3 ms·

The poor commit 4x as much domestic abuse as high income people. And I single out domestic abuse because unlike robbery or selling drugs, "stealing a loaf of br

The poor commit 4x as much domestic abuse as high income people. And I single out domestic abuse because unlike robbery or selling drugs, "stealing a loaf of bread to feed his hungry children" is a nonsensical excuse for beating one's wife (or spending one's money on drugs and tobacco) But, back to the point, assuming they are not as rational as the rest of us, somehow sub human, is a harmful position to take -- it precludes any positive action to change the incentive structure of the poor -- in your view, no matter what is done, they are still broken creatures beyond help. It doesn't mean this at all. It just means that we need to create the right incentives, and these incentives need to take into account real life behavior rather than wishful thinking. For example, giving poor people the option to not work will be exploited. But if we need to prevent them from starving, why not put them to work? Bring back FDR's Civilian Conservation Corp. Then we can also fix our crumbling infrastructure for cheap. That fixes your incentives - you can either do hard labor for low money, or you can start looking for a better job.

clavalle 10y ago
The poor may commit 4x the /reported/ domestic violence. Wealthier people have more to lose. I don't doubt that there is somewhat more domestic violence among the poor but I'd be willing to bet that if you take a wealthy couples and put them under extreme financial stress that the numbers would quickly even out. And vice versa. Assuming people are largely rational is wishful thinking? I am not against something like the CCC but forcing people to work or starve starts to look like slavery. Since it leads, as you say, to very cheap labor it incentivizes keeping the poor right in the situation they are in. The poor are not the only ones that can exploit a broken incentive structure.
Applejinx 10y ago
Why should it be low money? Because private contractors (with far, far less resources in terms of capital investment in equipment and bulk materials) are just better? Sounds good. My little town has a giant hulking diesel powered snow muncher, hundreds of times the size of a consumer snowblower, which munches huge impacted Vermont snowdrifts and TAKES THEM AWAY, paid for by my tax dollars. Hell, yes, fix the infrastructure, across the board. Pay good money to work on that. Hell, I'd sign up, I like supporting my community. The heavy machinery does most of the hard labor anyway. Unless you're literally suggesting introducing meaningless and inefficient physical labor for poor money just to punish poor people for being poor? I think maybe you are. Civilized societies have giant diesel power snow munchers. Just saying. We have big machines and robots and stuff, now.
majewsky 10y ago
> And I single out domestic abuse because unlike robbery or selling drugs, "stealing a loaf of bread to feed his hungry children" is a nonsensical excuse for beating one's wife (or spending one's money on drugs and tobacco) Your fallacy is the same as of microeconomics: You try to explain human behavior with only one tool, rational maximization of return on investment.

clavalle 10y ago

The poor may commit 4x the /reported/ domestic violence. Wealthier people have more to lose. I don't doubt that there is somewhat more domestic violence among the poor but I'd be willing to bet that if you take a wealthy couples and put them under extreme financial stress that the numbers would quickly even out. And vice versa. Assuming people are largely rational is wishful thinking? I am not against something like the CCC but forcing people to work or starve starts to look like slavery. Since it leads, as you say, to very cheap labor it incentivizes keeping the poor right in the situation they are in. The poor are not the only ones that can exploit a broken incentive structure.

Applejinx 10y ago

Why should it be low money? Because private contractors (with far, far less resources in terms of capital investment in equipment and bulk materials) are just better? Sounds good. My little town has a giant hulking diesel powered snow muncher, hundreds of times the size of a consumer snowblower, which munches huge impacted Vermont snowdrifts and TAKES THEM AWAY, paid for by my tax dollars. Hell, yes, fix the infrastructure, across the board. Pay good money to work on that. Hell, I'd sign up, I like supporting my community. The heavy machinery does most of the hard labor anyway. Unless you're literally suggesting introducing meaningless and inefficient physical labor for poor money just to punish poor people for being poor? I think maybe you are. Civilized societies have giant diesel power snow munchers. Just saying. We have big machines and robots and stuff, now.

majewsky 10y ago

> And I single out domestic abuse because unlike robbery or selling drugs, "stealing a loaf of bread to feed his hungry children" is a nonsensical excuse for beating one's wife (or spending one's money on drugs and tobacco) Your fallacy is the same as of microeconomics: You try to explain human behavior with only one tool, rational maximization of return on investment.