EatHam: Well, measuring might not be perfect, but not measuring certainly isn't good either.

Yeah, because this isn't a way to try to create "results" that back their own preconceptions.

If you believe this paper is true, and that anecdotes convert to fact... please come to my house, just email me, we'll have you over. I should warn you that I'm working two jobs and have a home business fixing bikes, skis, and snowboards, and that my place got robbed so there are some gaps in comfortable living, and that most of my money goes to MS drugs, so we're on the one meal a day plan (I make too much to get either medicaid or food stamps, though not enough to buy all four of my drugs in any given month)... so come the hell on over, talk to me about how I could better use the 8 hours a day I'm sleeping, then when I take your advice, watch me try to hold on to things like pens and pencils when my hands shake and my ms drugs aren't working so great.

As for the stat part of this, this kid would have failed my intro to stats class miserably. From inferred causality to just a general failure at running basic regressions to a lack of understanding how to instrument variables, this is just a million kinds of stat failures. This is not a problem with statistics, it's a problem with idiots who try to use a general lack of understanding of statistics as a political tool. This is an editorial, not a research paper... presenting it as anything else is just dishonest.

Dancin_In_Anson: Corporate Self: I know several illegal Mexicans who work from sun up to sun and then have to take public transportation for hours to get home.

And I know several white shiatheads who find this kind of work below them and wouldn't do it if their life depended on it but will damn sure biatch about their lot in life.

I have more respect for the illegal Mexicans who would do the work that you wouldn't.

Corporate Self: Hey white entitled bigot, would rise at 3 AM to take a bus 2 hours to clean a house for $50?

Not you I'm willing to bet.

Dancin_In_Anson defending bigots with logical fallacies and ad-homiem since 2003.

That's a whole lot of unnecessary words to espouse what is essentially a Just World fallacy.

Where do you suppose that extra productivity gain is going?

Shvetz: Why do American Thinker articles get greenlit?

Because other wise we're showing liberal bias.

Ah, the compassionate conservative. It's all your fault, no we're not helping you, and now we're going to tax you so we can give that money you don't have to the rich.

You guys know that you could take all the money and put it in a big pile and hand it out in equal shares, and within like two years... everything would be back to the way it was.... with all the same people being rich and all the same people being poor.

What that was like.

Lotsa red herrings being served up in this thread.

The article's author makes a valid point: there are individual factors of one's financial stability that are either overlooked or ignored when economic statistics are gathered and analyzed. People in this thread are indirectly asserting that lower class workers are there due to factors outside their control, and need government help. I'm sure many are.

Many others, though, are indeed complete deadbeats because of their ignorant choices.

Lazy, worthless, irresponsible drunkards and/or junkies who not just won't work but CAN'T because they haven't even the interest in developing even the simplest of useful skills, like sacking groceries. They won't work because doing so is "retarded," so they concoct massive lies so they can con every welfare agency or charity organization in sight. Their subsistence is beer, and cigarettes purchased with money "borrowed" from what few friends or relatives who have been guilted into not leaving their leeching broke asses on the side of the road. They're always around for dinner, but somehow have to be somewhere else when it's time to clean the kitchen. They have an excuse for everything except why they won't bother to take responsibility for their own lives.

I know these people. They're in my f*cking family; they're most of my extended family. Not a single one of them has anything wrong with them they can't flip burgers, mop floors, stock shelves, wait tables, lick stamps, mow lawns, collect refuse, run a cash register, or get any of a million other jobs in the world that don't require more than a middle school education, minimal human courtesy, and the ability to follow simple instructions.

They are not the "exceptions," either. Their leeching is encouraged by social workers who show people how to game the system for even more handouts. The welfare system can't thrive if it takes care of the tiny fraction of those who truly cannot work - it feeds parasites and thus becomes a parasite itself.

