3 ms·

Losers? I'll be the first to admit that I am ignorant about the situation in the USA, but do you really think that people such as these are losers considering t

by avipa 15y ago

Losers? I'll be the first to admit that I am ignorant about the situation in the USA, but do you really think that people such as these are losers considering the standard of living they can still afford? Mobile phones with $70 bills? Honestly? Hell, a mobile in itself? (My mobile cost £20, and I have yet to use up my initial top-up of £20 5 months after buying it). I honestly feel disgusted by the fact that I am expected to feel sorry for people such as these. I managed to get to the end to the month all fine and dandy, and could see many things I could still do to improve my cash flow. My kid may have not been given some meaningless luxuries that other kids got (I never went to school trips and the like myself), but my charisma and public services such as the library and the like would be more than enough to ensure he turns out a fine man. Hell, if I wouldn't even have had a kid in the first place, until I could ensure that I could raise properly. Expecting me to feel sympathy for an individual who can't afford a kid, suffering from their own selfishness, is out of order. It's comparable to expecting me to pay for the treatment of some fool who didn't put on a condom when he knew he was have sexual intercourse with a - unique woman. edit. Forgive me, due to my anger I lost focus on what I was initially trying to say. Basically, standard of living has improved dramatically. They may not be able to afford premium goods such as sparkly ipads and ps3's, but they can still afford a great deal of stuff.

