If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Modern Poverty: Almost half of Public School students are now low-income ..... students from low-income families tend to end up parents of low-income families   (theatlantic.com) divider line 324
    More: Fail, income families, families tend, late-2000s recession, Texas District, poverty, families  
•       •       •

3164 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:32 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



324 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-18 11:43:45 AM
Dan Carlin had an interesting podcast on this subject recently.

/I am sure I am supposed to hate him.
 
2013-10-18 11:43:57 AM

Marcintosh: Positive.  Roll.  Models.  Where can you get some?  I've looked online.  I've looked in the old phone books.  I've looked at sports.  I know better than to look to business.

Sadly the rich do not deign to live in poverty stricken areas for some reason, so they're no help.


Positive roll model:

manhattaninfidel.com
 
2013-10-18 11:43:59 AM

Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no data to explain why this occurs," but Zagorsky offers these explanations for High IQ types getting into financial hot water:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2007-0 8- 12-smart-not-rich_N.htm

Are you seriously trying to argue that smarter people don't tend to make more money than less intelligent people?

the study is making the argument that intelligence and wealth are not  Debeo Summa Credo: Headso: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

The surprising thing is your facts aren't even really true.

People with 140 IQ scores (a score of 100 is average) missed payments and maxed-out their credit cards more often than their lower IQ counterparts. They went bankrupt at a rate, 14.1%, close to the rate of people with an IQ of 80, 15.2%. "Only among people slightly above-average does an increasing IQ score lead to a reduced chance of financial distress," says the study. "The survey provides no dat ...


A few points:

1)  The study you cite supports the notion that higher IQ results in higher income:
The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year
.

That's a significant delta in a a country in which average income was $45k in 2007 (the year the study was published).  I did say 'poorer' in my first point, so perhaps I should have said 'earn more'.  After all, that's how poverty levels are determined - not what you have but what you make.

2)  Other studies have said otherwise re wealth: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100637179

3)  Neither here nor there, but I thought IQ wasn't a relevant indicator of intelligence anyway?   At least that's what I've read on fark.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:15 AM

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.

No, it is survival not volunteerism.


Oh, ok. Thanks for that insightful retort.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:24 AM
Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:25 AM

FarkedOver: Phinn: Of course it is. Even your hypothetical starving worker is greatly improving his situation (starvation -> death) by making a voluntary agreement with an employer to get paid for work (income -> food).

That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.



No, that isn't the correct definition.

Subjugation and coercion is the threat that the person you're dealing with will ATTACK you if you don't agree to cooperate.

In a voluntary interaction, both parties have the right to walk away, and NOT be attacked by the other party, if the two of them don't make a mutually-acceptable trade.

I see what your problem is now -- your definitions are completely wrong.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:38 AM
Admit it, America. You have a problem.

And a class system. And you're not exceptional. In fact, your class system is not one of the most upwardly mobile, even in the developed world. America is one hurtin' puppy, as the preppy-wannabees used to say when I was an undergrad and sophomore.

For example, even right wing think tanks admit that Canada is more bootstrapy, with many advantages for entrepreneurs, such as almost complete power to hire and fire, short turnaround on incorporation and setting up businesses, a skilled workforce with lower wages and a more accommodating healthcare system. If Canada is beating you at something, you are farked, my son. Canada is a born follower and club-joiner. It is a middle class country through and through. It doesn't invest enough in its people, and it builds giant monster homes that fall apart in a gentle rain. THE DAMN COUNTRY IS LITERALLY BUILT ON SAND. TAR SAND. The worst kind of sand. It doesn't even make a decent beach.

Furthermore, social mobility has been a myth for generations. Back in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies, before the Revenge of the One Percent, an American youth faced a one in three chance of moving up relative to his Father, one in three of being about the same, and one in three of falling. This is a recipe for stasis, not upward mobility. And it was based not on class but on employment--the moves were mostly within the same social class. Americans could get slightly better or worse jobs, pays, housing, etc., than their parents but essentially class was inherited by all but the most exceptional cases: alcoholics, schizophrenics, and drug addicts moving down, a few extra-hard working, intelligent and well-educated people moving up a bit.

