Goodbye Middle Class

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
Quote:
How about heat in their rented trailer set higher than my house? So high my glasses fogged up in fact.

Perhaps their 'trailer' is drafty. or their furnace isn't adjusted properly. You could ask why the heat is so high.
And BTW, how 'high' is too 'high'? My heat is at 74 during the winter so the back part of the house stays warm.

Quote:
Their flat screen TV is bigger than mine too and of course gets more channels.

Flat screens have been around a long time. How OLD is their TV compared to yours? Did they buy it new or used? Garage sale? Gift from a relative?
You assume a lot and you know what they say about 'assume'.

Quote:
How about the 25-ish year old coworker who lived with his mom in subsidized housing? Did they report his income to the housing authority?


Perhaps they do. Did you report them?

Quote:
How about the woman who got "laid off" right when she had a baby then 99 free weeks of unemployment? How vigorous was her job hunt? I know how vigorous, because she brags on facebook.


Isolated case. Most folks on U.C. are looking for work. The idiotic idea that some politicians have that cutting off U.C. will automatically cause those folks to suddenly find work is just that: idiotic. The unemployment rate is in the 8% range. That means that there aren't jobs for everyone who wants or needs one. Simple as that.

Quote:
How about the person who I gave my old fridge to? It was grimy from storage, nothing 20 minutes and some paper towels and bleach couldn't fix. Her man (can't say husband) accepted it in the driveway when I dropped it off. Saw her pulling in in a brand new Kia Sedona and waved. Got a nasty email about how nasty my fridge was and now she had to pay to get rid of two "broken" fridges. (Of course she didn't have the energy to drive across town and check it out-- even though I volunteered my truck for its move)


I guess you could ask for it back, making the snide comment that you find someone that appreciaates a WORKING fridge-that only needs a little cleaning. Did you chack and see if they owned that car? Did you ask them if they could afford a new car why don't they buy a NEW fridge? There may he extenuating circumstances you don't know about.


Quote:
How about the pothead who gets disability for "narcilepsy" but refuses to see a doctor for her sleep apnea that she doesn't know she has?


Here's a clue. You DON'T get disability without seeing a doctor.

Quote:
I don't particularly care if these masses hide in their houses playing "Farmville". But they're using a lot of the earth's finite resources. By subscribing to cable at $70/month just for TV, they aren't demanding value, and the cable company doesn't offer a la carte service.


Don't know about your area, but basic cable here is $50. and in some cases, you don't have a choice of antenna or cable. In my case, I have a choice of cable or dish. Antennas are not allowed.
If these folks you squawk about live in an apartment complex, a dish may not be permitted. and complex antennas are 'really' bad. BTDT.

Complain to them, turn them in, ask questions about how they can live so cheaply so you can too!





It seems you are missing the big picture here:

Why should a person be COMFORTABLE on Welfare? Where is the incentive to get off of it if you can live like this?

A person on welfare shouldn't be able to afford a flat screen TV period. They shouldn't be able to afford cable OR satellite! They should have shelter, food and a means of communications (home or cell phone) so that they can find a job and get off the system.

If Welfare wasn't pleasant to live on, far fewer people would be on it!


It would be helpful if you knew what welfare did and who meets the requirements:

[...]Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for.

The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits.[...] from http://www.welfareinfo.org/

As you can see, this program is not like being on a vacation.

 

[Spyder7]

Something people don't realize about human nature is that we do not make decisions based on rational self-interest. That's just a fact, unpleasant as it is, and all the "should have's" in the world is not going to change this.

I learned that in a Behavioral Pharmacology course where we looked to various models that attempted to explain addictions and substance abuse. The one that best fit was the rational self-interest model that was borrowed from economics. Economists developed it to explain the contradiction regarding the tendency and frequency of people - regardless of age, religion, race, intelligence, or any other demographic you care to name - to make (too all degrees, but very consistently) decisions that act against their rational self-interest.

It is part of the way our brains are hard-wired, and as with much of human behavior, there is an evolutionary component to it in that our preference for short-term, or instant gratification, instead of the alternative choice that does better in the long-term, worked when people lived much shorter lives, and reproduced in much greater numbers and a far younger ages, for the species to survive. Our biology simply hasn't caught up to the evolutionary short cut that is hard-wired within people and leads them to focus on short-term decision making that acts against their long term self-interest.

