Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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)   When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind the line was originally set in 1963 and it assumes all houses have a full-time housewife who is a "skilled cook" and "careful shopper" to stretch their budget   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, abstract concepts  
•       •       •

10043 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:11 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 04:44:03 PM  

profplump: trappedspirit: So because they don't want to cook or clip coupons the ball is now in my court to fix them?

I'm sure they'd be happy if your provided them with a no-cost full-time household employee instead. Or you could take the article's actual point and consider re-defining "poverty line" to reflect modern life instead of assuming everything is the same as it was half a century ago.


People don't make their beds anymore?
 
2014-01-09 04:46:43 PM  

profplump: DerpHerder: No he suggested that many poor are their own worst enemy. Did you read what he wrote?

I did. He seemed to be drawing a correlation between poverty and personal effort, based on evidence from a small, non-random sample group, as a counter-argument to previous comments about how effort and wealth are not strongly correlated. Did you read the comments he was replying to?


Yes I did. He formed an opinion partially based on personal experience which you reject because it does not meet your standards. Specifically the portion you referenced was to answer someone who suggested he had no first hand experience with the poor. I believe he successfully proved his point to that individual. You can dismiss his option, but if you want to set standards please meet them yourself...
 
2014-01-09 04:47:23 PM  
Don't play the serf game, people.

Opt out.

Apply for ten credit cards, get them, then stiff them.

Never, never, never become encumbered with student loan debt -- not worth it.


What did you smoke for lunch today?  Not paying credit card bills is one of the ways poor people manage to stay that way.  As for student loans, it would all depend on the school and the degree.
 
2014-01-09 04:48:27 PM  

Magorn: WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made

...

I went to a school that is currently ranked a 6 out of 10 on the Great Schools.org website for whatever that would be worth. I would say middle of the road would be appropriate.  It was a massive place with over about a thousand graduating seniors. An easy place to get lost in the crowd. I was undiagnosed at the time with ADD, but I am medicated now. I have no idea what teachers made, but it seemed like we had some good ones and some just going through the motions.

Neither parent was educated past high school. Dad worked in a mill and mom was a waitress. Neither ever worked with me on homework. i know where the library was but didn't go.  Computers were not a thing at the time. Everybody in the area was working class. There was no crime to speak of that I was aware of.  There were regular waves of lay-offs at the mill.  Nobody that I knew of in my family had gone to college, and I was the only of 4 siblings to actually graduate High School.

I think the only 'decisions' I made that could affect my life would have been to actually just show up at school and not to have kids. I thought I made it clear that i didn't do anything exceptional or even mdestly impressive. I hardly think I am delusional about what I did in my youth.  I just kept doing just about the bare minimum and didn't stop.

Now if that is all it takes to be boot-strappy, then it is pretty freaking easy.  I made maximum two decisions (really just two habits) that could be even noted.  I went to school, and I didn't have kids.  I didn't study particularly hard, I didn't strive to excel, I didn't join clubs, I didn't really do much.  In fact, I only think the truant officer knew me on sight.  My first day he took me aside and said "I'm not going to have the same problems with you like I did with your brother and sister am I?".  I graduated Very slightly above the middle of the pack.

I would not say I am 'self-made' as much as I would say I am the result of tme most minimal of effort.  I am effectively the default level of success.
 
2014-01-09 04:49:02 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor?


Yes.  I am.  With no ambiguity.
 
2014-01-09 04:50:07 PM  

menschenfresser: Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.


*** THIS IS WHAT LIBERAL MOUTH BREATHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE ***
 
2014-01-09 04:53:32 PM  

profplump: Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.

So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?


No. He was suggesting that he does indeed know some poor people, which was the answer to the farking question he was asked.

/lmao at all of the terrible reading comprehension happening in this thread by all of the "definitely not dumb" people
 
2014-01-09 04:54:44 PM  

Maul555: menschenfresser: Even if you put the poverty line at $.01 annually for a family of fifteen, the conservative mouthbreathers will insist that's way more than they need. Particularly stupid since most of the conservative mouthbreathers are poor themselves. Oh wait, sorry; they're future millionaires so they vote like they want to be in the future.

*** THIS IS WHAT LIBERAL MOUTH BREATHERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE ***


Yeah, pretty much. It is.   We haven't seen any hint of contravarience against this hypothesis about conservative beliefs.
 
