4 ms·

Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people up to p

by rmxt 10y ago

Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people up to par in literacy, before encouraging development in the sciences) in impoverished areas "nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done"? There's no logical connection there, nor any sort of free pass being offered. Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations. Quick Google searches suggest that escaping poverty with children would actually require working more than 40-hours a week. Seems like a catch-22 for trying to achieve financial, familial and educational success. [1] [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-employees-must-work-50-hours-a-week-to-escape-poverty-oecd-says/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-e...

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know? Would you also require a citation that proves Trump is a Republican, or that rich people don't commit much violent crime?
- sidlls 10y ago
  African-America men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than white men. Does that mean black men are more likely than white men to commit crimes? The answer is no, because there are confounding issues I left out. This should sound familiar, you just did it yourself.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Yes, they probably do. Crime victimization surveys (e.g. the NCVS) strongly suggest that blacks do, in fact, commit a lot more violent crimes than other groups. Here's a great blog post that reviews the academic literature: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m... Since you seem to believe there is some confounding factor that causes the census to incorrectly count the number of poor people who work, feel free to expand on it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > > Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations > 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. I'm having trouble believing that it is possible to make an argument that % of people in a group who are employed is a good representation of the degree to which people in the group are hardworkers seriously, no matter what the group in question is. But when its poor vs. non-poor -- that is, when the groups are divided up by an attribute which is fairly strongly influenced by whether or not you have the income derived from a job -- its even harder to believe. > Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know? That poor people are less likely to be employed is not a controversial claim, nor was it the claim at issue. That they are less "hard-working" was the claim at issue, which is not one which can be resolved by looking at the degree to which they are employed.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi... (To get that number, I took 10.5M in labor force / (45.3M poor people - 16M poor children).) So yes, I think it's fair to characterize a group of people who don't work, and aren't even looking for work, as "less hard working" than a group that disproportionately is working. What does "hard working" mean to you? And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-poor?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force: Lower labor force participation could mean they are less hard working -- or it could mean that they have less opinion of their ability to be gainfully employed, or it could mean that working has a high cost (because, e.g., they have children to take care of, childcare isn't free, and the jobs they could reasonably secure wouldn't provide a net gain before considering child care that's enough to pay for childcare.) Or lots of other things. > What does "hard working" mean to you? Willing to expend effort to improve one's condition, essentially. > And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-poor? I haven't argued that they are. I've argued that the evidence that you've presented to prove that they are not has virtually no probative value on the point it is offered to support.

by rmxt 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know? Would you also require a citation that proves Trump is a Republican, or that rich people don't commit much violent crime?

sidlls 10y ago
African-America men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than white men. Does that mean black men are more likely than white men to commit crimes? The answer is no, because there are confounding issues I left out. This should sound familiar, you just did it yourself.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Yes, they probably do. Crime victimization surveys (e.g. the NCVS) strongly suggest that blacks do, in fact, commit a lot more violent crimes than other groups. Here's a great blog post that reviews the academic literature: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m... Since you seem to believe there is some confounding factor that causes the census to incorrectly count the number of poor people who work, feel free to expand on it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> > Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations > 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. I'm having trouble believing that it is possible to make an argument that % of people in a group who are employed is a good representation of the degree to which people in the group are hardworkers seriously, no matter what the group in question is. But when its poor vs. non-poor -- that is, when the groups are divided up by an attribute which is fairly strongly influenced by whether or not you have the income derived from a job -- its even harder to believe. > Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know? That poor people are less likely to be employed is not a controversial claim, nor was it the claim at issue. That they are less "hard-working" was the claim at issue, which is not one which can be resolved by looking at the degree to which they are employed.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profile-of-the-working-poor-2013.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/archive/a-profi... (To get that number, I took 10.5M in labor force / (45.3M poor people - 16M poor children).) So yes, I think it's fair to characterize a group of people who don't work, and aren't even looking for work, as "less hard working" than a group that disproportionately is working. What does "hard working" mean to you? And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-poor?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Here is data suggesting most poor people aren't looking for work - only 35% of poor adults were in the labor force: Lower labor force participation could mean they are less hard working -- or it could mean that they have less opinion of their ability to be gainfully employed, or it could mean that working has a high cost (because, e.g., they have children to take care of, childcare isn't free, and the jobs they could reasonably secure wouldn't provide a net gain before considering child care that's enough to pay for childcare.) Or lots of other things. > What does "hard working" mean to you? Willing to expend effort to improve one's condition, essentially. > And why do you believe poor people are comparably hard working to the non-poor? I haven't argued that they are. I've argued that the evidence that you've presented to prove that they are not has virtually no probative value on the point it is offered to support.