To the few who live what they preach: congratulations, you are part of a very small minority who - likely because of values instilled in you by your parents from a very young age, or some other causal effect that occurred at a very young age - you've beaten your own genetic hard-wiring. That said, the fact that you have puts you in a minority that the vast majority cannot even comprehend (in a cognitive behavioral sense), let alone achieve.

When you understand that, you understand much of a lot of other human behavior that is otherwise incomprehensible and defies logic. You also understand then how difficult it is to change, and that all the preaching in the world doesn't work. Nor would cutting off assistance (because the same evolutionary short cut that leads to bad choices would turn the vast majority of these people to crime, and its much cheaper - and productive as well - to have that safety net in place than it is to take it away and deal with the alternative.

It irks me to no end to see satellite tv dishes in such abundance in the projects. But I'll take that over the home invasions, car jackings, and armed robberies that would replace them were their means to survival stripped away. It may be wishful thinking on the part of some people that if you strip that away, they will simply lie down and die, but the reality is that they will not. They will simply turn to crime instead.

Not a preferable alternative, and why the system is still in place (because there are a few people who have enough influence on policy matters who are realists who don't live in a bubble clouded by their own sense of moral superiority that allows wishful thinking to take the place of realistic understanding).

To the poster who equated a liberal arts education with basket weaving - way to put your own ignorance prejudice on display for the entire world to see. Much of the knowledge applied in all areas of life today owes its roots to debate and research within the humanities and social science fields (which borrow heavily from each other, and where breakthroughs in one field are often found to be adaptable to others as well).

Its also worth pointing out that if every person who went the liberal arts route choose instead one of those few select fields you pointed to as a more preferable and more sensible alternative, you would find the world not only a much poorer place in terms of knowledge and understanding it, but those same fields would no longer be lucrative at all. They would be so heavily diluted that supply would outstrip demand to the point that the people in them would be saying the exact opposite of what you are now.

-Spyder

 

[SteveSRT8]

Ah, the illuminati speak! I feel so fortunate to be educated by you, sir.

The whole point of being HUMAN is that you can choose to do things rationally and intelligently. That's what separates us from animals in the wild. Sometimes this will mean long and hard work to get rewards, and it is ridiculous to expect those of us who worked HARD to get some to want to pay it all back out in taxes to support those who think they don't need to work at all!

The whole point here is to quit deciding what constitutes poverty and start teaching people to work their way out of it. Our entire society is rapidly devolving into a polarized group of people who work hard and people who do not. This is an embarrassment of poor education in our institutions, and should not be penalized in and of itself.

Rather, we should develop means to test the recipients of welfare to determine their aptitudes and put them to work! No one should ride for free except the genuinely disabled. Too many milk the system, not enough pay into it.

Simply unsustainable.

 

[dwendt44]

Everyone, and I do mean everyone, who gets disability has to see several doctors over several months. It's not that easy to scam the system as some nut jobs think.

Quote:
Complain to them, turn them in, ask questions about how they can live so cheaply so you can too!

Quote:
But they aren't living cheaply!


They are living as well, or better in your likely exaggerated scenario, than you are.
They are doing so with less income. There must be an advantage there somewhere.
Perhaps they don't booze it up every weekend; Perhaps they stay away from fancy restaurants; Maybe they don't run all over town at the drop of a hat in their auto; who knows?
They must be doing something to stretch the little money they get; maybe they can teach you to do better with your highfalutin' income.
The hatred for the poor and low income types that's all to palpable these days isn't good for the country or the future.

 

[javacontour]

So you are saying we've evolved. (Perhaps a gross simplification.)

If that's the case, then what is the benefit of carrying those who cannot or will not do the same?

Perhaps that's a bit harsh. So how about this, how do we encourage the remainder of folks to similarly evolve if we continue to subsidize behaviors that don't fit the new reality of where humanity is headed?

You explain it well. I don't doubt that the condition and path to that condition is largely accurate. However, I fail to see how subsidizing the behavior that is not evolving benefits society as a whole?

Doesn't it just make it more painful for those who not only don't evolve, but don't teach the follow on generations that it's in their benefit to change their behaviors?

