Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[Revoltingest]

Dewey and James will be proud of you.

Who & who?

 

[sayak83]

Hell, I'm only comfortably well off and I agree with what you have said on the topic. This toxic "eat the rich piggies" has to end. Folks are not poor because of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, et al. They are poor because, for whatever reason, they do not have the necessary skill set to make it in our society. Address that shortfall and you will shrink the pool of poor people. If anything, the poor have to be inspired to raise themselves out of their own situation.

They may however be poor because of Wall Street and banking practices. There are many ways to get rich after all.

 

[sayak83]

Hell, I'm only comfortably well off and I agree with what you have said on the topic. This toxic "eat the rich piggies" has to end. Folks are not poor because of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, et al. They are poor because, for whatever reason, they do not have the necessary skill set to make it in our society. Address that shortfall and you will shrink the pool of poor people. If anything, the poor have to be inspired to raise themselves out of their own situation.

How about desegregating rich and poor neighborhoods? Let all schools have a good mix from all socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. If a child is only presented with peers who fail, how will they learn to succeed? The self-seggregation of rich, middle class and poor in US is worse than the caste system in India imo. Even the churches are seggregated. Yuck.

 

[sayak83]

It's really tough after you've made the bad choices. Got to get to folks before they've made them. Why do folks have kids they can't afford?

A nice campaign to prevent birth among younger adults in poverty stricken areas would fix so many issues when it comes to poverty.

Question. Why are condoms so costly if that is the goal?

 

[osgart]

It's all talk about looking for a safety net.

Hasn't money always meant your work value based on supply and demand. If there is no demand for your skill, there is an undertow.

And in government everything relies on the tax payers money for services to the public good. They make no money on their own.

So how are you going to pull money out of thin air to support the needs of the poor to become productive citizens.

The nature of our economic system is not to care for any needy individuals whatsoever.

And if the taxpayer is made to bear the burden of being caretakers then that handicaps their existence.

So it's the jungle of compete or die.

Theirs no separate relief system from the taxpayer to secure the safety and existence of all its citizens. Money out of thin air. Like some kind of money printing sanctuary system.

 

[sayak83]

Point taken but I never meant to make that claim. I came from a very meager background, but I always considered my circumstances as being "broke" as opposed to "poor". I have worked for everything I have set my mind on in this life and I realize that there are no guarantees. I guess what I am saying if you believe you're poor, then you will be; if you believe you won't make, then you won't; if you think someone if richer/prettier/smarter then you, they will be; and if you wait for someone to give it to you, then you may be waiting for the rest of your life.

You are using your own example and generalizing. This is fallacious. The indicator of interest is social mobility. Given a 1000 people who are born poor, how many move upwards to middle class. Given a 1000 people who are born in the lower middle class, how many can move upwards to upper middle class etc.

A society is progressive if social mobility is higher for people born in poor condition than people born in relatively affluent condition. That is, it is easier, on average that poor person can enter the lower middle class than for a upper middle class person to enter the rich grade. This is based on the idea of fairness used in many situations. For example it should be much easier to get a passing grade than to excel in a study course.

If this is not the case, then society is regressive.

So the question is, what is the social mobility of people on average in US.

The current data is grim for US.

Poor at 20, Poor for Life

So they measured a given worker’s chances of moving between deciles during two periods, one from 1981 to 1996 and another from 1993 to 2008.

They found quite a disparity. “The probability of ending where you start has gone up, and the probability of moving up from where you start has gone down,” Carr said. For instance, the chance that someone starting in the bottom 10 percent would move above the 40th percentile decreased by 16 percent. The chance that someone starting in the middle of the earnings distribution would reach one of the top two earnings deciles decreased by 20 percent. Yet people who started in the seventh decile are 12 percent more likely to end up in the fifth or sixth decile—a drop in earnings—than they used to be.

Overall, the probability of someone starting and ending their career in the same decile has gone up for every income rank. “For whatever reason, there was a path upward in the earnings distribution that has been blocked for some people, or is not as steep as it used to be,” Carr said.

 

[BSM1]

You are using your own example and generalizing. This is fallacious. The indicator of interest is social mobility. Given a 1000 people who are born poor, how many move upwards to middle class. Given a 1000 people who are born in the lower middle class, how many can move upwards to upper middle class etc.

