|
Post by Yahweh on Apr 27, 2009 7:41:19 GMT -5
As adorable and liberal as I am, I have a heart made of stone when it comes to welfare programs, affirmative action, and so on. I used to be wildly enthusiastic for the redistribution of wealth to achieve social goods, but I haven't held that view for a long time. What changed?
For a start, I was born the youngest of four kids, my mom couldn't work, and my dad supported the family on an income of $33/year. We were part of the lower-middle class of society, even lived in a trailor park for a few years. I've never been spoiled by anyone or anything in my entire life; everything I earn is from the product of hard work and thriftyness. I am critically aware of my environment and consistently use my surroundings as stepping stones to better opportunities. I've climbed out of poverty on my own and now earn well above the average income for my state.
I'm not bragging about how great I am -- though, if I must say myself, I am the raddest person this side of crazytown -- but just to contrast myself against other people I've met. When I worked at a grocery store, I met some of the worst people on the planet. This includes rednecks, drug addicts, drunks, relentless assholes, and people who spend their entire lives in and out of jail -- these were the people I worked with, not the people who wandered into the store.
When I look at some of these people, as well as most of the people I went to high school with, I see a group of a failures. These people will never amount to anything in their lives; they will never develop a passion for philosophy, art, science, literature, theatre, film, or anything else "high culture". They will instead leech off of society freebees like welfare, food-stamps, unemployment, and will resort to crime when they run out.
Unfortunately, these people thrive on poverty. I know this because I met them, worked with them, partied with them. Poverty is a lifestyle, not an accident of nature.
Now, the radical thing about this: the housing, auto, banking, and insurance industries are on the verge of collapsing because, starting in the 1970s, poverty was a huge problem in the country. We felt sorry for a large group of poor people, and we had the mindset that, if these people could just get loans, they would be able to build their own businesses, own homes, and pull themselves out of poverty. We believed that poverty was an accident which could happen to anyone, and the unfortunate segment of society just needed a leg up. So, we passed laws which gave incentives to banks which shelled out loans to underpriveleged members of society.
That little experiment failed. It turns out, when you give poor people money, they lose it and can't pay it back. We're now on edge of a depression as a result.
I believe in a lot of liberal, social programs like socialized medicine, section-8 housing, and so on. However, I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. If the government took all of the money out of the hands of rich people and redistributed it evenly into the hands of the poor, it would only be a matter of years before all of that money would end up back in the hands of the same rich people again.
Most of us aren't priveledged to have inherited huge amounts of wealth, however we're not doomed to live in the lower middle-class. I never had any priveledges over anyone, and I'm doing just fine, as are many of friends. Your place in society is determined by *exactly* how much hard work you put in.
With that being said, we have to face reality: some people are simply failures; no amount of government assistance, affirmative action, welfare, or pity is going to change that.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 7:52:23 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but your info about the housing market is only partly correct. What you seem to be referring to is the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) in 1977; Clinton corrected much of what banks were complaining about during his two terms. If the CRA was the cause, then much of the loans that were in default would have originated from the 1990s -- or at least as far back as the 1970s. But they don't. They come from the 2005-2007 era. If the CRA was the problem, it would've happened a long time ago.
Some parts of what you're saying are right -- if we simply redistributed the wealth, nothing would change. Education has to be in place before you can do anything about changing the class structure. But it's simply a myth that "Your place in society is determined by *exactly* how much hard work you put in." Precisely because of issues like health care, transportation access and the amount of education, some people work very, very, very hard and still die very, very, very poor. Nutritional starts and the parents you have (and what they value) can and does make a huge difference -- this is provable. If you've not read Freakonomics or Malcolm Gladwell's new book Outliers, which is all about success and how it's achieved, I would highly recommend them. I've worked closely with people like this for a long time. Yes, it's true that there is a "culture of poverty" (and Ruby Payne does an excellent job detailing how it works in her book "Framework for Understanding Poverty). But it's also true that often by the time they got to high school, where you could notice them for being "losers," there was already a confluence of circumstances that would continue to work hard to keep them where they are.