Today the big economic gap is between the young and the elderly within the same class, and between the 1% and the rest. In other words, you're not a jot or iota less of a class society than England or Germany or  Sweden. Your class markers tend to be obscured by propaganda from the governing classes (Democrats as much as Republicans) because the truth is they have you by the short and curlies. As Kang and Kodos put it, it's a two-party system. You're "wasting your vote" if you try to shift out the skins and the shirts, the Reds and the Blues, the liberals and the conservatives.

Socialism failed in the US because the powers that be were able to control or destroy the Unions. They cut the workers off from the celebration of May Day but substituting the meaningless and useless Labor Day instead. They allowed Unions to become corrupt and to sell out to management and the mafia. They filled your heads with propaganda that obscures even the meanings of the word socialist, liberal, conservative, communist, social democratic, liberty, etc.

The only Unions left are public, the envy of everybody who hasn't got one of their own. But they are weak and under attack now that the rest of the country has been screwed over.

About 4% of your children are educated in private schools, many of those "religious". These are self-selecting focuses of class-aspiration. They tend to get the smarter children (upper, upper-middle class) or the more aggressively conformist and ambitious working class people (Roman Catholics, Jews, Baptists).

As in the UK, this hollows out the public system, where money is based on "merit" by taking the most meritorious out of the public schools.

IT DOESN'T MATTER MUCH WHERE YOU GET AN EDUCATION. IF YOU ARE SMART AND INDUSTRIOUS, YOU WILL GET AN EDUCATION. IF YOU ARE LAZY AND STUPID, YOU WON'T.

You can trust me on that. I have attended five universities including the best and the rest in roughly equal proportions.

The quality of my education depended first, on me, because I am that class brain whose Father hired and fired the parents of the rest of the class. Then on my teachers, some of whom where great and some where idiots and even old school Conservative Baptist idiots. Doesn't matter. You can learn a heck of a lot from idiots as you can learn a heck of a lot from reading bad books. In fact, you need idiots and bad books to teach you the difference between smart people and idiots and between good books and bad books. The more variety, the better.

My one great advantage is being exposed to a lot of people and ideas and things that most people miss. Such as social classes. Most of you have lived your lives in one, scarcely knowing anybody from all the other classes and class fractions. I have lived in close quarters with many if not most of them.

The ugly truth is that education for the masses is shiat in America, while education for the classes is top rate. And Democrats are as useless as tits on a bull. Sorry. I'm not throwing a sop to the Republicans. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

You see, the middle classes do a lousy job of educating the working classes because their own precious snowflakes are being worked to death to succeed by another man's measure of success. Middle class parents and teachers and school boards and principals and educators and politicians are the class enemies of the poor and the working people. And it shows.

In fact, it shows even in me.

What do you think those gormless, toothless hillbillies are whining about? They know (in their dim animal brains) that you contemn them and that some of you even hate them and wish them harm.

The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that a Democrat wishes you no specific harm. Otherwise, they could care less but the effort would kill them.

Excuse me. Not only am I running long today, I am running Commie.

Unless the workers take over (and that includes the upper middle class brain workers, dammit--who else has a clue what is going on?) you will all be ground down into a fine paste.

That is the fate of you shabby-assed Pinks. To become pink slime. (Lou Dobbs and Marx have a lot more in common than either will admit.)

Just call me Cassandra.

The Communists were right. If you aren't Soylent Green or Pink Slime now, you're next. Don't laugh. It ain't fun or funny.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:55 AM

Tom_Slick: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.


It was a _terrible_ idea. That's _why_ it didn't work.

/  I've seen administrators drawing conclusions about teachers over 1% changes in averages when the error bars for the test were 8% or so.
 
