rejected the idea that the success you've achieved was dumb luck.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"Dumb luck" and "I am solely responsible for my good fortune and it can be replicated by anyone who works as hard as me." are not the only options.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Through this very thread you and others have been urgently striving to convince me that my hard work had a minimal impact on my success. You most definitely are pessimistic about what it takes to succeed and you try your best to tear down anyone who does so and convince them that is was just dumb luck.
This is what I was afraid of. I'm not the only one who *explicitly* rejected the idea that the success you've achieved was dumb luck.
Which is fine. But Orincoro is trying very hard to convince me that somehow my parent's money or my access to education or other things that aren't under my control were *more* important than the effort I put in. That's pure pessimism about success. Not wealth. And I wasn't exactly talking to you, Rakeesh, I respect your opinion on my situation, but Orincoro is trying to take it in a very different direction than you did. I quote: "Your efforts mean but little in the face of your circumstances."
This ignores the fact that part of the effort I made was to put myself into circumstances that allowed better growth to my career and avoid circumstances that would have damaged it. People have a lot more control over their circumstances than they realize, and attitudes like the one Orincoro is exhibiting is a big part of why people don't try to change their circumstances.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:attitudes like the one Orincoro is exhibiting is a big part of why people don't try to change their circumstances.
An even bigger part are really bad circumstances which are very hard to get out of.
I was also a poor kid with bankrupt parents, but prior to the bankruptcy they had a decent income so while we didn't have much money to spend on stuff I still grew up in a white middle class neighborhood with little crime and good schools. So I had many of the the benefits of money even though I didn't actually have money at the time.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: An even bigger part are really bad circumstances which are very hard to get out of.
Hard...not impossible. And can you imagine what it's like to live in a place where the government representatives tell you that there's no way you can succeed on your own, but it's okay because the government will help you to live okay, but you have to vote for us to keep going with that cause if you don't these evil evil people will take that help away from you and you won't be able to *survive*. Oh, and if you do try to help yourself out, just be careful not to make more than exactly this much money, because if you do that, we aren't going to help you any more and you'll be on your own and you won't be able to *survive*. Welcome to the US's version of welfare.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'Two party capitalist dictatorship'.
I...Elison, I *know* you're familiar with all three of the most common definitions of that last term there. So you're perfectly aware, or should be, of how silly that description is. It's a dictatorship...governed by *two* political parties...whose members are chosen in free though flawed public elections?
I realize this is that thing you do where connotation and actual definitions bleed together and you expect everyone else to net roll with it, but that's a tedious and counteproductive way to go about a discussion. I say that as someone who disagrees pretty strongly with the capitalist paradise Boris imagines the US to be based on anecdotes, and scorns the notion that the 1% opposes a raise in minimum wage for anything other than capitosfic-that is, self-interest-reasons.
Put down the Kool-Aid, and come back to the rest of the letters of the political alphabet, not just the X-Files.
ScottR's counter is irrelevant in any Marxist analysis of the situation is the point, both the Koch Brothers and Warren Buffet are of the capitalist class and both are class enemies; the difference is one is an proactive class enemy while the other is not.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting you didn't do hard work to get where you are, I'm pointing out that your hard work was able to take you much further than someone without those numerous connections-and that your ability to do that hard work was impacted substantially by circumstances which you did little yourself to deserve, because of the lottery of birth.
Your father, as stated, made a significant amount greater than the state average. Potentially a great deal more, but you stated it in a way that seemed to suggest he struggled to get by. You don't mention your mother, so I don't know whether you had a two parent household. For argument's sake let's say you did.
Right there are two substantial to major indicators of adult success-number of parents and income. Your hard work had nothing to do with either of these things. I'm assuming your parents instilled values and hopefully education when you were young such that you were less likely to fall into the difficulties of substance abuse or very young parenthood-two more boons in your favor that you won thanks to a lottery, though your own discipline comes more into play here.
Skipping ahead a bit, you apparently were at leisure when younger to work a bit and otherwise goof off playing video games-potentially a pretty expensive hobby. Fresh out of high school, do you think that's an option for everyone? You mention college, so fresh out of *college* in fact.
Who paid for that college that you apparently by your own story don't use for your job now? Whether through your parents or your own academics, had you been born to less affluent presumably forward thinking, ambitious parents, do you think it's just as likely you would have gone to college? Even if you took on student loans entirely, which doesn't sound like it's the case, is this truly an equal option for everyone?
Long story short-too late!-it's not about anyone, well anyone not waiting for the revolution-saying you didn't work hard. Mostly it's about pointing out that depending on circumstances unrelated to your hard work, some of which may simply have been luck, your hard work returns minimal, solid, huge or even negative outcomes.
I'm still catching up, so maybe you say it, but another thing to mention is the cost of education has skyrocketed over the last decade, so the willingness to work a part time job to pay for school is increasingly infeasible for a greater share of Americans than it was before.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:...there's no way you can succeed on your own, but it's okay because the government will help you to live okay, but you have to vote for us to keep going with that cause if you don't these evil evil people will take that help away from you and you won't be able to *survive*.
Fortunately that's just the conservative strawman version, not what people who actually advocate for social services actually say.
quote:Oh, and if you do try to help yourself out, just be careful not to make more than exactly this much money, because if you do that, we aren't going to help you any more and you'll be on your own and you won't be able to *survive*.
For the programs where that is the case, we should definitely fix that. But not all programs are like that. For instance, SNAP benefits taper off as you make more money but they don't have a hard cutoff where you go from substantial benefits to zero.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: What baffles me about the conservative narrative is that people are really able to tell themselves that they succeed on their own- that their circumstances don't heavily influence their opportunities (if not their chances of success). You don't have to believe you don't deserve what you have, to understand that you are lucky.
And the thing that baffles me about the liberal narrative is that you constantly tell people that hard work wasn't the real key to their success and it was all luck, but then act surprised when there is a massive disparity in wealth. Do you really think the only explanation for that disparity is "Wealthy people are greedy and crapping on everyone else?" Do you not think that the massive surge of pessimism against success has a hand in people not trying to achieve greater things?
quote: I can understand why your fringe understanding of natural selection helps you sleep at night, forced as you are to collocate your sense of fear at the possibility that you live in a basically random universe, with the knowledge that you are lucky. You clearly want to justify your luck in life as the result of your natural "selection," to succeed. Well, you were selected, but calling such a process natural, or rational, is a stretch and a half.
You really are very passive aggressive, you know that? You should probably work on that. Yes. I realize that luck had a lot to do with my success, but so did effort. I could have chosen not to study more about the field I work in and gotten by happily for years. And many people do just that.
What I don't get is how you don't seem to realize that telling people, "It isn't your fault you're poor, it's someone else's fault" is horribly destructive and doing them a phenomenal disservice.
The "Liberal narrative" as you call, actualy only advocates that everyone should have as equal as reasonable, a playing field for when it comes to success, so that real merit, real drive, and real hard work will be the true factor of success.
Someone forced to work three jobs cannot succeed as well as someone with rich parents, point final. No debate, no going past go, you do not get to collect 200$.
If everyone's healthcare and education was free, then you would see more people succeeding, and the truly unmotivated and lazy, well, they won't die or suffer and there's no reason unless you ascribe to prosperity gospel for society to actually actively punish them.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Fortunately that's just the conservative strawman version, not what people who actually advocate for social services actually say.
You don't have to actually *say* something for a very solid message to get through. And I'm sorry but the biggest bogey-man the left uses to get minority votes is the idea that the Republican party will take away their benefits. I mean, that very thing gets repeated here *constantly*.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And I'm sorry but the biggest bogey-man the left uses to get minority votes is the idea that the Republican party will take away their benefits.
You are picking at the one piece of the statement I quoted which is closest to the truth while ignoring the more hyperbolic stuff, but OK just on the "they'll take it away" part -Do you think the fact that Republicans are constantly agitating to cut benefits might be a part of that?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: The "Liberal narrative" as you call, actualy only advocates that everyone should have as equal as reasonable, a playing field for when it comes to success, so that real merit, real drive, and real hard work will be the true factor of success.
That would be the propaganda version of the narrative, sure. But the actual focus is not on making things more equal. Otherwise we would be focusing our efforts on improving schools in poor neighborhoods, developing business networking assistance for the unemployed, and things like that. No, our government just throws money at people. It's a freaking bandaid on a broken arm.
Reform to the welfare system, which is woefully inadequate (not because it doesn't have enough money but because it focuses on the absolute wrong things, the stuff that is politically visible but functionally useless), is a great big no-no for liberal representatives in the US.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And I'm sorry but the biggest bogey-man the left uses to get minority votes is the idea that the Republican party will take away their benefits.