Some people are simply failures. I would suggest, however, that it's not even nearly close the amount of people you seem to be indicating.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 27, 2009 8:57:42 GMT -5
But they don't. They come from the 2005-2007 era. ...which reinforces a similar argument about poor people being given bad loans. During the run-up to the elections last year, an argument began to emerge saying that the mortgage and credit eruptions were the result of community activism groups (such as the one Obama was affiliated with) pressuring banks to ease up lending standards so that more low-income families could have home loans. This unleashed the monster we now know as the sub-prime loan, as it was the only way banks could justify loaning money to people who they knew full well most likely wouldn't pay it back. Either way, we're looking at a large-scale situation in which people who shouldn't have been given access to large sums of money were. Problem is, before you can educate the up-and-coming generations you must first get it through to the existing generations that an education is important. Poverty is, in large part, cyclical in nature: people who grow up in poverty often simply assume that they'll always remain in poverty and so see no purpose in doing anything - including receiving an education - that will assist them in getting out of where they are. This, in turn, means that when they have children they will, even if only indirectly, pass their defeatist mentality on. Heck, as a financial aid student I'm held to a certain minimum standard by the government (so many credit hours a semester, must make a minimum GPA, et cetra). But for a lot of people who receive federal subsistence aid, standards are minimal; you've got people who basically survive solely on federal aid. That's just not right. Problem is, the system does indeed, to some degree, encourage people to fail.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 9:13:49 GMT -5
Please don't ignore the fact that quite a few people in the housing crisis were buying more house than they could afford -- and they were middle and upper middle class people. Prove that most of them were in the poverty class, and you'll have a point. You can't do that, though, because most of the people taking out the loans were getting ARM loans because they wanted the $500k McMansion -- NOT because they were trying to buy a $120,000 three bedroom in a broke down neighborhood. That "emerging argument" of yours isn't based on facts. Should people have had access to that money? No. Were they by and large members of the poverty class? NO.
I know well about generational poverty and the culture of poverty. I work with adults who have little to no basic education; I know all the statistics about kids and their parents and generational poverty. That does nothing to disprove my comment about education -- if nothing else, it reinforces it. It's not a "problem is" kind of statement; it's "part of the education problem includes" kind of statement.
The "system", by which I take it you mean the federal subsidy system, doesn't encourage people to fail. It's the capitalist structure outside of the federal system that encourages people to fail, and makes it difficult for people to leave welfare and jump into, say, a $7/hour job. I assume by the argument you seem to be encouraging toward the end of your post that you would support a "living wage," yes? That is what would drastically reduce the ranks of welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 27, 2009 9:24:39 GMT -5
Nothing new here. What you notice is classism and class culture. Yes, the working and under class have a culture , and a lot of the most negative aspects we see are founded in a profound distrust in education and the educated. And why not. For centuries it was teh educated in the service of the moneyed classes who scammed and opressed the poor, keeping them poor, with big words and tricky ideas.
Now it's scamming by consumerism with strong materialistic and anti union propaganda.
Then there is religious based anti intellectualism .
For the real America just watch NERDS and Inherit the Wind.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 27, 2009 9:36:24 GMT -5
During the run-up to the elections last year, an argument began to emerge saying that the mortgage and credit eruptions were the result of community activism groups (such as the one Obama was affiliated with) pressuring banks to ease up lending standards so that more low-income families could have home loans. This unleashed the monster we now know as the sub-prime loan, as it was the only way banks could justify loaning money to people who they knew full well most likely wouldn't pay it back. Either way, we're looking at a large-scale situation in which people who shouldn't have been given access to large sums of money were. You are right about the community groups putting pressure on banks to give loans to lower income families. The problem is that those groups were not telling banks to give loans that people could not afford. That was done out of greed by the banks. They could give huge loans to people regardless of what those people could afford and then sell those loads off in bundles. Passing on the problem to the next guy. Some people of the current generation understand this. The problem as you said is that some don't, of just don't care. Yes, unfortunately there are people and families like this. As much as government has a responsibility to help people, at some point people must make an effort. It all depends on their situation Sky. A mother that works a minimum wage job, because that is all she can get is a lot different then someone that sits at home for no reason other then laziness. How do you figure that? Most people don't want just the minimum of what they need to survive.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 27, 2009 9:56:36 GMT -5
