• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of the Poverty Trap (1 Viewer)

The best path for individuals to get out of poverty is via being able to seize opportunity.

Opportunity for education, training, addressing any barriers that may impede them (such as mental and physical health), and not having to spend 50+ hours a week just trying not to starve and be homeless.

We know this.

And yet, currently, our government is slashing programs and adding caveats to programs that will help people get out of poverty.

Let’s not pretend that’s not on purpose.

The wealthiest among us need to keep a segment of the population downtrodden. That’s how they get labor out of them for crap wages.
 
BirdinHand said:
Well, breaking out the “every” qualifier gets this post dismissed as conjecture and bullshit immediately.
Click to expand...

You did the same when you made absolute categorical statements in posts 26 and 36.
I would agree that what you wrote about is very common, but it's not universal.
 
ataraxia said:
What do you make of the fact that many European, especially Scandinavian countries, far out, performed the US in terms of social mobility, and yet have far more robust welfare systems?

Click to expand...

Well, firstly, let me state that (as above), I tend to be very suspicious of monocausal depictions. There will be multiple drivers - some separate, some interactive - for most major social phenomena.

For this one, I would start by pointing to the fact that this appears to be a measure of relative mobility. I think a better measure is absolute mobility. Allow me to demonstrate:

Let us say we have Country A. Country A has two basic pay scales: $10,000 a year, and $20,000 a year, and that which payscale you get is completely random. In Country A, social mobility will be very high - 50% of the peoples born to couples making $10K a year will end up in the top income bracket.​
​
Country A Income Distribution of people born into bottom income bracket will look like:​
​
$10K / Year : 50%​
$ 20K / Year : 50%​
​
Then let us compare that to Country B. Country B has five brackets ($10K, $20K, $30K, $40K, and $50K), and distribution is again random.​
​
Country B Income Distribution of people born into the bottom income bracket will look like:​
​
$10K / Year: 20%​
$20K / Year: 20%​
$30K / Year: 20%​
$40K / Year: 20%​
$50K / Year: 20%​
​
​
​
My key takeaway from these numbers would be that 60% of those born into the bottom income bracket in Country B end up better than those in Country A, and so, in absolute terms, I think they are better off.

I am less convinced by metrics which attempt to suggest they are, in fact, worse off because Country B has far less "Social Mobility" (only 20% of those born into the bottom income bracket end up in it's top income bracket) than Country A.

Mind you, that's just one point. It is also true that Nordic Countries tend to be a lot more homogeneous than we are, with higher social trust, and in the United States we have sub-cultures that reinforce destructive decisions. I would expect those also to play roles in mobility considerations.
 
ataraxia said:
What do you make of the fact that many European, especially Scandinavian countries, far out, performed the US in terms of social mobility, and yet have far more robust welfare systems?

Click to expand...
cpwill said:
Mind you, that's just one point. It is also true that Nordic Countries tend to be a lot more homogeneous than we are, with higher social trust, and in the United States we have sub-cultures that reinforce destructive decisions. I would expect those also to play roles in mobility considerations.
Click to expand...

Parental impact does show up in the numbers (recommended reading for anyone interested in those parental/cultural drivers). We don't have a perfectly random distribution (and we shouldn't expect one; nor do I think we should want one).

1747241482982.png
 
BirdinHand said:
You know who is responsible for single mother households?

The loser men that don’t support their kids and who are so bad, women would rather raise children without them than deal with them.
Click to expand...

This can be true.

However, we have no reason to assume it is true of even the majority of such cases, much less all such cases.
 
cpwill said:
Well, firstly, let me state that (as above), I tend to be very suspicious of monocausal depictions. There will be multiple drivers - some separate, some interactive - for most major social phenomena.

