4 ms·

I think the debate is more about HOW we should break the cycle. No one wants people to keep being poor (maybe a very very small minority), but people disagree

I think the debate is more about HOW we should break the cycle. No one wants people to keep being poor (maybe a very very small minority), but people disagree on how effective welfare (which seems to be what you are advocating) is at breaking that cycle. Maybe better sexual education and access to birth control is the answer? Maybe mandatory parental education is the answer? Should we, as a society, allow children to be born into situations where they will not be properly cared for? We usually see reproduction as a right, but should it be? I don't know if there is really a good answer for that and I honestly don't know how I feel about it. Maybe there are better implementations of welfare that I'm not aware of, but I don't think just throwing money at the problem is going to help anyone.

StandardFuture 12y ago
>Maybe mandatory parental education is the answer? I have to admit that this sounds a bit dystopian (enforcing all parents to attend a class on how they will raise their children). On the other hand, since raising a child is something anyone is allowed to do and child-rearing is far more of an impact on society than even the greatest inventions have been, it seems logical. Certainly, child-rearing is far more of an impact on society than the things we do expect people to spend years in classes getting 'licensed' for. I think this topic is due a thorough and deep discussion. Even if the government is completely unwilling to enforce anything, is it possible that 'social pressure/expectations' can be lifted on parents (without that scenario becoming too burdening or dystopian itself)? Right now it seems that social expectations do exist, but that they are also failing (for at least a large enough percentage of the population). So, I don't know but I am open to everyone's thoughts on the matter. :/
willvarfar 12y ago
Watch any talk by Hans Rosling - this one https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_... for example - and you'll learn that your mixing up cause and effect re affluence and children.
sologoub 12y ago
The study shows the outcomes that are influenced by a large number of variables. It's easy to condense it to rich/poor, but you are simply saying that wealth households, on average have a lot less of the multitude of factors that contribute to bad outcomes. The analysis on the root causes and potential policy/social implications isn't really there in the article. Drugs, violence and parental education are all touched, but it's looked at in the prism of poor vs wealthy. That's basically to say, if a person is wealthy, that person can distance him/herself from societal evils. My personal view of this, is that we need to view drug use as an illness and treat it. Same that we would any other disease that is a threat to society. One could approach drugs like we do viruses - heroin is more akin to ebola in severity, as opposed to pot being more like the common cold (hardly worth the attention, except in kids). Don't have the time to quote exact studies, but anecdotally, I believe there is some evidence that decriminalizing drug use impacts violence quite a bit. From there, you can also use the resources otherwise tied up in the war on drugs to address violent crimes and hopefully develop a rehabilitation program, instead of piling more people in jail. That said, I definitely think that the punishment should fit the crime. In no way should a person who deprived another person of life be allowed to walk free after only a few years... Regardless of excuses or extanuating circumstances.
com2kid 12y ago
> No one wants people to keep being poor (maybe a very very small minority), I think you are being overly generous here. The fact is, if we raise everyone to a minimum standard of living, the richest will suffer, as will even the upper middle class. Europe is a great example of this. My programmer friends over there have much less disposable income than programmers here in the states. It is strange to see them discuss saving money to buy a computer. When all my developer friends here in the states earn a minimum of $50/hr, a day's labor buys a good machine, 2 days buys you something really nice. If taxes are raised to create social programs that ensure quality of life for everyone then average quality of life will go down for those on left sides of the curve. Now subjectively, one could say that those earning 100 million a year shouldn't complain if they end up only earning 30 million a year, odds are their quality of life won't change much. (Now this largely overlooks that beyond a certain point, money becomes not about buying /things/ but about influence and power.) The decision of basically capping wealth is a decision that a society as a whole has to make though. I wonder how much this influences mobility between classes though. Right now upper middle class Americans can just save up enough wealth to branch out on their own and start a business, which gives them the opportunity to move up quit a few notches of wealth. Likewise they can save money up and invest it in various financial instruments. An extra 15% tax (to pick a number) may very well wipe out the ability for many people to save up the funds necessary to make the above movements.
- maerF0x0 12y ago
  > The fact is, if we raise everyone to a minimum standard of living, the richest will suffer, as will even the upper middle class. Not a fact-- until we start to reach some physical limits. But, the universe is very very big! Life is not a zero sum game other than in the very very short run (approaching instantaneous) .
- Terr_ 12y ago
  There's a confounding factor in there, though: The balance between "cheap goods" versus "cheap services" differs by country. Per year, how much do you spend on digital devices compared to, say, child-care? (If your spouse stays home, factor in the opportunity cost.)
- 12y ago
clarkmoody 12y ago
From the article: > The kids who got a better start — because their parents were married and working — ended up better off. Most of the poor kids from single-parent families stayed poor. How about we develop public policies and environments where the family thrives? Let's do that instead of some Orwellian permission to procreate and mandatory training (have you ever been to government-mandated training?!). > Should we, as a society, allow children to be born into situations where they will not be properly cared for? We usually see reproduction as a right, but should it be? Are you advocating eugenics? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion?
- cheez 12y ago
  > How about we develop public policies and environments where the family thrives? Do you think that society purposely develops policies to harm families?
- justinpaulson 12y ago
  > How about we develop public policies and environments where the family thrives? How do we do this? How are public policies harming this?