2014-01-09 04:58:54 PM  

mike_d85: here to help: We have the occasional "grocery bill" thread here on the Fark dot coms and I always shudder at some of the totals that get posted. $200 a WEEK for a couple/small family or even a single person seems to be acceptable. Admittedly I am thrifty, single, know how to cook, don't really buy junk food and don't cram my piehole at the slightest little tummy grumble but I eat rather well on $70-80 per MONTH and could bring that WAY down if I was willing to spend more time doing prep/cooking.
...

WTF are you eating?  Soylent Green and chicken feet?  I get fresh veg, canned foods in bulk, meat in bulk, and cook most everything from scratch and I can't do much better than $80 a WEEK.

FFS, just getting dried rice ($1.29) and beans ($1.30) for 7 days a week is $20 ($18.20).  And that's assuming you only consume one bag per day.  I'm shopping for 3 full grown adults so I assume we'd eat more.


I think the difference with the final food bill is, he is buying for 1 person, while you said you buy for 3 people. He was living on $20/wk per person, while you appear to be living on $27/wk per person. So, not that much difference.

I myself eat on $30/wk or so. Granted, much of that may be due to the lower than average cost of living where I am, since I don't make any effort to buy in bulk or use other cost-saving measures.
 
2014-01-09 05:00:00 PM  

MyRandomName: How do private schools do worse than public? They don't.


So some of the new charter schools are.

Private Schools USED to do better than public schools because not all kids are created equal.  And more importantly, not all PARENTS are created equal.

Ok, if private school is $16K/year, it means 1 of 2 things:

1) The parents are super-rich, and the kid gets A's in exchange for donations.
2) Big long list
* The parents make enough money that they have $16K/year lying around.  That right there correlates to all sorts of good things like having 2 parents, parents having an education, etc, etc.
* The parents were willing to invest $16K/year into their kid's education.
* Because $16K/year, the parents will literally woop the kid's ass if the kid farks up.
* Because $16K/year, the parents are INVESTED in the kid's education and will help the kid at home.
* To the extent that education and hard work are correlated to having $16K/year and being willing to spend $16K/year on education, and to the extent that intelligence and work ethic are passed down by nature or nurture, the kids are brighter and hard-working.

All kids are not equal.  Charging $16K/year gets you bright kids and involved, educated parents on the average.  Having no gate at all whatsoever gets you nothing.  (I recall there being a study that said that it didn't matter whether or not you made it into charter school, but the mere act of trying made you a much better student since it correlated to parental involvement).

/Seriously, Dad might not always have had food on the table growing up, but he was going to private school.  Guess how he feels about education today?  Guess what values he passed down?
//And $16K is pulled out of my ass, but I recall Mom talking about some private school and saying "It was a choice of paying for high school or college and we chose college".
 
2014-01-09 05:00:04 PM  

GDubDub: As I saw in an episode of The West Wing:

They government hates the idea of changing the calculation in a way that raises the poverty line, because then YOU HAVE MORE POOR PEOPLE.

I can see it now, and it makes me cringe how if the Obama administration changed the calculation that put another 10 million people under the line, the GOP would be screaming: 10 MILLION MORE POOR PEOPLE UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!!!!

/republican


this is really this point.
 
2014-01-09 05:01:41 PM  

profplump: Tricky Chicken: I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all.

So you're related to people who don't work hard and are poor. Are you suggesting that because you know some people who "deserve" to be poor that all poor people must deserve it?


Interesting. But no, that is not what I am suggesting. But I like the way you put it somewhat. Let me use your words my way.

All the poor people I know deserve to be poor.
I cannot make a statement about any poor people I do not know.

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Are you implying that my access to education was somehow greater that that of the poor?

Yes.  I am.  With no ambiguity.


Well, that is a very sweeping generality. Now I am only talking about the United States here, but we have a wide ranging public school system, and I just looked mine up and it ranked a 6 out of 10 on some greatschools.org site that I'll admit I know nothing about. but I am fairly comfortable in saying that my access to public education was as close to average as makes no difference.  Now I'd be skeptical if you were to imply that all the poor come from school systems that ranked below average. No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.
 