A society is progressive if social mobility is higher for people born in poor condition than people born in relatively affluent condition. That is, it is easier, on average that poor person can enter the lower middle class than for a upper middle class person to enter the rich grade. This is based on the idea of fairness used in many situations. For example it should be much easier to get a passing grade than to excel in a study course.

If this is not the case, then society is regressive.

So the question is, what is the social mobility of people on average in US.

The current data is grim for US.

Poor at 20, Poor for Life

So they measured a given worker’s chances of moving between deciles during two periods, one from 1981 to 1996 and another from 1993 to 2008.

They found quite a disparity. “The probability of ending where you start has gone up, and the probability of moving up from where you start has gone down,” Carr said. For instance, the chance that someone starting in the bottom 10 percent would move above the 40th percentile decreased by 16 percent. The chance that someone starting in the middle of the earnings distribution would reach one of the top two earnings deciles decreased by 20 percent. Yet people who started in the seventh decile are 12 percent more likely to end up in the fifth or sixth decile—a drop in earnings—than they used to be.

Overall, the probability of someone starting and ending their career in the same decile has gone up for every income rank. “For whatever reason, there was a path upward in the earnings distribution that has been blocked for some people, or is not as steep as it used to be,” Carr said.

Doesn't mean you don't try. Sure, you can read the statistics of the "experts" and wallow in self pity as long as you want; but you can also keep trying until you either make it or die an ignoble death. You really have nothing to lose.

 

[sayak83]

Doesn't mean you don't try. Sure, you can read the statistics of the "experts" and wallow in self pity as long as you want; but you can also keep trying until you either make it or die an ignoble death. You really have nothing to lose.

That is an entirely different issue. The question here is whether there is urgent need for policy that is aimed at reversing the decreasing social mobility in US, and the legitimacy of having pressure groups that are being adversely affected by this social stagnation to form pressure groups to lobby for such policy. Given the data, I believe it is an urgent need, and hence I support the organisation of such advocacy groups that raise awareness about this alarming trend.

Do you disagree? Why? You should yourself join such advocacy groups given your experience.

 

[BSM1]

That is an entirely different issue. The question here is whether there is urgent need for policy that is aimed at reversing the decreasing social mobility in US, and the legitimacy of having pressure groups that are being adversely affected by this social stagnation to form pressure groups to lobby for such policy. Given the data, I believe it is an urgent need, and hence I support the organisation of such advocacy groups that raise awareness about this alarming trend.

Do you disagree? Why? You should yourself join such advocacy groups given your experience.

I didn't need an advocacy group, and neither does anyone else. That's just someone else telling what you can or should do. Here's a cardinal rule: Don't ask anyone for anything you don't earn. If you think you need some governmental or quasi-governmental agency to point the way for you then you've already lost.

 

[sayak83]

I didn't need an advocacy group, and neither does anyone else. That's just someone else telling what you can or should do. Here's a cardinal rule: Don't ask anyone for anything you don't earn. If you think you need some governmental or quasi-governmental agency to point the way for you then you've already lost.

So government should not look at any policy to arrest the falling social mobility?

The primary function of the government is to help citizens who require help. There is no reason to have a government otherwise.

 

[Nakosis]

Question. Why are condoms so costly if that is the goal?

Condoms are available in many places for free. So I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[Nakosis]

So government should not look at any policy to arrest the falling social mobility?

The primary function of the government is to help citizens who require help. There is no reason to have a government otherwise.

Ideally, what usually happens is the interests of a government turns towards ensuring it's own survival. A government needs money and resources like any other entity to survive. When it gets too large there are less and less resources available to support the welfare of it's citizenry.

If they could, I'd be ok with it. However I don't trust they have the competence or the desire. Education, welfare and health. These are really IMO important for any society. Unfortunately I believe there are too many vested interests for the government to come up with a viable solution.

If I'm wrong I'd actually be happy about it. However, I think it's a mistake to rely on others to take care of these issues. A person is their own best advocate.

 

[sayak83]

Ideally, what usually happens is the interests of a government turns towards ensuring it's own survival. A government needs money and resources like any other entity to survive. When it gets too large there are less and less resources available to support the welfare of it's citizenry.