For this one, I would start by pointing to the fact that this appears to be a measure of relative mobility. I think a better measure is absolute mobility. Allow me to demonstrate:

Let us say we have Country A. Country A has two basic pay scales: $10,000 a year, and $20,000 a year, and that which payscale you get is completely random. In Country A, social mobility will be very high - 50% of the peoples born to couples making $10K a year will end up in the top income bracket.​
​
Country A Income Distribution of people born into bottom income bracket will look like:​
​
$10K / Year : 50%​
$ 20K / Year : 50%​
​
Then let us compare that to Country B. Country B has five brackets ($10K, $20K, $30K, $40K, and $50K), and distribution is again random.​
​
Country B Income Distribution of people born into the bottom income bracket will look like:​
​
$10K / Year: 20%​
$20K / Year: 20%​
$30K / Year: 20%​
$40K / Year: 20%​
$50K / Year: 20%​
​
​
​
My key takeaway from these numbers would be that 60% of those born into the bottom income bracket in Country B end up better than those in Country A, and so, in absolute terms, I think they are better off.
Click to expand...
Scandinavian countries consistently rank high in social mobility due to a combination of factors, including robust welfare states, strong educational systems, and inclusive economic policies. These countries prioritize equal access to quality education, work opportunities, and social support, creating a more level playing field for individuals regardless of their background.

Conversely, here in the US, there has been gradual decrease in social mobility since the Reagan era due to less educational opportunities for the poor, the gutting of unions, stagnant wage growth for the working class- as almost all the GDP growth has gone to the top 5% of the country, and increasing income and wealth inequality.
cosm.aei.org

Economic Opportunity and Social Mobility

Years ago, I worked at the Pew Charitable Trusts on something called the Economic Mobility Project. In 2009, we commissioned a survey covering opportunity, mobility, and the American Dream. One revealing question we asked was the following: The term American Dream means different things to...
cosm.aei.org cosm.aei.org

cpwill said:
I am less convinced by metrics which attempt to suggest they are, in fact, worse off because Country B has far less "Social Mobility" (only 20% of those born into the bottom income bracket end up in it's top income bracket) than Country A.

Mind you, that's just one point. It is also true that Nordic Countries tend to be a lot more homogeneous than we are, with higher social trust, and in the United States we have sub-cultures that reinforce destructive decisions. I would expect those also to play roles in mobility considerations.
Click to expand...
Actually, a heterogenous society is only a problem if the society is racist or has constructed other similar social heirarchies. India has the same problem as we do- except not with race but with their caste system. Other countries have this with ethnicity, religion, Racism, castes, etc.... these are all dangerous and dysfunctional mindsets and cultural constructs which puts societies back quite a bit. Some cultural beliefs and practices are just more dysfunctional than others.

And the Scandinavians are not even THAT homogeneous.

"An important and useful way to understand nationalism and national identity is to approach such constructs as building upon a myth. Bouchard has offered a useful description ofnational mythsasaproductofadynamic configuration composed of seven elements (Bouchard 2014 pp. 4–5): 1) a structuring event or episode (“the anchor”); 2) an imprint, that is,a deep emotion left by“the anchor”; 3) a translation of the imprint into an ethos; 4) the construction of a narrative; 5) the sacralisation of the ethos; 6) the enactment of discursive and communicative strategies to dis-seminate the message; and 7) the intervention of social actors who con-struct and promote the myth."
www.taylorfrancis.com

Myths of ethnic homogeneity | 3 | The Danish case | Garbi Schmidt | Ta

In Denmark, as in many other national contexts, there is a widespread understanding of the nation as building on an ethnically homogeneous past. This chapter’s
www.taylorfrancis.com www.taylorfrancis.com
 
BirdinHand said:
Oh look…something from 1965 🙄

Couldn’t find anything within, gosh, the last 60 years perhaps?
Click to expand...
Democrats knew welfare would make blacks dependent that was the plan. It destroyed the father in the family replacing it with the government. THat was Hillarys campaign fil called Julia. Democrats oppose parental rights and the plan was to replace the family with the government. The irony is democrats come from the mist dysfunctional families you can imagine. Take the BIdens sex and drug addicts tax cheats influence peddlers they belong on the Jerry Springer Show
 
SoccerCoach said:
Democrats knew welfare would make blacks dependent that was the plan. It destroyed the father in the family replacing it with the government. THat was Hillarys campaign fil called Julia. Democrats oppose parental rights and the plan was to replace the family with the government. The irony is democrats come from the mist dysfunctional families you can imagine. Take the BIdens sex and drug addicts tax cheats influence peddlers they belong on the Jerry Springer Show
Click to expand...
😂😂😂😂

I think you may want to invest I no better tinfoil and/or take some time off the YouTube based on this post.