2014-01-09 05:02:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Magorn: WHICH public school?  How many resources did they have?  IS it like the HS  my son attends now that spent $65 million building the place and has everything a school could want since home prices in my area are some of the highest in the nation, or was it like the one in Chicago he went to for 1st grade where they had to ask parents to donate an old books they had lying around so the school could finally have an actual library?   How much money did they have to pay teachers? could they attract the best and brightest or did they have to make do with the inexperienced and burnt out?   Could you "pay attention" in class because of your innate status as an ubermencsh or did it have to do with the fact that your family could afford to send you to school on a full stomach so you could concentrate (and take you to a doctor and get medicines if you DID have focus issues?)

How about your parents?  Were they educated middle-class professionals?  Did they work one job that they got home at 5pm for and so were available to help you with homework?  Or were they barely educated themselves and having to work two jobs just to make ends meet?   How was your local public library?  Could your family afford a computer for you to do schoolwork on?  what was your community like? Did you have other middle class people and professionals available to use as role models?  Did they help set for you an expectation that you too, would one day have a similarly white-collar job just like everyone's parents you knew?

The fact that you think YOU made any decisions as a child that affected your future outcomes as an adult , and your success is a result of your innate virtue and wisdom in making life choices as a 7-year old is pathetically, laughably, delusional.    But a delusion all to common among those who ridiculously think of themselves as "self-made"  ...

I went to a school that is currently ranked a 6 out of 10 on the Great Schools.org website for whatever that would be worth. I woul ...


Congratulations. Seriously.
 
2014-01-09 05:09:18 PM  
In 2012, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.
 
2014-01-09 05:11:22 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Congratulations. Seriously.


Seriously, I didn't know what that guy wanted, so I just answered the questionaire. I don't know where he was going, so I am a bit curious. I am guessing it was more of a 'you were the benefactor of a great environment' tack and less of a 'you were exceptionally gifted' one. But when I consider it, I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of. I could be a on a poster for 'this is what unremarkable looks like'.

But you wouldn't notice it.
 
2014-01-09 05:15:34 PM  

MyRandomName: TheShavingofOccam123: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...

Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?


If the people they're telling it to are their employees, and they can choose to pay those people more instead of letting the taxpayers subsidize their profits- then yes.
 
2014-01-09 05:16:44 PM  

Tricky Chicken: No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.


Let's go back to what I originally said, shall we:
"The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."  No one said that you had to be hardworking to be poor.  Just that you're really farked over after a certain level of early life poverty.
 
2014-01-09 05:18:08 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: MyRandomName: TheShavingofOccam123: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


They don't pay their workers overtime, they tell their workers how to apply for food stamps, they discriminate against women...

Liberals tell people to apply for food stamps too. Are they evil?

If the people they're telling it to are their employees, and they can choose to pay those people more instead of letting the taxpayers subsidize their profits- then yes.


No, see, wantonly taking advantage of the system as a means of screwing people out of money is totally the same as thinking that a system should exist to protect people.
 
2014-01-09 05:19:37 PM  
In a 1965 article, Orshansky said her threshold, dependent on this budget, should be used to measure when a family had "inadequate" funds, not adequate funds.


cdn.billmoyers.com
Mollie Orshansky

The poverty line calculation is ridiculous. Argue about lazy poor like people have for decades as if it will do any good, but let's at least fix this so we can figure out exactly how many poor people we have.
 
2014-01-09 05:20:01 PM  
Not exactly to TFA, but more the thread, you will always have people who are too lazy or lack the intellect to make a life for themselves beyond minimum wage jobs/government aided survival. While education and opportunity are ways out of poverty, for some, it isn't for everyone. You need to be honest, economically and politically, do you want these people to have basic food, shelter, and transportation, or do you not care if they can survive. If you just say, people need to work harder or go to school and get better jobs, you are ignoring the fact that many people can't or won't. If you don't care if those people survive, at least that is an honest position. Not one I agree with, but it is a real opinion.
 
2014-01-09 05:20:39 PM  
When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind
That there are far more families below that line since the messiah took office and both black income and employment is lower (percentage and adjusted for todays dollar) than under Reagan who is always called a racist by fark's moon-bats..
 