They are the real sociopaths - those who will take from you without a moment of concern for your rights - not those of us who are working tooth and nail trying to make lives of our own, yet are saddled with the welfare and debts of fark-off nobodies who contribute nothing to this world.

gameshowhost: I love this paragraph since it fails so goddamned hard:

"But one could just as persuasively argue that the millionaire experiences little drop in marginal utility on the next dollar earned, or he wouldn't consistently drive himself to success. The day laborer's inconsistent work habits could just as easily reflect his low marginal utility for that next dollar earned. (George Bernard Shaw, in his masterly play Pygmalion, provides an excellent example of money's low marginal utility to the working poor. Money actually held negative marginal utility to Alfred Doolittle, who preferred Henry Higgins' five-pound offer to Higgins' ten-pound offer.)"

/ceteris parabis violations
//tard-like grasp on marginal analysis
///self-anointed persuasiveness
//using an anecdote from a work of fiction as economic data
/... oh lawd

No kidding. Does this guy think that a millionaire works as hard to make his next $10K as someone pulling minimum wage?

"But I worked for my money! That last deal I made at the gold course, to swap derivative securities... do you think I could have done that if I hadn't been practicing on the golf course, week after week, since I was a kid? You think I could leverage my family contacts without that handicap?"

/if the author can use fiction, so can I

I know several illegal Mexicans who work from sun up to sun and then have to take public transportation for hours to get home.

Hey white entitled bigot, would rise at 3 AM to take a bus 2 hours to clean a house for $50?

o5iiawah: you mean to tell me that a lifestyle of frugality, thrift and conscientious spending will more often than not lead to financial stability later on in life? Color me shocked.

Case in point:

You spent how much on Prom?

But the statistic that Visa describes as "troubling" is how prom spending differs by family income. In general, the lower the income bracket, the more Americans are likely to spend on prom. For parents who make more than $75,000 a year, for example, prom spending averages about $850. For those making between $20,000 and $29,999, average prom spending leaps to $2,635 - the most of any income bracket.

To make additional assumptions: I grew up in a rural neighborhood where for many of my classmates, high school graduation was it. they were not going to college. Therefore, prom and graduation were a. big. deal.

Poorer = more likely to be uneducated beyond high school = prom being a bigger deal.

Shvetz: Why do American Thinker articles get greenlit?

AverageAmericanGuy: Levitt, in Freakonomics, has an interesting take on wealth disparity, arguing that intelligence is the primary long-term determining factor when it comes to wealth. The higher you score on IQ tests, the more wealth you are likely to have.

If this is the case, then the day to day behavior and actions of the "lowest quintile" is only a reflection of their inherent intelligence and not due to structural problems of society. The outcome of that behavior feeds a cycle of poverty which they can't break out of, but even if they were to suddenly come into wealth, they would soon be back in destitution.

He has a lot of crazy ideas, and this is one of the more controversial ones.

There are a lot of things that have an influence on how "intelligent" somebody is. There's evidence that intelligence is affected by the mother's health care while the baby is still in utero. Lots of studies have also found a link between intelligence and the quality of pre-K education the kid receives. If the child doesn't get these positive influences, they're essentially starting life with a broken-down Pinto while others already have a Maserati. That's the devastating aspect of his theory. People who would otherwise be the next Bill Gates are consigned to a low ceiling because they had the gall and the sheer audacity to choose to be born to poor parents who couldn't give them a leg up. Not only is that a tremendous waste of our human capital, it is also cruel and unusual punishment considering he is innocent.

Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?

Came here to say this exact thing. Thank you.

I mean, I guess based on the point of the article, that wimmins and poor folks is just following the herd, and if they'd just get off their butts and BE THEMSELVES, they'd have money?

Lost Thought 00: When individuality asserts itself

WTF does this phrase even mean?


That phrase insists upon itself.

I find the author's insight and analysis on par with his writing skills.

You see, they want to be poor! Why do American Thinker articles get greenlit? Can somebody point me to one that wasn't just horrible trolling?

SoxSweepAgain: slog

"Your slog sucks!"

jake_lex: this is what Republicans actually believe

It's what Jesus told them is true!

This article is exhaustingly over-written.

A slog to be sure.