2013-10-18 11:44:56 AM
The more excuses you make for your failure, the harder you will fail. The more power you attribute to external forces, the less you keep for yourself.

/Sell drugs, I can at least respect a dealer.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:26 AM

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


Smart take.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:37 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yellow Beard: I wonder what we would do with all of the people that would instantly become unemployed under your plan.

They wouldn't necessarily become 'instantly' unemployed. Those that do would have to find another job. FWIW, I'd be one of them, and that is fine by me.


The vast majority would be instantly umemployed. Would some find comparable paying jobs? Yes. Would the majority? Not a chance in hell.
 
2013-10-18 11:45:47 AM
If you can't feed em, don't breed em.
 
2013-10-18 11:46:38 AM

Yogimus: /Sell drugs, I can at least respect a dealer.


.....
 
2013-10-18 11:46:57 AM

Deedeemarz: Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.

We use public school as free day care as it doesn't challenge my kid--even in the high school honors program (we are in Texas). So his actual learning takes place at home most of the time.....




Your explanation is clearly: you are in Texas. I used to have to put together different textbooks for you. Your school board demands stupidity.
 
2013-10-18 11:47:10 AM
This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.
 
2013-10-18 11:48:05 AM

meat0918: tricycleracer: meat0918: tricycleracer: It's expensive to be poor in America.

More than once I've heard the sentiment "I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, because that shiat falls apart all the time, and I cannot afford to be replacing stuff all the time"

Check out the rent-to-own tire industry.

1.  Need tires to get to work or you'll lose your job.
2.  Get rent to own tires since you can't afford an all cash deal.
3.  Pay 10x what the tires actually cost.

Rent to own TIRES?!?!!??!??!

I'm.......

goddamnit, wtf?


And the owner of the rent to own tire place is improving his lot on life, because the people he supplies are farking dumb.
 
2013-10-18 11:48:14 AM

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


that's the success of the war on poverty for ya.
 
2013-10-18 11:48:17 AM
WOW!
Gee, America, what a nice, affluent, educated, productive middle class you have there.

It would sure be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

Sheep get shorn.

/next time a society manages to raise a middle class, I sure hope they are protected instead of sold to highest bidder
 
2013-10-18 11:48:39 AM

patrick767: If we'd stop using mostly local funding for public schools, we'd go a long way toward solving our horribly inequitable public school system. Of course I doubt that will ever happen in most states. The suburbanites with the money have power and a vested interest in making sure their kids have the best funded public schools (if they don't send their kids to private schools). Fark those poor people in the inner city.


Because of the oil (and other) industry in Texas, some school districts are very wealthy. So we instituted the Robin Hood plan to help equalize because of course the poorer districts were not performing well. So they take money from my district, give it to some system down in the Valley, and guess what? Our schools are well-funded and average-to-above average, and their schools are well-funded and still below average. Tah-dah.

The difference is that a lot of the kids in the Valley have immigrant parents who work their asses off and can't really put a lot of time into supporting their kids' education; culturally education isn't as important as working hard and taking care of family; and relatively large families are the norm even on a very limited income. Education is just not as big a focus for many of those residents. Our area, OTOH, has a middle-class stable population, relatively small family size, and culturally believe education through college level is important.

Throwing money into schools where the constituents don't place as much  value on education will not make much difference....
 
2013-10-18 11:48:43 AM

Yellow Beard: The vast majority would be instantly umemployed.


Again, not necessarily. Many defense corporations plan for the risk of defense budget cuts by selling their hardware to foreign companies. You're a defense Keynesian, I get it. So let's pretend defense is untouchable. Budget can't be cut even a small amount. There are plenty of other ways to secure that money.
 
2013-10-18 11:49:02 AM

ikanreed: Debeo Summa Credo: Fact 1: Stupid people tend to be poorer than smart people

Fact 2: stupid people are more likely to have stupid kids than smart people

Fact 3: stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults that, surprise surprise, tend to be poorer than smart adults.