You are right about the community groups putting pressure on banks to give loans to lower income families. The problem is that those groups were not telling banks to give loans that people could not afford. That was done out of greed by the banks. They could give huge loans to people regardless of what those people could afford and then sell those loads off in bundles. Passing on the problem to the next guy. For many of the banks, it wasn't greed that caused them to tack on high interest rates. Rather, it was their desire to "spread the risk" (much like how insurance companies work) in order to ensure that those people who were paying in would offset losses caused by people who defaulted. It's those people who don't understand or don't care that will, 9 for 10, succeed in keeping kids down. That's why I want to focus on them as well. This is why I'd like to see some sort of minimal standards, such as proof that the recipient is actively looking for work, actively trying to acquire new skills, or actively trying to start their own business. Government $$$ should be a safety net or a padded floor to help people when they fall, not a wheelchair or full body cast to keep people immobilized. That's literally how I got the job I'm at right now. Presently, I do newspaper deliveries. I've got about 20% of the town, with that 20% representing a series of neighborhoods so far out on edge of town that I routinely have to brake for deer and possum. On an average night, rolling and throwing takes me 3+ hours. I get paid by the hour, and I can include the time I spend rolling the papers. One of the other drivers is on SSI (Social Security disability insurance) as doing a route is one of the few jobs he can hold. Originally, he had the entire northern half of the town (the town is cut north / south by a set of railroad tracks). Rolling and throwing would take him practically the entire evening. Last December, he came up for a raise owing to how long he's been at the job. The raise would have been less than a dollar an hour, but with the hours he was working it would have put him over his maximum allowance; he'd have lost his SSI. Thing is, we only deliver two nights a week. Even with it taking him all night, at most he'd be doing 12 hours a week; it'd barely even count as a part-time job under some standards. His pay, even including the raise, wouldn't have been a living wage. Yet he'd still be too rich for aid; given that he's also trying to support his mom, losing his SSI would have most likely meant financial ruin.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 27, 2009 10:05:57 GMT -5
For many of the banks, it wasn't greed that caused them to tack on high interest rates. Rather, it was their desire to "spread the risk" (much like how insurance companies work) in order to ensure that those people who were paying in would offset losses caused by people who defaulted. ...and that risk could have been avoided by doing the proper checks and giving people loans they could afford. The banks that did these things are the ones that are still ok. I would like to see things of this sort, personally I would like to see training provided with the support money. I agree. I agree the when someone is right on one of those cutoff points it can be hard. The system needs more steps to help avoid situations like this. Of course this setup would not preventing this man from taking a 40 hours a week job that pays more. He still can make more money then he does right know with a better job.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 10:09:00 GMT -5
Welfare DOES come with mandatory job training. Some states have it set up differently, but PA, for example, does an excellent job of helping people transition from welfare to work.
It's just easier to take pot shots at the poor instead of looking to see what really causes poverty.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 27, 2009 10:09:29 GMT -5
Some people are simply failures. I would suggest, however, that it's not even nearly close the amount of people you seem to be indicating. And even then, the answer should never be "fuck'em"
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 27, 2009 10:14:58 GMT -5
You are right about the community groups putting pressure on banks to give loans to lower income families. The problem is that those groups were not telling banks to give loans that people could not afford. That was done out of greed by the banks. They could give huge loans to people regardless of what those people could afford and then sell those loads off in bundles. Passing on the problem to the next guy. For many of the banks, it wasn't greed that caused them to tack on high interest rates. Rather, it was their desire to "spread the risk" (much like how insurance companies work) in order to ensure that those people who were paying in would offset losses caused by people who defaulted. Sky, you do realize that the banks, when a loan goes bad, simply sell it off to a collection group for nearly the same price as what the loan costs? Then it becomes a pay us or it's court time for those that defaulted. I went through this once before, it's not pretty. But the bank got far more than what the loan actually cost in the long run. If what you did suggest was true, the interest rate would be mandated at fixed rates, instead banks were shafting people with up to 43% interest but determining it on a case by case basis depending on your income and collateral. No one can crawl out from under that
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 10:18:55 GMT -5
Some people are simply failures. I would suggest, however, that it's not even nearly close the amount of people you seem to be indicating. And even then, the answer should never be "fuck'em" Well, I agree with you completely. But I also understand that's where other people's moral philosophy on how to handle things might stop.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 27, 2009 10:44:38 GMT -5
Welfare DOES come with mandatory job training. Some states have it set up differently, but PA, for example, does an excellent job of helping people transition from welfare to work. It's just easier to take pot shots at the poor instead of looking to see what really causes poverty. PA sounds like they have the right idea DV. I now there is no mandated job training in New York state, at least when I lived their. If your post was directed in part at me, how was I taking pot shots at the poor?
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 27, 2009 11:15:54 GMT -5
I agree the when someone is right on one of those cutoff points it can be hard. The system needs more steps to help avoid situations like this. Of course this setup would not preventing this man from taking a 40 hours a week job that pays more. He still can make more money then he does right know with a better job. Yeah but that's easier said than done. Maybe he can't get a better job. That's the attitude I hate right there--"well, just go get a better job!" As if there's so many jobs out there right now. I basically have three jobs, but I'm not making any money hardly because they all pay shit. If I'd chosen to go to school for something more lucrative I'm sure I'd be less poor too, but I just wasn't interested in IT/computers, medicine or law or any of that stuff. And even if I was I wouldn't be able to afford the education. I'd rather be just poor and have no debt than be poor AND have a shit ton of debt in student loans. That made more sense in my head than it did when I wrote it. -_-
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 27, 2009 11:18:16 GMT -5
Nick, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking shots at the poor. I just meant in general it's easier to take shots at them than to understand what's really going on.
|
|