Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

but also that there are some people who are just unwilling or unable to rise out of whatever level of poverty they're at even with considerable help

Part of this, and another reason I dislike the Victim/Victimizer dichotomy, is learned helplessness. "I am poor, therefor because everyone is systematically against me, I will always be poor. Therefor I will not work to better myself even with help", the victim narrative helps in that it tells people not to be ashamed of their position but it fails to empower them.

Though, unable is also not helped by that a not insignificant portion of the poor are disabled in one way or another and incapable of holding down a job above a certain threshold. A problem I don't have too much of an idea of how to fix.

[Reelya]

Trekkin seems like the voice of reason to me.  But I think what were neglecting to cover here and I release but it looks like to me correct me if I'm wrong, but what about the working poor.

There seem to be plenty of Americans stuck in positions where they manage to get a basic job but basically are unable to move up from there, I find blaming sloth for all of that to be as naiïve as assuming that poverty is always the systems fault.

Any thoughts?

Maybe the rationale of moving up is pretty much a fairy tale. Only a very small number of people can ascend to a higher station than their current one unless there's a very rapid growth in the economy. We talk about social mobility but clearly that's only viable when a small number of people are moving up at once, most people can't do that. If you have 50 people starting at a company, it's clearly not viable that more than a handful of them are ever going to be promoted to be the manager of their unit, there's clearly only one manager position going. Someone has to do the basic jobs, and without lots of people doing the basic jobs the higher-up jobs can't happen.

That's just how life works. Social mobility is a myth spread by the higher-classes to keep the lower classes content. You, too, can be the CEO one day. All of you.

[Neonivek]

The other funny thing is that a LOT of people who make a ton of money aren't doing so due to any sort of austerity or privileges being hoisted on them. It is weird the number of wealthy people who aren't even educated... To the point where it is a trend.

Even Donald Trump who is considered Austerity Incarnate... Has been flat broke for YEARS! A major part of his persona is to pretend to have money even when he doesn't because he recognizes that his image is worth far more than... well... his actual worth.

[Helgoland]

That's just how life works. Social mobility is a myth spread by the higher-classes to keep the lower classes content. You, too, can be the CEO one day. All of you.

You're assuming that downwards social mobility is not a thing. If we integrate that into your polemic, we arrive at something like 'Upwards social mobility only exists when there's downwards social mobility as well. Since in our stratified society the latter hardly exists at all, so does the former.'

[Max™]

Social mobility is only viable when people with a rabid allergic reaction to the barest hint of COMMIE BASTARDS INFILTRATING AMERICA aren't allowed to dismantle social mobility enhancing programs in favor of capitalist fairy tales like "the wisdom of the market" being best for everything.

We have people who end up ruined financially due to shit like medical costs or education expenses, you want the effect of people trying to keep the lower classes down-but-content, telling them "you're just temporarily not-rich" while dismantling things that could help them remain not-poor is what I'd point at.

[Reelya]

That's just how life works. Social mobility is a myth spread by the higher-classes to keep the lower classes content. You, too, can be the CEO one day. All of you.

You're assuming that downwards social mobility is not a thing. If we integrate that into your polemic, we arrive at something like 'Upwards social mobility only exists when there's downwards social mobility as well. Since in our stratified society the latter hardly exists at all, so does the former.'

That's a good point, however, with both upward and downward mobility being balanced, that doesn't help with the basic premise of people rising over time (i.e. the expectation that your children will be better off than you, as well as rising over your lifetime). You're just as likely to get worse as better. People have an unrealistic expectation that their social situation is generally going to rise over time, which clearly isn't viable as if one person gains a bigger slice of pie, then someone else has to lose out on some pie, and the person who loses out is also one of the people who expects their social situation to gradually rise over time.

Since the US economy is growing no faster than population basically, long-term social stasis is the only stable expectation. Sure, maybe people could in fact save money, but then everyone's money is chasing the same resources and services, meaning they need to be split up more ways to compensate (inflation).

[Neonivek]

Well... We don't care about ALL the poor... Just... certain poor people

Though to admit THAT aspect I thiiiink is rather recent due to "Victim/Victimizer Dichotomy"

(Yes I am referring to the prioritization of the poor based on "Privilege Points", or even outright exclusion)

[penguinofhonor]

snip

You know she's specifically focusing on getting houses and property into poor black families' hands, right? I don't get why we're dismissing cash handouts when that's not what's being asked for. Just seems like another way to write off the article without addressing her arguments.

[Neonivek]

snip

You know she's specifically focusing on getting houses and property into poor black families' hands, right? I don't get why we're dismissing cash handouts when that's not what's being asked for. Just seems like another way to write off the article without addressing her arguments.

Yeah it isn't cash handouts it is just property valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars being handed out for free... OR offered room and board as a hand out for free.

