3 ms·

> above all it is primarily a consequence, not a cause It absolutely is a cause, of many things, including more poverty. In the US, the largest determiner of

> above all it is primarily a consequence, not a cause It absolutely is a cause, of many things, including more poverty. In the US, the largest determiner of a child's future socioeconomic status is her parent's wealth. Whether a disease model is the best one to use is arguable, but blanket denial that poverty is a primary cause of much social disruption, dysfunction, and lack of economic achievement is just nonsense.

User23 8y ago
Poverty is observably the consequence of social disruption, dysfunction, and lack of economic achievement. Wet streets do not cause rain. Germany for example had rampant poverty in the late 1940s and 1950s. That poverty didn't cause the war, it was caused by it. The Marshall plan helped speed up the recovery, but the real factor was the lack of punitive reparations and the industry of the German people. The same occurred in Japan. I don't deny the possible existence of a negative feedback loop, but I don't consider it to be a settled matter either. It could be poverty causing more poverty, or it could just be that the original causes still obtain and thus poverty persists. As for parental wealth, well you'd be hard-pressed to find any trait in a child that isn't statistically more likely when their parents possess it. Are we to address poverty by forcing people to procreate by lottery?
- jhayward 8y ago
  > As for parental wealth, well you'd be hard-pressed to find any trait in a child that isn't statistically more likely when their parents possess it. Are we to address poverty by forcing people to procreate by lottery? You are being disingenuous by trying to argue that wealth is a genetically heritable trait. I don't think you're actually even engaging in honest debate here, just doing the standard right-wing gish gallop of disinformation and distraction. This applies to all of your comment, not just the above. Noted and ignored.
  - User23 8y ago
    For the benefit of others who have adequate reading comprehension skills, I'd like to explicitly point out that I never wrote anything about genetically heritable traits. I chose my words carefully precisely to avoid this misunderstanding. To be clear, there are many traits that are not, as far as I can tell, genetically heritable, but still statistically more likely in children when their parents have them. Attending an Ivy League university, due to legacy admissions, is just one example. The rest of parent (and subsequent replies by same) is clearly undeserving of a response.
    - jhayward 8y ago
      > Attending an Ivy League university, due to legacy admissions, is just one example You make my original point for me.

User23 8y ago

Poverty is observably the consequence of social disruption, dysfunction, and lack of economic achievement. Wet streets do not cause rain. Germany for example had rampant poverty in the late 1940s and 1950s. That poverty didn't cause the war, it was caused by it. The Marshall plan helped speed up the recovery, but the real factor was the lack of punitive reparations and the industry of the German people. The same occurred in Japan. I don't deny the possible existence of a negative feedback loop, but I don't consider it to be a settled matter either. It could be poverty causing more poverty, or it could just be that the original causes still obtain and thus poverty persists. As for parental wealth, well you'd be hard-pressed to find any trait in a child that isn't statistically more likely when their parents possess it. Are we to address poverty by forcing people to procreate by lottery?

jhayward 8y ago
> As for parental wealth, well you'd be hard-pressed to find any trait in a child that isn't statistically more likely when their parents possess it. Are we to address poverty by forcing people to procreate by lottery? You are being disingenuous by trying to argue that wealth is a genetically heritable trait. I don't think you're actually even engaging in honest debate here, just doing the standard right-wing gish gallop of disinformation and distraction. This applies to all of your comment, not just the above. Noted and ignored.
- User23 8y ago
  For the benefit of others who have adequate reading comprehension skills, I'd like to explicitly point out that I never wrote anything about genetically heritable traits. I chose my words carefully precisely to avoid this misunderstanding. To be clear, there are many traits that are not, as far as I can tell, genetically heritable, but still statistically more likely in children when their parents have them. Attending an Ivy League university, due to legacy admissions, is just one example. The rest of parent (and subsequent replies by same) is clearly undeserving of a response.
  - jhayward 8y ago
    > Attending an Ivy League university, due to legacy admissions, is just one example You make my original point for me.