Tempest should love this one

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels

Even this commentary is highly optimistic. If you look at many poor family households, you will find there is no "family".

Family, at best, may be an aunt - actual or just a neighbor, if one is available. Mom is out drinking and whoring, just like her Mom before her. If she is not "out" doing it, she is doing it in the house. Therefore the child's homelife consists of an endless parade of drunk, drugged gentelman who want to sleep with, then beat up their Mother. What do you suppose that does for there ability to concentrate, maintain a civil, sunny disposition, model good behavior, etc? On a more practical level, how does that child buy school supplies, or even have a place to study and do homework? What does that child view as a "normal", achievable life?

There may be no actual stable home, of any description, to have a home life in. Many children are essentially abandoned, for long stretches of time, and if you think the social work system takes care of them, that again is an illusion.

My mother taught in inner city schools for twenty five years. I know ALL about it.

Contrast that with my friend whose Dad was a VP for Shell. He got his first summer job, after he had already been rejected for that same job, by his Mother talking with one of her bridge partners, the wife of an executive at that firm.

His friend's parents are similarly CEOS, VP's, investment bankers, etc. Does he compete on the same footing with people who don't even have a stable home life?

Excellent points. The question is what to do about it as these conditions exist in every country on the globe. Does throwing other people's money at dysfunctional people solve the problem?
We've already thrown about $9 Trillion of other people's money at it over the last 40 years, and yet we (according to some) continue to have a "devolving state".

 

[Gary Allan]

Hey, pal ...7T of that 9T happened in the last 10.


But why do you think that economics is the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff? This is unique to the most primal and savage cultures on earth.

That is, if one can throw around "wealth is relative" and "you're better off poor here than in some 3rd world nation" ..just what makes this the defining element?

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Excellent points. The question is what to do about it as these conditions exist in every country on the globe. Does throwing other people's money at dysfunctional people solve the problem?
We've already thrown about $9 Trillion of other people's money at it over the last 40 years, and yet we (according to some) continue to have a "devolving state".


My philosophy would be this -

You can not force anyone to change. I don't believe in cramming my philosphy or lifestyle down anyone else's throat, because I know how I react when others try that with me.

But you can remove barrier's that stand in the way of someone working their way out. To give a simplistic answer, I would like to see government sponsored orphanages or boarding schools. It sounds darned primitive, but if you want to save future "units of production" from being contaminated by their social environment (to speak coldly), you need to remove them from it.

Yes, I know this would be viewed as a "handout", but I would rather see my money go to people who have no other options than to those who have already had and wasted all the advantages life has to offer, as we freely offer now.

If you want your society to prosper you have to invest in it, somewhere, somehow, period. Personal grudges, etc should be secondary or irrelevant.

Good parents invest in their own kids. Many parents in the lower socio-economic strata do not. I would go so far as to say that that is the primary differentiator between upper and lower class.

If a parent can not do this, it does not make sense to penalize the child because of the parent's shortcomings. Poverty seems to be passed from generation to generation. At some point that cycle should be interrupted.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Good parents invest in their own kids. Many parents in the lower socio-economic strata do not. I would go so far as to say that that is the primary differentiator between upper and lower class.

If a parent can not do this, it does not make sense to penalize the child because of the parent's shortcomings. Poverty seems to be passed from generation to generation. At some point that cycle should be interrupted.

I agree with your causation. The problem with "interrupting" the cycle becomes how do you define the circumstances of when, and the legal grounds for removing a child from parents due to "poverty".
There are already laws on the books for removing kids from dangerous parents.

If the state can remove your kids simply because you don't make "enough" money, that gets very scary very quickly.

And there are examples of people coming from very poor conditions to become wealthy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner
Attitude is key.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Attitude is key.


In their unique and limited circumstances. You surely don't suggest that EVERYONE can merely adopt the same attitude ..and that will assure them wealth.

We used to do more sensible stuff. We used to go into Appalachia and sterilize people to prevent them from perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Now even Tempest sees the dangers of this type of solution from the state, but I think he also resents the side effects of NOT doing it.