scarmig 15y ago
Except adequate healthcare, housing, living in good school districts... It's cheaper to have a mobile phone nowadays than it is to have a land line. That's why mobile has really taken off in places like, say, Africa. Just because someone has a cell phone doesn't mean they're not struggling. Given a choice between living as a corporate CEO (or even upper middle class professional) in the 1950s versus part of the welfare underclass today, I would almost certainly choose the former. Even sans cell phones.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Would you really? If so, I think you're more interested in social status, and in relative wealth than in absolute wealth. Let's just consider health care. One reason health care is so much more expensive now compared to the 1950's is the roughly 60 years of technical innovation that has happened since then. In 1950, there were still outbreaks of polio. Cancer was a far more certain death sentence. MRI's didn't exist. The birth control pill was not yet available. There was no dialysis. There was no laser surgery. Heart surgery was very primitive: there was no bypass surgery, no replacement of heart valves, and no pacemaker. By and large, people died of diseases that could be treated today, and many of those treatments are available today even to the poor and uninsured. (In a move unthinkable in 1950, my state even subsidizes access to birth control for low-income single women.)
  - scarmig 15y ago
    In terms of ease of living and freedom from worry or want, relative social status trumps absolute wealth once you've passed a certain base level of well-being. Which I think the 1950's falls into. I'm having trouble finding hard health data. The closest thing is that in 1972, life expectancy for the bottom half was 77.7 and for the upper half 78.9, while in 2001 79.6 years for the bottom half and 85.4(!) for the top half. Which amounts to about the same for the top half in 1972 and bottom half in 2001. The top half life expectancy would be lower in the 1950s than the 1970s, but at the same time today's welfare underclass is probably significantly worse off than the average person in the lower half. I expect those would end up being a wash, and life expectancies would be comparable, though probably with a slight edge for the underclass of today. That's a trade that I think would be worth it, given all the exceptional benefits of relative wealth and status. Yeah, no iPhones, but drivers, maids, home-visiting doctors, nice single family homes in fun areas, economic security, and ability to eat out or go to shows whenever you want makes up for it for most people.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      The problem with metrics is they always measure less than you think. Polio, for instance, is more likely to cripple you for life than kill you. You only have to go back to the year 2000 to give up iPhones. Going back to 1990 you give up the Internet. Going back to 1980 you give up Mac and Windows. Going back to 1970 you give up microwave ovens and personal computers at all along with cable television. Going back to 1950 you give up birth control, open-heart surgery, commercial air travel, and color television. That's just technology. There's a huge cultural gap, too. In 1950 segregation was the law, there was little to no access to foreign culture, atheism was distrusted and associated with Communism, pre-marital sex was taboo, and women by and large did not work outside of the household, especially not when they had children. None of the music that I listen to even existed back then. None of it would even be possible.
      - pyre 15y ago
        > pre-marital sex was taboo Pre-marital sex happened in droves throughout human history. Whenever it's been taboo, that just means that it was behind closed doors and hush-hush.
jbooth 15y ago
Yeah, so you're right that electronics have gotten cheaper right along with Moore's law. How about everything else? There's no such thing as a stable factory job anymore, if you can't code and don't have other white collar skills, you have a choice of Wal-mart and the gas station to work at. Neither gives you health insurance. You won't make enough to live in a nice school district. Sympathy's the wrong way to look at it, although you could probably do with a little more empathy. The real point is that when enough people are struggling to get by, it hurts the economy at large and hurts you.
- hugh3 15y ago
  What's really odd is that the folks who talk the most about the problems for lower-class American workers will get most offended the moment you suggest that competition for cheap labour from millions of illegal immigrants might have something to do with it. It's not the Lump of Labor fallacy to say that the economy has a limited appetite for low-skilled workers. In Australia, where illegal immigration is quite limited, it's not a choice of Wal-Mart and the gas station for folks without white-collar skills, there's also farming jobs, cleaning jobs, and best of all, tradesman jobs like builder, electrician or plumber. You'll need an apprenticeship for some of those, but can quickly work your way up from earning very little as an apprentice to earning six figures as a competent and fully-qualified tradesman. But in America, all the job categories which I mentioned are dominated by illegals, so it really is true that the uneducated have a really rough time.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    Another thing to consider is the basic IQ requirements of modern high quality jobs. You don't need to be a genius to be a Doctor or Programmer but good luck finding them with subs 80 IQ's (~16% of the population). It may have been more dangerous and paid less to build the Model T but it was also reasonable to send just about anyone to that type of work. Now add to that Illegal immigration which results in fairly intelligent people doing manual labor for low pay it's even harder for people that are a little slow to compete.
  - jbooth 15y ago
leot 15y ago
I would agree with you if three other things were comparably inexpensive: 1) quality education (including post-secondary, which would otherwise need to be saved-for) 2) portable, quality basic health care 3) inexpensive, safe, spartan-but-quality housing No amount of TVs, computers, mobile phones, or iPods will make up for the fact that these three necessities are often pretty expensive in the U.S.
vacri 15y ago
Hell, if I wouldn't even have had a kid in the first place, until I could ensure that I could raise properly. Kids have a way of happening even when you don't expect or want them. Combine that with social pressures against abortion, and your stance becomes a luxury. Also, I'm a bit disturbed that you see field trips at school as a luxury rather than part of a solid, well-rounded education.
- cardine 15y ago
  Having unprotected sex is a choice. Not taking birth control is a choice. Not getting an abortion is a choice. Making the decision to not have a kid until they are ready is one that anyone can make. Saying that it is a 'luxury' to decide to not have unprotected sex and take birth control is beyond ridiculous.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    So, all those women who were brought up without strong parenting due to busy work, overcrowded schools due to underperforming kids and bored youth groups with no programs are going to avoid unprotected sex? That's not considering the amount of drugs, crime, etc to 'escape' life. I'm not saying that those women (or men) are stupid, I'm saying that they are brought up badly due to the neglect. You're taking so much 'choices' for granted when they are actually educated choices. For example, finances (how much will a kid cost? Bigger car? Food? Rent?), job security (are the parent(s) comfortable?), time constraints (do they have time to spend with them?). Ironically, they may end up neglecting their own children despite best intentions (eg Working overtime on minimum wage so the kid can get into college for example but the kid ends up a drug addict). The way USA's poverty is a form of a Spartan kid's bath. Many will suffer, a few will make it through and be strong. All the more while other countries provide social programs (Social governments) or strong families (Communal communities) to make it easier and more aware of the responsibilities of having a kid.
  - vacri 15y ago
    Yes, because teenagers are well-noted for their life experience, level of education, and decision-making abilities. And abortion is freely-available everywhere, with no social stigmas attached. Throw into that mix 'abstinence-only' sex education, and your 'choices' disappear. If you don't know about protected sex, and it's clear that all this "choice" you mention is just illusion for a great many people. You can't say "why didn't you use a condom?" if you block the information about condom use. Hell, in some parts of Africa, the Catholic Church is spreading information that condoms cause AIDS. Where's the choice there? Where is the 'luxury' there? By the way, I didn't say the sex was the luxury, I said your stance was the luxury - this expectation that kids come along when you plan them. If you actually speak to parents, you'll find that kids frequently come along despite using high-reliability birth control, and sometimes never come along despite desperately trying for years. What really is beyond ridiculous is your cold, calculating opinion of how humans operate, combined with this expectation that all humans have access to the information you have.