2014-01-09 05:23:04 PM  
I think the fact that Tricky Chicken trolls Fark for kicks is all we really need to know about how successful he is in life.
 
2014-01-09 05:27:57 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: No, I'd be comfortable in assuming that at least some of the poor had access to a public education even greater than my own. I'd even wager that some of the poor had access to expensive private educations and still failed.

Let's go back to what I originally said, shall we:
"The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest."  No one said that you had to be hardworking to be poor.  Just that you're really farked over after a certain level of early life poverty.


I was replying to your assertion "with no ambiguity" that my access to education was greater than that of the poor.  I illustrated ho I think that cannot possibly be true.

Are you now attempting to redefine what you originally said? If you had said what I bolded, then I would agree with you, but you didn't. Nobody accused you of saying you had to be hardworking to be poor.  But you did lump ALL the hardworking people into the poor category.
 
2014-01-09 05:29:17 PM  

here to help: I think the fact that Tricky Chicken trolls Fark for kicks is all we really need to know about how successful he is in life.


You're not helping.
 
2014-01-09 05:29:22 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of.


static.yify-torrents.com
knows that feel
 
2014-01-09 05:29:42 PM  

OnlyM3: When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind That there are far more families below that line since the messiah took office and both black income and employment is lower (percentage and adjusted for todays dollar) than under Reagan who is always called a racist by fark's moon-bats..


Boooooring.
 
2014-01-09 05:33:26 PM  

umad: Tricky Chicken: I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of.

[static.yify-torrents.com image 425x238]
knows that feel


Except I'm not as good looking, but yeah, I really identify with that part of the movie.
 
2014-01-09 05:36:14 PM  

Tricky Chicken: umad: Tricky Chicken: I am very close to the mean on every normal distribution curve I can think of.

[static.yify-torrents.com image 425x238]
knows that feel

Except I'm not as good looking, but yeah, I really identify with that part of the movie.


Come to think of it, now I want to get a friend of mine to photoshop me into a large group photo several times and see if anybody notices. I'd do it myself but go figure, my photoshop skils are about average.
 
2014-01-09 05:37:02 PM  

here to help: Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).


No.  And never.
 
2014-01-09 05:45:26 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.


wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?

You've never met anyone who's genuinely poor, have you?

Telejester, the answer to your question seems to be 'no' couched as a deflection.

I am related to several people that are genuinely extreemely poor. And I know for a fact that they do almost no work at all. In fact the few times they actually were employed, one of them quit because he didn't want to wake up so early.  One (that I got a job) was fired because he just wouldn't do the work he was asked. One just goes out to clubs and keeps getting herself pregnant (lovely girl, gave up three babies for adoption before she started keeping them). Then there is the used car salesmen (four of them) that can't seem to keep working for the sema place for very long (but I get good deals on cars).  Now if you add into that the waves of dregs I get to meet through this group, I guess that should count as enough annecdotal evidence.

Please drop the 'weeping for the noble hard working screwed over poor' bit.


Science is not anecdotal, Gucci licker.  There are 310 million people in the US: most of the adults are employed, yet the majority are poor, notwithstanding the smoke and mirrors of dated government and pro-corporate polling firms (hello Gallup!).  And mostly because of laziness?  Really?
 
2014-01-09 05:46:50 PM  

roc6783: basic food, shelter, and transportation


Define this.

Keep in mind that we already HAVE this to the point of "You will not starve".  It's hidden because rich white people riot too, but it exists.  You get poor, we hand you SSI, Section 8, Medicaid, and possibly a subsidized bus pass.  So you will be poor, but not destitute.  And I'm OK with that.  I wish that we were a little more wary of the welfare cliff, because I want it to be possible for people to climb out (and I'm OK with spending more money on welfare if that's what it takes), but if your deliberate choice is to sit on your ass all day, you will be poor.  And if you're this way because I farked over your entire industry because having really efficient manufacturing is an awesome thing, but that requires making you unqualified for any job that doesn't require flipping burgers, man that sucks.  I really hope you managed to save up some money.