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Something people don't realize about human nature is that we do not make decisions based on rational self-interest. That's just a fact, unpleasant as it is, and all the "should have's" in the world is not going to change this.

I learned that in a Behavioral Pharmacology course where we looked to various models that attempted to explain addictions and substance abuse. The one that best fit was the rational self-interest model that was borrowed from economics. Economists developed it to explain the contradiction regarding the tendency and frequency of people - regardless of age, religion, race, intelligence, or any other demographic you care to name - to make (too all degrees, but very consistently) decisions that act against their rational self-interest.

It is part of the way our brains are hard-wired, and as with much of human behavior, there is an evolutionary component to it in that our preference for short-term, or instant gratification, instead of the alternative choice that does better in the long-term, worked when people lived much shorter lives, and reproduced in much greater numbers and a far younger ages, for the species to survive. Our biology simply hasn't caught up to the evolutionary short cut that is hard-wired within people and leads them to focus on short-term decision making that acts against their long term self-interest.

To the few who live what they preach: congratulations, you are part of a very small minority who - likely because of values instilled in you by your parents from a very young age, or some other causal effect that occurred at a very young age - you've beaten your own genetic hard-wiring. That said, the fact that you have puts you in a minority that the vast majority cannot even comprehend (in a cognitive behavioral sense), let alone achieve.

When you understand that, you understand much of a lot of other human behavior that is otherwise incomprehensible and defies logic. You also understand then how difficult it is to change, and that all the preaching in the world doesn't work. Nor would cutting off assistance (because the same evolutionary short cut that leads to bad choices would turn the vast majority of these people to crime, and its much cheaper - and productive as well - to have that safety net in place than it is to take it away and deal with the alternative.

It irks me to no end to see satellite tv dishes in such abundance in the projects. But I'll take that over the home invasions, car jackings, and armed robberies that would replace them were their means to survival stripped away. It may be wishful thinking on the part of some people that if you strip that away, they will simply lie down and die, but the reality is that they will not. They will simply turn to crime instead.

Not a preferable alternative, and why the system is still in place (because there are a few people who have enough influence on policy matters who are realists who don't live in a bubble clouded by their own sense of moral superiority that allows wishful thinking to take the place of realistic understanding).

To the poster who equated a liberal arts education with basket weaving - way to put your own ignorance prejudice on display for the entire world to see. Much of the knowledge applied in all areas of life today owes its roots to debate and research within the humanities and social science fields (which borrow heavily from each other, and where breakthroughs in one field are often found to be adaptable to others as well).

Its also worth pointing out that if every person who went the liberal arts route choose instead one of those few select fields you pointed to as a more preferable and more sensible alternative, you would find the world not only a much poorer place in terms of knowledge and understanding it, but those same fields would no longer be lucrative at all. They would be so heavily diluted that supply would outstrip demand to the point that the people in them would be saying the exact opposite of what you are now.

-Spyder

 

[Spyder7]

Steve: you miss the point. Your line of reasoning was the same approach taken by society toward addictions: it was regarded as a weakness by virtue of their own morals, etc; and from that it followed that the alcoholic made a choice to be an alcoholic, and remain an alcoholic.

Today we (as in those of us who've not only studied the field, but worked in it as well) know better, and we know that substance abuse and addictions are much more complicated than originally thought, and that changing that behavior is very, very difficult. This is supported by the statistics compiled on the success rates at various treatment facilities.

Its also like the pleading I've heard so many times from parents whose kids are addicted to cocaine or crack, opiates, etc, to 'chain them to the bed' or 'lock them up' until their better. They don't understand that this approach just doesn't work, and they don't want to understand it - they just want results.

We're human, yes, but we are also animals (in the literal sense) at the same time. The majority of our behavior is based on evolutionary shortcuts combined with what's learned during one's formative years. Once those are over (by around puberty) we become increasingly less adaptable, less able to learn, and increasingly resilient to change. By then our personalty, which will remain largely unchanged in its essence, is already hard-wired within us.

Philosophers spent centuries attempting to define and explain the human condition, and how it separated us from animals; modern biology and social theory has demonstrated we are much, much closer to the more highly evolved animals than we would like to believe we are. Genetically, in fact, we are almost identical to primates in that the DNA that separates us is very minute (I don't recall the exact figures -- too long ago). And it follows, and there is ample proof of this, that much of our behavior is very animal like.