Why is any of this in any way surprising?

Because you're using a bunch of "tends to" statements to draw an absolute conclusion that sensible people reject.


Um, no, sensible people would not reject the conclusion that we shouldn't be surprised that poverty 'tends to' pass down from generation to generation.   Do the children of poor people always end up poor like their parents?   No, of course not.  But they are more likely to be poor, or 'tend to' remain poor, right?  Because we need that 'tend to' caveat should we then reject the claim that poverty perpetuates from generation to generation?
 
2013-10-18 11:49:43 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: foreign companies.


countries
 
2013-10-18 11:50:14 AM

bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.


Not by the people stuck in it. Room to move comes from above.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:19 AM

Thunderpipes: Free housing, free phone, free food, free cash.... Why would anyone want to stop being poor? It is hard work.


Especially when you don't have to be poor to qualify for the free stuff.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:32 AM

Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.



You forgot about the need to avoid children that were raised poorly.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:53 AM

Coco LaFemme: Tom_Slick: DrewCurtisJr: Tom_Slick: Get rid of NCLB and maybe we can get some decent public schools again.

What? The reason we have NCLB is because the public schools weren't doing well, especially with low income students.

It was a good idea, but it didn't work. Look to Atlanta Public Schools.  Funding is tied up with that test so bad schools only teach the kids to pass the test.  So what we end up with is a bunch of kids who spend 12 years only learning how to take standardized tests.

Part of the problem with schools in Atlanta, and I'd know because I used to live there, is that North Fulton County is where all the money is.  South Fulton County gets shafted, in regards to tax dollars, and thus their schools are always far below those that exist in places like Alpharetta, Sandy Springs, and Dunwoody.  SAT scores are consistently much lower, graduation rates are a hell of a lot lower.....it's not pretty.


I get that but I was referring to the Atlanta Public School system not the Fulton County school system.  Atlanta Public Schools wi where the teachers changed test answers to insure their government funding.
 
2013-10-18 11:50:59 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.

No, it is survival not volunteerism.

Oh, ok. Thanks for that insightful retort.


Oh, ok. You volunteer to create a product from start to finish for someone who has completely emancipated themselves from labor.  After you finish the product you have no choice in what happens to that product.  Your employer sells that product and pays you a mere fraction of the total worth of the said product, even though you have created its entire value.

We volunteer for this because it is fair, right and just? No, we volunteer for this because we have no choice BUT to do this in order to live.
 
2013-10-18 11:52:27 AM

Lochsteppe: The leading cause of poverty is...*drum roll*...POVERTY!  Who could have guessed that a system which requires a suffering underclass will tend to perpetuate that underclass?


The "natural rate of unemployment" was 5-6% until the Neo-Conservatives took over. This economist argot hides the crime of which you speak:  "full unemployment" hides the same crime on the Commie side of things.

The new natural rate of unemployment may be 7-8%, in which case Obama is right on target and deserves your respect and applause.

Heed my warning: Jobby McJobmaker is not interested in making jobs except at the lowest wage and non-existent benefit levels. Jobby McJobmaker only exists to delude you into thinking that one of the two parties, the skins or the shirts, cares whether you ever get a job, a life, or descendants.

To put it in the hard-nosed language of the Boneheaded Plutocrats: The bottom line is the bottom line. The business of business is not charity. The business of business is not to make work. The business of business is to make money for us, the real owners, the Masters of the Universe.

The peasantry has been reduced from 99% of the population to about 5% in the USA. The workers were the next to go. Now the lower middle class white collar and pink collar workers are on the way out, as are layers of middle managers and anybody whose job can be automated and done by a computer and a few sensors or robots or cybernetic programmes.

The experts will go soon after the clerks and the secretaries. The scientists and the professionals will, like the working people before them, find their work turned into their enemy, capital. The capital of the very, very few.

First the working classes work themselves out of jobs, then the governing classes become too numerous and have to fight to the death. Only the machines multiply and grow in power.
 
