Political & Elections

Okay, Bogney, your joke is much funnier now that I've had a few glasses of wine! Maybe your audience is merely all drunk? Just kidding! I'm sure that's the type of joke that is funnier in person than in print, that's all.

But as far as your responses to Abyss's 4 points:

1) I doubt there are very many kids in the US who must work during the day so their families can eat. More likely they would be staying home to watch younger kids, or hanging out at the mall. Isn't it illegal not to attend school? Even at "useless" high schools, a hard worker can stand out and graduate at the top of their classes. Perhaps far easier than at a top high school. Even at a useless high school, you can graduate and go onto community college with few questions asked. Yes, you could be assaulted by the local gang for standing out, but it's probably alot more dangerous to give in and hang out with that local gang, doing their bidding.

2)How to disagree with "don't do drugs?" Yes, plenty of people can get away with doing light alcohol and it doesn't mess up their lives in any way. But drugs? Especially getting into that crowd, and selling drugs, there is no upside to that.

3)Don't commit crimes. Another one that there should be no disagreement with! Don't commit the crimes of the rich or poor....the only benefit of crimes that the rich commit are that they are generally less violent and harder to detect. Yeah, violent crimes that are bloody and physically hurt people will often land you in prison over white collar "victimless" crimes. So stay out of prison, whatever it takes, advice to live by, obviously.

4)I don't think he's preaching abstinance. Contraception is alot cheaper than having kids. Planned Parenthood will provide contraception for next to nothing. If you're young, single, with no family support....if you have kids then, you will probably never succeed in getting off poverty. If you are young, impoverished, yep, just wait till you can take care of yourself. You can support children with 2 lower wage incomes, if you haven't gotten yourself into debt and you choose to live in a low cost area. Why do people think they are entitled to have children and that the government must support them? You can have children with a low income, you merely have to live within your means. Many, many people do. If you are a single parent with no support and no career, you have sentenced yourself and your children to no future. It is your choice.

"No doubt Abyss is far warmer and kinder in person....but I know he will ignore this comment

It's true"

Hmm....it's true that you're ignoring this comment, or warmer and kinder in person?

Bogney wrote:

---

For one year, 4 years, did you grow up that way?  Was that in the 60's or recently - how much was $15k worth then (seriously, I have no idea how old you are).  Certainly, a lot of people made it out of poverty through hard work.  However, if you went to engineering school, you either had family money or earned a scholarship, merit or otherwise.  

I would be interested in hearing more about your story, changing names and locations to protect he innocent.  You spoke obliquely on CC long ago about some reversal that you pulled through - which, no sarcasm, I do admire in anyone.

---

My parents probably gave me about 20K for school. Very significant and it got my through 1.5 years. I covered everything after that.

However, many of my friends simply took loans. Loans for certain types of degrees and for certain amounts of money make a lot of sense.

There is no sob story, just life.

And those poor, sober, young men with no kids can survive on 15k/year. I know, I did it.

Another point, what percentage of the poor would be lifted out of poverty if they followed all four points?  There are plenty of sober, poor, young men without children who are not criminals, just living in places where the jobs have dried up.  Lots of the recently unemployed did not suffer from those problems unless the stress has driven them to drink or crime.

You guess that is the problem with 85% of the poor, but are they poor because of those problems, or do those problems crop up because they are poor?

Perhaps that joke goes better live than on page, or perhaps my audiences for that joke have just been polite all of these years! 

While Abyss's points have some superficial appeal, I don't think it is that simple.  I do agree that we would be better off if people heeded those words.  However, I view it a bit like punishment for criminal offenses.  It is far better to let a few criminals go free than to falsely imprison an innocent person.  It is better to help some unlucky people while other lazy jackasses take a free ride (a poor free ride mind you), than to let the unlucky starve with the undeserving.

I would not be against some major reforms in the social safety net.  I don't see why the able bodied and sane cannot be required to perform some sort of work / social service for their benefits.  I think that children born to unmarried mother's below a very low finanial threshold should be put up for adoption absent some demonstration of an ability to care for their children.  I think that fathers of children whom he can't or won't support should be subject to court ordered resersable vasectomies (actually, I am not sure that I support that, but maybe).  I just don't think the solution is doing away with a social safety net.