You are picking at the one piece of the statement I quoted which is closest to the truth while ignoring the more hyperbolic stuff, but OK just on the "they'll take it away" part -Do you think the fact that Republicans are constantly agitating to cut benefits might be a part of that?
Did you miss the part where I said that no one actually has to say, "You can't succeed on your own" without that message coming through loud and clear?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris, it's pretty convenient to say 'no one actually has to *say* it to be in effect saying it'-and then categorically reject that same style of analysis when it's aimed at your own team. If it's 'liberal propaganda' to say that 'GOP will take your bennies!' and your rationale is 'c'mon, conservatives don't actually say that!' Then...well, see the problem?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: The "Liberal narrative" as you call, actualy only advocates that everyone should have as equal as reasonable, a playing field for when it comes to success, so that real merit, real drive, and real hard work will be the true factor of success.
That would be the propaganda version of the narrative, sure. But the actual focus is not on making things more equal. Otherwise we would be focusing our efforts on improving schools in poor neighborhoods, developing business networking assistance for the unemployed, and things like that. No, our government just throws money at people. It's a freaking bandaid on a broken arm.
But people are *poor* *now* and need assistance *now* it is a multi pronged approach which includes everything you've listed.
quote: Reform to the welfare system, which is woefully inadequate (not because it doesn't have enough money but because it focuses on the absolute wrong things, the stuff that is politically visible but functionally useless), is a great big no-no for liberal representatives in the US.
This is hilariously wrong. Making people less hungry, less likely to be rendered homeless and less having to live paycheck to paycheck in poverty is a good thing.
In fact if you look at a chart/report by the CBO aside from direct infrastructure investments, the most bang for your buck economically are actually foodstamps, SNAP, and direct assistance to people in poverty or near poverty.
The economics don't support you.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I don't want to say something stupid. Trust me, I really, really don't. But I don't think "hard working" and "luck" are 100% mutually exclusive from each other. Self motivation is a talent, it has some roots in genetics, and people have more natural enthusiasm for certain jobs than others.
Anyway, that does sound like a lot of obstacles, Boris. I don't envy you for having had to face them at all. But imagine you add one more hardship to your life. It may have been enough to limit you beyond any amount of grit or self-improvement. But there are some (some) conservatives that would have told you that you simply did not work hard enough. And when liberalls say it would hav been different with a little less mis-fortune and they would be right. Maybe all that is old news to you. But all things considered you seem a little severe towards the liberal sensibility.
I drive myself crazy whenever I think about my own privilege. I'm very privileged in some ways and I've had my hardships in others. Im actually something a little like the caricature orincoro was projecting on boris. All things considered, a lot people had it worse than I did. i would never dream of telling someone they failed just because they didn't work hard, and despite the ways I am priveledge, I would have felt pissed if someone told me the same thing four years ago, when I was meandering in a junior college.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
From a dude (Juvenalian.Satyr) on another forum about Education:
quote: The big issue with Common Core from the left is the pressure it puts on teachers to teach to the test rather than to any actual curriculum. It's written and funded by charter school/education privatization/"education reform" types and while I'd be all for more comprehensive and fully funded national curriculum programs this basically amounts to another focus on standardized tests like all the previous bills that have done nothing to fix the problem, except this time it also connects teacher performance with student performance on these tests which is a major problem and provides means for schools to be defunded/chartered and more money to go to these private organizations. The whole charter school movement is insidious in a lot of the same way that the privatization of prisons were, and Common Core feeds into that indirectly.
More extreme arguments along this line talk about replacing teachers with computers, using low-training TFA scabs over union teachers since that experience no longer counts for moderating tests, but education is my big issue and Common Core is a very big problem, continuing along the line of No Child Left Behind/Race to the Top of increasing the privatization of our education system. The Democratic Party eats it up too because it lets them be on the "cutting edge" and appear progressive since it's "reform" but also costs so very little. Unfortunately it also does zero to alleviate the actual problems in the education system (Hint: it's the social inequality).
The teacher's unions though are mostly behind it, it's only really a subset of union teachers and education professionals that are critical of it. Unfortunately the serious people consensus here means that (and connecting this back to the topic) it's mostly less mainstream opposition, like libertarians, GOP obstruction, or the like that seem to be loud about this subject.
It results in some really weird alliances too. An acquaintance of mine works in activism and is very left of center but mostly is working with Republicans and the like now regarding this (because it's her current cross to bear) because there's little traction right now in the Democratic Party to oppose it, even in the progressive wing.
Yes the Dems aren't the best but the solution isn't to continue privatization.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And I'm sorry but the biggest bogey-man the left uses to get minority votes is the idea that the Republican party will take away their benefits.
You are picking at the one piece of the statement I quoted which is closest to the truth while ignoring the more hyperbolic stuff, but OK just on the "they'll take it away" part -Do you think the fact that Republicans are constantly agitating to cut benefits might be a part of that?
Did you miss the part where I said that no one actually has to say, "You can't succeed on your own" without that message coming through loud and clear?
I will provide a better answer. "Yes the fact that republicans are constantly agitating to cut benefits is a part of that"
addt.
"obvs"
this thread is insane
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I don't want to say something stupid. Trust me, I really, really don't. But I don't think "hard working" and "luck" are 100% mutually exclusive from each other. Self motivation is a talent, it has some roots in genetics, and people have more natural enthusiasm for certain jobs than others.
Anyway, that does sound like a lot of obstacles, Boris. I don't envy you for having had to face them at all. But imagine you add one more hardship to your life. It may have been enough to limit you beyond any amount of grit or self-improvement. But there are some (some) conservatives that would have told you that you simply did not work hard enough. And when liberalls say it would hav been different with a little less mis-fortune and they would be right. Maybe all that is old news to you. But all things considered you seem a little severe towards the liberal sensibility.
I drive myself crazy whenever I think about my own privilege. I'm very privileged in some ways and I've had my hardships in others. Im actually something a little like the caricature orincoro was projecting on boris. All things considered, a lot people had it worse than I did. i would never dream of telling someone they failed just because they didn't work hard, and despite the ways I am priveledge, I would have felt pissed if someone told me the same thing four years ago, when I was meandering in a junior college.
I probably won't respond any more for a while because I'm neck deep in migrating a big company's email to a new system...
And I realize I probably mis-spoke earlier on what the left is saying to people, and trust me, I do realize that conservatives have serious issues communicating what they actually mean to people and the left is much more capable when it comes to messaging. I thought a lot about this thread over the weekend and actually came up with some really interesting ideas on how to fix some problems we have. Of course they probably wouldn't ever make it into law simply because there would be too much opposition from special interest groups on either side, but anyway.
Anyway, let me try to explain what my thinking is on this...I appreciate that there is a lot that has gone my way in life. I've been pretty lucky, but I've also taken a lot of really serious risks that could have (and almost did) bankrupt me, not all of which paid off. I moved to Alaska right after college and almost went bankrupt after my appendix burst and I was out of work for a month. I took a huge risk moving out of Alaska with about 2000 dollars in the bank (you can't get out of Alaska for less than 1000 bucks if you take your car with you) to Colorado, where I lived on that cash for about a month and a half until I got the job that jumpstarted my career (through TekSystems).
I passed up a job that paid 12,000 more than my salary at the time, which wasn't as much of a risk except that I hated my employer then so much that I was probably months away from getting fired and I knew it. I passed it up because it was a lateral move and would have done nothing to really improve my career. 3 months later I got my current job which has propelled my knowledge and skills beyond what I thought possible, and I love it.
But here's my point. What do you think would have happened if a group of people had told me that the hard work I put in studying wasn't going to make much of a difference because it's too hard to move upward now? If someone had told me that my hard work meant little in the face of my circumstances, I probably wouldn't have put any effort in. I probably wouldn't have risked 150 dollars of the last thousand I had to get an IT certification that was necessary to get the career jump-starting job less than a month later.
And part of the reason I'm ignoring you guys, for the most part, when you try to convince me that my situation in early life had more to do with my success than my more recent efforts, is because you have absolutely no possible way of knowing how much of where I am is due to my effort, my early life experiences, or just dumb luck. Trying to change my mind about the keys to my success is very pessimistic, and attitude is a huge part of being able to focus on what you need to do to succeed. If I were to listen to you instead of my own experiences, do you think I'd eventually make the risk of starting my own business or do you think I'd spend the rest of my life in my cushy job with a great boss? Now what do you think would happen if you told a young black man or woman that "the man" isn't going to let them succeed? Do you think they will try to do things the hard way, or do you think the lure of an over-glorified gang lifestyle will grab a hold of them?
