5 ms·

If you were to highlight the areas on a map where these conditions existed you would find that it is a very small minority of the population. Additionally peopl

by dkhenry 12y ago

If you were to highlight the areas on a map where these conditions existed you would find that it is a very small minority of the population. Additionally people who find themselves in this situation are not entirely at the mercy of fate determining that they would have these hardships. Many of these family's are single parent multiple child by different father households, and they are in a social group where all their peers are in the same boat. They are children themselves of households that were in the same situation and their kids will most likely follow the same life path. Essentially the entire social network underpinning society has withered away for an entire class of individuals. Family's who one generation ago were raised by Grandma and Grandpa have now grow up and had kids of their own and they have no responsible grandparents or other family members to turn to for assistance because they were just as irresponsible. You can't just claim that having a larger safety net or higher paying jobs will help as most of these individuals have a pattern of poor choices and personal vices that will eat away at any additional assistance they are given. That might not be true of everyone, but its true of the vast majority. There is no way to fix this fundamental break down of society at the governmental level without greatly impinging on the right of those effected.

pessimizer 12y ago
>most of these individuals have a pattern of poor choices and personal vices that will eat away at any additional assistance they are given. That might not be true of everyone, but its true of the vast majority. It's important to realize that you're making all of this up in order to rationalize your position. You can't just claim that this is true without research or reference. edit: You could find out how many of the working poor match your internal fantasy of them, and how many don't, if you really wanted to know. The answer would cause you a lot of painful cognitive dissonance, though, because you like to think of yourself as a good person while explaining why people who work full time jobs don't deserve to eat, and how even if they had the money, they would spend it all on booze anyway.
- zo1 12y ago
  Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Perhaps he already did some research on the matter and that's why he's come to the conclusion he wrote above? In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor, yet you also didn't provide any research or reference (which you accuse the OP of not doing either). I'm not saying you are, but it's equally likely (from our point of view, assuming it's unbiased) to think that you're also rationalizing your view of the poor to match your own position.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    >In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works. edit: >Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Because there's nothing in this ancient, stereotypical rant of the comfortable since antiquity that gives me the indication that I have something to learn about the poor from the person who happens to be reciting it in this thread. I've been poor, and I know poor. If there are some statistics that tell me that I've just accidentally been in a bubble of the wonderful, hardworking, generous, and thoughtful poor (mixed with a few spoilers) I'm open to it and happy to read it.
    - zo1 12y ago
      >"In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works." And if I had no prior-opinion OR evidence on unicorns in the South Pole, I'd equally be skeptical of your claims that there aren't any, as I'd be of the guy that claims there are. I'd ask you both for some basic stats/research on the matter, which is what I tried to point out.
      - dkhenry 12y ago
        Except in this case we have clear evidence for one side ( which is now provided ), but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place.
- dkhenry 12y ago
  I just want to point out that while I didn't include numbers here, I have in a child post of this thread. Also I mean I would love to know the world you are living in where what I said isn't true. There is not one study or academic research done that does not coorliate the plight of the working poor with their social status. This is a generational problem and to my knowledge there is not a single study that does not like poverty with higher rates of substance abuse, crime, and single parenthood. I have provided numbers please by all means cite even one resource that finds no link between poverty and social vices ?
rayiner 12y ago
The irony of your comment is that New Rochelle, the town where this daycare is located, is not one of those places where the social structure has broken down (and people mill around on the sidewalk at noon on a weekday). It's a working class town composed of black and hispanic people who work service jobs in Manhattan or the other wealthier Westchester towns. The neighborhood has bustling shops and stores, and restaurants are full of families in the evenings.
- dkhenry 12y ago
  So according to the 2010 census its nothing like you have described. its 60% white and the median income per family is 88k However I while I can't find the numbers for that specific town I imagine they don't deviate from the national statistics of 70+% of minority children in single parent households. The social structure _has_ broken down and we keep ignoring it like its not a problem.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The census region includes the suburban area north of I-95, which might as well be a different state. The downtown has a heavy representation of immigrant families. Immigrant families have about 25% of children in single-parent households, far below the national average. Also, whether a household is one-parent or two-parent is irrelevant to the childcare situation. Two parents with late night shifts aren't going to have an appreciably easier time than one parent. And your point about grandparents is also inapposite. If you have small children, it's unlikely your grandparents are old enough to already be out of the workforce.
    - dkhenry 12y ago
      The model I have seen is the family unit ( mom and dad ) have kids and those kids go out and have children without a partner. Then the grandparents are in a two income household and they provide shelter and income subsidy to the children. As far as that not mattering, it totally matters two parent households have many more options in terms of childcare and employment. The number of households where both parents have off hour jobs that are low paying is marginal at best. With two parents just by one parent staying home you can make almost as much as you would pay to have extended daycare for the kids. So your numbers make sence. First generation Immigrants typically move as family units. They would also lack the social net to assist with kids, so they might be prime candidates for this kind of service.