StandardFuture 12y ago

>Maybe mandatory parental education is the answer? I have to admit that this sounds a bit dystopian (enforcing all parents to attend a class on how they will raise their children). On the other hand, since raising a child is something anyone is allowed to do and child-rearing is far more of an impact on society than even the greatest inventions have been, it seems logical. Certainly, child-rearing is far more of an impact on society than the things we do expect people to spend years in classes getting 'licensed' for. I think this topic is due a thorough and deep discussion. Even if the government is completely unwilling to enforce anything, is it possible that 'social pressure/expectations' can be lifted on parents (without that scenario becoming too burdening or dystopian itself)? Right now it seems that social expectations do exist, but that they are also failing (for at least a large enough percentage of the population). So, I don't know but I am open to everyone's thoughts on the matter. :/

willvarfar 12y ago

Watch any talk by Hans Rosling - this one https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_... for example - and you'll learn that your mixing up cause and effect re affluence and children.

sologoub 12y ago

The study shows the outcomes that are influenced by a large number of variables. It's easy to condense it to rich/poor, but you are simply saying that wealth households, on average have a lot less of the multitude of factors that contribute to bad outcomes. The analysis on the root causes and potential policy/social implications isn't really there in the article. Drugs, violence and parental education are all touched, but it's looked at in the prism of poor vs wealthy. That's basically to say, if a person is wealthy, that person can distance him/herself from societal evils. My personal view of this, is that we need to view drug use as an illness and treat it. Same that we would any other disease that is a threat to society. One could approach drugs like we do viruses - heroin is more akin to ebola in severity, as opposed to pot being more like the common cold (hardly worth the attention, except in kids). Don't have the time to quote exact studies, but anecdotally, I believe there is some evidence that decriminalizing drug use impacts violence quite a bit. From there, you can also use the resources otherwise tied up in the war on drugs to address violent crimes and hopefully develop a rehabilitation program, instead of piling more people in jail. That said, I definitely think that the punishment should fit the crime. In no way should a person who deprived another person of life be allowed to walk free after only a few years... Regardless of excuses or extanuating circumstances.

com2kid 12y ago

> No one wants people to keep being poor (maybe a very very small minority), I think you are being overly generous here. The fact is, if we raise everyone to a minimum standard of living, the richest will suffer, as will even the upper middle class. Europe is a great example of this. My programmer friends over there have much less disposable income than programmers here in the states. It is strange to see them discuss saving money to buy a computer. When all my developer friends here in the states earn a minimum of $50/hr, a day's labor buys a good machine, 2 days buys you something really nice. If taxes are raised to create social programs that ensure quality of life for everyone then average quality of life will go down for those on left sides of the curve. Now subjectively, one could say that those earning 100 million a year shouldn't complain if they end up only earning 30 million a year, odds are their quality of life won't change much. (Now this largely overlooks that beyond a certain point, money becomes not about buying /things/ but about influence and power.) The decision of basically capping wealth is a decision that a society as a whole has to make though. I wonder how much this influences mobility between classes though. Right now upper middle class Americans can just save up enough wealth to branch out on their own and start a business, which gives them the opportunity to move up quit a few notches of wealth. Likewise they can save money up and invest it in various financial instruments. An extra 15% tax (to pick a number) may very well wipe out the ability for many people to save up the funds necessary to make the above movements.

maerF0x0 12y ago
> The fact is, if we raise everyone to a minimum standard of living, the richest will suffer, as will even the upper middle class. Not a fact-- until we start to reach some physical limits. But, the universe is very very big! Life is not a zero sum game other than in the very very short run (approaching instantaneous) .
Terr_ 12y ago
There's a confounding factor in there, though: The balance between "cheap goods" versus "cheap services" differs by country. Per year, how much do you spend on digital devices compared to, say, child-care? (If your spouse stays home, factor in the opportunity cost.)
12y ago

clarkmoody 12y ago

From the article: > The kids who got a better start — because their parents were married and working — ended up better off. Most of the poor kids from single-parent families stayed poor. How about we develop public policies and environments where the family thrives? Let's do that instead of some Orwellian permission to procreate and mandatory training (have you ever been to government-mandated training?!). > Should we, as a society, allow children to be born into situations where they will not be properly cared for? We usually see reproduction as a right, but should it be? Are you advocating eugenics? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion?

cheez 12y ago
> How about we develop public policies and environments where the family thrives? Do you think that society purposely develops policies to harm families?
justinpaulson 12y ago
> How about we develop public policies and environments where the family thrives? How do we do this? How are public policies harming this?