Also, I won't ever say someone wasn't working hard enough if they don't succeed, but I will say that it's extremely likely they were doing a lot of things and making choices that crippled their ability. Remember that despite everyone's childhood experiences, we all have the ability to make choices that affect our futures. For instance, did you know that an estimated 40 to 45 percent of people in poverty in the US smoke cigarettes? That's a hugely expensive habit that they could do away with or have avoided and it cripples their ability to get out of poverty, forget the fact that it destroys their health and makes it ever so much more likely they will have an illness that will cause them to choose between bankruptcy and death. What about alcohol? How many people in the lower 5% spend a significant portion of their free time (what free time they have) getting drunk? Again, choices made that are keeping them from moving up. Then add in illicit drug use, wasting money on tattoos, "bling" and other useless distractions and you end up with people who are unknowingly locking themselves into inescapable poverty.
Now tell those people that it isn't their fault that they are in that situation, but it's the rich peoples' fault for hoarding all the money. What do you think their response would be? Do you think they would seriously examine their lives to see where they are going wrong, or do you think they would blame the rich for their problems, then demand someone else fix it for them? Do you think they would *ever* be able to change things for themselves once that kind of thinking starts? What about their kids? Can you see why the liberal philosophy bothers me now? Wouldn't it be much more effective if we were to have individuals go into those communities and teach them the things they are doing to themselves that are keeping them in poverty? Or should we just hand them more money so they can keep spiraling further?
And finally, I realize that there are a lot of people who work very hard and never really get anywhere. Telling those people to work harder is indeed stupid. But have you considered that the people who work super hard and fail aren't succeeding because they waste their efforts focusing the wrong things? Have you also considered that fewer people are getting out of poverty in the US because fewer people are *trying* to get out of poverty? Have you considered that they might not be getting out of poverty because our welfare system is semi-intentionally designed to *keep* them in poverty?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I do realize that conservatives have serious issues communicating what they actually mean to people and the left is much more capable when it comes to messaging.
I stopped reading when I read this Apologist Claptrap.
(1) The GOP's problem is not "messaging" they're actually very good at messaging, ever hear of Lee Atwater or the Southern Strategy? Those are "things that exist". The actual problem is that they have no substantial policies to offer that help the poor and middle class. Any 'messaging gaffs' they make when trying to clumsily appeal to the poor and minorities is a symptom of that.
But messaging to their base? They have that down to a science.
(2) The 'left' is actually terrible when it comes to messaging, they consistently fail to take control of the narrative outside of national election years. Off election years show consistent deflated turnout numbers for Dem supporters.
What advantages they do have is organization and good footwork but this machine is seemingly only used during campaign season and left to rot at all other times, it isn't being capitalized on.
The "advantages" the dems have at messaging is that they are seemingly more capable of keeping their mouths shut and not saying things like "The woman's body has a way to shut that thing down if its legitimate rape".
Which of course drives up turnout for the shrinking base but not the general electorate of non-stupids.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's funny how both sides tend to think "man our ideas are so self-evidently right that our problem must be messaging! We just suck at getting the word out about our obviously superior vision."
It's such a lazy cop-out.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote: Also, I won't ever say someone wasn't working hard enough if they don't succeed, but I will say that it's extremely likely they were doing a lot of things and making choices that crippled their ability. Remember that despite everyone's childhood experiences, we all have the ability to make choices that affect our futures. For instance, did you know that an estimated 40 to 45 percent of people in poverty in the US smoke cigarettes? That's a hugely expensive habit that they could do away with or have avoided and it cripples their ability to get out of poverty, forget the fact that it destroys their health and makes it ever so much more likely they will have an illness that will cause them to choose between bankruptcy and death. What about alcohol? How many people in the lower 5% spend a significant portion of their free time (what free time they have) getting drunk? Again, choices made that are keeping them from moving up. Then add in illicit drug use, wasting money on tattoos, "bling" and other useless distractions and you end up with people who are unknowingly locking themselves into inescapable poverty.
So why do people make those decisions and the host of others that make it measurably more difficult to escape poverty? Have you considered that people are giving up hope of prosperity because the system is weighted against them? Would you be so fond of hard work if your various gambles hadn't worked out and you found yourself back on the bottom after years of 'hard work'? Hope and hard work are only successful if there are opportunities to pursue. It seems like those opportunities aren't there for a lot of people.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Boris your arguments aren't going to sway anyone. When someone thinks of being poor as being a victim, pointing out behaviors that keep people poor is easily written off as victim-blaming.
So criticizing poor people for being a statistically significant number of cigarette/alcohol/drug users can be ignored with either broad accusations of victim-blaming, or perhaps a more focused "they are in poverty and misery and you're criticizing them for the one vice that gives them some pleasure/respite? How cruel."
People on food stamps also often make lots of cost-inefficient decisions with their food stamps, like buying lots of meat, or spending most of their money immediately and running out of food in the last week of the month.
"What, you don't think poor people deserve protein? What a cad."
Most people have such a lousy attitude towards criticism that stuff like this is just seen as cruel.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Have you considered that people are giving up hope of prosperity because the system is weighted against them?
Have you considered the possibility that people are giving up on the hope of prosperity because someone just *told* them the system is weighted against them? What do you think the result would be if you told someone the system was weighted against them when it wasn't? How about if it was and you didn't tell them that?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Boris your arguments aren't going to sway anyone. When someone thinks of being poor as being a victim, pointing out behaviors that keep people poor is easily written off as victim-blaming.
Refusing to point out those things and attacking people who do is something called "Enabling". If someone has a choice to avoid a behavior that causes problems in their life, they aren't really victims. Even if their situation drives them to make those choices. And I don't really care if I don't sway people with my argument. I just think it's an argument that needs to be made.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, Dan, that's a lovely bit of thinly veiled smugness I must admit-coming from an authentic fan of that myself-but just because Elison is here crowing about the revolution and whatnot, perhaps don't paint with so broad a brush?
Like for example. Even the GOP themselves will admit to being quite a lot better at messaging, the last few years of Tea Party agitation notwithstanding. For example, it's nowhere the accepted message except among the most strident leftists that povery exists 'because rich people hoard the money'. I know you know better than that, Dan, and for someone who gets rightly frustrated a being mislabeled an utterly loyal Libertarian, it would at least be courteous not to do the same sort of generalizing in reverse-especially while lecturing the *other* side for that!
For another example, sure, people on government assistance often make unwise or inefficient decisions. We could address this by, say, rather than assuming it's simply some sort of moral deficiency, let the Invisble Hand take care of it, by taking a more proactive approach in terms of nutrition and financial responsibility in schools. Usually the most efficient way to do such a thing is to disincentivize bad decisions and incentivize good ones.
But who is it Whois most likely to be up in arms when a school, say, removes soda machines? When a municipality takes steps to disincentivize the sale of larger fast food portions to small children? To apply a higher tax to tobacco? I'll tell you who it's NOT. It's not the people who also complain about how inefficient and foolish those poor people are. No, it's the other people, generally. The same people who grow hysterical if a school district tries to adopt a rational approach to sex education, for instance. The people, in fact, whose answer to every problem seems to be 'freedom!'
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I think experience is more effective at swaying behavior than rhetoric. If there weren't systemic barriers to economic mobility, I don't think that you could convince a substantial number of people that they were trapped in poverty.
Rakeesh, also, if poor people had more resources, then the unwise or inefficient decisions wouldn't be so crippling. But some people seem to think that bad decisions are a luxury the poor don't deserve.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Usually the most efficient way to do such a thing is to disincentivize bad decisions and incentivize good ones.
I would argue that this isn't the most efficient way to fix those problems, since it doesn't really seem to work at all in the vast majority of cases. I mean, yeah, the marked decline in tobacco use in America has coincided with disincentivization, but it also coincided with realization that it's a really disgusting habit that can kill you and the de-cooling of it. It's kind of difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of those things actually caused the decline.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Boris your arguments aren't going to sway anyone. When someone thinks of being poor as being a victim, pointing out behaviors that keep people poor is easily written off as victim-blaming.
Refusing to point out those things and attacking people who do is something called "Enabling". If someone has a choice to avoid a behavior that causes problems in their life, they aren't really victims. Even if their situation drives them to make those choices. And I don't really care if I don't sway people with my argument. I just think it's an argument that needs to be made.
You know, it's interesting how often and indeed sometimes how passionately conservatives reject modern psychology and associated rhetoric, preferring a more traditional stringent Protestant outlook on human behavior.
Except when they want to use some of it. It's the human condition of course, cherry picking, but this is certainly a case of it here. Psychology might have something to say on the difficulty of assigning blame for choices when one grows up in a culture that counters that choice, and one's formative years are not ones where alternatives are posed. That's just garbage, though people should just do what's right and stop using psych babble to evade responsibility. Why, they're being enabled!
Ha.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, Dan, that's a lovely bit of thinly veiled smugness I must admit-coming from an authentic fan of that myself-
The honest self awareness in this made me literally lol.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: but just because Elison is here crowing about the revolution and whatnot, perhaps don't paint with so broad a brush?
