5 ms·

Does anyone still believe the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" narrative any more? My understanding was that it had been thoroughly debunked.

by na85 10y ago

analog31 10y ago
"It is a cruel jest to tell the bootless man to pull himself up by his bootstraps." -- Martin Luther King
emodendroket 10y ago
Paul Ryan has described the social safety net as a "hammock" that lures people who are completely able to work into not doing so because they'd rather be on welfare.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Paul Ryan should probably try living on welfare alone for a few years before saying that.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    It's obviously nonsense but the point is that such an idea is far from dead.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    It's primarily an economic argument, not a moralistic one.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      I'm not sure that's right, but even if it is, I believe the parent's point is that nobody who'd actually had to live on welfare in the United States would conceive of it as an easy, carefree life that someone would prefer to steady work.
      - humanrebar 10y ago
        Well, either way, the argument is that the handcuffs are economic ones. The incentives are arranged to keep people stuck in their current economic situations regardless of how anyone feels about it. For example, many benefits are withdrawn when people make over a certain income, basically punishing earning. Likewise, many benefits are cut off when a couple gets married, punishing people who officially form stable families. It's not about gaming the system or preferring being on the take. It's about economic incentives producing predictable outcomes. These are all arguments people make for minimum incomes and negative income taxes. They economically encourage people to pursue growth instead of punishing them for it.
- elchief 10y ago
  Ya $500/month, self shaming, and ridicule by everyone you know sounds great
  - rlanday 10y ago
    You or I might be ridiculed by everyone we know because of the social class we’re in, but what if half your friends are doing the exact same thing you are?
- inthewoods 10y ago
  Ironic given that he benefited from the same safety net he wants to destroy: https://www.google.com/amp/www.rawstory.com/2011/04/paul-ryan-already-benefitted-from-the-social-security-fund-he-now-wants-to-gut/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.rawstory.com/2011/04/paul-rya...
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence he is wrong? Most of the evidence I've seen (here are mainstream descriptions of it) suggest he is completely right about that. Currently California farmers are desperately raising wages in the hopes of finding workers. Yet millions of able bodied men continue to sit at home playing video games and consuming oxycontin, paid for by the social safety hammock. http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Here I was thinking we had an addiction crisis and weak labor market and it turns out a bunch of people have made the completely rational determination that shooting up heroin and collecting some of the stingiest welfare benefits in the OECD is better than working. I wonder, by the way, how carefully you read the article claiming "In our era of no more than indifferent economic growth, 21st–century America has somehow managed to produce markedly more wealth for its wealthholders even as it provided markedly less work for its workers" before linking it to prove your claim that the unemployed are just too damn lazy to work.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      As the CA farms going unstaffed show (or our 4.9% unemployment rate), we clearly don't have a weak labor market. If you believe welfare is "stingy", can you name a good or service that non-workers lack? (Remember, I have a secret power - I sometimes read Census and BLS reports and pull them out in internet arguments.) I wonder, by the way, how carefully you read the article claiming... I read it carefully enough to separate the factual claims from the mood affiliation. You should try it sometime.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        U6 unemployment numbers and inflation-adjusted household incomes don't tell the same story, and the anecdote about Californian farms hardly seems like much to base an argument on. But you've got superpowers and are uniquely capable of separating facts from opinion so why bother arguing with the plebes?
- pitaj 10y ago
  It may not be comfortable, but it certainly does trap the poor in poverty especially when combined with ghetto public housing and other misguided efforts. A UBI does not suffer from this same issue.
c22 10y ago
I think it's debunked in the saying itself.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Does anyone still believe the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" narrative any more? My understanding was that it had been thoroughly debunked.

by na85 10y ago

Does anyone still believe the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" narrative any more? My understanding was that it had been thoroughly debunked.

analog31 10y ago

"It is a cruel jest to tell the bootless man to pull himself up by his bootstraps." -- Martin Luther King

emodendroket 10y ago

Paul Ryan has described the social safety net as a "hammock" that lures people who are completely able to work into not doing so because they'd rather be on welfare.

ceejayoz 10y ago
Paul Ryan should probably try living on welfare alone for a few years before saying that.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  It's obviously nonsense but the point is that such an idea is far from dead.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  It's primarily an economic argument, not a moralistic one.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's right, but even if it is, I believe the parent's point is that nobody who'd actually had to live on welfare in the United States would conceive of it as an easy, carefree life that someone would prefer to steady work.
    - humanrebar 10y ago
      Well, either way, the argument is that the handcuffs are economic ones. The incentives are arranged to keep people stuck in their current economic situations regardless of how anyone feels about it. For example, many benefits are withdrawn when people make over a certain income, basically punishing earning. Likewise, many benefits are cut off when a couple gets married, punishing people who officially form stable families. It's not about gaming the system or preferring being on the take. It's about economic incentives producing predictable outcomes. These are all arguments people make for minimum incomes and negative income taxes. They economically encourage people to pursue growth instead of punishing them for it.
elchief 10y ago
Ya $500/month, self shaming, and ridicule by everyone you know sounds great
- rlanday 10y ago
  You or I might be ridiculed by everyone we know because of the social class we’re in, but what if half your friends are doing the exact same thing you are?
inthewoods 10y ago
Ironic given that he benefited from the same safety net he wants to destroy: https://www.google.com/amp/www.rawstory.com/2011/04/paul-ryan-already-benefitted-from-the-social-security-fund-he-now-wants-to-gut/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.rawstory.com/2011/04/paul-rya...
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Do you have any evidence he is wrong? Most of the evidence I've seen (here are mainstream descriptions of it) suggest he is completely right about that. Currently California farmers are desperately raising wages in the hopes of finding workers. Yet millions of able bodied men continue to sit at home playing video games and consuming oxycontin, paid for by the social safety hammock. http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21st-century/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/our-miserable-21...
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Here I was thinking we had an addiction crisis and weak labor market and it turns out a bunch of people have made the completely rational determination that shooting up heroin and collecting some of the stingiest welfare benefits in the OECD is better than working. I wonder, by the way, how carefully you read the article claiming "In our era of no more than indifferent economic growth, 21st–century America has somehow managed to produce markedly more wealth for its wealthholders even as it provided markedly less work for its workers" before linking it to prove your claim that the unemployed are just too damn lazy to work.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    As the CA farms going unstaffed show (or our 4.9% unemployment rate), we clearly don't have a weak labor market. If you believe welfare is "stingy", can you name a good or service that non-workers lack? (Remember, I have a secret power - I sometimes read Census and BLS reports and pull them out in internet arguments.) I wonder, by the way, how carefully you read the article claiming... I read it carefully enough to separate the factual claims from the mood affiliation. You should try it sometime.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      U6 unemployment numbers and inflation-adjusted household incomes don't tell the same story, and the anecdote about Californian farms hardly seems like much to base an argument on. But you've got superpowers and are uniquely capable of separating facts from opinion so why bother arguing with the plebes?
pitaj 10y ago
It may not be comfortable, but it certainly does trap the poor in poverty especially when combined with ghetto public housing and other misguided efforts. A UBI does not suffer from this same issue.

c22 10y ago

I think it's debunked in the saying itself.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]