2013-10-18 11:56:30 AM

FarkedOver: Phinn: Capitalism is cooperation. It's the voluntary exchange of property for mutual benefit.

The worker isn't voluntarily selling his/her labor. The worker has no choice but to sell their labor or they do not eat.  That is not cooperation.


How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want....
 
2013-10-18 11:57:00 AM

bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.


I came from a large family in the upper-low income territory. However, every kid worked their way through school, and my parents always made sure we understood that education was the easiest way to succeed in life. Now, all the kids are at a minimum upper-middle class income after having graduated with awesome grade point averages and working much less hours now than the parents did. However, I now either know or work with masters and PHD students graduating from school and taking low paying jobs just to make ends meet because their target jobs just don't seem to be there for them. Things are really tough right now for even the educated (though it probably will change, maybe not too soon).
 
2013-10-18 11:57:28 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Yellow Beard: The vast majority would be instantly umemployed.

Again, not necessarily. Many defense corporations plan for the risk of defense budget cuts by selling their hardware to foreign companies. You're a defense Keynesian, I get it. So let's pretend defense is untouchable. Budget can't be cut even a small amount. There are plenty of other ways to secure that money.


I believe I started out by saying we spend too much on defense. Perhaps I should be more clear. I think the defense budget should be cut, just not by 75% as somebody suggested in this thread. When any company loses its biggest customer and sales fall by a corresponding amount to what that customer was buying, the company has to replace those sales or cut their work force. Which do you think is more likely to happen? Finding another country with an unlimited appetite for weapons like America isn't at all a likelihood.
 
2013-10-18 11:58:50 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: The problem with many military projects is that they provide no further benefit once the paycheck's gone out.


He unironically posts on the internet.
 
2013-10-18 11:58:59 AM

FarkedOver: That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.


No, not really.

At about half-a-million dollars, you don't  have to.  That's the point when, assuming things don't go all Mad Max or Weimar, you could buy a basic rural house in cash, spend ~$1000 a month (+ inflation adjustments), and survive ad infinitum.

Around 14% of the nations households are at that point, though most of them don't think of themselves that way.

Knowing you could do fark-all, though?  Wow liberating,
 
2013-10-18 11:59:53 AM

cig-mkr: I blame the manufacturing jobs going overseas, was a time when a person could get a fairly good paying job with just a high school education and a little training.


While you are correct that globalization (US manufacturing workers competing with newly emerging workers escaping subsistence farming overseas) definitely had an impact on the value of labor in this country, also recognize the impact that immigration had on working class wages.

The percentage of the population that is foreign born rose from 4.7% in 1970 to 13% today http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/11/local/la-me-foreign-born-2012 0 511.

Although there are pros and cons of immigration, don't discount the impact that this huge influx of largely low skill labor had on working class wages over the last 40 years.
 
2013-10-18 12:01:06 PM

FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's still voluntary, unless you think the term means "free from motivation." It doesn't.

No, it is survival not volunteerism.

Oh, ok. Thanks for that insightful retort.

Oh, ok. You volunteer to create a product from start to finish for someone who has completely emancipated themselves from labor.  After you finish the product you have no choice in what happens to that product.  Your employer sells that product and pays you a mere fraction of the total worth of the said product, even though you have created its entire value.

We volunteer for this because it is fair, right and just? No, we volunteer for this because we have no choice BUT to do this in order to live.


Describe a better system, one in which people volunteer without basing said volunteering on survival.
 
2013-10-18 12:01:37 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: [i1.ytimg.com image 850x478]


Because, obviously, we don't want educated ditch diggers.
 
2013-10-18 12:01:54 PM

Lawnchair: FarkedOver: That is not a hypothetical.  Every person that sells their labor power does so in order to survive.  That's not a choice.  That is the very definition of subjugation and coercion.

No, not really.