Like for example. Even the GOP themselves will admit to being quite a lot better at messaging, the last few years of Tea Party agitation notwithstanding.
I dunno, but I follow a lot of left and right blogs and alt media and the "our ideas are obviously the best but we suck at messaging" excuse comes up a lot on both of 'em.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For example, it's nowhere the accepted message except among the most strident leftists that povery exists 'because rich people hoard the money'. I know you know better than that, Dan, and for someone who gets rightly frustrated a being mislabeled an utterly loyal Libertarian, it would at least be courteous not to do the same sort of generalizing in reverse-especially while lecturing the *other* side for that!
I missed the part where I said people thought this. Or maybe that's a Boris straw man I wasn't following? Or a Blayneism? I know you're not Blayne, and I wasn't following/commenting on any of Boris's previous posts, just the most recent one. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I should've quoted his post directly. My bad.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For another example, sure, people on government assistance often make unwise or inefficient decisions. We could address this by, say, rather than assuming it's simply some sort of moral deficiency, let the Invisble Hand take care of it, by taking a more proactive approach in terms of nutrition and financial responsibility in schools. Usually the most efficient way to do such a thing is to disincentivize bad decisions and incentivize good ones.
But who is it Whois most likely to be up in arms when a school, say, removes soda machines? When a municipality takes steps to disincentivize the sale of larger fast food portions to small children? To apply a higher tax to tobacco? I'll tell you who it's NOT. It's not the people who also complain about how inefficient and foolish those poor people are. No, it's the other people, generally. The same people who grow hysterical if a school district tries to adopt a rational approach to sex education, for instance. The people, in fact, whose answer to every problem seems to be 'freedom!'
This probably deserves it's own response later because I don't have time to give my take right now. Sorry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: Usually the most efficient way to do such a thing is to disincentivize bad decisions and incentivize good ones.
I would argue that this isn't the most efficient way to fix those problems, since it doesn't really seem to work at all in the vast majority of cases. I mean, yeah, the marked decline in tobacco use in America has coincided with disincentivization, but it also coincided with realization that it's a really disgusting habit that can kill you and the de-cooling of it. It's kind of difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of those things actually caused the decline.
Dude. Increase taxes on tobacco lowers rate of use. Obviously that's not the *only* thing that's led to a decline, but are you really going to suggest that even by itself it wouldn't trigger some decline? I mean isn't this at the heart of much of your conservative position? Taxation strangles the economy? You've got to pick one, Boris. It can't be this uncertain tbujng for tobacco but utterly obvious elsewhere.
But hey, if we're gonna talk about tobacco, let's talk. Who was it who spearheaded the effort to cut marketing to children?who was it who stood most behind education efforts on the dangers of tobacco? Do you even care? Or is the answer that all of it was just spontaneous public opinion change, as though fully formed from the head of Zeus, freedom hoy!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
But here's my point. What do you think would have happened if a group of people had told me that the hard work I put in studying wasn't going to make much of a difference because it's too hard to move upward now? If someone had told me that my hard work meant little in the face of my circumstances, I probably wouldn't have put any effort in. I probably wouldn't have risked 150 dollars of the last thousand I had to get an IT certification that was necessary to get the career jump-starting job less than a month later.
A group of people wouldn't have told you that because, for you , it wouldn't have been true. For those for whom it is true - they aren't told so much as they see people like themselves trying and failing all the time. Telling them a myth about hard work guaranteeing success comes across as a cruel joke or blind idealism. They believe that the system is rigged against them because the system IS rigged against them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh on reflection it doesn't really need a longer answer. I think you know my take on this.
In case there's confusion, here's the short version: I recognize that lots of people make bad decisions with their lives (in my estimation, this includes WAY more than just poor people). And yet I don't think that in any way means that I, or "we" or anyone ought to try to forcibly improve those peoples' lives. Or "incentivize" them to make the "right" decisions. People have autonomy, and the right to make their own decisions. Even if I, or you, or we, think those decisions are terrible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What about when those decision affect other people? if second- and third-hand smoke is dangerous, can't we justify disincentivizing based on that fact without it being an assault on the smoker's autonomy? In that case it's just baking in the cost of an externality, no?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: They believe that the system is rigged against them because the system IS rigged against them.
Can you explain exactly how you *know* the system is rigged? Like, specifically, how is it rigged against them? I realize that my "White privilege" means I am not allowed to have an opinion on the subject, or that people who aren't white don't have to listen to me because I'm white and "I don't know what it's like." But I'm seriously interested in knowing exactly what it is that causes the entire system to be rigged against certain groups of people. Do you have any kind of hard evidence to support that claim? Or is it all anecdotal?
Edited Who and How are different words!
[ February 24, 2014, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I realize that my "White privilege" means I am not allowed to have an opinion on the subject, or that people who aren't white don't have to listen to me because I'm white and "I don't know what it's like."
God. You realize that attitude of yours is obnoxious, right?
Would you like me to explain to you why "white privilege" does not in fact deny you the right to hold an opinion, before we set in to explaining why your opinions are wrong?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: God. You realize that attitude of yours is obnoxious, right?
Would you like me to explain to you why "white privilege" does not in fact deny you the right to hold an opinion, before we set in to explaining why your opinions are wrong?
Isn't that the rule here? If people don't listen to you be as obnoxious as possible? I mean that's what you do all the time.
Yes, I know it doesn't mean I can't hold an opinion, but people *very* often use it as an excuse to ignore completely valid concerns about blatantly self destructive attitudes and behaviors of various racial communities in this country.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris, unless you'd like everyone here to start treating you like Rush Limbaugh, perhaps you could stick to the things people actually say outright? Or if you feel there's a hidden meaning, try to draw it out! You're skipping that rather important step, dude.
Unless you'd rather stick to gabbing with hostile would-be revolutionaries who will adopt exactly that approach towards you? If so please let us know and save everyone some trouble. This vacillation between honest discussion and 'you liberals think stuff is bad because of rich people!' crap has grown tedious.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Can people stop using my real name, thanks m'kay, especially when used as an obvious and not particularly subtle pejorative.
quote: People on food stamps also often make lots of cost-inefficient decisions with their food stamps, like buying lots of meat, or spending most of their money immediately and running out of food in the last week of the month.
Interestingly enough, the health of the average Brit went up during the Second World War when they were on a ration system, this was because nutritionists were advising the rationing system.
You know what would help those in poverty making better nutritional decisions? I wonder if it would cost tax payers money?
Putting that aside though, "People make bad decisions with their life line" doesn't mean "starve the bastards" by removing those benefits is the right decision; this is part of a calculated propaganda and misinformation war to convince people that the dirty poors don't deserve help, they don't really "need" it, look at those Xbox's and Refigerators they have in a first world country!
How many people would need to starve to death before you'ld concede that a rigorous government social safety net is required to prevent it? 100,000? One Million? A Holodomor or Half a Holodomor? Would you concede Two and a Half Holodomors?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If people don't listen to you be as obnoxious as possible? I mean that's what you do all the time.
I solemnly promise you that I am capable of being far, far more obnoxious than you have ever seen me.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Unless you'd rather stick to gabbing with hostile would-be revolutionaries who will adopt exactly that approach towards you? If so please let us know and save everyone some trouble. This vacillation between honest discussion and 'you liberals think stuff is bad because of rich people!' crap has grown tedious.
I am trying to foster an honest discussion here, but sometimes the lizard brain kicks in and goes off on some stupid tangent. I apologize. But I really would like to know where the idea that the system is against minorities comes from. I fully understand it was a massive problem 50 years ago, but I want to see the evidence used to come to the conclusion that it is a systemic issue *now*, because I can't find any.
And here's the thing, calls of privilege piss me off because they are a barrier to honest discussion and problem solving. Nobody knows what it's like to be someone else. Ever. You can attempt to sympathize as much as possible, but it is absolutely impossible to really understand what people go through. As to people who fail to get some level of success in their lives, this may seem cliche, but it really is true that you only fail when you give up. Seriously, every person who works hard to succeed and then fails to do so, at what point did they decide to stop trying? Because the only correct time to stop trying to better yourself or achieve something is when you die.
quote: I solemnly promise you that I am capable of being far, far more obnoxious than you have ever seen me.
I have no doubt that you can accomplish anything you set your mind on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait, should we use Blayne or Elison? Serious question. I was critical of your style of discussion, but nothing was perjorative in my use of your name. If I used an unpreferred name, it was accidental.
---------
Boris,
Thanks for saying so. I've had to make a similar statement more times than I should in the past as well, so I know it can w difficult. Props.
