6 ms·

But then how do you define poor? I ask because you do enter a new identity politics discussion. Blacks tend to have much lower wealth, even when you control fo

But then how do you define poor? I ask because you do enter a new identity politics discussion. Blacks tend to have much lower wealth, even when you control for income. So it’s in the interest of whites to push income and blacks to push wealth. I also think there’s an optics issue. As you note the poor white males may be getting passed over now. So many would say that it’s really convenient that NOW we want to help all poor people, whereas in the past we made it difficult to help poor black people. It’s like, why do “all lives matter” now?

letrowekwel 3y ago
"So many would say that it’s really convenient NOW we want to help all poor people, whereas in the past we made it difficult to help poor black people. It’s like, why do “all lives matter” now?" Does historical injustice make it right to behave unjust in the present, almost as if it were a revenge? I don't think so. I agree about importance of defining poverty though. Both income and wealth should be taken into account and taxed appropriately. It's not only a class issue, but also generational issue with lots of old people sitting on super-expensive property, while young families can't afford a home.
- kenjackson 3y ago
  The issue is if the intent to act just now is just a way to institute selective justice to further injustice. For example, the same people who tend to support helping all poor people for certain things (like college admissions) tend to oppose it for other things (like welfare or basic income). The defining line across all of these things tends to be race and which group benefits the most. So when I hear let’s help everyone when it helps their in-group, but they don’t have that same energy elsewhere (or the same energy a decade ago when maybe it wouldn’t have helped their in-group) — I get cynical.
  - kortriephfhe 3y ago
    > For example, the same people who tend to support helping all poor people for certain things (like college admissions) tend to oppose it for other things (like welfare or basic income). The defining line across all of these things tends to be race and which group benefits the most. Not a westerner. Why is this a bad thing at all? Giving college admission is like giving opportunity to improve someone's condition (teaching to fish), whereas welfare schemes are like giving a fish. My country also suffers greatly due to many welfare schemes, all of that money could have gone to infrastructure and public education. Disclosure: I also come from a poor background and have benefitted from both merit-based education and welfare schemes. But I think welfare is overblown. If the same money was put on education, my parents would have been educated one generation ago.
    - kenjackson 3y ago
      College in the US is generally not competitive. That is, learning is available to almost anyone who cares to learn. The community college system is very cheap. Only four years are expensive. The debate about admissions into the top highly selective colleges is purely about who gets into the gates for networking opportunities and signaling (of the 1000+ colleges, affirmitive action impacts probably less than 100). So don’t confuse this with actual opportunity to learn. Further, financial aid generally is race blind. It’s only admission at these top schools where affirmitive action plays a role. So if your parents were in the US they could’ve been educated long ago. The only question is if it is at Harvard or Tennessee State.
      - geraldwhen 3y ago
        Financial aid is not race blind. There are no schools near me that have merit scholarships for white people, but plenty have merit scholarships for non whites. I’ve researched this because I have kids, and where I grew up merit scholarships applied to all, but where I live now they will not receive any, at least in state. Unlike my parents, however, I’m not dirt poor and can set my kids up for success. If not for a merit scholarship, I likely would have followed my father and his father into a factory job.
        kenjackson 3y ago
        Merit scholarships run the gamut. I typically don’t bucket merit scholarships in with financial aid because it is often need blind. And while there are probably few if any explicit scholarships for white students there are several that have never gone to anything but. Lots of organizational scholarships where nearly everyone in the org is white. Or even large orgs that tilt heavily white such as DAR and the Elks Lodge. And if you were to add up all merit scholarships the dollar amounts for those that are race based pale in comparison to those that aren’t. And adding in financial aid makes the numbers minuscule. EDIT: When you say there are no scholarships for white students do you mean that whites are prohibited from winning any scholarships? Or that there are no scholarships exclusively for whites?
datatrashfire 3y ago
You measure wealth and income?
- kenjackson 3y ago
  You can, but the question is how is this split? What is the formula to measure it? For example, my cousin does financial aid for a set of private high schools. There is a group that fights the use of wealth measures when determining need. It is typically upper middle class people who don’t want things like their real estate or investment portfolio to be a part of the equation. The absolute richest oddly do tend to support these measures. I suspect in part because tuition isn’t a big deal to them anyways.
2devnull 3y ago
This is daft. Treating wealth as a measure of poverty wouldn’t work. Think about why. It pretends families don’t exist. Total non-starter.
- kenjackson 3y ago
  Doesn’t income have the same issue?
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    Income isn’t perfect but it’s used for a reason. Think about the problems inherent in defining “wealth”. It’s too squishy a concept to use for policy reasons, or else they would. Is somebody who makes seven figures but spends it all on food, entertainment and travel really poor? No.
    - kenjackson 3y ago
      Except wealth is used for lots of policy. For example, financial aid at schools attempts to use wealth. Which is why they take into account equity in your home. And if you have ten million in a trust and no income — are you poor?
      - teddyh 3y ago
        Not if payments from that trust is classified as “income”.
        giaour 3y ago
        Let's say that the terms of a trust dictate that interest revenue be immediately paid out to a specific charity, but you are allowed to spend the principal. Are you poor?
      - 2devnull 3y ago
        I’m saying it’s not useful in policy as measurement of poverty. Poverty is and forever will be defined by income. Wealth is used in policy like everything else, yes of course. Tax policy is a great example. Is there anything that tax policy doesn’t have loopholes and special provisions for? I’d argue that wealthy people benefit from all that. Poor people benefit from clear and effective policies that use simpler, less game-able constructs. Getting into the business of trying to define nebulous hard to define constructs like wealth will benefit those with greater resources, always.
newswasboring 3y ago
No political issue can be solved if all people care about is optics.
- kenjackson 3y ago
  I never said it’s all people care about. But buy-in to policy will be tougher if it looks like you always take on neutral policies only when it helps certain groups.
  - newswasboring 3y ago
    If you aren't saying it, I will. Most political discussions I see, especially in America seem to mostly care about optics.
    - kenjackson 3y ago
      Can you give an example?

