3 ms·

Saying things are actually good or better is pretty subversive, or conservative, depending on your view. Somewhat related to the Varian Rule, https://en.wikipe

Saying things are actually good or better is pretty subversive, or conservative, depending on your view. Somewhat related to the Varian Rule, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varian_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varian_Rule which is documented as: "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." We still have poverty in north america, but it's not a lack of conveniences, food, or material goods. It's something else. It's not just money, because lots of poor people earn money. Even people with mobile homes often own their homes. It's something else, like hope, mobility, culture or something.

nabla9 7y ago
> food, It's still nutrition and food insecurity are still an issue. Calories are plenty but large number of poor still suffer from malnutrition because healthy food is very expensive and neighborhood deprivation creates food deserts. > Even people with mobile homes often own their homes Mobile home business in US are huge predatory business model that keeps people poor. Private equity companies buy and own many mobile home parks and the loans for mobile homes are expensive, plus the homes are bad investment. They lose value just like a car. John Oliver made an episode about this. >It's something else, Relative poverty is real poverty. It goes against all evidence to claim that only absolute poverty is real poverty and only thing that should be addressed. Just being poor hurts even cognitive functionality and causes stress. People who have less options, less time to make decisions, are forced to long term of short decisions that are non-optimal. There has been a great natural experiment testing the culture theory and direction of causal link. In the 80's when drug epidemic ravaged black neighborhoods there were two theories. One theory was that poverty causes desperation, destroys culture and brings drugs and destroys neighborhoods. Another theory was that culture causes poverty and drug use and creates bad neighborhoods. Opioid crisis provides great second data point and natural experience. It turns out that when poverty and financial insecurity hits white middle class neighborhoods, they are just as susceptible to drug epidemics, destruction of cultural values as black neighborhoods. It seems that relative poverty and decreasing options and loss of hope creates culture and behavior more than other way around.
- motohagiography 7y ago
  Conflating culture and race doesn't provide a strong control. The effects of drugs on poor black and white groups in the U.S. are similar. I don't think poverty and the effects of drugs are because someone is racialized, however I do think it matters very much where they grew up, and how. Race is a proxy for class in the U.S, because class is the last real american taboo, imo. I would also agree that the effects of racist policy impacts how they grew up, and that in turn becomes culture, but where I diverge is that the solutions to "how to not be poor," and "how to stop making people poor," are different. The tech changes we've had have clearly raised all boats, and yet we undeniably still have poverty. What it means is that making peoples lives more convenient, giving them more stuff, and spending on the lower level needs in the hierarchy doesn't end poverty. This is the crux of what the Gwern article shows. It has to do with ability to achieve and self-actualize. Broadly, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a handwavy metaphor for it, and the technology changes we've had in the last 30 years provide belonging (social media), not a lot of security, and probably come at the cost of self actualization. Given the clear quality of life improvements from technological change, we can see with some certainty that merely providing more of the things that technology change already and inevitably provides is not a solution to multi-generational self-reinforcing poverty. That is the subversive implication.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  It’s kind of the rat park idea right.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

nabla9 7y ago

> food, It's still nutrition and food insecurity are still an issue. Calories are plenty but large number of poor still suffer from malnutrition because healthy food is very expensive and neighborhood deprivation creates food deserts. > Even people with mobile homes often own their homes Mobile home business in US are huge predatory business model that keeps people poor. Private equity companies buy and own many mobile home parks and the loans for mobile homes are expensive, plus the homes are bad investment. They lose value just like a car. John Oliver made an episode about this. >It's something else, Relative poverty is real poverty. It goes against all evidence to claim that only absolute poverty is real poverty and only thing that should be addressed. Just being poor hurts even cognitive functionality and causes stress. People who have less options, less time to make decisions, are forced to long term of short decisions that are non-optimal. There has been a great natural experiment testing the culture theory and direction of causal link. In the 80's when drug epidemic ravaged black neighborhoods there were two theories. One theory was that poverty causes desperation, destroys culture and brings drugs and destroys neighborhoods. Another theory was that culture causes poverty and drug use and creates bad neighborhoods. Opioid crisis provides great second data point and natural experience. It turns out that when poverty and financial insecurity hits white middle class neighborhoods, they are just as susceptible to drug epidemics, destruction of cultural values as black neighborhoods. It seems that relative poverty and decreasing options and loss of hope creates culture and behavior more than other way around.

motohagiography 7y ago
Conflating culture and race doesn't provide a strong control. The effects of drugs on poor black and white groups in the U.S. are similar. I don't think poverty and the effects of drugs are because someone is racialized, however I do think it matters very much where they grew up, and how. Race is a proxy for class in the U.S, because class is the last real american taboo, imo. I would also agree that the effects of racist policy impacts how they grew up, and that in turn becomes culture, but where I diverge is that the solutions to "how to not be poor," and "how to stop making people poor," are different. The tech changes we've had have clearly raised all boats, and yet we undeniably still have poverty. What it means is that making peoples lives more convenient, giving them more stuff, and spending on the lower level needs in the hierarchy doesn't end poverty. This is the crux of what the Gwern article shows. It has to do with ability to achieve and self-actualize. Broadly, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a handwavy metaphor for it, and the technology changes we've had in the last 30 years provide belonging (social media), not a lot of security, and probably come at the cost of self actualization. Given the clear quality of life improvements from technological change, we can see with some certainty that merely providing more of the things that technology change already and inevitably provides is not a solution to multi-generational self-reinforcing poverty. That is the subversive implication.
mrfusion 7y ago
It’s kind of the rat park idea right.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]