Now, that said, as for the system and minorities I suppose one of the most straightforward ways of discussing that topic is to simply ask: where have you looked? That's a serious question, and you're obviously not alone in thinking systematic racism is largely or even entirely a thing of the past. So that's why it might be useful to ask what one of your favorite sources for that opinion is, when you mentioned having looked. I'll be happy to answer the same question if you'd like, and I think others would too, but I admit I'm frankly concerned about being immediately tarred with the 'dislikes America and rich people liberal' brush. Cards on the table there.
As for walking in someone else's shoes, I entirely agree with much of what you've said. Even for people whose circumstances are quite closely aligned, perfect empathy is going to be impossible. Even really good empathy between like minded similar people is unusual. All of that said, though, don't you think there is a contradiction involved in rejecting-completely rejecting, btw-a discussion of privilege because of imperfect understanding...and then holding forth on how other people embrace an ideology of victimhood, and how if they truly tried and wished to improve, they would, etc.? Doesn't that assume a level of understanding that you just rejected as so difficult to attain it doesn't bear discussion? Can you see how it appears you're trying to have it both ways?
As for using it as a tool to stop discussion, well on that I also agree. Often it is. And I am certainly biased, but I do think that it is also often responded to as though a mention of privilege were really a ploy to tell the other party to be quiet, than it actually is. I think that because serious people don't actually think privilege is an open and shut total determining factor. If they did, social mobility would be static. Serious people, and there are some here, think it's of substantial importance-not that it's the first and last word in the discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it really is true that you only fail when you give up
My great-grandfather was storming a trench and was shot. He failed to storm the trench, but I don't know that he ever gave up.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Boris specifically allowed for death as well a bit further down. Would've been better to include it in the quoted passage, too, but come on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan, c'mon, I *know* you see the contradiction to which Tom is alluding. Boris said in plain language that the only time one fails is when one stops trying. His mention of death did not touch on success for failure-it wasn't an exception, that is-but only a statement of the only time when it's appropriate to stop trying.
Which is in fact an admirable outlook, though few-even among proponents-live up to it, because it's a doctrine of heroic ceaseless struggle. Tom's use of a plain, undeniable example of a time when major, even heroic effort did not achieve success thus seems pretty apt to me.
I suspect that Boris didn't actually mean to suggest that all effort will eventually achieve success. There's a bit more nuance to it-not all failures are quitters, but all quitters have failed might be a better way to describe it-so I don't think Boris meant his words to be an end-all summation of his position. (I suspect Tom thought something similar, actually.)
But it's a potentially useful remark because Boris does appear to talk a good deal in ways that seem to express a belief that it IS true. That effort is the only real, permanent solution to dissatisfaction and failure in these glorious United States-and that anyone who has failed or is dissatisfied is thus guilty simply of not trying hard enough.
Tom's example is a useful one because it punctures such absolutist thinking, though I have little doubt it was also quite a bit motivated by snark as well. Are you gonna lecture him about that? Not long ago you were smugly lecturing-in the form of commiserating with Boris-your opponents, using a heapin helping of snark too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. So condemning folks to sisyphean struggle but, hey, they have to keep at it because, instead of acknowledging that they need help - that they will likely fail without it - you offer crap platitudes about never giving up! Delightful.
And even should they, against the odds, find a small measure of success, why, for God's sake, must we keep it so difficult for them?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That doesn't matter. The passage is still ridiculous on its face.
Saying "It really is true that you only fail when you give up" is saying something which is completely untrue, whether or not we're applying a caveat about dying.
You can fail due to injury, illness, actions taken against you by other parties, disaster, or economic forces well outside of your control.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like I watched someone work very hard to build up his construction company from scratch, then he got leukemia and could hardly stand and so his company failed, especially what with the having to liquidate it to cover medical costs even while "insured™" american-style.
I want to walk up to him and tell him that irrelevant of the fact that he became so anemic he could barely walk from a bed to a bathroom, he only failed because he stopped trying. That would be so awesome because he would punch me in my smug goddamned face, and I'd deserve it for peddling The Secret level platitudes prejudging failure as purely a measure of lack of effort.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And I realize I probably mis-spoke earlier on what the left is saying to people, and trust me, I do realize that conservatives have serious issues communicating what they actually mean to people and the left is much more capable when it comes to messaging.
See, why is it always this? Why is it always that if you could just *communicate* your idea more effectively, it would be more attractive? What if you message is fundamentally flawed? Your lack of clarity on what the liberal message even is, is clear evidence that liberals don't do much better at communicating than you do.
Perhaps the problem is that the Republican message has a deliberately broad appeal, while the Democratic one actually deals in fact and real data. Perhaps the Republican message is *just wrong.*
quote: But here's my point. What do you think would have happened if a group of people had told me that the hard work I put in studying wasn't going to make much of a difference because it's too hard to move upward now? If someone had told me that my hard work meant little in the face of my circumstances, I probably wouldn't have put any effort in. I probably wouldn't have risked 150 dollars of the last thousand I had to get an IT certification that was necessary to get the career jump-starting job less than a month later.
Nobody is saying hard work isn't important.
What I *am* saying, is that hard work for you is not the same as hard work for everyone. For some people, it's hard work to even get in the door of a job interview. For some people, it's near impossible to be believed when they say they'll work hard and do the right thing. A hard luck story makes a white guy from a middle class background seem *credible*. A hard luck story makes a black guy look dangerous. That's the way things are, unfortunately. The standards to which you are held are not the same as they are for others.
Look, I'm a waspy, upper-middle class white guy with a good education. I can walk into interviews for jobs I'm barely qualified for, and get them easily. Can I honestly think that my being able to work hard is, while true, the essence of why I live in comfort while others do not?
We've got higher income inequality than we did at the end of the 19th century in America. We've got universities with 10 Billion dollars in endowments, 2 Million a student a Harvard, and adjusted spending on public education has cratered in the past 30 years. And we talk about how hard people are willing to work.
I often think of this analogy: suppose the government came to you and offered you a gift of $10,000 dollars. Do you consider yourself the type of person that could make good use of that money? Do you know what you would do with it? Would you be responsible with it? Would you start a business? Give it to a good charity? Use it to make art or to do research?
Now imagine there was a stipulation: if you want the money, you also need to give permission for the government to give $10,000 to a person in poverty. A person on the bleeding edge of survival. Would you feel that that $10,000 dollars would be a waste? If you do, why? Are you morally better than that man who will receive the money? Is it because he is not as well educated as you? Is it because he will waste it? Is it because he will do harm with it? Will that money harm him, when it wouldn't do harm to you? Why is that?
That is the essence of systematic inequality. It is the truth that giving money to poor people can be bad for them. And that is a very scary truth indeed. It means that we are so far from a society in which people have a chance at succeeding, that even offering certain kinds of help will only hurt people more. If you can't recognize the fundamental brokenness of that kind of system, then I don't trust you as a human being.
quote: But I really would like to know where the idea that the system is against minorities comes from. I fully understand it was a massive problem 50 years ago, but I want to see the evidence used to come to the conclusion that it is a systemic issue *now*, because I can't find any.
13% of the American population is black. Black people make up 40% of the American prison population.
A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of serving time in prison at some point in his life. Almost 1 in 3 black males in America are in the supervision of the criminal justice system. For the population as a whole, that number is 1 in 43.
Currently there are 44 black congresspersons in the United States, for a total of 8% of seats, against 13% by population. 0.005% of black Americans hold a doctoral degree or higher. Over 3% of the total population holds a doctoral degree or higher. About 30% of whites over 25 hold bachelor's degrees. about 18% of blacks over 25 hold bachelor's degrees.
Need we go on?
[ February 25, 2014, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
This is fascinating to me because apparently it wasn't a nitpick, all of you genuinely read his statement totally different than I did.
He specifically says fail "to achieve a level of success in their lives."
Pretty sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but... He's not saying the only way to fail at X arbitrary endeavor is to stop trying. Any given venture can fail. He described some things he did that failed, too. Failure is always a possibility. Failure is the easiest possibility.
He's saying the only way to [/I]be[/i] a failure, to never succeed at anything and be low value your entire life, is to give up. (And die.)
This fits into the context of the conversation better than your interpretations, too. Which means you aren't trying very hard to actually understand.
Orincoro's post slipped in while I was writing this, not meant as a reply to him.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote: He's saying the only way to be a failure, to never succeed at anything and be low value your entire life, is to give up. (And die.)
That's not significantly different from how people have been interpreting Boris' statements. A person can try and try and try their whole life and still never succeed at anything. It becomes more likely if their situation is particularly vulnerable to being compromised by stupid mistakes, like attracting the attention of law enforcement. They start bad, head worse, and then spend their whole life just trying to get back to bad.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: the Democratic one actually deals in fact and real data
If what you're using in your post is what you consider "Fact" and "Real data" then I guess that's the case...but...
This:
quote: 13% of the American population is black. Black people make up 40% of the American prison population.