Maslov developed a "pyramid of needs" to illustrate how we prioritize things. The lower part of the pyramid is ruled by what many call our "reptilian brain," and its that part of the brain that is the primary center of stimulation and, correspondingly, the primary motivator of human behavior.

java: what I'm saying is that our society has evolved much faster than our biology has to fully adapt to it. In terms of our collective knowledge and technology today, we've made eons worth of progress but most of it has occurred only over a comparative short period (compared to the span of mankind) spanning a few centuries. In in those few centuries its grown exponentially.

Biologically and psychologically (the two are inseparable) we remain well behind our own progress. Evolution just doesn't work fast enough to keep up with that pace of change.

Some are able to adapt themselves better than others (genetics and upbringing again), and are better conditioned to thrive in the same system that many fail in.

To the moral high ground types, that probably reads to you as some sort of excuse for the ills of society. It isn't. These are simply facts of life that there is no getting around. Its much easier to reform a system to better adapt it to the human condition, than it is to try and change hard-wired human behavior to fit the system.

Moral outrage accomplishes nothing. Nor does simply dismissing inconvenient truths that don't fit in with the way one wishes to view the world, rather than the way the world actually is.

-Spyder

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I've had tenants complain how come they have to pay more all of a sudden and I'll have to bring out all the government paperwork to tell them I didn't raise rent, but they are now better off.



Perfect example of how clueless and controlled by advertising that people are. Spendthrifts!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: dwendt44
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, who gets disability has to see several doctors over several months. It's not that easy to scam the system as some nut jobs think.

Quote:
Complain to them, turn them in, ask questions about how they can live so cheaply so you can too!

Quote:
But they aren't living cheaply!


They are living as well, or better in your likely exaggerated scenario, than you are.
They are doing so with less income. There must be an advantage there somewhere.
Perhaps they don't booze it up every weekend; Perhaps they stay away from fancy restaurants; Maybe they don't run all over town at the drop of a hat in their auto; who knows?
They must be doing something to stretch the little money they get; maybe they can teach you to do better with your highfalutin' income.
The hatred for the poor and low income types that's all to palpable these days isn't good for the country or the future.


You missed the point. They were more comfortable as a result of (1) they can (no different than setting the thermostat differently when staying in a hotel room than when at home on your own dime); (2) lack of oversight and controls which enables fraudulent behavior to occur, thus augmenting income compared to others, and (3) If it were the projects, an apartment or their own trailer, the trailer may be the best option, luxurious compared to other things. Many would likely live in a trailer if they could for free versus living in aome place they have to pay for...

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I've had tenants complain how come they have to pay more all of a sudden and I'll have to bring out all the government paperwork to tell them I didn't raise rent, but they are now better off.



Perfect example of how clueless and controlled by advertising that people are. Spendthrifts!


Oh you bet they are not clueless, they though they could get away with it or ask us to lower rent via sympathy.

This is an example of how a methodological way our society should deal with many problems that polarize us (i.e. politics). Get the number and math right, get the rules fair and agreeable on both sides, and stick to it.

We (both the rich and the poor, both the left and the right) have a tendency of blaming the other side for a bigger than deserved slice of the pie.

 

[Spyder7]

Quote:
However, I fail to see how subsidizing the behavior that is not evolving benefits society as a whole?

Doesn't it just make it more painful for those who not only don't evolve, but don't teach the follow on generations that it's in their benefit to change their behaviors?


Those are good questions, and the very things the social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, and others who are doing research in areas that touch, or overlap, those questions are struggling to come up with answers to.

Suffice it to say, that we are still very early into the understanding phase, and no answers can come until the problems are more fully understood.

I don't have the answers to your questions. I do know that they parallel, very closely, questions and theories of the early part of the 20th century. The very basic, and very incomplete, state of the understanding then led us down a very dark path that is not taught at the primary or secondary level, and which most people are therefore unaware of.

Essentially, it led to the Holocaust. Most of society believes that to be an isolated event brought about solely by one regime, under the guidance of a madman. They're wrong, as there was much more too it that - in focusing on the holocaust - we've largely forgotten the precursors that created the conditions for it to happen there, and that its early beginnings had a parallel occurring in other Western nations, including parts of your own and mine as well.

