Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Aug 4, 2013.
It's no more insulting than "libbies." Really, ill-advised? :huh: How so?
Too bad for you that you never are. :laugh:
The emoticon is confusing. Are you just being petty and unpleasant, or are you making a little jest?
Don't worry though, it's all at your expense. :wink:
S'Ok then. Happy to bring a little joy into a fellow Gators life.
What do you mean by "underclass"? All poor people who are on public assistance or some smaller group within that group?
Thanks for the clarification.
Somewhere in the low teens I imagine, without consulting demographics charts.
Lumpenproletariat, chronically unemployed working class, take your pick.
Not arguing it.
I guess I just question how much it affects their thinking in terms of some notion that they want to stay dependent...and still poor. Poverty is a trap, hence the cross-generational aspect of it. And many poor folk actually work or are elderly, children, or disabled.
However, if anything, I just want to remind folks (myself included) to pull back or be mindful of not fixating too much on any one factor as explaining it all. It can lead to a form of confirmation bias.
That's six words
Only thing that's going to solve problems in the AA community is to increase two parents in the home. If I grew up with no father I would have never attended UF, knocked someone up before 25, and had no respect for any female or relationship. My dad kept my ass in line. This is killing the black community. It's so so sad.
Perhaps this different emphasis in causal assignment explains where we disagree somewhat. It is tempting for sociologists and liberals to treat demographic groups objectively rather than subjectively, meaning that the differentials in a particular demographic are either due to victimization or some inherent and immutable quality. But I don't really see things this way. The poor are not poor because they are lazy (leading to the usual 'blaming the victim' claptrap). They are poor because they are not culturally equipped with the proper problem solving and decision making schemata and attitudes, but those problem solving techniques that they have learned are often applied with considerable energy and determination. Where they are lazy it is because they despair of life and reject the norms of a society from which they are all but outcast. For a man has as little choice about the culture he is handed as his birthright as he does his gender, yet in it amounts to his default toolbox for life's problems, and weighs heavily upon his destiny.
Still, it must be observed that people are capable of and do add to, remodel, or discard these toolboxes all the time. What they don't do is do it in large numbers. This leads to natural if regrettable resentment on the part of those left behind in the working class and underclass by the petit bourgeois middle class. But this resentment, though natural, is not really productive either, and it isn't blaming the victim to expect that, if different outcomes are desired, so too will different behaviors be required. Yet we all too often find that the complaints of the left are a fig leaf for complacency; what is really desired is not social transformation, it is cultural inertia with outcomes rearranged by state agency. It is the having of one's cake and eating it too, so long as the having of the cake is understood as an equitable redistribution.
At least, that is one way of looking at the matter.
People want to think of poverty as a "culture," and I'm sure there is something in the psychology of not having money that encourages certain behavior, but it is also amazing how simply having more money and resources improves outcomes and doesnt punish bad decisions and even criminal activity as harshly. You can teach all the life skills you want, but at the end of the day, the biggest factor is simply that for poor people, money is a scarce resource.
How did you get there from what I wrote?
Sowell makes the agrument that the GS made things worse for black Americans. Not better. A view with which I agree.
But neither he nor I do not make the argument that everything was rosy for black Americans before the GS.
One is affirmative action. One can make a case that at the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, AA was necessary and beneficial.
But one can now make an equally credible argument that it has morphed into something that does more harm than good. For people of all colors, including whites.
Affirmative Action isn't just about race. It was created to prevent discrimination against all races, creeds, colors, religions, and sexes. In that respect, I think it's still relevant. Quotas are another matter. Those I think have outlived their usefulness.
The money one has relative to others is, at some point, a quantum of one's behavior. It isn't simply a random state of affairs. If I go to work and save X instead of spending it, over time I end up with 2X. If I then take that 2X and invest it at some rate of return, 2X eventually becomes 4X. If I teach my kids to act the same they will most likely imitate me. That is where your causation based on wealth lies: the children of those with money are likely to be inculcated into the same economic culture and conform to it. And yes, it is an advantage based on class and birth, but it is fundamentally one of behavior and attitude. Unless you care to postulate that the poor are inferior in some fundamental way.
Sure, saving will increase the amount of money you have. But given that having very little money allows very little opportunity for saving or building a cusion of some sort, you can see how poverty can become a trap, no matter how hard you work or good habits you build. Especially if you lose your job, get sick or otherwise meet with misfortune, which tend to wipe out savings and send one into debt. The less generous the safety net to bulwark or supplement savings (if any), the more success and failure are rewarded/punished for people at the extreme ends of the income gap. Except the people at the top end have greater political clout and persuasive rhetorical case to see that their risks and costs of their failures are transfered to the public to a substantial degree ("Too Big to Fail").