And that's the problem.  The more money you hand over to play around in the capitalist society, the more money they turn it into.  They're unequal as fark, but there's some social mobility (and if the rich people are smart, there's charity and more perception of mobility than there actually is), so no one really cares.  So no one cares that the median household income is stable (because of smaller household size), because they personally have seen what happens when they or a neighbor gets rich.  And then a century later, the capitalist society is going strong, and the socialist society has either collapsed into literal famine (Nork's, China, Cambodia, Zimbabwe) or said "Fark this" and turned semi-capitalist (Russia, Eastern Europe, China).  And meanwhile the USA just keeps rocking and getting richer and richer and richer (even if it is incredibly unequal in part because a bunch of people keep inventing world-changing inventions and selling 200 million of them to everyone in America).

And the lesson of history is that "If you try to make everyone equal, you make everyone equally poor."

/Look, as long as Keisha exists, you're not going to be able to expand the welfare state.  When lifelong Democrats are biatching about their higher health insurance premiums because of the moochers (They're wrong.  The "moochers" are getting paid for via taxes and debt.  The pre-existing condition people who aren't "moochers" are getting paid for by your premiums), it's just not happening.
//Of course, those people never vote and think that 9/11 was a CIA false flag so that we could deploy troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan as pre-deployment so that we could invade Iraq for oil.
///I can argue the Iraq thing (Namely, there's other reasons for invading than just oil), the 9/11 flag thing is stupid (Among other things, it requires that we deploy troops in a non-adjacent, land-locked, mountainous country instead of the other, awesome adjacent country that we're already deployed in)
 
2014-01-09 05:48:20 PM  
More than 16 million children in the United States - 22% of all children - live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level - $23,550 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 45% of children live in low-income families.

Look at all the lazies.
 
2014-01-09 05:54:13 PM  

trappedspirit: here to help: Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).

No.  And never.


Yes, yes. I know you disapprove of quirky intertube slangs and mannerisms. I'll give you props for at least reading that far.

That's dedication, man.
 
2014-01-09 05:58:25 PM  

here to help: trappedspirit: here to help: Canned tuna (SAMMICHES! Little pricey but I watch for specials and I get two sandwiches out of a can so I can have tuna sammies for dinner two nights in a row with soup or have a sandwich the next day for lunch).

No.  And never.

Yes, yes. I know you disapprove of quirky intertube slangs and mannerisms. I'll give you props for at least reading that far.

That's dedication, man.


A sammich is something a model needs.  Or that you need to get in the kitchen and make me.

Sammies are another concern all together.
 
2014-01-09 05:59:01 PM  
Isn't the real 18+ unemployment rate in the country about 50%?  That tells me everyone home DOES have a live-in cook, maid, child care, etc.

Only in America is it possible to be in poverty, have a flat screen TV, cable, and be overweight.  Yeah, yeah, also a refrigerator.

There's poor, then there's America-poor, with every avenue available to advance yourself if you aren't a complete farkup making one bad decision after another.

A little sympathy if you weren't raised right, but not much.
 
2014-01-09 06:00:17 PM  
And in perhaps the cruelest irony, people without "conventional housing (and who are not in shelters)" (i.e., the homeless) aren't part of the official poor.

If you don't count them then they really aren't a problem that needs to be solved, are they?
 
2014-01-09 06:03:10 PM  

GORDON: Isn't the real 18+ unemployment rate in the country about 50%?


I live with my mom

/Weak start out of the gate
 
2014-01-09 06:05:38 PM  

OnlyM3: When you read about "The Poverty Line" in America, keep in mind That there are far more families below that line since the messiah took office and both black income and employment is lower (percentage and adjusted for todays dollar) than under Reagan who is always called a racist by fark's moon-bats..


I've read a couple of articles (both describing and as beautiful examples of the phenomenon) that at this point, conservatives are beginning to treat "racist" as a badge of honor.

Because everytime you say things like:
* "I pulled my kid out of public school because of all the drug dealers"
* "Seriously, blacks go to jail more than whites because maybe they commit more crime.  Yeah, racist judges/cops, but it can't ALL be racist judges and cops"
* "So given that we're less racist and sexist as a society than we were 50 years ago, how come inner-city blacks are even more farked up?  Maybe it's thug/rap culture + welfare encouraging single-parent homes and lots of children with no father figures?"
* "Equal opportunity can produce unequal results, and using explicit discrimination to require equal results is evil and wrong and a really bad idea on a bunch of levels"
* "When do we stop treating people as groups and start treating them as people?"
* "Maybe having a bunch of professional blacks (as opposed to black professionals) driving policy on racial issues in this country is a bad idea."
* "Maybe automatically naying good policies because they *might* cause disproportionate effects on minorities isn't the best possible policy."

you get called a racist.

