3 ms·

From your first link, a comment by tptacek starts with I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him,

From your first link, a comment by tptacek starts with I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. What if it's just that? What if what he says is simply true?

barrkel 12y ago
It is true, almost to the point of truism, that most people who end up with bad outcomes got there by bad choices. But this omits far too much; good choices aren't made merely by moral character or some other characteristic that can let you condemn someone without further consideration. They're a product of a life's education, a learned way of living, and indeed, a learned helplessness in many cases. I would argue that moral character mostly doesn't exist. It's mostly just an artifact of what you stand to gain vs what you stand to lose if caught, and what your alternatives are. And when these patterns are iterated, the tradeoffs change. Once you have a criminal record, the fear of getting one is far less, and the opportunities to do well for yourself without one disappear. And so on. I find it disturbing when people dismiss a whole class of other people for decisions that are cast in a moral light, with the language of blame and hints of sins, and connotations of deserving some kind of punishment. It shows a deeply misguided and unempathetic understanding of humans. It's the kind of thinking that dehumanizes other people.
kefka 12y ago
I also think that one needs to look at the underlying assertions and assumptions the federal government puts into its poverty report. As cited from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm -Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need; -It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance); -It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States; -It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and -Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children. There is also the fact that government handouts are tremendously regressive. During a time I had of joblessness and no income, I was on food stamps and other supplemental assistance. When I found a part time job (15 hours/wk), I took it! So.. I made $100 in the first full week. I really got $80, less taxes. And cost me $8 for gas, so my real effective pay was $73. So, SNAP takes out $100 from my food benefit.. ?! I only made $73, so I am in effect being punished $37 for working and trying to better myself. There are cases much more extreme, where every benefit goes down by X when income goes up by X. Those people end worse off working, unless they can get income that covers all of their losses. Any understanding of basic business 101 says that in their case with the regressive benefits system makes no sense to mildly make oneself better. Unfortunately, the bigger 'make oneself better' just never happens.
- spindritf 12y ago
  The comment wasn't about poverty in general but about whether poor people work and how much. The ill-designed incentive structure and generally disappointing performance of government bureaucracy in helping anyone are worth noting, however, if you don't work, you clearly have the time to go do some grocery shopping. Which was the gist of that comment as it was a response to A poor person is probably working some physically taxing job and is just too tired to cook a healthy meal. Or too tired to get to the market selling healthy food Probably not.

barrkel 12y ago

It is true, almost to the point of truism, that most people who end up with bad outcomes got there by bad choices. But this omits far too much; good choices aren't made merely by moral character or some other characteristic that can let you condemn someone without further consideration. They're a product of a life's education, a learned way of living, and indeed, a learned helplessness in many cases. I would argue that moral character mostly doesn't exist. It's mostly just an artifact of what you stand to gain vs what you stand to lose if caught, and what your alternatives are. And when these patterns are iterated, the tradeoffs change. Once you have a criminal record, the fear of getting one is far less, and the opportunities to do well for yourself without one disappear. And so on. I find it disturbing when people dismiss a whole class of other people for decisions that are cast in a moral light, with the language of blame and hints of sins, and connotations of deserving some kind of punishment. It shows a deeply misguided and unempathetic understanding of humans. It's the kind of thinking that dehumanizes other people.

kefka 12y ago

I also think that one needs to look at the underlying assertions and assumptions the federal government puts into its poverty report. As cited from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm -Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need; -It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance); -It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States; -It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and -Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children. There is also the fact that government handouts are tremendously regressive. During a time I had of joblessness and no income, I was on food stamps and other supplemental assistance. When I found a part time job (15 hours/wk), I took it! So.. I made $100 in the first full week. I really got $80, less taxes. And cost me $8 for gas, so my real effective pay was $73. So, SNAP takes out $100 from my food benefit.. ?! I only made $73, so I am in effect being punished $37 for working and trying to better myself. There are cases much more extreme, where every benefit goes down by X when income goes up by X. Those people end worse off working, unless they can get income that covers all of their losses. Any understanding of basic business 101 says that in their case with the regressive benefits system makes no sense to mildly make oneself better. Unfortunately, the bigger 'make oneself better' just never happens.

spindritf 12y ago
The comment wasn't about poverty in general but about whether poor people work and how much. The ill-designed incentive structure and generally disappointing performance of government bureaucracy in helping anyone are worth noting, however, if you don't work, you clearly have the time to go do some grocery shopping. Which was the gist of that comment as it was a response to A poor person is probably working some physically taxing job and is just too tired to cook a healthy meal. Or too tired to get to the market selling healthy food Probably not.