As to the four points of the abyss:

1)  Get a high school diploma.
 
Harder to do if your circumstances require you to go to work because your parents are useless and you need to eat.  Also, if your highschool is useless, the time might well be wasted.  Also, if you are likely to be assaulted by the local gang for being a pussy, this becomes harder to follow.

2)  Don't do drugs. 
Does that include alchohol?  The rich and the poor abuse drugs for their own respective brands of misery, but the poor generally have more reason to want an escape from their misery than the rich.  People have done drugs for momentary escape from their lot as long as there have been drugs.  The poor would be the only class not taking drugs if they followed this advice, which admittedly is good advice.  

3)  Don't commit crimes.
Certainly not ones that the police are interested in.  Commit the ones that rich commit, the cops won't look as hard and you make a lot more money.  Also, the drugs of the rich are better.  Again, the poor would be the only class adhering to this good advice.

4) Don't have kids you cannot afford.
That translates into the poor never having kids, which has never happened in human history.  Having sex is one of the best things in life that is free, though the consequences can be costly.  The poor can do it as much or more than the rich.  The poor have always had lots of children because most of them died.  Now that they are not dying we have a societal problem with more poor kids living.  How about contraception rather than teaching abstenance.  Admittedly, no 4 is good, if unrealistic, advice.

"1) Get a high school diploma.
2) Don't do drugs.
3) Don't commit crimes.
4) Don't have kids you can't afford."


As harshly as Abyss makes his point, he is correct. Should we find a way to thoroughly get this message across....poverty would greatly decrease. At least those whose poverty is mostly self generated by poor choices would. I don't know how to get the message through, because as many anti-poverty programs and government assistance programs as we have, it doesn't seem to be decreasing. It feels futile, and frustrates me so much when I encounter people who have purposefully walked straight into poverty. Their kids are the ones that suffer.

And I'm sure your joke would be much funnier if I'd had a couple of glasses of wine, Bogney!
No doubt Abyss is far warmer and kinder in person....but I know he will ignore this comment.

Are you going to pity anything?

I agree that should be the message to everyone Razorsharp, and that people should strive to act in that fashion.  I don't believe that everyone who fails to do so for whatever reason should live on the street begging.  That was the philosophy of Malthus, who did not believe in helping the poor.  He believed that if you feed the poor you are hurting them and society because they will simply breed and they and society will become worse off.  Scrooge was the voice of that point of view in "A Christmas Carol," written by Dickens in response to Malthus.  I tend to agree with Dickens.

Big G:  It is sunday morning!  That is awfully depressing stuff.  Your giving those who believe in a personal God something to pray about, and those who don't something to worry about.  Couldn't you have waited until some midweek evening?

That reminds me of a joke.  A man comes home after having been away and out of contact for ten years, and sees his brother in yard, and yells, "Joe, how are you, how's my cat?"  Joes says, "Fluffy is dead."  The man says, "Oh man, you don't just come out and say it like that.  Break it to me gently.  Say, Fluffy escaped from the house one day, got on the roof, and climbed in the trees.  She couldn't get herself down.  We tried to help her, but cruel fate intervened and Fluffy is no more.  Anyway, how's mom?  Joe looks uncomfortable, looks at the ground, and then says haltingly, "mom's on the roof?"

-- Edited by Bogney on Sunday 16th of January 2011 08:29:52 AM

Why should increasing the value of goods and services be the only thing to focus on?  If those are being produced by 50% of the people, and the other half are unemployed, then there will be terrific social unrest.  It may be better to have the government pay them to dig ditches and fill them (or perhaps to do something more useful), so that they can earn an income and participate in the economy.

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 15th of January 2011 09:18:38 PM

Because of the cost of benefits , particularly medical care/insurance,  companies are unwilling to reduce the work week in the US.

Advancing technology is producing no increase in leisure time.

Reduce the work week 10%, solve the employment problem.

Interesting link;
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

Greece does not seem to benefit from hours worked...

Note these are reported hours. I know the salaried employees of several companies are required to work a minimum of 50 hours a week or face "rightsizing". Illegal? Yes, just like drugs and stock scams.

My limited experience indicates the 35 hour European work week is real. Does anyone have wider experience?

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 15th of January 2011 06:41:06 PM

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 15th of January 2011 06:41:48 PM