If they could, I'd be ok with it. However I don't trust they have the competence or the desire. Education, welfare and health. These are really IMO important for any society. Unfortunately I believe there are too many vested interests for the government to come up with a viable solution.

If I'm wrong I'd actually be happy about it. However, I think it's a mistake to rely on others to take care of these issues. A person is their own best advocate.

That is why citizens have to organize and be politically proactive so that governments survival is strongly coupled with how they serve the citizens interest. Political passivity makes extractive regressive states inevitable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Absolutely not. The "wealthy" laugh at those who think they can touch their wealth. Having said that, many would advocate violently taking what doesn't belong to them from others. In some circles that's known as theft.

Ok, I can see your view. Personally, I like people who are both clever and hardworking being able to get ahead, and worry that a lack of social mobility is every bit as harmful to that concept as 'communisation'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ideally, what usually happens is the interests of a government turns towards ensuring it's own survival. A government needs money and resources like any other entity to survive. When it gets too large there are less and less resources available to support the welfare of it's citizenry.

If they could, I'd be ok with it. However I don't trust they have the competence or the desire. Education, welfare and health. These are really IMO important for any society. Unfortunately I believe there are too many vested interests for the government to come up with a viable solution.

If I'm wrong I'd actually be happy about it. However, I think it's a mistake to rely on others to take care of these issues. A person is their own best advocate.

If education, health and welfare are key considerations for all, what is your opinion about Finlands models in these areas, and to what extent do you see government dominance of them as problematic?

 

[YmirGF]

How about desegregating rich and poor neighborhoods? Let all schools have a good mix from all socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. If a child is only presented with peers who fail, how will they learn to succeed? The self-seggregation of rich, middle class and poor in US is worse than the caste system in India imo. Even the churches are seggregated. Yuck.

One of my silly ideas is to put a low income house on every block. This would spread things out nicely and do precisely what you are saying. Putting everyone together into one low income area is really not a good idea as the lovely low income housing of today is likely to become the ghetto of tomorrow.

 

[Curious George]

I'm suggesting you should show an argument to be fallacious, not just call it.

And that is fair, however most people can see the fallacy once it has been called. It just takes a little thought. Sometimes it is hard to see though. For instance, a person could tell you that you were begging the question and you still may not see how you assumed the conclusion because the assumption is buried. There is absolutely no shame in asking for clarification when someone points out a fallacy.

In claiming the line of argument "I [successfully achieved some goal], so can [others]" is fallacious, you should show that the manner in which they achieved success is not available for the referenced others.

No, this is incorrect. This is the reason why I explained precisely what calling an argument fallacious entailed. In the discussion you are describing the person, showing the manner of achieving success is not available, would be proving the argument false. I already explained that a fallacious argument is not necessarily false. So, as you can see, there is a distinction.

If that method is available, or if you don't even know the method in question, and you just go around proclaiming fallacy, you're not productively adding to the debate, you're just being a nonce.

If the person employed a fallacy, then they employed a fallacy. The truth of their argument is irrelevant. You seem focused on the truth of their argument .

I know what calling an argument fallacious means, thank you.

Well then you should know what was done was perfectly appropriate .

 

[Curious George]

It's all talk about looking for a safety net.

Hasn't money always meant your work value based on supply and demand. If there is no demand for your skill, there is an undertow.

And in government everything relies on the tax payers money for services to the public good. They make no money on their own.

So how are you going to pull money out of thin air to support the needs of the poor to become productive citizens.

The nature of our economic system is not to care for any needy individuals whatsoever.

And if the taxpayer is made to bear the burden of being caretakers then that handicaps their existence.

So it's the jungle of compete or die.

Theirs no separate relief system from the taxpayer to secure the safety and existence of all its citizens. Money out of thin air. Like some kind of money printing sanctuary system.

I understand that many people feel this way. But what if I told you it was cheaper to help people?

Mind.....blown.

 

[Curious George]

Meaning you've already decided it can't be done?

No. Meaning that I have already decided it doesn't always work. Not every story has a happy ending. And sometimes people don't get their just deserts.

 

[osgart]

I understand that many people feel this way. But what if I told you it was cheaper to help people?

Mind.....blown.

I'll sign up for that