At about half-a-million dollars, you don't  have to.  That's the point when, assuming things don't go all Mad Max or Weimar, you could buy a basic rural house in cash, spend ~$1000 a month (+ inflation adjustments), and survive ad infinitum.

Around 14% of the nations households are at that point, though most of them don't think of themselves that way.


I've worked with the wives of lawyers and doctors. They didn't do it for the money, but to get out of the house. Being rich is apparently a very boring life, from what they've told me. I personally wouldn't mind that burden in life.
 
2013-10-18 12:02:01 PM

Deedeemarz: How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want...


I'm not advocating for sitting on our asses.  I'm advocating worker control of the means of production and the elimination of the true moocher class, the 1%.
 
2013-10-18 12:02:02 PM

Vectron: Fano: Zero tolerance and teaching to the test, combined with other asinine policies assures that anyone who cares about their children will either send them to private school or home school them.


You forgot about the need to avoid children that were raised poorly.


That was a given.
 
2013-10-18 12:03:43 PM

Yellow Beard: When any company loses its biggest customer and sales fall by a corresponding amount to what that customer was buying, the company has to replace those sales or cut their work force. Which do you think is more likely to happen?


A combination of both, which is why I said those workers aren't necessarily instantly unemployed.

Yellow Beard: Finding another country with an unlimited appetite for weapons like America isn't at all a likelihood.


There is more than one country. I work in defense, we sell to many countries, and we're just one company.

More importantly, you're agreeing that government spending creates jobs. And this study shows there are more effective ways to spend that money if creating jobs is the goal.
 
2013-10-18 12:04:44 PM

The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.


It is. It's done. The natural rate of increase in America is barely above replacement level. Replacement level is the lowest level which will maintain the population and also replace the workers with new workers. Drop below that level and you get "negative growth". This is bad for the economy except perhaps in the thinking of the more radical environmentalists, who welcome the prospect of the human race shrinking and doing less damage to the world through unsustainable growth and consumption.

By blaming the population that produces children (the proletariat, who subsist through the strength of the arms and the strength of their loins, as they have no real property) you are moralizing. This is generally the result of a failure to understand the material basis of production, consumption and thus culture.

Culture is based on excess production. You have to have more than enough to eat before you can spare the time and effort for "higher things". The Reverend Thomas Malthus, with his devout wish that a clergyman might have enough to pay for a little glass of sherry now and again, understood this. Darwin understood this. Marx understood this. Conservatives willfully or negligently do not understand this.

One, these people produce the workers. Many people do not breed, especially in those classes where intellectual and social and physical capital are required to support children as well as the producers.

It is a good thing they have too many children, or else you would have to have more of them yourself, or at least your women would.

Two, this surplus of production is another way that the workers support the superstructure of "thinkers" and capitalists. Their work is turned into profits (some legitimate and necessary for the reproduction of capital and capitalists, some not and what is called "windfall profits" or "economic rents").

In Commie mode, reproduction is theft. And guess what? State capitalists are just as happy ensuring that the workers over-produce themselves as crony or klepto- or regular capitalists.

The job of this class of people is to produce an excess of labourers and excess of gun fodder. That is their function. Why blame them for it? You're the one who profits from their losses. Why moralize?

Whoops! I've wanderer out of Marx and into Nietzsche. Can existentialism and nihilism be far away? Of course not. Like Death, they are always with you, everywhere, all of the time, invisible and waiting patiently to do their job in the great economy of things.
 
2013-10-18 12:04:58 PM

Giltric: UrukHaiGuyz: The problem with many military projects is that they provide no further benefit once the paycheck's gone out.

He unironically posts on the internet.


Notice I didn't say all, and thanks for snipping the relevant part of my post. Research dollars are almost always well spent. Wars of aggression not so much.
 
2013-10-18 12:06:27 PM
A lot of freepers showed up here to complain about how the country is made up of losers.  I gotta wonder though, what happens when these "freeloaders" outnumber you and are even more beat-down by society than they already are?

Just think about that one, dittoheads.
 