And so at this point, they're basically looking at "racist" as "You can't say that, and I'm not going to respond to your points in a reasonable fashion.  Instead, I'm just going to rage-quit this conversation with 'racist'."  (And since post-modernism says that truth and power are almost the same thing, by their lights, they DID.)

Seriously, look up "The Left's 20 rules of racism" and "The Right's 20 rules of racism" and similar.  They actually believe that shiat.  And the problem is that since they honestly DO NOT give a shiat about getting called racists anymore, you can't call out actual instances of blatant racism.  They've just become desensitized.  If Al Sharpton says it's wrong, it's probably right (though on that, I'd agree with them).

/Heck, feminism faces the same problem.
//http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/correias-simple-rules -for -understanding-racism/
 
2014-01-09 06:17:20 PM  

meyerkev: All kids are not equal. Charging $16K/year gets you bright kids and involved, educated parents on the average. Having no gate at all whatsoever gets you nothing. (I recall there being a study that said that it didn't matter whether or not you made it into charter school, but the mere act of trying made you a much better student since it correlated to parental involvement).


The real advantage of charters and free privates is that they can expel the idiots/troublemakers/felons-in-training back to the public schools -- who cannot.

They can raise the mean by cutting the chaff.
 
2014-01-09 06:39:36 PM  

telejester: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

wtf?  Can you give some examples of such an "overwhelming" problem?


I have to agree.   It's absolutely true that a lot of the hardest working people are among the poorest.  That's just a basic fact that everybody in America already knows.

But there are many, many people who are just downright evil and corrupt in their very soul, and then don't understand why such a gross injustice is an overwhelming problem.   Those people are going to take more convincing.
 
2014-01-09 06:40:24 PM  

GBB: buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

The problem is that rent is partially based on the actual value of the home and the cost of upkeep to the landlord, and probably more based on the ability of the tenant to pay.

If you are getting by paying $500 a month on minimum wage and suddenly you are making an additional $300 a month because of an increase in minimum wage, your landlord is going to want a piece of that.

In 2007, rent for my apartment was $750.  In 2006 is was $730.  When the lease came up for renewal in 2008, just before the housing market collapse, they wanted $900.  I moved.  In 2011, I looked on their website and that floorplan was $8XX.  Landlords will always be greedy bastards that will base their rent schedules on the income potential of their tenants actual or prospective.


Bosses and landlords are often disparaged like this. Having been both and also on the other side, I promise that bosses and landlords are no more or less greedy than other parts of the population, anecdotes notwithstanding. But i have horror stories about tenants and employees if you need some balance.
 
2014-01-09 06:49:53 PM  

CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.


No one who is rich, got rich because of hard work, they got rich from being at the right place at the right time.
 
2014-01-09 06:53:14 PM  
Gender aside, shouldn't everyone want to be either a skilled cook or shrewd shopper? Perhaps be in a partnership where there is one of each? If you are on a tight budget, it makes sense.
 
2014-01-09 07:11:53 PM  

Phinn: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

Work is not valuable merely because it's hard.

Work is valuable to the extent that (a) other people desire it, and (b) the difficulty in their obtaining it through some alternative.

This is not true just because I say so.  This is an inescapable feature of objective, universal, economic reality.


You are picking something you disagree with and making an argument about something else.  Value is not the only thing you can pay someone for (it's what it makes sense for a company to pay for under Capitalism, but that's why we have governments, to look out for the welfare of people when Capitalistic forces don't align in the public interest.  Pure Capitalism may put a premium on 'value' but at the same time is doesn't put much of a premium on fairness.  If two people bust their ass at work and one takes home 10 times as much because his work had more value that's only fair because we say it is and because we live in a society that has set that up as a rule.  (Capitalism does have some things going for it in the realm of wealth creation, but when people start calling it 'fair' it's questionable).

Unfortunately, since money and free speech go hand in hand, you get a government bought by the people it's supposed to be regulating.
 