It was believed in the early 20th century that everything from mental handicap, to mental illness, to even poverty, was at root a hereditary condition. In a short period of time, influential thinkers who were publishing texts on this eventually influenced public policy as well - all over the West. It followed, the thinking at the time went, that since these conditions were hereditary, and since these people were regarded as parasites by society (ironically, the more things change, the more they remain the same), that the solution to prevent further deterioration and decay in society, and possibly to end it all together, was to deal with the parasites.

What followed were laws on the books in several American states, Canada, and much of Europe, aimed at preventing these "parasites" from reproducing and spreading the decay and rot 'they created within society.' The typical answer was sterilization. Eventually it went further.

In post WWI Germany, which was - even by the standards of the day - very polarized, racist, and also bankrupt from the Treaty of Versailles, with much of the country unemployed, this resonated with the people particularly because the perfect storm was already there for it to happen.

Long before the more famous places rose that are household names today, such as Dachau, Auschwitz, etc, what came later began as a program designed initially at using euthanasia on the "mentally defectives." This was done covertly, but fully endorsed and carried out by the German medical community.

That was how it began. It gradually spread to other people perceived as "degenerates," and in time the secrecy ended. Gas was used because it was cheaper than bullets: initially they simply lined the "degenerates" up against a wall and shot them. Then someone within the party "realized" that they weren't worth the bullets, which were needed for the war effort by that time, so a cheaper alternative was developed, and as it was increasingly rationalized, it became increasingly effective and eventually dozens from the early days turned into hundreds, then thousands, and finally millions.

An unpleasant chapter of history we have - largely - chosen to forget.

-Spyder

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
To the poster who equated a liberal arts education with basket weaving - way to put your own ignorance prejudice on display for the entire world to see.


The problem is not that they (the people who complain about these education) are against liberal arts education, the problem is that they are not a good fiscal investment (i.e. you'll make the most money with the least amount of money.

But, this is not alone in liberal art. I worked with PhDs in Physics and Engineering who turned into sales rather than putting their education to work. They are not doing it by choice but they do it because their extreme specialties are not in demand due to changes in the job market, industries, economies, or politics (defense budget slash, cold war ending, etc).

The bigger problem is over education in some fields and increases in the cost of education, and the mean to finance it (loan rather than savings). Think of predatory lending, in education, of those for profit private university that gives non ABET-approved education (useless degree).

Non profit private universities (i.e. the Ivy League, etc) and public universities are better on average.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I've had tenants complain how come they have to pay more all of a sudden and I'll have to bring out all the government paperwork to tell them I didn't raise rent, but they are now better off.



Perfect example of how clueless and controlled by advertising that people are. Spendthrifts!


Oh you bet they are not clueless, they though they could get away with it or ask us to lower rent via sympathy.




Aaah, OK, so they are predatory to "the man" from within their own little microclimate of economic and social status?

 

[javacontour]

I think you are overselling it when you say this sort of thinking leads to the holocaust. But let's say it's true.

So is the problem that folks are dependent or folks resent having to carry more and more folks? In my case, I say the latter. If someone wants to make decisions that don't fit well with how society is adapting, I'm all for free will.

What I don't favor is spreading the consequences of their choices to society as a whole.

If someone wants to drop out of school instead of complete school and go on to college, or if they want to get an art history degree paid for by $100K in student loan debt, let them do it.

Simply don't ask me to contribute to their welfare when they learn those choices may not sustain them in the future.

If they choose an addictive path, addicted to spending, alcohol, risky sexual behavior, smoking, eating bad for them foods, or whatever, they are free to do so. Simply don't shift the costs of their behaviors to society as a whole.

If someone chooses to spend their money on a cool sports car and doesn't save for retirement, or they choose to invest their life savings in ONE investment vehicle, such as Enron stock, or some start-up instead of following sound investment principles to diversify their portfolio, and they lose it all, don't spread the costs of their ill advised choices to all of society.

Lather, rinse and repeat up the economic food chain, applying the same sorts of rules to companies, banks and brokerage firms, insurance companies, etc.

I don't mind if someone doesn't want to adapt or evolve. That's their choice. But I greatly resent being FORCED to shoulder the consequences of their choices.