Hence we either deal with these side effects in a "best sensible outcome under our current limitations" ...or concede to the lack of applying any effort to it at all. If that's the case, then we really have little to whine about.

Personal responsibility only applies to those who are personally responsible ..and only those who personally suffer for the consequences of their actions. All fine and good. The problem when dealing with perpetually propagating poverty is that the irresponsible are not paying the price of irresponsibility, the society as a whole does.

One can choose to "buy your way" out of dealing with it, I imagine. You can also attempt to configure the system to allow you to be somewhat insulated from the side effects in terms of costs, but never let anyone tell you that it is a solution to the problem. It's just an escape plan.

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Blaming the poor is easy and is widely practiced activity......


Can I have some examples of this? I'm actually pretty curious what this means(?)


I think we tend to at the very least blame the poor for being, and remaining poor.
We also don't seem to want them around us.
A perfect example is the "Tent City" of homeless people that sets up camp in different locations around here. There was actually a great deal of resistance last year from a church, no less, to them setting up nearby. This church isn't speaking for all of them, but it still sucked.

 

[Gary Allan]

You can blame the poor for their poor choices. You can't really blame them for being poor.

When you don't have enough room for your entire population to work, just how are you going to avoid "dysfunctional" poverty? You may have "manageable" poverty if you can find a purpose for all of your citizens.

We can't do that.

 

[Pablo]

The purpose of a state is not to find purpose for "it's" citizens.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
The purpose of a state is not to find purpose for "it's" citizens.


Is that all? Surely you've got views beyond that one dimensional and static comment.

What's the other shoe that has to drop with that disposition??

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Is that all?


We are doomed.

 

[Gary Allan]

Probably so ..but are you resigned to poverty being a perpetual condition? Or do you assume that it exists as some abomination ..a byproduct of only poor choices?

Just what is your view on poverty? Now you've done a good job of insulating yourself from it ..and I have absolutely no problem with doing that (at all)..but

..do you think that there is a solution to it?

..or do you think that it is an unavoidable consequence?

If you're of the unavoidable consequence persuasion, what do you see as the origins of the cause ..and if you were to offer a remedy, how would it be implimented (legally or otherwise)?

(there's a reason for this kind of "cross examination")


Let me broaden my own vulnerability here.

I don't see a solution to it either. But I won't blame it on dysfunction either. I can see all kinds of people of economic merit that are total flamers and have no business living in a civilized society. Audi Junkie lived next door to one. My FIL was a hard nosed/ total business highly functional alcoholic. My MIL was a highly dysfunctional alcoholic. The children paid the price ..while his bills got paid, the DRPA ran like clockwork ..and GE human resources before that. We all meet people that we'd rather put a bullet in than shake their hands or trust them with anything, yet they may be of higher station than us.

So, just what makes $$$ any metric of worth as a human?

 

[oilyriser]

You're assuming that all poor people want to be rich. Maybe some prefer the simple life.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
The problem with "interrupting" the cycle becomes how do you define the circumstances of when, and the legal grounds for removing a child from parents due to "poverty".
There are already laws on the books for removing kids from dangerous parents.

If the state can remove your kids simply because you don't make "enough" money, that gets very scary very quickly.


Oh, I very much agree! What I had in mind was an opt-in procedure. A child would have to want to enroll, want to take charge of his future.

And I don't see institutions as a panacea. I hesitated to mention the idea at all because they seem to have quite a history of being abusive. Not to mention the problems of determing what is taught, whose ideology, etc.

But I am very certain that there is a sizable population of kids who want out of where they are, for personal safety and to escape gangs if nothing else, and would go for the idea if it were available.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
You're assuming that all poor people want to be rich. Maybe some prefer the simple life.