They are equivalents and comparing it to just a flat money offer was to highlight the serious weaknesses in that approach. Suggesting otherwise becomes more pedantry than a genuine argument.

Now if this was about setting up say affordable housing... It wouldn't be considered as unrealistic.

[alway]

Lol, if you don't like handouts of property you shouldn't look into how housing programs for the middle class work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/magazine/how-homeownership-became-the-engine-of-american-inequality.html?mcubz=1

In 2014, 1.5 million households earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year claimed the MID, receiving an average benefit of $14 a month. That same year, 6.5 million households with earnings above $200,000 claimed the MID and enjoyed an average benefit of $391 a month. What this means in aggregate is that households with at least six-figure incomes receive more than four-fifths of the total value of mortgage interest and property-tax deductions.

Here's a program that gives away $30 billion a year to those making over $200k, for example.

[RedKing]

100 of my British pounds says the US will not implode into a civil war before the trump presidency is over.

So, post-Brexit, that'll be like what...$1.75? 

[Helgoland]

That's a good point, however, with both upward and downward mobility being balanced, that doesn't help with the basic premise of people rising over time (i.e. the expectation that your children will be better off than you, as well as rising over your lifetime).

True - but at least you'd genuinely have a shot at your folks becoming part of the upper crust at some point. You gotta distinguish between lamenting the dumbness of relying on social mobility happening just magically and lamenting the dumbness of the worrying expectation that the economy is going to return to a '50s-like boom any way now. They're separate dumbnesses, is what I'm saying.

E: Also you have cutoffs at the top and bottom, which complicates the analysis. Come to think of it, modelling society as a vertical tube full of water might not be an altogether bad idea... Discussions of the social impact of things would then be equivalent to arguing over how the temperature curve along the length of the tube would change if we rearranged the heating elements.

[martinuzz]

Over here in the Netherlands, we have a middle ground. Well, at least for rental housing. If you earn less than a predetermined yearly minimum, you are entitled to rent social housing. Social housing in this case means, all rental housing under I think it is about 750 euros a month. Depending on how low your income is, government will subsidize part of the rent.

Note that government spending on this housing subsidy for the poor is much lower than what the government spends on housing subsidies for house owners. Those can deduct all, or part of their mortgage payments from their income tax. Basically the state is paying for their houses from the national treasury. Left wing parties have been trying to get rid of that subsidy for the rich for quite a while now, or at least moderate it so it will only apply to middle class housing, and not pay for luxury villas.

[Reelya]

Lol, if you don't like handouts of property you shouldn't look into how housing programs for the middle class work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/magazine/how-homeownership-became-the-engine-of-american-inequality.html?mcubz=1

In 2014, 1.5 million households earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year claimed the MID, receiving an average benefit of $14 a month. That same year, 6.5 million households with earnings above $200,000 claimed the MID and enjoyed an average benefit of $391 a month. What this means in aggregate is that households with at least six-figure incomes receive more than four-fifths of the total value of mortgage interest and property-tax deductions.

Here's a program that gives away $30 billion a year to those making over $200k, for example.

The issue is that those are tax deductions. People are still paying the taxes. You  don't pay property taxes if you don't own any property. So claiming tax deductions as a wealth transfer is ... questionable logic. The money being saved isn't coming from people who don't own property, it just means the effective tax rate is lower. People who own more expensive property are still paying more in property taxes than those who own less expensive property.

Stating the total value of tax deductions can be misleading politics, because you can make it out like high payers are getting more when they are still in fact paying more.

[Max™]

100 of my British pounds says the US will not implode into a civil war before the trump presidency is over.

So, post-Brexit, that'll be like what...$1.75? 

No it would be 45 kg.

That's a good point, however, with both upward and downward mobility being balanced, that doesn't help with the basic premise of people rising over time (i.e. the expectation that your children will be better off than you, as well as rising over your lifetime). You're just as likely to get worse as better. People have an unrealistic expectation that their social situation is generally going to rise over time, which clearly isn't viable as if one person gains a bigger slice of pie, then someone else has to lose out on some pie, and the person who loses out is also one of the people who expects their social situation to gradually rise over time.

Since the US economy is growing no faster than population basically, long-term social stasis is the only stable expectation. Sure, maybe people could in fact save money, but then everyone's money is chasing the same resources and services, meaning they need to be split up more ways to compensate (inflation).

Though, at least in the US, one segment has been experiencing financial growth, the very richest bit of the richest percent has gotten the growth which would have been "lifting all boats" but instead winds up in the pockets of a few people because they got fuckers like Reagan elected based on the "promise" to build a dam while pissing over the side as much as possible.

From that wiki page: $94.6 Trillion combined net worth in the US, even distributed that would be ~$760,000 per family, but instead the bottom 50% of families (~62 million households) average $11,000 net worth.