by avipa 15y ago

scarmig 15y ago

Except adequate healthcare, housing, living in good school districts... It's cheaper to have a mobile phone nowadays than it is to have a land line. That's why mobile has really taken off in places like, say, Africa. Just because someone has a cell phone doesn't mean they're not struggling. Given a choice between living as a corporate CEO (or even upper middle class professional) in the 1950s versus part of the welfare underclass today, I would almost certainly choose the former. Even sans cell phones.

philwelch 15y ago
Would you really? If so, I think you're more interested in social status, and in relative wealth than in absolute wealth. Let's just consider health care. One reason health care is so much more expensive now compared to the 1950's is the roughly 60 years of technical innovation that has happened since then. In 1950, there were still outbreaks of polio. Cancer was a far more certain death sentence. MRI's didn't exist. The birth control pill was not yet available. There was no dialysis. There was no laser surgery. Heart surgery was very primitive: there was no bypass surgery, no replacement of heart valves, and no pacemaker. By and large, people died of diseases that could be treated today, and many of those treatments are available today even to the poor and uninsured. (In a move unthinkable in 1950, my state even subsidizes access to birth control for low-income single women.)
- scarmig 15y ago
  In terms of ease of living and freedom from worry or want, relative social status trumps absolute wealth once you've passed a certain base level of well-being. Which I think the 1950's falls into. I'm having trouble finding hard health data. The closest thing is that in 1972, life expectancy for the bottom half was 77.7 and for the upper half 78.9, while in 2001 79.6 years for the bottom half and 85.4(!) for the top half. Which amounts to about the same for the top half in 1972 and bottom half in 2001. The top half life expectancy would be lower in the 1950s than the 1970s, but at the same time today's welfare underclass is probably significantly worse off than the average person in the lower half. I expect those would end up being a wash, and life expectancies would be comparable, though probably with a slight edge for the underclass of today. That's a trade that I think would be worth it, given all the exceptional benefits of relative wealth and status. Yeah, no iPhones, but drivers, maids, home-visiting doctors, nice single family homes in fun areas, economic security, and ability to eat out or go to shows whenever you want makes up for it for most people.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    The problem with metrics is they always measure less than you think. Polio, for instance, is more likely to cripple you for life than kill you. You only have to go back to the year 2000 to give up iPhones. Going back to 1990 you give up the Internet. Going back to 1980 you give up Mac and Windows. Going back to 1970 you give up microwave ovens and personal computers at all along with cable television. Going back to 1950 you give up birth control, open-heart surgery, commercial air travel, and color television. That's just technology. There's a huge cultural gap, too. In 1950 segregation was the law, there was little to no access to foreign culture, atheism was distrusted and associated with Communism, pre-marital sex was taboo, and women by and large did not work outside of the household, especially not when they had children. None of the music that I listen to even existed back then. None of it would even be possible.
    - pyre 15y ago
      > pre-marital sex was taboo Pre-marital sex happened in droves throughout human history. Whenever it's been taboo, that just means that it was behind closed doors and hush-hush.

jbooth 15y ago

Yeah, so you're right that electronics have gotten cheaper right along with Moore's law. How about everything else? There's no such thing as a stable factory job anymore, if you can't code and don't have other white collar skills, you have a choice of Wal-mart and the gas station to work at. Neither gives you health insurance. You won't make enough to live in a nice school district. Sympathy's the wrong way to look at it, although you could probably do with a little more empathy. The real point is that when enough people are struggling to get by, it hurts the economy at large and hurts you.