Good point. Our neighboring township was formed virtually 100% of modern day hillbillies. By that I mean they chose to escape all the trappings of the urban community. Most of our tent community (which, coincidentally, is in that same township) are people who don't want to conform to the conventions of society. They are "poor" but not dysfunctional in most respects. They're scrap collectors and odd job types. Some work for more equipped scrap haulers or trash removal types. Slightly more free lance than the guy who lives in a trailer at the junkyard type thing.

There are those that choose to live on the other side of the tracks. I've yet to see any of them attempting to raise a family. They're not interested in passing that on via offspring (though, I'm sure that there are those who would).

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The problem with "interrupting" the cycle becomes how do you define the circumstances of when, and the legal grounds for removing a child from parents due to "poverty".
There are already laws on the books for removing kids from dangerous parents.

If the state can remove your kids simply because you don't make "enough" money, that gets very scary very quickly.


Oh, I very much agree! What I had in mind was an opt-in procedure. A child would have to want to enroll, want to take charge of his future.

And I don't see institutions as a panacea. I hesitated to mention the idea at all because they seem to have quite a history of being abusive. Not to mention the problems of determing what is taught, whose ideology, etc.

But I am very certain that there is a sizable population of kids who want out of where they are, for personal safety and to escape gangs if nothing else, and would go for the idea if it were available.


We already have the "opt in" procedure. It's called welfare. It's just that we leave the parent(s) in place. The only thing missing is teaching of, what could be called, social values. It's how many large families are formed at a discount.

It's an institution without walls and close supervision. Just rules.

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


We already have the "opt in" procedure. It's called welfare. It's just that we leave the parent(s) in place. The only thing missing is teaching of, what could be called, social values. It's how many large families are formed at a discount.

It's an institution without walls and close supervision. Just rules.

What does this have to do with giving children opportunity by getting them into a different environment?

Or are you just being snarky?

 

[Gary Allan]

No ..well ..probably.

I would rather see something like a public service draft. I find that the military tends to mold good citizens. By that I mean, able to wipe their own behinds ...play well with others ..learn consequences. It's a tremendous equalizer and neutralizes many cultural propensities.

Now this would come with its own set of unintended side effects ..it will be corrupted and reduced to some "lower terms" in the creation/implementation/execution, but it is one method "in the vacuum of concept" that would break most of those bonds.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

The state should just give everyone the winning lottery ticket for the grandest prize.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
No ..well ..probably.

I would rather see something like a public service draft. I find that the military tends to mold good citizens. By that I mean, able to wipe their own behinds ...play well with others ..learn consequences. It's a tremendous equalizer and neutralizes many cultural propensities.

Now this would come with its own set of unintended side effects ..it will be corrupted and reduced to some "lower terms" in the creation/implementation/execution, but it is one method "in the vacuum of concept" that would break most of those bonds.


Geez, sounds like the "Jobs Corp" of the '60s.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The problem with "interrupting" the cycle becomes how do you define the circumstances of when, and the legal grounds for removing a child from parents due to "poverty".
There are already laws on the books for removing kids from dangerous parents.

If the state can remove your kids simply because you don't make "enough" money, that gets very scary very quickly.


Oh, I very much agree! What I had in mind was an opt-in procedure. A child would have to want to enroll, want to take charge of his future.

And I don't see institutions as a panacea. I hesitated to mention the idea at all because they seem to have quite a history of being abusive. Not to mention the problems of determing what is taught, whose ideology, etc.

But I am very certain that there is a sizable population of kids who want out of where they are, for personal safety and to escape gangs if nothing else, and would go for the idea if it were available.


We already have the "opt in" procedure. It's called welfare. It's just that we leave the parent(s) in place. The only thing missing is teaching of, what could be called, social values. It's how many large families are formed at a discount.

It's an institution without walls and close supervision. Just rules.

Probably early education funding is the best way to break the cycle, after school programs too. Gives the kids with bad home lives a chance to participate in a good society with logical rules, consequences and rewards... I know some studies have been done showing how much it costs society to have a highschool dropout who becomes a criminal... Makes spending $4k/year/kid extra in the early school years seem really really cheap. But it seems this a hard sell, to spend money in schools instead of police and jails...