Does that man I lack compassion? Not at all. I simply wish to manifest my compassion by requiring folks seeking assistance to make an earnest attempt to adapt. If they are unwilling to do so, then they can continue making due with their ideas and the resources they currently have.

I think those who cannot adapt is far smaller than those who WILL NOT adapt. Until folks MUST adapt, I believe you will find that many simply WILL NOT choose to adapt.

I don't think of anyone above me or beneath me. I simply look at it as someone wants the fruits of my labor, but is unwilling to put forth the same type of effort, then why should I be willing to part with my time, talent and treasure?

That is far different from the ideas at the beginning of the 20th century. Many of those folks simply believed their targeted peoples were sub-human.

By believing they can and should adapt and become self-sufficient, I'm saying exactly the opposite. They are human beings with value and ability, and they simply need to be placed in a position where they have to rely on those talents and abilities. To continue to provide assistance is little different from treating them as pets who cannot care for themselves.

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Quote:
However, I fail to see how subsidizing the behavior that is not evolving benefits society as a whole?

Doesn't it just make it more painful for those who not only don't evolve, but don't teach the follow on generations that it's in their benefit to change their behaviors?


Those are good questions, and the very things the social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, and others who are doing research in areas that touch, or overlap, those questions are struggling to come up with answers to.

Suffice it to say, that we are still very early into the understanding phase, and no answers can come until the problems are more fully understood.

I don't have the answers to your questions. I do know that they parallel, very closely, questions and theories of the early part of the 20th century. The very basic, and very incomplete, state of the understanding then led us down a very dark path that is not taught at the primary or secondary level, and which most people are therefore unaware of.

Essentially, it led to the Holocaust. Most of society believes that to be an isolated event brought about solely by one regime, under the guidance of a madman. They're wrong, as there was much more too it that - in focusing on the holocaust - we've largely forgotten the precursors that created the conditions for it to happen there, and that its early beginnings had a parallel occurring in other Western nations, including parts of your own and mine as well.

It was believed in the early 20th century that everything from mental handicap, to mental illness, to even poverty, was at root a hereditary condition. In a short period of time, influential thinkers who were publishing texts on this eventually influenced public policy as well - all over the West. It followed, the thinking at the time went, that since these conditions were hereditary, and since these people were regarded as parasites by society (ironically, the more things change, the more they remain the same), that the solution to prevent further deterioration and decay in society, and possibly to end it all together, was to deal with the parasites.

What followed were laws on the books in several American states, Canada, and much of Europe, aimed at preventing these "parasites" from reproducing and spreading the decay and rot 'they created within society.' The typical answer was sterilization. Eventually it went further.

In post WWI Germany, which was - even by the standards of the day - very polarized, racist, and also bankrupt from the Treaty of Versailles, with much of the country unemployed, this resonated with the people particularly because the perfect storm was already there for it to happen.

Long before the more famous places rose that are household names today, such as Dachau, Auschwitz, etc, what came later began as a program designed initially at using euthanasia on the "mentally defectives." This was done covertly, but fully endorsed and carried out by the German medical community.

That was how it began. It gradually spread to other people perceived as "degenerates," and in time the secrecy ended. Gas was used because it was cheaper than bullets: initially they simply lined the "degenerates" up against a wall and shot them. Then someone within the party "realized" that they weren't worth the bullets, which were needed for the war effort by that time, so a cheaper alternative was developed, and as it was increasingly rationalized, it became increasingly effective and eventually dozens from the early days turned into hundreds, then thousands, and finally millions.

An unpleasant chapter of history we have - largely - chosen to forget.

-Spyder

 

[Spyder7]

Quote:

The problem is not that they (the people who complain about these education) are against liberal arts education, the problem is that they are not a good fiscal investment (i.e. you'll make the most money with the least amount of money.


I know the tuition and textbook costs I paid over 4 years to attend public university was far less than what many paid to attend a diploma mill (private college) for a 2-3 year diploma.

BTW in Canada "university" and "college" are not synonymous as they in the US. Here if you want to do the typical 4 year degree program, its done at a university. Colleges here offer anything from 1 year vocational trades, to 2 to 3 year diploma programs. A few offer 3 year associate degrees as well (as do some universities, though some, including mine, offer 4 year programs exclusively).