by dkhenry 12y ago

pessimizer 12y ago

>most of these individuals have a pattern of poor choices and personal vices that will eat away at any additional assistance they are given. That might not be true of everyone, but its true of the vast majority. It's important to realize that you're making all of this up in order to rationalize your position. You can't just claim that this is true without research or reference. edit: You could find out how many of the working poor match your internal fantasy of them, and how many don't, if you really wanted to know. The answer would cause you a lot of painful cognitive dissonance, though, because you like to think of yourself as a good person while explaining why people who work full time jobs don't deserve to eat, and how even if they had the money, they would spend it all on booze anyway.

zo1 12y ago
Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Perhaps he already did some research on the matter and that's why he's come to the conclusion he wrote above? In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor, yet you also didn't provide any research or reference (which you accuse the OP of not doing either). I'm not saying you are, but it's equally likely (from our point of view, assuming it's unbiased) to think that you're also rationalizing your view of the poor to match your own position.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works. edit: >Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Because there's nothing in this ancient, stereotypical rant of the comfortable since antiquity that gives me the indication that I have something to learn about the poor from the person who happens to be reciting it in this thread. I've been poor, and I know poor. If there are some statistics that tell me that I've just accidentally been in a bubble of the wonderful, hardworking, generous, and thoughtful poor (mixed with a few spoilers) I'm open to it and happy to read it.
  - zo1 12y ago
    >"In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works." And if I had no prior-opinion OR evidence on unicorns in the South Pole, I'd equally be skeptical of your claims that there aren't any, as I'd be of the guy that claims there are. I'd ask you both for some basic stats/research on the matter, which is what I tried to point out.
    - dkhenry 12y ago
      Except in this case we have clear evidence for one side ( which is now provided ), but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place.
dkhenry 12y ago
I just want to point out that while I didn't include numbers here, I have in a child post of this thread. Also I mean I would love to know the world you are living in where what I said isn't true. There is not one study or academic research done that does not coorliate the plight of the working poor with their social status. This is a generational problem and to my knowledge there is not a single study that does not like poverty with higher rates of substance abuse, crime, and single parenthood. I have provided numbers please by all means cite even one resource that finds no link between poverty and social vices ?

rayiner 12y ago

The irony of your comment is that New Rochelle, the town where this daycare is located, is not one of those places where the social structure has broken down (and people mill around on the sidewalk at noon on a weekday). It's a working class town composed of black and hispanic people who work service jobs in Manhattan or the other wealthier Westchester towns. The neighborhood has bustling shops and stores, and restaurants are full of families in the evenings.

dkhenry 12y ago
So according to the 2010 census its nothing like you have described. its 60% white and the median income per family is 88k However I while I can't find the numbers for that specific town I imagine they don't deviate from the national statistics of 70+% of minority children in single parent households. The social structure _has_ broken down and we keep ignoring it like its not a problem.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The census region includes the suburban area north of I-95, which might as well be a different state. The downtown has a heavy representation of immigrant families. Immigrant families have about 25% of children in single-parent households, far below the national average. Also, whether a household is one-parent or two-parent is irrelevant to the childcare situation. Two parents with late night shifts aren't going to have an appreciably easier time than one parent. And your point about grandparents is also inapposite. If you have small children, it's unlikely your grandparents are old enough to already be out of the workforce.
  - dkhenry 12y ago
    The model I have seen is the family unit ( mom and dad ) have kids and those kids go out and have children without a partner. Then the grandparents are in a two income household and they provide shelter and income subsidy to the children. As far as that not mattering, it totally matters two parent households have many more options in terms of childcare and employment. The number of households where both parents have off hour jobs that are low paying is marginal at best. With two parents just by one parent staying home you can make almost as much as you would pay to have extended daycare for the kids. So your numbers make sence. First generation Immigrants typically move as family units. They would also lack the social net to assist with kids, so they might be prime candidates for this kind of service.