2013-10-18 12:07:12 PM
This is the result of under funding education and the failure of making glolbalization work in the US. Its okay for big business to outsource but not real easy for other countries to do it here.
 
2013-10-18 12:07:19 PM
By the way, whoever put that statue of Lenin there is an artistic genius.

Found art? Junk art? Performance art? Who cares?

It is as lovely, brilliant, funny, smart, subversive as a Banksy painting.
 
2013-10-18 12:09:50 PM

GameSprocket: The Muthaship: If only it was possible to not have kids you can't provide for.

So, since we have established the difficulty in moving up the social ladder, you are really saying that only those who are from good families should ever be able to reproduce? Maybe we can just sterilize the poor, but then we would only have one generation Wal-Mart employees. Can't have that!


We are already one step away from that with planned parenthood pushing poor pregnant girls into the abortion mills. We may as well pay for it once and sterilize them so we aren't paying for multiple abortions from the same people.

It's always been crazy to me the way conservatives rail against abortion, when they should really be for it. They should be knocking down congress' door demanding abortions for poor minorites to help equalize the numbers of democrats at the future polls and it is soooooo much cheaper than supporting their future lazy asses in the long run.

Sure, hip hop music and professional sports may take a hit, but it will give some white guys with good fundamentals a chance to get back into the game.
 
2013-10-18 12:09:56 PM

burning_bridge: A lot of freepers showed up here to complain about how the country is made up of losers.  I gotta wonder though, what happens when these "freeloaders" outnumber you and are even more beat-down by society than they already are?

Just think about that one, dittoheads.


theeasternblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-18 12:10:02 PM

FarkedOver: Deedeemarz: How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want...

I'm not advocating for sitting on our asses.  I'm advocating worker control of the means of production and the elimination of the true moocher class, the 1%.


That's a great system for 19th century nation states whose economies are based on workers in factories making widgets.

You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?
 
2013-10-18 12:12:08 PM

pkellmey: bearcats1983: This is definitely a sad situation, but I still think some of the blame needs to go on the impoverished who continue the cycle from generation to generation. My family was incredibly low income when I was a kid, but my parents busted their arses at work (mom at pizza hut and the phone company, dad as a night shift pharm tech), went to school part time, and eventually got us out of the poverty hole. It took years and hundreds of "pancakes for dinner" type meals, but the cycle can definitely be broken.

I came from a large family in the upper-low income territory. However, every kid worked their way through school, and my parents always made sure we understood that education was the easiest way to succeed in life. Now, all the kids are at a minimum upper-middle class income after having graduated with awesome grade point averages and working much less hours now than the parents did. However, I now either know or work with masters and PHD students graduating from school and taking low paying jobs just to make ends meet because their target jobs just don't seem to be there for them. Things are really tough right now for even the educated (though it probably will change, maybe not too soon).


We come from similar family situations. Even at our poorest, my parents always stressed that education was the only way we would succeed in life.

Until just a couple years ago, I was the undergrad/grad school graduate working the low paying job. My first job was contract work that only paid $1200/month. I eventually moved on to the "better paying" job at $28k/year. It took me a good 7 years of working my arse off to be where I am income-wise now.
 
2013-10-18 12:13:09 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: FarkedOver: Deedeemarz: How is that not cooperation? We all contribute to society and the economy in some way. If the worker doesn't like his role in the system, he can take action to change that role and contribute in some other way. Your statement sounds as if you are implying that we should all be able to sit on our asses having bons bons delievered in some magical way instead of working for what you want...

I'm not advocating for sitting on our asses.  I'm advocating worker control of the means of production and the elimination of the true moocher class, the 1%.

That's a great system for 19th century nation states whose economies are based on workers in factories making widgets.

You really expect an IT helpdesk associate whose job is to troubleshoot software for a financial consultant at a telecom company to "control the means of production"? The production of what? And how would they control it?


I think they meant teachers should imprison their students.
 
Displayed 50 of 324 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report