I think "Liberal Arts" mainly gets a bad rap due to mistaking cause and effect. Math and science skills are declining and have been for years, in the public school system; people somehow equate that with Liberal Arts, even though one's choice of post-secondary schooling has absolutely no relationship to the cause of declining math and science skills at the pre-secondary level.

Another part of human nature (mixing up cause and effect and throwing everything into the same basket).

There is a grain of truth in that Liberal Arts majors do tend to face a more uphill climb to break into their field of choice. That's offset, in my opinion, by the versatility and portability it offers. If my own field magically ceased to exist tomorrow, it wouldn't make a row of beans to me because I can take use liberal arts education toward an entirely different career (as I have in the past).

While those in engineering, nursing, etc are kind of shafted if, after graduation, they find their field not quite as appetizing as it looked when it was an academic pursuit. That's the trade off. I suspect the overwhelming majority are okay with that, but they have to realize we're fine on the other end too in not having a specialized field ready made and waiting for us to enter.

Also, and not to say this isn't fostered in other faculties as well, but in the social sciences (my area) there is a lot of emphasis placed on critical thinking and constructing coherent, reasoned arguments. Much of the focus (at least in the better schools) isn't on rote memorization, and memorization won't get you through it. Not when exams are mainly essay based, with you having enough time to write a one draft response to a question designed to separate those who've memorized the material, from those who understand the material.

And even as the knowledge later decays (at least the specifics, general concepts and understanding are not forgotten), those critical thinking and writing skills put one in a good position in the job market: not just in getting the job, but in upward and lateral mobility as well.

Anyway, that is off topic, but having it equated to basket weaving requires a response, lest any younger people take that as gospel truth and shy away from a perfectly viable education option.

-Spyder

 

[SteveSRT8]

Java, you said what I meant to say. Very well.

Thanks.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I think you are overselling it when you say this sort of thinking leads to the holocaust.


That wasn't my intent. It was more my intent to illustrate a historical slippery slope. We're all taught the outcome, and we're all familiar with the outcome. What isn't taught is its genesis, the conditions of the time that made it ripe for it to happen, and that there were parallels occurring (in their infant stage) in other countries. And that it had its origins as something constructed by the scientific community and endorsed by the medical community, who were complicit as well.

What I tried at - in a too roundabout manner - was that we have already our lesson learned in not too distant history that there has to be a lot of care taken with the knowledge gained from the social sciences. That is the most grotesque examples of how faulty, incomplete understanding on the part of the then scientific community played a role in fostering what followed. Science said, essentially, that the slippery slope we landed on was perfectly acceptable. And millions paid the ultimate price for that arrogance.

We know more today, but just as attempts are made to put that knowledge to good ends (dealing with addictions and substance abuse, for instance), the abuse continues as its borrowed to foster ends for which it was never intended.

One example, and this is much more within what we are discussing, is how marketing has borrowed heavily from the social sciences over the past several decades, to create such powerful campaigns that they've created, out of whole cloth, "needs" where none existed before.

Today's bible for marketers is Cialdini's Psychology of Persuasion. It was written to illustrate how powerful the effect of different marketing techniques are on the psyche of the consumer, by deconstructing them to show the corresponding psychological principles they play on. Its been co-opted, in turn, by marketing school as the de facto treatise on how to construct marketing pitches that have a near irresistible pull to them, one that is so subtle it goes unnoticed, but so powerful it can create a "need" for a product where objectively no such need exists.

As to the rest of your post, there is nothing wrong with it in principle. In fact, it has its own internal logic that is shared by many. The problem is that society, one way or another, always pays the price in one form or another.

The more resistance there is, the more likely (ironically) the undesired outcome is to occur. Unintended outcomes is really what it comes down to. We've reached such a state today, in that what was originally envisioned as a "hand up" has become more of a "hand out," and it does foster a system of dependency. This is very much a generation thing too, in that those who grow up in such a household learn to view it as the "norm," and there is a much greater tendency to continue that norm than there is to rise above it.

Unpleasant realities. I'm not making arguments that excuse the present system, I'm simply trying to describe and explain it from a social science viewpoint, and also explain why drastic steps such as the elimination of the system will not just make the problem go away. It'll still exist, it'll just morph to take on another form. Most likely in the way of crime.

Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. Nor does radical change that does nothing to address root cause. We're beginning to understand root cause and effect better, but not to the point that anyone has a working solution that will fix something so badly broken (and wiping the system out it is a fix of its own type that won't work either).