The only thing missing is a pizza parlor.
 
SoccerCoach said:
Democrats knew welfare would make blacks dependent that was the plan. It destroyed the father in the family replacing it with the government. THat was Hillarys campaign fil called Julia. Democrats oppose parental rights and the plan was to replace the family with the government. The irony is democrats come from the mist dysfunctional families you can imagine. Take the BIdens sex and drug addicts tax cheats influence peddlers they belong on the Jerry Springer Show
Click to expand...

Cool story. If you want to know the story behind that story, just ask the senior GOP political strategists:

(Interview with Lee Atwater, senior GOP political strategist and campaign advisor to Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign):

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
en.wikipedia.org

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
SoccerCoach said:
Democrats knew welfare would make blacks dependent that was the plan.
Click to expand...

Citations please.

SoccerCoach said:
It destroyed the father in the family replacing it with the government. THat was Hillarys campaign fil called Julia. Democrats oppose parental rights and the plan was to replace the family with the government.
Click to expand...

Citations please.

SoccerCoach said:
The irony is democrats come from the mist dysfunctional families you can imagine. Take the BIdens sex and drug addicts tax cheats influence peddlers they belong on the Jerry Springer Show
Click to expand...

Citations please.
 
SoccerCoach said:
The trap is called the welfare state that destroyed the 2 parent family and created a culture dependent on the government. The main cause of poverty and crime is the single mother
Click to expand...
Actually expenses did that. These things you guys unquestioningly parrot….. perhaps you can tell me why working people are still having to seek welfare… white conservatives love to tell themselves this but it just aint so.

Perhaps they should instead ask themselves why wally world insists on getting their employees on welfare than paying them more.
 
Lursa said:
Nowhere does that say it was "a plan."
Click to expand...
Welfare destroyed the 2 parent family. Single mothers are the main cause of poverty and crime.

Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 62-66, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov www.ojp.gov

  • Single mothers are more likely to live in poverty than married couples or single fathers. (Mothers who share custody equally are able to improve their life, earn more money, and are happier. This leads to happier and more financial stability. Fewer mothers would be in poverty if they had time to improve their life, have time to update their skills, and have time for themselves and be less stressed out.)6
  • The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not.6
  • The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that they were raised by a single parent.7

Crime Linked to Growing Up in Single Mother Homes​

In 1996, 70% of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long sentences were raised by single mothers.7

The absence of the father increases the daughters’ vulnerability to exploitation by those outside the family. Girls from homes without fathers are 6 times more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.9
 
SoccerCoach said:
Welfare destroyed the 2 parent family. Single mothers are the main cause of poverty and crime.

Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 62-66, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov www.ojp.gov

  • Single mothers are more likely to live in poverty than married couples or single fathers. (Mothers who share custody equally are able to improve their life, earn more money, and are happier. This leads to happier and more financial stability. Fewer mothers would be in poverty if they had time to improve their life, have time to update their skills, and have time for themselves and be less stressed out.)6
  • The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not.6
  • The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that they were raised by a single parent.7

Crime Linked to Growing Up in Single Mother Homes​

In 1996, 70% of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long sentences were raised by single mothers.7

The absence of the father increases the daughters’ vulnerability to exploitation by those outside the family. Girls from homes without fathers are 6 times more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.9
Click to expand...
😂🙄

Welfare didn’t destroy the two parent family.

Shitty ass men did.

Once women could have their own bank accounts, jobs, mortgages, apartments, and get no fault divorces…they no longer had to stay with shitty ass men.

Coincidentally around the same time frame as your Wikipedia article and the civil rights movement in the US.

Plenty of Grandmoms didn’t stay with Grandpa because they shared such great love and admiration for one another - they stayed with him because she didn’t have a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom