Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

11 Sep 2014, 11:24 am

sonofghandi wrote:
khaoz wrote:
Intelligent people are more likely to be both Liberal and secular. That is a given.

I would agree if you had said formally educated people. I know plenty of very intelligent people with quite extreme conservative views (fiscal, social, and religious). And even then, those who self identified as Tea Party (at least at their beginnings before being co-opted by the same radical conservatives trying to shore up the libertarian vote), were more likely to have higher education than any other self identified political demographic.


Being "educated" is not an indicator of intelligence.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

11 Sep 2014, 11:57 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
2. How did people below the poverty line work things out before the welfare state? Was it such a heartless and ineffective system back then, were people just starving everywhere?

Yes.

I am highly ignorant of American history. You got annoyed at British taxation, shot at us until we ran away screaming, wrote a constitution, bought Louisiana, shot at each other, abolished slavery, bombed Japan, bombed Vietnam, killed John Lennon, and then it was the present.

From my limited experience, I find many Americans (and Canadians - I couldn't tell you anything about Canadian history that isn't American history in disguise) are similarly ignorant of British(/European) history. That's a problem, because we've got loads of history and you barely have any.

Philanthropists existed, but they couldn't handle it on their own. The most famous were the Rowntree family (the confectioners), but Charles Booth is also notable. Both Rowntree (in York) and Booth (in London) found that 25-30% of people were living below the poverty line. That's not "couldn't afford two weeks in Magaluf", or "can't afford digital television", or "can't afford chocolate", it's "can't afford proper nourishment". Booth also found that illness was a far bigger cause of chronic poverty than idleness or "lack of moral character". Rowntree and Booth both lobbied the British government (successfully) for the first pieces of welfare reform. The "invisible hand" that the likes of Gladstone and Asquith favoured wasn't working.

Victorian Britain was TERRIBLE. Yes, the caps were necessary. 25% of people in poverty is absolutely ridiculous.

Now, of course, things are better today, capitalism is more advanced, etc., so you could argue that far fewer people would be in poverty without welfare now. However, I'd like to remind you that malnourishment is a problem for people on welfare - what chance have they got if that's pulled away? Particularly as things are only going to get worse as energy becomes more expensive?

Welfare has been a huge success, and I think it remains a valuable tool in the fight against poverty.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

11 Sep 2014, 8:36 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
2. How did people below the poverty line work things out before the welfare state? Was it such a heartless and ineffective system back then, were people just starving everywhere?

Yes.

I am highly ignorant of American history. You got annoyed at British taxation, shot at us until we ran away screaming, wrote a constitution, bought Louisiana, shot at each other, abolished slavery, bombed Japan, bombed Vietnam, killed John Lennon, and then it was the present.

From my limited experience, I find many Americans (and Canadians - I couldn't tell you anything about Canadian history that isn't American history in disguise) are similarly ignorant of British(/European) history. That's a problem, because we've got loads of history and you barely have any.

Philanthropists existed, but they couldn't handle it on their own. The most famous were the Rowntree family (the confectioners), but Charles Booth is also notable. Both Rowntree (in York) and Booth (in London) found that 25-30% of people were living below the poverty line. That's not "couldn't afford two weeks in Magaluf", or "can't afford digital television", or "can't afford chocolate", it's "can't afford proper nourishment". Booth also found that illness was a far bigger cause of chronic poverty than idleness or "lack of moral character". Rowntree and Booth both lobbied the British government (successfully) for the first pieces of welfare reform. The "invisible hand" that the likes of Gladstone and Asquith favoured wasn't working.

Victorian Britain was TERRIBLE. Yes, the caps were necessary. 25% of people in poverty is absolutely ridiculous.

Now, of course, things are better today, capitalism is more advanced, etc., so you could argue that far fewer people would be in poverty without welfare now. However, I'd like to remind you that malnourishment is a problem for people on welfare - what chance have they got if that's pulled away? Particularly as things are only going to get worse as energy becomes more expensive?

Welfare has been a huge success, and I think it remains a valuable tool in the fight against poverty.


1. You just instantly disqualified yourself from the first statement "I am highly ignorant". What do you know about the success of welfare here?

2. News flash: Britain bombed Germany. We also both have loads of history. People have been in America for quite some time now, prehistoric peoples like the Cahokians (mound builders). Seriously, British folks make my eyes roll from time to time with their air of superiority.

sonofghandi wrote:
I definitely think the level of compassion needed is there, and I definitely think that charity organizations (as a whole) are significantly more cost effective and efficient. I have zero confidence in the capability. Most charities are struggling even with the billions the government shells out. If any reductions are going to be made in federal assistance programs, they are going to have to be very gradual and be very carefully planned and executed. And bill would also need a mechanism to adjust things based on economic indicators.

One thing I find amusing is the push to reduce government spending on social programs by the same people so vehemently opposed to raising the minimum wage at all, which with even a modest rise would take tens of millions above the income thresholds to qualify for benefits.


That is because we don't feel that raising the minimum wage will benefit much of anyone. From what we've seen, when a state raises it's minimum wage it just serves to make job opportunities even more scarce or to simply cut everyone's hours. Take a look at a state like Oklahoma for example. They have used reasonable alternatives that actually improved the marketplace, cutting into your employer's wallet is an oxymoron if you're trying to encourage him/her to pay employees more, give them more hours. So in spite of a lower minimum wage people have more purchasing power in Oklahoma than in California, because stay with me for a second but they actually drill for oil and OCEA isn't crawling up every employer's arse. Who would have thought?


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

11 Sep 2014, 9:41 pm

khaoz wrote:
Intelligent people are more likely to be both Liberal and secular. That is a given.


Actually, they're likely to be both socially and fiscally liberal, i.e. libertarian:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9614000373

Quote:
Abstract

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2?5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points). I reconcile these findings with the previous literature by showing that verbal intelligence is correlated with both socially and economically liberal beliefs (β = .10?.32). My findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.


We beat out the liberals even with social conservatives tied to our ankles.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

12 Sep 2014, 7:59 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
That is because we don't feel that raising the minimum wage will benefit much of anyone. From what we've seen, when a state raises it's minimum wage it just serves to make job opportunities even more scarce or to simply cut everyone's hours.


^You may want to research this a little better. It has been found in multiple studies that low to moderate increases in minimum wage decrease the unemployment rate over the long term, increase state tax revenue, and decrease government spending (state, federal, and local) by a significant amount. It has also been correlated (although not conclusively causitive as far as I know) to decreased employee absenteeism, lower turnover, and higher workplace moral.

Quote:
Take a look at a state like Oklahoma for example.


You mean the state where the household poverty rate hovers aound 17% (17.8% as of 2013 - a 15 year high)? The state where the median household income is only 80% of the national average? The state that always ranks in the top 10 hungriest states by the Dept of Agriculture? Where over half of public school students qualify for free or reduced price lunch programs? Where 13% of the state population collects SNAP benefits? Where 58.5% of the labor force had no health insurance prior to the ACA? Where the average person making <$20,000/yr spent 30% of their income in rent? Where scurvy and ricketts is an actual concern?

Maybe the state's revenue has gone up, as have the profits for the businesses in its borders, but the average laborer is not doing so great.

And BTW, comparing any state to California is problematic for so many reasons that I'm sure you could write a few textbooks on the subject. It is actually a big part of the reasoning behind the proposal to split it into six different states.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

12 Sep 2014, 8:39 am

The_Walrus wrote:
I am highly ignorant of American history. You got annoyed at British taxation, shot at us until we ran away screaming, wrote a constitution, bought Louisiana, shot at each other, abolished slavery, bombed Japan, bombed Vietnam, killed John Lennon, and then it was the present.

From my limited experience, I find many Americans (and Canadians - I couldn't tell you anything about Canadian history that isn't American history in disguise) are similarly ignorant of British(/European) history. That's a problem, because we've got loads of history and you barely have any.
.


OT but I found that succinct recap of U.S. history hilarious. It also reminds me of a time years ago when I vacationed in London. I was overwhelmed by the sheer weight of history. The buildings that would be considered historical in the U.S. would be considered recent construction in England.

At one point during the trip I got curious about how the British regarded U.S. history (the internet hadn't been invented yet so my only recourse was books). I'd previously read books about medieval England, the Roman period and WWII but everything I knew about the American Revolution was told through American POV; a mentally ill king sent overly regimented troops to the colonies. We shot at them (from behind bushes, without regimentation) until they ran away screaming.

I went into a bookstore in London to find some book that would tell me the other side of the story. I looked through a thick book of comprehensive English history. It was so thick I thought it must have something. It did. It had one page on the loss of the colonies. I was momentarily miffed. How could something that literally defined the making of America and that figured so large in all history I learned only merit one page from the people we fought so fiercely against? It was like confronting your former bully and discovering he doesn't recognize you or remember any of the confrontations. But I had to admit it was a very thick book and any country with that much history is just not going to be deeply affected by every confrontation- even if it means something intense to the other party.



Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,033

19 Sep 2014, 5:32 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
That is because we don't feel that raising the minimum wage will benefit much of anyone. From what we've seen, when a state raises it's minimum wage it just serves to make job opportunities even more scarce or to simply cut everyone's hours.


^You may want to research this a little better. It has been found in multiple studies that low to moderate increases in minimum wage decrease the unemployment rate over the long term, increase state tax revenue, and decrease government spending (state, federal, and local) by a significant amount. It has also been correlated (although not conclusively causitive as far as I know) to decreased employee absenteeism, lower turnover, and higher workplace moral.

Quote:
Take a look at a state like Oklahoma for example.


You mean the state where the household poverty rate hovers aound 17% (17.8% as of 2013 - a 15 year high)? The state where the median household income is only 80% of the national average? The state that always ranks in the top 10 hungriest states by the Dept of Agriculture? Where over half of public school students qualify for free or reduced price lunch programs? Where 13% of the state population collects SNAP benefits? Where 58.5% of the labor force had no health insurance prior to the ACA? Where the average person making <$20,000/yr spent 30% of their income in rent? Where scurvy and ricketts is an actual concern?

Maybe the state's revenue has gone up, as have the profits for the businesses in its borders, but the average laborer is not doing so great.

And BTW, comparing any state to California is problematic for so many reasons that I'm sure you could write a few textbooks on the subject. It is actually a big part of the reasoning behind the proposal to split it into six different states.


Sorry I haven't gotten back to you, I've just been bogged down trying to renew my tax preparing certification. I realize looking back at this that Oklahoma was a terrible example, and I must have been drunk or something to think along those lines, lol.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Dersino
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 12

23 Sep 2014, 3:22 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
Actually, I have noticed that there is a decent portion of libertarians like myself on WP and elsewhere, who are on the spectrum. The main thing I've noticed is that people on the spectrum tend to be socially liberal, and when it comes to fiscal and foreign issues it can be a toss up between either end.


I have noticed the same. To the left on social isues, but evenly divided in fiscal/economic issues.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

23 Sep 2014, 3:55 am

Lukecash12 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
2. How did people below the poverty line work things out before the welfare state? Was it such a heartless and ineffective system back then, were people just starving everywhere?

Yes.

I am highly ignorant of American history. You got annoyed at British taxation, shot at us until we ran away screaming, wrote a constitution, bought Louisiana, shot at each other, abolished slavery, bombed Japan, bombed Vietnam, killed John Lennon, and then it was the present.

From my limited experience, I find many Americans (and Canadians - I couldn't tell you anything about Canadian history that isn't American history in disguise) are similarly ignorant of British(/European) history. That's a problem, because we've got loads of history and you barely have any.

Philanthropists existed, but they couldn't handle it on their own. The most famous were the Rowntree family (the confectioners), but Charles Booth is also notable. Both Rowntree (in York) and Booth (in London) found that 25-30% of people were living below the poverty line. That's not "couldn't afford two weeks in Magaluf", or "can't afford digital television", or "can't afford chocolate", it's "can't afford proper nourishment". Booth also found that illness was a far bigger cause of chronic poverty than idleness or "lack of moral character". Rowntree and Booth both lobbied the British government (successfully) for the first pieces of welfare reform. The "invisible hand" that the likes of Gladstone and Asquith favoured wasn't working.

Victorian Britain was TERRIBLE. Yes, the caps were necessary. 25% of people in poverty is absolutely ridiculous.

Now, of course, things are better today, capitalism is more advanced, etc., so you could argue that far fewer people would be in poverty without welfare now. However, I'd like to remind you that malnourishment is a problem for people on welfare - what chance have they got if that's pulled away? Particularly as things are only going to get worse as energy becomes more expensive?

Welfare has been a huge success, and I think it remains a valuable tool in the fight against poverty.


1. You just instantly disqualified yourself from the first statement "I am highly ignorant". What do you know about the success of welfare here?

2. News flash: Britain bombed Germany. We also both have loads of history. People have been in America for quite some time now, prehistoric peoples like the Cahokians (mound builders). Seriously, British folks make my eyes roll from time to time with their air of superiority.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

You totally missed the point of my post. I was answering your question about the world before the welfare state. This is something that is very much in the mind of the Briton, most of us wouldn't ask that question because we know it was absolutely terrible. I was then trying to derive some humour from this by pointing out how ignorant people on each side of the Atlantic tend to be of history on the other side of the Atlantic. It is obvious that the welfare state is a good thing to people with knowledge of European history.

When I talked about America shooting and bombing, that was simply because war is usually the most important historical event. If you were to reduce British history in the same way I did, it would be a similar sequence of invasions, repelled invasions, conquests and wars, probably only pausing in the last century or so.

By definition, prehistoric people are not part of "American history" in any meaningful sense. Same with Britain, our history only really starts with Claudius because of a lack of a written record before then.

One does not need to know the difference between John Quincy Adams and William Henry Harrison to know that the poverty rate in America has remained low since the introduction of food stamps, or that if the working classes starve in 190 large nations without government support then it's highly likely they'll starve in the 191st too.

I have presented evidence from both sides of the Atlantic that welfare works. If you wish to show that non-welfare works, I would be interested in seeing the evidence you present.