A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of serving time in prison at some point in his life. Almost 1 in 3 black males in America are in the supervision of the criminal justice system. For the population as a whole, that number is 1 in 43.
Currently there are 44 black congresspersons in the United States, for a total of 8% of seats, against 13% by population. 0.005% of black Americans hold a doctoral degree or higher. Over 3% of the total population holds a doctoral degree or higher. About 30% of whites over 25 hold bachelor's degrees. about 18% of blacks over 25 hold bachelor's degrees.
Is not facts. This is just a giant blob of numbers with no context. There is no logical way to go from any one of those numbers to "Black people are failing because the system is stacked against them." There is a logical link between this: "0.005% of black Americans hold a doctoral degree or higher" and this: "Black Americans are not getting Doctoral degrees at a rate that is equal to the national average." That is completely logical. What you have stated is not.
It takes a lot more information to go from the statistics you posted to the conclusion you've reached, and none of that information is in what you posted.
I say this because in saying that these numbers represent systemic inequality,it is therefore possible to infer that such systemic inequality will always exist until all those numbers are in parity. It is then possible to infer that your solution to the problem of systemic inequality is to bring those numbers into parity. Now how do you expect us to do that? Do you expect us to ignore our personal opinions when voting and vote based on race until exactly 13% of the representatives in government are black? Give doctorates or make doctorates more attainable for blacks until exactly 3% of blacks have doctorates?
And I have to point something out here:
quote: That is the essence of systematic inequality. It is the truth that giving money to poor people can be bad for them. And that is a very scary truth indeed. It means that we are so far from a society in which people have a chance at succeeding, that even offering certain kinds of help will only hurt people more. If you can't recognize the fundamental brokenness of that kind of system, then I don't trust you as a human being.
Let me explain something to you. What you are describing is not systemic inequality, at least as far as I understand the term. But hey, words mean things but words don't always mean the same things to different people, so how about before we go into a discussion on systemic equality, we first have a discussion about what that *is*.
At any rate, what bothers me about what you have stated here is this, specifically:
quote: That is the essence of systematic inequality. It is the truth that giving money to poor people can be bad for them. And that is a very scary truth indeed. It means that we are so far from a society in which people have a chance at succeeding, that even offering certain kinds of help will only hurt people more.
Now, this is not a failing of "the system" as I understand it. This is a failing that comes as a result of people being able to make their own choices *at all*. You can give a poor person 10,000 dollars and they have a choice of what to do with it, because it is "theirs" now. How do you think that person would feel if you demanded they only do what you want them to do with that money. Don't you think that would be an incredible intrusion into their life? Do you think that they would be grateful for your help, or do you think they would be resentful that you treated them with such contempt, even if it is warranted by their past actions?
Basically, what I don't understand is what are you guys wanting to turn the world into? What would your ideal, perfect, unbroken "system" look like? Have you considered trying to explain that? I'd really like to know.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Boris, if it's not systemic inequality, how do you explain those numbers?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Basically, what I don't understand is what are you guys wanting to turn the world into? What would your ideal, perfect, unbroken "system" look like? Have you considered trying to explain that? I'd really like to know.
It is the system we would design if we didn't know who we were going to be when we were born. If we didn't know who our parents would be. If we didn't know what race we would be. If we didn't know what our talents would be, or our gender, or our challenges.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote: He's saying the only way to be a failure, to never succeed at anything and be low value your entire life, is to give up. (And die.)
That's not significantly different from how people have been interpreting Boris' statements. A person can try and try and try their whole life and still never succeed at anything. It becomes more likely if their situation is particularly vulnerable to being compromised by stupid mistakes, like attracting the attention of law enforcement. They start bad, head worse, and then spend their whole life just trying to get back to bad.
This. And in relation to this and the question of the presence of institutional racism in society, multiple studies have been done on the effects of things like ethnicity in regards to employment. Several concurrent bouts of research from NYC to Milwaukee show that being black (or, in the case of online resumes, even just having a black sounding name) has as much or more of an impact on your chances of employment as having a felony conviction would.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait, should we use Blayne or Elison? Serious question. I was critical of your style of discussion, but nothing was perjorative in my use of your name. If I used an unpreferred name, it was accidental.
It was Dan and the term "[name]-ism" not you; but I'ld prefer Elison; I like to use it as my middle name but is actually my brothers iirc, but the username doesn't link to say, my FB account.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I like to use it as my middle name but is actually my brothers iirc
You don't know your brother's full name?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
FWIW, Boris, are you truly saying that you don't believe systemic inequality exists? That you're looking for and receptive to any evidence that it does?
Because I can't believe that's what you're saying, but on the face of it that's what it appears you're asking for.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I like to use it as my middle name but is actually my brothers iirc
You don't know your brother's full name?
When would that ever come up in conversation? I think I only saw my birth certificate (not from Kenya) once.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I say this because in saying that these numbers represent systemic inequality,it is therefore possible to infer that such systemic inequality will always exist until all those numbers are in parity.
No, you have the cart before the horse. Those numbers are evidence of systematic inequality. Changing the numbers by any means doesn't *guarantee* the erasure of systematic inequality, but it would be *very* hard to change them any other way. It's not a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, because it is well understood why these numbers are not in closer alignment (and for that, you can look at statistics of income inequality, substandard education, racially motivated drug legislation, and police practices around the country).
However, the across-the-board statistics are a strong determiner of systematic biases that are far deeper than mere college admissions, court decisions, or budgetary problems for any given municipality or state. These kinds of statistics are, in fact, convincing evidence of a systematic problem.
This is the "systematic," part of systematic inequality. I think you're imagining that we all start at zero, and work our way up or down, and if the system is levered against one class of people, they have a greater chance of failure. That isn't exactly the case. We live in a fluid system, where the mere fact that black people are inordinately more likely to be actual criminals disadvantages other black people in a very basic way. Systematic biases spring up from a system that has evolved to treat a class of people in a certain way, but in turn ends up also reinforcing the consequences of past injustices and past results.
The "three strikes," rule, as an example, is argued to have negatively impacted communities by significantly displacing black male populations and disadvantaging the children of black criminal offenders, leading to decreased economic opportunities in already high-crime areas. Areas in which the police were *already* more likely to arrest and to pursue black men for petty crimes, which would then lead to disproportionately long sentences. The feedback loop that an injust system creates are pernicious precisely because it *is* real crime that police and legislatures are talking about. But they do not take the long view of whether incarceration will actually increase overall economic inequality or not.
quote: Now, this is not a failing of "the system" as I understand it. This is a failing that comes as a result of people being able to make their own choices *at all*.
Yes, such as the choice a very rich person makes to vote for the guy who will lower his taxes, even when he knows where that money is coming from. Choice is a problem.
[ February 26, 2014, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I like to use it as my middle name but is actually my brothers iirc
You don't know your brother's full name?
When would that ever come up in conversation? I think I only saw my birth certificate (not from Kenya) once.
That is bizarre, "Elison." I know the full names of all my family members. I think most people do.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I even know the full names of my twelve nieces and nephews.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: FWIW, Boris, are you truly saying that you don't believe systemic inequality exists? That you're looking for and receptive to any evidence that it does?
Because I can't believe that's what you're saying, but on the face of it that's what it appears you're asking for.
I'm trying to get to the core of the philosophical disconnect between our ideals, primarily so I can understand where you guys are coming from. And really, I think the responses I've gotten to my last post have given me some insight.
I apparently didn't understand what you guys meant when you said "Systemic inequality." I'm still not exactly sure what you guys are saying.
But based on what you've said, particularly this:
quote: Yes, such as the choice a very rich person makes to vote for the guy who will lower his taxes, even when he knows where that money is coming from. Choice is a problem.
I want no part of your perfect world. If you are honestly saying that the government should be making life decisions for me or anyone else, then get the hell away from me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would probably be instructive to ask what *you* think is meant by systemic inequality when other peoe use the term, and what you mean by the term when you use it, if you think it exists. Samprimary gave a pretty solid, specific example. Do you believe, for example, that having an 'ethnic-sounding' name can be a liability even in non-face to face situations?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But based on what you've said...
Just to clarify, that's a broadly-meant "you," right? Because I didn't actually say that. I'm actually considerably less of an economic leftist than you might think.
When people talk about systemic inequality and privilege, it's important to note that these are actually two different things (although specific examples might overlap).
