Ohio Chatter DEV

majorspark

BCSbunk wrote:
chs71 wrote: Some people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control; mental illness, abandonment, something else. Some people are poor because of unwise decisions they have made. Both groups need help,
You are suggesting altruism. How dare you. We know that the conservatives in this country are against altruism. That is a failed system only selfishism works.

This statement could not be more false. Perhaps you were just sarcastically using a false statement to make a point.

I Wear Pants

derek bomar wrote: Yea...I would say a business degree isn't any more or less valuable than it has been in the past. There are some generic majors I'd stay away from in undergrad (marketing and management) and those I would focus on (finance and accounting, or transportation and logistics).

People cannot buy a product or service without knowing about it.

I Wear Pants

If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.

chs71

BCSbunk wrote: You are suggesting altruism. How dare you. We know that the conservatives in this country are against altruism. That is a failed system only selfishism works.

It is a fact that conservatives give more money, and a higher percentage of their income, to charities than do liberals.

chs71

I Wear Pants wrote: If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.

People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

queencitybuckeye

chs71 wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.
People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

Exactly, not to mention financial decisions. "Choose to" is probably more accurate than "want to".

fan_from_texas

chs71 wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.
People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

Exactly. I recall reading that if people finish high school and don't get pregnant or father a baby, their chances of living in poverty are very, very small. Those two things seem to be fairly controllable.

Strapping Young Lad

There are plenty of factors that go into the probability of someone actually finishing high school and not having a teen pregnancy though. And a big factor is wealth and education of the parents so it's a never-ending cycle.

It sounds simple to you and I to just graduate high school and not knock someone up. And even I, being white, middle class, from an educated home had friends w/ the same home situation knock girls up. The difference is that does not necessarily end their future plans of college, etc b/c their parents have the money and care to support a teen prgnancy.

However, if your homelife is terrible, your parents don't work and don't give a shit about you, then you have a teen pregnancy your odds of finishing high school goes down.

To say just finish high school and don't get pregnant sounds simple to most of us but we may not know what it's like to have the life that many get stuck with, so I think that's is over simpliying the matter.

dwccrew

Strapping Young Lad wrote: There are plenty of factors that go into the probability of someone actually finishing high school and not having a teen pregnancy though. And a big factor is wealth and education of the parents so it's a never-ending cycle.

It sounds simple to you and I to just graduate high school and not knock someone up. And even I, being white, middle class, from an educated home had friends w/ the same home situation knock girls up. The difference is that does not necessarily end their future plans of college, etc b/c their parents have the money and care to support a teen prgnancy.

However, if your homelife is terrible, your parents don't work and don't give a shit about you, then you have a teen pregnancy your odds of finishing high school goes down.

To say just finish high school and don't get pregnant sounds simple to most of us but we may not know what it's like to have the life that many get stuck with, so I think that's is over simpliying the matter.

+1. Excellent post

derek bomar

I Wear Pants wrote:
derek bomar wrote: Yea...I would say a business degree isn't any more or less valuable than it has been in the past. There are some generic majors I'd stay away from in undergrad (marketing and management) and those I would focus on (finance and accounting, or transportation and logistics).
People cannot buy a product or service without knowing about it.

and right now I don't think you're going to have as easy of a time finding a job with a marketing undergrad as you would with finance or accounting

I Wear Pants

chs71 wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.
People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.

That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.

dwccrew

I Wear Pants wrote:
chs71 wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: If you think most poor people want to be poor than you are an idiot and nothing I can say can help to change your mind or make you have more mental capacity.
People make decisions regarding school, drug use, pregnancy, and crime that cause their poverty.
That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.

Exactly. That's like saying since someone chose to join the military and then was killed, they wanted to die, because they chose a job that is dangerous.

I agree completely with you Pants.

ManO'War

Quit making excuses for people. I grew up with a single mom, who made minimum wage, didn't accept any government assistance, but somehow I managed to stay in school and not knock anyone up. As did many of my friends. My best friend had it as hard as you possibly can growing up, yet he went to the service, then went to college, and is now doing well with a wife and a child.

Make excuses for people that had something bad happen to them that was out of their control, not for bad choices.

Strapping Young Lad

Did your mom care what happened to you???? Some kids may as well have no parents as far as that goes. Going w/out money is one thing, having parents who have no interest in you and no money is another.

I don't necessarily feel the need to explore the topic in depth, but like I said many many factors act in one's abiltiy to "make it in life", from home life to nutrition. I don't necessarily believe that I need to make excuses for someone else' s situation but I also won't judge them. You may have had it rough, but IMO it's not your place or mine to determine how far someone else should go in life w/out understanding how they've had to live....

If it was so easy to escape poverty, why do so many suffer in it???

majorspark

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I don't necessarily feel the need to explore the topic in depth, but like I said many many factors act in one's abiltiy to "make it in life", from home life to nutrition. I don't necessarily believe that I need to make excuses for someone else' s situation but I also won't judge them. You may have had it rough, but IMO it's not your place or mine to determine how far someone else should go in life w/out understanding how they've had to live....

One thing to point out. When someone elses money is taken from them and given to someone who for whatever reason is in need of assistance, they should be judged as to how they are going to use the assistance. Is it merely going to subsidize their drug habbit? Or will having children out of wedlock just bring in more cash? If they are of the character that they are not going to change their activities that help facilitate their own poverty, then we by all means should make judgments on this and act accordingly.

fan_from_texas

I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .

Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.

There's a difference between helping people (which is good) and enabling them (which isn't). Despite the trillions (with a T) of dollars spent on social services since LBJ declared war on poverty, it doesn't seem like we've whipped it. In fact, if you'd believe the social service numbers released, poverty is growing at an ever-increasing rate despite (or because of?) our increased funding. What we're doing now clearly isn't working--at this point, we can say that we've taken trillions from hardworking producers and given it to second-handers. This doesn't make the poor better off, but it does keep them generationally dependent on the gub'ment for a handout. Who benefits from that, other than politicians wanting to buy votes and wealthy white suburbanites wanting to assuage their guilt?

As I've said before, social policies should be designed to limit generational dependency. When we spend trillions of dollars on something but don't see a change, perhaps the problem isn't a lack of funding as much as it is the misguided nature of the programs.

I Wear Pants

fan_from_texas wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .
Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.

I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.

chs71

I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.

So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.

fan_from_texas

I Wear Pants wrote:
fan_from_texas wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .
Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.
I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.

I have no idea how many people are "tickled" to live off welfare. I'm simply noting my agreement with what you stated earlier, namely, that incentives matter, which isn't a particularly controversial claim. These incentives make a difference in the marginal case, not the typical case, and these should be what drives policy.

To make an analogy, if tomorrow Ford announced an additional $1,000 rebate, most people wouldn't care and wouldn't buy a car. Many who would otherwise have bought a car still will. But some percentage of people--the marginal buyers--who wouldn't have otherwise bought a car will. Even though they're a tiny minority of the overall potential buyers, the rebate will be the tipping point for them and affect their decision-making. It can significantly affect marginal action while having absolutely no impact on the vast, vast majority of people.

Pointing out that an incentive doesn't affect the typical person doesn't really speak to whether that incentive will have an effect.

derek bomar

chs71 wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.
So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.

I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process

majorspark

derek bomar wrote: I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process

And that is why I would not want to turn money over to them until they straighten themselves out.

derek bomar

majorspark wrote:
derek bomar wrote: I don't think someone who smokes crack has a logical thought process
And that is why I would not want to turn money over to them until they straighten themselves out.

good luck finding out the % of your dollars going to crackheads vs. non-crackheads, and then making it stop so that only non-crackheads receive your $

I Wear Pants

chs71 wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance, we're wrong a lot of the time but that doesn't mean we wanted or choose to be wrong. We just got beat.
So if I consider my best option to be to drop out of school, have a child without being married, and smoke crack then I am not choosing to do something wrong? That it's just bad luck if I end up poor?

I thought that I went to college, didn't have kids without being married, and don't use illegal drugs, had something to do with my economic success. Boy was I stupid. It's just a matter of luck! I should have dropped out and turned on long ago. I was a sucker.

Way to take things to the extreme. But yeah, I guess you're right, everyone who is poor is poor because they're big dumb pieces of shit crackheads who had kids when they were fifteen and dropped out of school.

majorspark

I Wear Pants wrote: I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.

There were some studies during the welfare reform debate back in the mid 90's. Not sure how or if this has changed in 15 years. There could be a more recent study out there.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-027.html

From the study. Single mother of 2 benefits.

The authors of the Cato study concluded that the combined value of the full package of welfare benefits actually provides beneficiaries with incomes above the poverty level in every jurisdiction. Because the attractiveness of welfare differs widely among jurisdictions, when the value of the total package of benefits was equated to the value of a job providing the same after-tax income, that pretax value ranged from a high of over $36,000 in Hawaii to a low of $11,500 in Mississippi. In eight jurisdictions--Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--welfare pays at least the equivalent of a $25,000 per year job

I Wear Pants

fan_from_texas wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote:
fan_from_texas wrote:
I Wear Pants wrote: That doesn't mean they wanted to or choose to be poor. Most people do what they feel is the best option in a given circumstance . . .
Exactly. Incentives matter. And when we provide incentives to make being poor less of an issue (by removing social stigma, by lessening the dire consequences), we make remaining in poverty a more attractive option.

There are two sides to the coin. Certainly, it's humane to provide some form of short-term relief to people truly suffering, and it seems callous not to recognize at least some base level of care people deserve. Yet when we provide those services, we shift the incentives toward poverty.
I don't think there are nearly as many people as you think that are just tickled to live off of welfare.
I have no idea how many people are "tickled" to live off welfare. I'm simply noting my agreement with what you stated earlier, namely, that incentives matter, which isn't a particularly controversial claim. These incentives make a difference in the marginal case, not the typical case, and these should be what drives policy.

To make an analogy, if tomorrow Ford announced an additional $1,000 rebate, most people wouldn't care and wouldn't buy a car. Many who would otherwise have bought a car still will. But some percentage of people--the marginal buyers--who wouldn't have otherwise bought a car will. Even though they're a tiny minority of the overall potential buyers, the rebate will be the tipping point for them and affect their decision-making. It can significantly affect marginal action while having absolutely no impact on the vast, vast majority of people.

Pointing out that an incentive doesn't affect the typical person doesn't really speak to whether that incentive will have an effect.

I clearly misunderstood what you were saying then. My bad, I'm retarded.

Archive

Poor are Poor because they want to be Poor