letrowekwel 3y ago

"So many would say that it’s really convenient NOW we want to help all poor people, whereas in the past we made it difficult to help poor black people. It’s like, why do “all lives matter” now?" Does historical injustice make it right to behave unjust in the present, almost as if it were a revenge? I don't think so. I agree about importance of defining poverty though. Both income and wealth should be taken into account and taxed appropriately. It's not only a class issue, but also generational issue with lots of old people sitting on super-expensive property, while young families can't afford a home.

kenjackson 3y ago
The issue is if the intent to act just now is just a way to institute selective justice to further injustice. For example, the same people who tend to support helping all poor people for certain things (like college admissions) tend to oppose it for other things (like welfare or basic income). The defining line across all of these things tends to be race and which group benefits the most. So when I hear let’s help everyone when it helps their in-group, but they don’t have that same energy elsewhere (or the same energy a decade ago when maybe it wouldn’t have helped their in-group) — I get cynical.
- kortriephfhe 3y ago
  > For example, the same people who tend to support helping all poor people for certain things (like college admissions) tend to oppose it for other things (like welfare or basic income). The defining line across all of these things tends to be race and which group benefits the most. Not a westerner. Why is this a bad thing at all? Giving college admission is like giving opportunity to improve someone's condition (teaching to fish), whereas welfare schemes are like giving a fish. My country also suffers greatly due to many welfare schemes, all of that money could have gone to infrastructure and public education. Disclosure: I also come from a poor background and have benefitted from both merit-based education and welfare schemes. But I think welfare is overblown. If the same money was put on education, my parents would have been educated one generation ago.
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    College in the US is generally not competitive. That is, learning is available to almost anyone who cares to learn. The community college system is very cheap. Only four years are expensive. The debate about admissions into the top highly selective colleges is purely about who gets into the gates for networking opportunities and signaling (of the 1000+ colleges, affirmitive action impacts probably less than 100). So don’t confuse this with actual opportunity to learn. Further, financial aid generally is race blind. It’s only admission at these top schools where affirmitive action plays a role. So if your parents were in the US they could’ve been educated long ago. The only question is if it is at Harvard or Tennessee State.
    - geraldwhen 3y ago
      Financial aid is not race blind. There are no schools near me that have merit scholarships for white people, but plenty have merit scholarships for non whites. I’ve researched this because I have kids, and where I grew up merit scholarships applied to all, but where I live now they will not receive any, at least in state. Unlike my parents, however, I’m not dirt poor and can set my kids up for success. If not for a merit scholarship, I likely would have followed my father and his father into a factory job.
      - kenjackson 3y ago
        Merit scholarships run the gamut. I typically don’t bucket merit scholarships in with financial aid because it is often need blind. And while there are probably few if any explicit scholarships for white students there are several that have never gone to anything but. Lots of organizational scholarships where nearly everyone in the org is white. Or even large orgs that tilt heavily white such as DAR and the Elks Lodge. And if you were to add up all merit scholarships the dollar amounts for those that are race based pale in comparison to those that aren’t. And adding in financial aid makes the numbers minuscule. EDIT: When you say there are no scholarships for white students do you mean that whites are prohibited from winning any scholarships? Or that there are no scholarships exclusively for whites?

datatrashfire 3y ago

You measure wealth and income?

kenjackson 3y ago
You can, but the question is how is this split? What is the formula to measure it? For example, my cousin does financial aid for a set of private high schools. There is a group that fights the use of wealth measures when determining need. It is typically upper middle class people who don’t want things like their real estate or investment portfolio to be a part of the equation. The absolute richest oddly do tend to support these measures. I suspect in part because tuition isn’t a big deal to them anyways.

2devnull 3y ago

This is daft. Treating wealth as a measure of poverty wouldn’t work. Think about why. It pretends families don’t exist. Total non-starter.

kenjackson 3y ago
Doesn’t income have the same issue?
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Income isn’t perfect but it’s used for a reason. Think about the problems inherent in defining “wealth”. It’s too squishy a concept to use for policy reasons, or else they would. Is somebody who makes seven figures but spends it all on food, entertainment and travel really poor? No.
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    Except wealth is used for lots of policy. For example, financial aid at schools attempts to use wealth. Which is why they take into account equity in your home. And if you have ten million in a trust and no income — are you poor?
    - teddyh 3y ago
      Not if payments from that trust is classified as “income”.
      - giaour 3y ago
        Let's say that the terms of a trust dictate that interest revenue be immediately paid out to a specific charity, but you are allowed to spend the principal. Are you poor?
    - 2devnull 3y ago
      I’m saying it’s not useful in policy as measurement of poverty. Poverty is and forever will be defined by income. Wealth is used in policy like everything else, yes of course. Tax policy is a great example. Is there anything that tax policy doesn’t have loopholes and special provisions for? I’d argue that wealthy people benefit from all that. Poor people benefit from clear and effective policies that use simpler, less game-able constructs. Getting into the business of trying to define nebulous hard to define constructs like wealth will benefit those with greater resources, always.

newswasboring 3y ago

No political issue can be solved if all people care about is optics.

kenjackson 3y ago
I never said it’s all people care about. But buy-in to policy will be tougher if it looks like you always take on neutral policies only when it helps certain groups.
- newswasboring 3y ago
  If you aren't saying it, I will. Most political discussions I see, especially in America seem to mostly care about optics.
  - kenjackson 3y ago
    Can you give an example?