Privilege is the experience of being the default, from which many benefits accrue almost imperceptibly to the holder (but which are perceived by those without that benefit.) It is the experience of having implicit assumptions made about identity and background and experience which largely fit your own. You see people who look like you on television. Articles are aimed at your demographic. When you pull up in a certain type of automobile, you do not surprise people when you step out of it. Obviously this can be a somewhat mushy yardstick; an 18 to 24-year-old white male arguably benefits more from his self-identification in some ways than, say, a 56-year-old white male, but is harmed by other assumptions (like, for example, the idea that a 22-year-old will be more irresponsible or has less managerial talent). The closer you are to certain defaults, the more greased you'll find the wheels of life; while outliers can occasionally benefit (or at least compensate for their background) by pimping their outsider narrative -- like a poor inner-city kid who invented something and is now on Oprah to promote it partially by promoting himself -- these cases are tautologically uncommon.
It is important to understand privilege so that you can understand actual equivalencies. As a basic and common example, let's discuss the very common idea I've heard from homophobes that "gay people don't need to shove their gayness in my face" -- that it's fine for homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior as long as they don't discuss it publicly or otherwise try to bring it into the public sphere, because that constitutes "pushing" their lifestyle at unwilling victims. Recognizing the extreme privilege that heterosexuals enjoyed in this context until very recently makes it easier to understand why this position is so ridiculous. Every picture of a spouse, every discussion of a vacation weekend or casual encounter with a co-worker and his significant other at a restaurant, every discussion of adoption or romantic pairing you see in film or read in novels, is fraught with meaning for someone who has to avoid publicly "pushing" his sexuality at someone, but is absolutely trivial for those who benefit from being able to broadcast their own sexuality because it is the default.
Systemic inequality can of course be informed and abetted by privilege, but doesn't depend on the assumption of privilege or even prejudice to persist. Consider that we know poor children will, by and large, receive worse educations and meet fewer wealthy associates and as a consequence will have both fewer networking opportunities and fewer role models. We also know that, for various historical reasons, certain ethnic groups were much more likely to be poor. As a consequence, those ethnic groups are much more likely to remain poor, because they have fewer networking opportunities and fewer role models. (In the same way, someone born to a rich family has a very small chance of becoming poor.) There are latent advantages to a given position which wind up solidifying those advantages in the next generation, and there exist systems that -- while ostensibly blind to all other factors -- wind up advantaging people who already have those advantages while ignoring or actively suppressing the chances of those without them. It's not impossible to rise above these disadvantages, but it often takes multiple generations or exceptional effort -- and by definition, exceptional effort is exceptional.
Sometimes racism plays a part, too. Consider the case Sam gave you, of the "ethnic-sounding" name; there's a scenario where someone confronted with their own kneejerk racism might justify it by arguing that an "ethnic" name might signify a meaningful cultural difference. But how is someone going to overcome that, especially when they've never had any reason to realize that it's a disadvantage?
The question becomes whether the government should step in, then, and deliberately tilt the playing field towards those who are disadvantaged. I believe they should, for three reasons:
1) Compassion. The disadvantaged need more help than the wealthy need to keep their wealth. I don't even notice the taxes I pay, but I pay more in taxes than nearly half the population makes in a year.
2) Redistribution. The wealthy circulate their wealth inefficiently; they don't spend it enough, or in the right places. Giving money to the poor ensures that services and manufacturing continue to exist.
3) Competition. As money and advantages accumulate to the wealthy, they can create additional systems to accelerate this accumulation. It winds up creating oligarchies, in much the same way monopolies tend to form in unregulated industries with high barriers to entry; the rich, who are uniquely enabled to adjust those barriers to entry, work to ensure their uniqueness and lack of competition. To prevent the rule of a handful of privileged few, the majority needs to break up the power accumulated by those few every so often. When this doesn't happen, it eventually happens anyway in a rather more bloody fashion.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE]1) Compassion. The disadvantaged need more help than the wealthy need to keep their wealth. I don't even notice the taxes I pay, but I pay more in taxes than nearly half the population makes in a year.
So, this is somewhat tangential to the subject at hand, but there's an interesting (and rather depressing) psycological phenomenon I've noticed that seems to coincide with an icrease in wealth.
When I was about 17 or 18, I remember a family friend of mine in Indiana who was going through some financial hardship telling my father "I just need to make $100,000 a year - that'd be enough for me to get by." and I thought "good lord, who in the world (especially in a state with a rather low cost of living, and for a person with only 2 children) considers 100 grand a year 'getting by'?"
The thing is, I've always fantasized about giving away a good portion of my income to charity. I do donate to charity (I've always worked a job where they can take your charitable donation right from your paycheck, so it's not like it requires an actual conscious effort), but not more than $500-$1000 a year.
So anyway, when I first started living on my own, I made $20,000/year as a student, and didn't give because my income more or less matched my expenses. Expenses at that point were a rent payment for a house I shared with 4 men, gas, food, tuition.
Then later, when I was making $40,000 a year (though because the military automatically deducts the cost of free housing/food the actually income paid looks different) my expenses still miraculously matched my income. Though by this point expenses were insurance, monthly deposits on my IRA and savings account, cell phone, gas, plane tickets to go home twice a year, beer and entertainment, etc. So I still didn't give.
Now I make a little over $70,000/year, and for the firt time I make more money than I really have any reason to spend in a month. But that's mostly lifestyle choices. I cook almost all my meals at home and pack my lunch each day though I could afford to eat out. I drive a used car, though I could afford a new one. I live in a small house. I don't have children.
And it's now for the first time I've really realized that I could still very easily live off of $15,000 or $20,000 a year, and that I'm not really noticably more happy than I was when I did live off that much money. I've merely become accustomed to spending more. I'm used to having my own house instead of sharing one with several other people or families. I'm used to eating higher quality food, with more variety. I'm used to driving everywhere even when I have enough time to just ride my bike. I'm used to having a new laptop with internet in my home, though I could do everything I really need to with the internet at work or at the library. Ditto for spending hundreds of dollars a year on my Kindle, when I could just get the books from my library.
But will I, of my own volition, go back to living off of $20,000/year and give the rest away to charity? Probably not. At most, this period of introspection will make me decide to cut out of a few expenditures and maybe curb my spending for the next few years, and pat myself on the back for doing that. Which is rather depressing.
At what point to things stop being luxuries and start being "necessities"? Like, once a make x dollars a year, do you simply say "well, I have pretty much everything I need, let me give the rest away to charity", or do people legitimately view vacation homes and 5 star hotel stays and BMWs as "necessities?" I mean, I often think my mother in law is rather absurd when she says things like "I just need a new car every 2 years" or "we absolutely need to take a cruise this year, it's been forever!" to justify her exorbitant spending. But compared to, say, a villager in the Philippines or even someone living in the ghetto in Chicago, is there even a noticable difference? (between me and my MIL, I mean)
I think that's the main flaw behind the argument of people who assume that charity can effectively replace welfare. I'm not hoarding wealth because I hate poor people, or think they need to work hard rather than get handouts, or even because I don't care/don't understand. I do care, and have spent quite a bit of time volunteering at homeless shelters. No, I hoard wealth simply because I'm too lazy not to. Because I constantly make the flaw of planning to increase my contribution to charity by increasing my income rather than lowering my expenses. Because it's human nature, and honestly, without some outside source forcing people to redistribute meaningful amounts of wealth, it's unlikely to happen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But will I, of my own volition, go back to living off of $20,000/year and give the rest away to charity? Probably not. At most, this period of introspection will make me decide to cut out of a few expenditures and maybe curb my spending for the next few years, and pat myself on the back for doing that. Which is rather depressing.
If you are actually spending the money rather than building up a fortune, (Reasonable retirement savings exempted) then I see no reason to fault you. Money spent is salaries paid and people hired.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I want no part of your perfect world. If you are honestly saying that the government should be making life decisions for me or anyone else, then get the hell away from me.
So you want no part of a world in which if someone kills you for your wallet, the government can prosecute them on your behalf and even imprison them, or do literally anything related to the most basic functions of managing law.
That's good to know, I guess, but what you are saying is ideologically blind beyond reason. You're already part of this 'perfect world' where the government makes decisions for people, you always have been, you always will be, and being aghast at this is blinkered.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
There's also that, suppose the US is invaded, he'ld be conscripted, immediately; the federal government as an 'entity' really is playing nice and holding back; but in truth his ideal perfect world is an illusion that will shatter like glass the second anything serious happens to threaten it.
His ideal world can't exist, its never existed; socialism has produced more functioning societies than libertarianism ever has (which is 0).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Guys, don't throw straw men at Boris. He's at least semi-consistent in his libertarian positions; he's very much a negative liberty guy and is outright dismissive of positive liberty (or, rather, believes that positive liberty is already largely infinite, being limited only by human will.)
Prosecuting someone for forcibly violating the sanctity of another person and taking their life or property would be, from a pro-negative-liberty perspective, a perfectly reasonable function of government. As is conscription, actually, given the alternatives. This is why libertarians can also be hawks, although they're generally pseudo-isolationists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If he's trying to articulate a negative/positive liberty thing, he needs to learn how to actually articulate it rather than saying what he said.