2014-01-09 07:12:32 PM  
And it's not a terribly ineffective political argument! Americans hate the poor, and deeply resent the idea of any of their money going to help them. That's why Clinton killed welfare, and why food stamps are now at risk. There's little political upside in promising to help the poor, and for years Democrats have only ever promised to help "all Americans" and "the middle class."
 
2014-01-09 07:22:19 PM  

Thisbymaster: CleanAndPure: ikanreed: The overwhelming problem in the U.S. is that the hardest working people are among the poorest.

How hard you work and what you're paid arnt really too correlated.

Lots of rich people are rich because of hard work... others have done little.

Lots of poor people are poor despite lots of hard work... others due to laziness.

No one who is rich, got rich because of hard work, they got rich from being at the right place at the right time.


"Give me lucky generals" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

Luck is being in the right place at the right time AND being able to both recognize and exploit it.

And uh, given that Bill Gates is sorta famous in the industry for working 80+ hour weeks, not so much.  Right place, right time, yes.  Recognizing the right place/time, having the right skillset to employ it, having the guts to go for it (Informal poll: How many of you thought up the Snuggy before there was a Snuggy and never did anything about it?),  Brilliant, innovative business model, insanely hard worker, good at finding other brilliant people to surround him, also yes.  The 2nd without the first is a good middle manager at IBM or Google, the 1st without the 2nd is worthless.

/And keep in mind that you used an absolute and the problem with absolutes is that you only need one example to disprove them.  NEVER say All, always say most unless you can prove it.
 
2014-01-09 07:26:14 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Bernice: In 1963, an eastern European immigrant named Mollie Orshansky, who was working over in social security, came up with it. Food was the most costly living expense where she came from.

Sam: Our cost of living formula for the last 40 years has been based on life in Poland during the Cold War?

Bernice: This is what I'm talking about. I mean, food doesn't account for one-third of a family's budget. Housing is more expensive than food. The current model also doesn't take into account transportation and health insurance. So let's call the current model the old model and sign off on the new model.
 
2014-01-09 07:47:09 PM  

buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.


Just to play the devil's advocate, why should a person be considered poor if they have family/friends/communities available to assist them?   Where is the incentive for families, friends, and the local community to take care of those truly in need if the government will provide assistance first?
 
2014-01-09 08:07:25 PM  

DrBrownCow: buzzcut73: That's really what the poverty level and the minimum wage should be tied to. How much does it take ONE person, working full time, to pay rent on a modest home with lights and heat and keep the average family fed.

Just to play the devil's advocate, why should a person be considered poor if they have family/friends/communities available to assist them?   Where is the incentive for families, friends, and the local community to take care of those truly in need if the government will provide assistance first?


There's not.  And so they don't.   http://philanthropy.com/article/Generosity-in-the-States/133707/

I've heard it described as grasshoppers and ants.

Ants -  "Americans, contrary to every other society I have studied, form voluntary random social alliances."
Grasshoppers - "There's a problem, so we sit here until the king government comes and rescues us.  And then biatch about how long it took."

Completely different societal outlook.  It's the *main* reason that I'm more Republican than Democrat.

When it's the church (or hell, HOA. It's just got to be local and trusted to do 'what is right'.  It can be the local bank cutting you a sweet deal on that house loan) running things, everyone pitches in what they can and then it goes to whoever needs it IF AND ONLY IF that person is considered a 'good guy'.  "Yeah, Bill's just down on his luck.  Hopefully, he'll be doing better next year." vs. "Yeah, Bob's a total methhead, let him starve".  That's the key thing.  Societal trust is high (I give because I TRUST that everyone else will give if, God forbid, I need it) and it only goes to those who are considered contributing.  Aggressively functional, somewhat ruthless.  Mind you, there's issues with having a good old boy network, and it scales poorly, but it works on a small, local level.
 
2014-01-09 08:23:11 PM  
meyerkev:
Ah. Grasshoppers.

"Liberals Believe in the government the way (the religious lady) Believes in the Lord. It's almost a disservice to refer to such people as liberals. They were, in fact, aristocratists. They were very Old country in that they felt that beyond their little fence it was the King's duty to fix things."

/Keep in mind that this is a direct quote from someone who believes that they are an ant, but you've seen it where something is broken and no one fixes it, because "it's not my problem".
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report