hugh3 15y ago
What's really odd is that the folks who talk the most about the problems for lower-class American workers will get most offended the moment you suggest that competition for cheap labour from millions of illegal immigrants might have something to do with it. It's not the Lump of Labor fallacy to say that the economy has a limited appetite for low-skilled workers. In Australia, where illegal immigration is quite limited, it's not a choice of Wal-Mart and the gas station for folks without white-collar skills, there's also farming jobs, cleaning jobs, and best of all, tradesman jobs like builder, electrician or plumber. You'll need an apprenticeship for some of those, but can quickly work your way up from earning very little as an apprentice to earning six figures as a competent and fully-qualified tradesman. But in America, all the job categories which I mentioned are dominated by illegals, so it really is true that the uneducated have a really rough time.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  Another thing to consider is the basic IQ requirements of modern high quality jobs. You don't need to be a genius to be a Doctor or Programmer but good luck finding them with subs 80 IQ's (~16% of the population). It may have been more dangerous and paid less to build the Model T but it was also reasonable to send just about anyone to that type of work. Now add to that Illegal immigration which results in fairly intelligent people doing manual labor for low pay it's even harder for people that are a little slow to compete.
- jbooth 15y ago

leot 15y ago

I would agree with you if three other things were comparably inexpensive: 1) quality education (including post-secondary, which would otherwise need to be saved-for) 2) portable, quality basic health care 3) inexpensive, safe, spartan-but-quality housing No amount of TVs, computers, mobile phones, or iPods will make up for the fact that these three necessities are often pretty expensive in the U.S.

vacri 15y ago

Hell, if I wouldn't even have had a kid in the first place, until I could ensure that I could raise properly. Kids have a way of happening even when you don't expect or want them. Combine that with social pressures against abortion, and your stance becomes a luxury. Also, I'm a bit disturbed that you see field trips at school as a luxury rather than part of a solid, well-rounded education.

cardine 15y ago
Having unprotected sex is a choice. Not taking birth control is a choice. Not getting an abortion is a choice. Making the decision to not have a kid until they are ready is one that anyone can make. Saying that it is a 'luxury' to decide to not have unprotected sex and take birth control is beyond ridiculous.
- Joakal 15y ago
  So, all those women who were brought up without strong parenting due to busy work, overcrowded schools due to underperforming kids and bored youth groups with no programs are going to avoid unprotected sex? That's not considering the amount of drugs, crime, etc to 'escape' life. I'm not saying that those women (or men) are stupid, I'm saying that they are brought up badly due to the neglect. You're taking so much 'choices' for granted when they are actually educated choices. For example, finances (how much will a kid cost? Bigger car? Food? Rent?), job security (are the parent(s) comfortable?), time constraints (do they have time to spend with them?). Ironically, they may end up neglecting their own children despite best intentions (eg Working overtime on minimum wage so the kid can get into college for example but the kid ends up a drug addict). The way USA's poverty is a form of a Spartan kid's bath. Many will suffer, a few will make it through and be strong. All the more while other countries provide social programs (Social governments) or strong families (Communal communities) to make it easier and more aware of the responsibilities of having a kid.
- vacri 15y ago
  Yes, because teenagers are well-noted for their life experience, level of education, and decision-making abilities. And abortion is freely-available everywhere, with no social stigmas attached. Throw into that mix 'abstinence-only' sex education, and your 'choices' disappear. If you don't know about protected sex, and it's clear that all this "choice" you mention is just illusion for a great many people. You can't say "why didn't you use a condom?" if you block the information about condom use. Hell, in some parts of Africa, the Catholic Church is spreading information that condoms cause AIDS. Where's the choice there? Where is the 'luxury' there? By the way, I didn't say the sex was the luxury, I said your stance was the luxury - this expectation that kids come along when you plan them. If you actually speak to parents, you'll find that kids frequently come along despite using high-reliability birth control, and sometimes never come along despite desperately trying for years. What really is beyond ridiculous is your cold, calculating opinion of how humans operate, combined with this expectation that all humans have access to the information you have.