That said, there is enough knowledge gained to begin to reform it. And proper reform can, over time, break the dependence cycle and curb the abuse. Reform has to tackle root causation as well, and not just treat the symptoms while allowing the disease to go unchecked.

-Spyder

 

[javacontour]

My wife is a social worker and has observed first hand the generational cycle you mention. Children learn from their parents that getting a check, a house, an EBT card from the government is "normal."

She works with grade school kids because she feels that's the best place to try to break the cycle. Once they are in middle school and beyond, the pattern is largely ingrained.

But in grade school, she can still demonstrate that there are other paths besides dependency. That many of them can still follow their dreams and be what they dream of being. Not all, as some face some serious mental and physical challenges. But most can become what they want to be if they apply themselves.

But it's difficult to overcome the strength and frequency of the parental example. Schools only have children for a few hours a day 9 months out of the year. Parents or guardians shape the children the remainder of the day, the entire year.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
My wife is a social worker and has observed first hand the generational cycle you mention. Children learn from their parents that getting a check, a house, an EBT card from the government is "normal."

She works with grade school kids because she feels that's the best place to try to break the cycle. Once they are in middle school and beyond, the pattern is largely ingrained.

But in grade school, she can still demonstrate that there are other paths besides dependency. That many of them can still follow their dreams and be what they dream of being. Not all, as some face some serious mental and physical challenges. But most can become what they want to be if they apply themselves.

But it's difficult to overcome the strength and frequency of the parental example. Schools only have children for a few hours a day 9 months out of the year. Parents or guardians shape the children the remainder of the day, the entire year.


One of the truest and most insightful posts I've read in this thread. You pretty much hit the nail right on the head. And from my POV as well, your wife is correct on that score and intervening at the point where if any chance of breaking the cycle is to happen, that is exactly where to put the focus and energy.

-Spyder

 

[genynnc]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7

To the poster who equated a liberal arts education with basket weaving - way to put your own ignorance prejudice on display for the entire world to see. Much of the knowledge applied in all areas of life today owes its roots to debate and research within the humanities and social science fields (which borrow heavily from each other, and where breakthroughs in one field are often found to be adaptable to others as well).

Its also worth pointing out that if every person who went the liberal arts route choose instead one of those few select fields you pointed to as a more preferable and more sensible alternative, you would find the world not only a much poorer place in terms of knowledge and understanding it, but those same fields would no longer be lucrative at all. They would be so heavily diluted that supply would outstrip demand to the point that the people in them would be saying the exact opposite of what you are now.

-Spyder


That's pretty heavy handed Spyder and I will accept your appology. I guess I could list every median income of every potential career and every benefit that each has proven for the human condition but that would take quite a few pages for a post.

You replied with a straw man argument, of which I wasn't a part of or intending to be.

Obviously, I was generalizing about the ability to gain GOOD paying jobs vs. the ability to make an average or decent wage. Every career path provides value to society or that career path wouldn't exist. You can't sit there and tell me that a college graduate with an nursing degree is going to start below or at the same level as a graduate with a liberal arts degree. Obviously without Math we wouldn't have machinists, motorsports, trading, etc... I never said you only need 5 career venues or even 10,000, that's rediculous. But I digress because we are getting a bit off the ranch.

 

[ZZman]

It is hard to break cycles.

We have to wonder why people continue to live in a ghetto. Just move we say. Easier said then done it appears.

Things like this get deeply rooted in our brains. If you are raised in a low income/low expectation environment it is hard to see much beyond that. The blue collar middle class was attainable. If you are raised in a high income/high expectation environment like by white collar or professional parents it is easier to attain the education and opportunities you need to get ahead. You had good examples that shaped your thinking.

Can the cycle be broken? Sure. Is it easy....debatable.

Not everyone is cut out for college. Because of upbringing, finances, education, lack of drive etc...

Good paying blue collar jobs helped a large portion of the population to attain part of the American dream. Enough to keep them fairly content.

We have to remember that all members of working society play an important roll. Not everyone can be doctors, lawyers, wall street types etc....There are other just as important "lower class" jobs that keep society running smoothly and keeps us happy by providing services we all enjoy and need.

Should they not also deserve a decent living?