Imprisonment or other penalty for my violation of a legal right on the part of another is, to put it mildly, the government making decisions for me. Whether positive or negative rights were infiltrated by me, or whatever.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: Yes, such as the choice a very rich person makes to vote for the guy who will lower his taxes, even when he knows where that money is coming from. Choice is a problem.
I want no part of your perfect world. If you are honestly saying that the government should be making life decisions for me or anyone else, then get the hell away from me.
Lol. You think I'm saying you shouldn't be allowed to vote? Heh, no. I'm pointing out that the upward flow of money and power skews the political system toward defending the advantages of the rich, and the *illusion* of choice is the idea that if people want a better society, they will just vote for one. When in fact, inordinate amounts of time and money will be spent creating a deluge of misinformation (along with good old-fashioned gerry-mandering and voter harassment), to make that choice fairly obsolete.
In that sense, self-interested choices are a problem, because people are not capable of understanding their own greater interests. Such as the rich guy who votes for lower taxes: his choice seems self-interested, but is ultimately self-defeating. In that sense, choice is a problem.
Also: don't read "problem," as "aberration." That's too simplistic. A problem means, in that context, a system that confounds intentionality. You vote for how you want government to function, but you can't vote for the results.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Should the government not regulate industries regarding dumping toxic substances into the rivers and water tables?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, because... um...because government bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a *bit* of a straw man in the modern day, though not as much as I would like.
But I think it is worth remembering, when considering an ideology's current claims, to examine its track record. It's a complicated issue, and there are competing needs, but on environmental terms conservatives are usually crappier than liberals-who generally aren't especially interests themselves.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Liberals tend to be more counter productive, harmful mostly as a result of hijacking of the environmental movement by interest groups. For example, the predominantly European Green Party's idiotic Anti-Nucular stance. Personally, I prefer nucular power over hydro-electic power as more environmentally friendly (Hydro releases more C02 emissions through rotting wood in the flooded areas).
Conservatives have generally, I imagine maybe there's the odd Christian Conservative who takes "We're the grounds keepers of the lands God gave us" seriously, but in general, conservatives believe in a very Emmanuel Kantian view of the world; that there's no ethical imperative or inherent value to nature or preserving the environment if it means Human Inconvenience, and by 'inconvenience' obviously that just means "Corporations need to be compelled to spend money they otherwise didn't need to".
This is what largely drives Climate Change Denialism in the United States as well as knee jerk political rejection of anything Democratic or Internationalist.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Liberals tend to be more counter productive, harmful mostly as a result of hijacking of the environmental movement by interest groups. For example, the predominantly European Green Party's idiotic Anti-Nucular stance. Personally, I prefer nucular power over hydro-electic power as more environmentally friendly (Hydro releases more C02 emissions through rotting wood in the flooded areas).
Conservatives have generally, I imagine maybe there's the odd Christian Conservative who takes "We're the grounds keepers of the lands God gave us" seriously, but in general, conservatives believe in a very Emmanuel Kantian view of the world; that there's no ethical imperative or inherent value to nature or preserving the environment if it means Human Inconvenience, and by 'inconvenience' obviously that just means "Corporations need to be compelled to spend money they otherwise didn't need to".
This is what largely drives Climate Change Denialism in the United States as well as knee jerk political rejection of anything Democratic or Internationalist.
About the only thing I agree with here is our nonsensical aversion to nuclear power as a dominant energy source.
I'm confident that all the conservatives I know (as in 100%) would not agree to what you're saying they believe "in general". Even those who believe that man has "dominion over the earth" don't interpret that as license to f#$k up said earth.
My house exists to serve my needs, I have complete dominion over it and everything within. That doesn't mean I'm going to trash it or let it be damaged for convenience sake.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Conservatives fundamentally reject the notion of a 'commons' from which by implication reject the notion of preserving said commons. Which you illustrate from the notion of "my house exists to serve my needs". You have your house and you think your doing fine in your house but this isn't universally true. Dumping toxic waste into the river is a Thing Companies Do In Their House, "Clean Coal" is by definition sticking toxic waste into the ground where it can potentially contaminate the water tables.
The "My House" analogy works in reverse, just as you think you are maintaining your house, you also likely do not believe you should be compelled to maintain it "better" than you think you need to, that it is "unnecessary". Climate Change Denial is all about rationalizing increasingly contrived explanations as to why there should not be any compulsion to achieve a more sustainable quality of life and standard of living.
Then there's selfish reasons, conservatives tend to be more beholden to corporate interest and corporate welfare; doing anything that increases the fiscal burden on a company is "anti business" and can lead to a "loss of jobs"; under a world view that economic pragmatism is the higher priority than the quality of life of human beings affected by that work. The debate over increasing environmental standards on coal plants and coal mines, fracking, and so on are indicative of this Corporatist way of thinking spearheaded primarily by conservatives. A corporation shouldn't be compelled to adhere to high environmental standards is the argument, that its too expensive and the plant may have to close, or let the 'free market' decide even though the health of hundreds of thousands is being affected "now", here not even humans are the priority, but stock portfolio and profit margins and knee jerk ideology.
Harming the commons harms humans and the environment, and harming the environment harms the ability for humans to live long term; this is why there needs to be laws and regulations and enforcement mechanisms with teeth, to prevent avoidable tragedy.
And right now climate change is happening and driven by excessive pollution; China is a good example of where America might see itself, poisoned rivers, poisoned water tables, contaminated food, soil erosion, drying lakes and rivers; preventing or more likely, softening the effects of climate change has a monetary cost and sacrifice that will require people and corporations to foot the bill.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Conservatives fundamentally reject the notion of a 'commons' from which by implication reject the notion of preserving said commons.
Hogwash. Clearly, we must associate with a different species of conservative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My house exists to serve my needs, I have complete dominion over it and everything within. That doesn't mean I'm going to trash it or let it be damaged for convenience sake.
You will, I think, agree that while a person's dominion over a given piece of property* doesn't necessarily mean they will mistreat it, it does do two things. One, it contains within it a right to mistreat it-if it's yours you can maintain or trash it. Two, it also sets a lower general standard for maintenance than one which has up front, for everyone, an idea that the property ought to be protected by its owners?
Relying totally on personal dominion relies essentially on the environmental values of that person. Will he for example decide that his dominion over his wallet justified trashing his dominion over a piece of land for short term profit? Will she decide that her dominion over a stretch of river and her need for farming grants her the right to draw huge amounts of water for irrigation, and dump waste to save expense of disposal?
These aren't abstract hypotheticals either, I'm sure you recognize. And I'm not saying that the plain problems these questions indicate mean that it's settled, huge environmental standards for everyone, period! I'm just trying to point out problems with relying entirely on self-interest.
*One way in which a house is a bit different than a piece of land or a river is that everyone that comes after you will have to find a piece of land to live on or near. If your dominion is careless, all of these future people will have a wrecked common inheritance to live with.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I'll concede the house metaphor might not be the greatest. My intent was to call BS on the notion that conservatives "in general" are fine with trashing the environment for convenience or profit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In general is stretching it, yes. Many environmentalists come from an outdoorsy conservation/hunting angle historically.
But the thing is, trashing the environment for convenience or profit *is* contained explicitly in the whole dominion over mandate. In that system, the only thing that inhibits trashing the environment is a given person's circumstances and priorities. We see it all the time. Even in a system with heavy regulation, evasions of environmental laws happen all the time-for profit and convenience. Are we to assume that if we reverted totally to a dominion over angle, this would happen *less*?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: I'll concede the house metaphor might not be the greatest. My intent was to call BS on the notion that conservatives "in general" are fine with trashing the environment for convenience or profit.
At the same time, they sure don't seem to want anyone (i.e. government because, who else?) stopping them from doing it.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah the point is that the Conservative Political Class, i.e those who actually run and hold political office certainly do wish to raise corporate convenience in destroying the environment for profit; see the Coal and Fracking industries, the Keystone Pipeline is a perfect example. When it bursts (and its a matter of when not if) it'll destroy and poison the water tables covering something like three states for decades if not centuries.
The "average" conservative votes for them, even if pressed and if they even agree that destroying the environment is a Bad Idea they'll insist "Oh they're not actually doing that, that's just the Main stream Media bias telling lies."
Lets look in Canada, HarperGov literally destroyed thousands of documents, books, research papers, mountains of evidence and research into the environment, why? So Businesses can conduct business and not worry about having to account for environmental costs. There's no rational explanation other than the one that involves convenience for corporations.
How many times have prominant GOP politicians expressed a desire to abolish the EPA? Why? What reason is there for this? What national interest is served?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
here is an article that is a bit out of date but warns of the same things. It has only gotten worse and the "rays of sun" is mention toward the end have spectacularly failed to pan out.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)