Protectionism vs. Progressive Stuff

[metalhead]

That's becoming a more and more absurd demand for justification. I'm fine with answering your pointed questions, mostly, but I know these people exist, you know these people exist. Pretending they're mythological is not productive.

Perhaps not, but projecting the knowledge that people like you describe exist into some alarmingly broad social trend is similarly counter-productive, without good reason for doing so.

 

[onejayhawk]

Perhaps not, but projecting the knowledge that people like you describe exist into some alarmingly broad social trend is similarly counter-productive, without good reason for doing so.

This is a better reply. Why not start with it?

J

 

[Farm Boy]

Adversarial thought takes a while to shake off, it's a mode-shift.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Perhaps not, but projecting the knowledge that people like you describe exist into some alarmingly broad social trend is similarly counter-productive, without good reason for doing so.

Well, where I live, we get cross traffic from both Chicago and East St. Louis. It's a bit of a cultural phenomenon. My city alone has thousands who live in HUD and, being in their proximity, I see many of them with nicer things than I have had, or even have now.

 

[metalhead]

Do you know that the ones with nicer things aren't working 40 or 50 hours a week? That the nicer things aren't gifts from relatives or friends? That the people you see with nicer cars or phones aren't just visiting? I've lived in a section 8 building before and near public housing as well, in Chicago and Philadelphia. Can't say that I've seen much in the way of nice, expensive things being owned by the residents. Not that I paid much attention, but if it was as striking as you're describing, I probably would have noticed.

It's easy to jump to conclusions. It's also easy to look at other people and think they should live their lives as you do, i.e. frugally. But just because some people don't choose to live frugally doesn't somehow make them morally deficient. People have different priorities, and it's possible that the perception isn't a perfect match for reality. Not everybody has such an easy time simply walking into a place and getting a job.

 

[schlaufuchs]

That's becoming a more and more absurd demand for justification. I'm fine with answering your pointed questions, mostly, but I know these people exist, you know these people exist. Pretending they're mythological is not productive.

The difference between "these people exist" and "these people are a menace that must be stopped" is very large.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

If I wanted to be a jerk about it, I'd accuse it of being drug money. Am I sure in every single case someone didn't gift them stuff? No, of course not. People do have different priorities and that's exactly what I'm addressing through the whole conversation.

I erased some of this, because it wasn't entirely fair.

Feel like, no matter how hard I try to do things right in life, I'm always fighting with one hand tied behind my back in these types of debates, because of unfortunates. But you know, life isn't fair, it's what you make it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, where I live, we get cross traffic from both Chicago and East St. Louis. It's a bit of a cultural phenomenon. My city alone has thousands who live in HUD and, being in their proximity, I see many of them with nicer things than I have had, or even have now.

Of course it does. That's expanding where I live too. The work that people can find doesn't pay like it used to, families aren't together to support each other as much as they used to be(not least of which because the people who manage to land good jobs frequently must relocate), and residents of the wealthy burbs and North Chicagoans certainly don't want to live next to the people who serve them coffee and keep their cars running. They can all live in a government subsidized hole until the robots come as far as they're concerned. Right?

The part about drug money isn't always being mean, btw. It's there and it's real. Guys who manage to accumulate decent cash illegally can't just plunk it down to buy a house. They can spend it on a nice phone, or on rims, or at the bar.

 

[metalhead]

If I wanted to be a jerk about it, I'd accuse it of being drug money. Am I sure in every single case someone didn't gift them stuff? No, of course not. People do have different priorities and that's exactly what I'm addressing through the whole conversation.

I erased some of this, because it wasn't entirely fair.

Feel like, no matter how hard I try to do things right in life, I'm always fighting with one hand tied behind my back in these types of debates, because of unfortunates. But you know, life isn't fair, it's what you make it.

I guess where I come down on this is, what is "right?" I mean some things are pretty objectively "right," like providing for your family, but I think a lot of people's lives are complicated when it comes to figuring out what is "right." Is it "wrong" to take a government benefit so you can be around to put your kids to bed vs. working a second job to make not much more money? Sure, you can say "well why'd they have kids," but I mean, that is shutting the barn door years after that horse that ran away is dead and buried. Yeah, teenagers are better off not having kids, but teenagers are going to make bad decisions with life-altering consequences. It's hardly fair to ding an adult for what they did as a teenager. And the kids of the teenage mom who grow up without her around because she had to work 2 jobs to feed them in order to stay off government assistance - what is going to become of them?

There are reasons people get stuck in poverty, and it's not usually because they are lazy, or lack moral fiber. Getting out requires access to many resources that people in poverty simply don't have, and that is true across the country.

 

[onejayhawk]

I guess where I come down on this is, what is "right?" I mean some things are pretty objectively "right," like providing for your family, but I think a lot of people's lives are complicated when it comes to figuring out what is "right." Is it "wrong" to take a government benefit so you can be around to put your kids to bed vs. working a second job to make not much more money? Sure, you can say "well why'd they have kids," but I mean, that is shutting the barn door years after that horse that ran away is dead and buried. Yeah, teenagers are better off not having kids, but teenagers are going to make bad decisions with life-altering consequences. It's hardly fair to ding an adult for what they did as a teenager. And the kids of the teenage mom who grow up without her around because she had to work 2 jobs to feed them in order to stay off government assistance - what is going to become of them?

There are reasons people get stuck in poverty, and it's not usually because they are lazy, or lack moral fiber. Getting out requires access to many resources that people in poverty simply don't have, and that is true across the country.

This is an assumption, not a fact.

There are many famous counter-examples. Even if what you say is true, how much access to what resources is needed?

J

 

[Traitorfish]

This is an assumption, not a fact.

There are many famous counter-examples.

Famous because they are improbable. If going from rags to riches was an everyday occurrence, they wouldn't be famous.

 

[Quintillus]

Populists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were left wing (but not quite socialist) on economic issues, and were also disproportionately religious and prohibitionist...

Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking posts I've read on CFC in quite a long time, or for that matter among the more thought-provoking things I've read this year. I'm particularly curious about neoliberalism - from your post and a bit of reading about the book you linked I gather it's essentially the position (on social, economic, and trade issues) of mainstream Democrats of the past 20 years, but you mention the Bushes as followers of it as well, whereas I typically hear of especially W. of being neoconservative instead. At any rate, you've made me consider new thoughts due to presenting different, yet well-reasoned arguments, and I may wind up reading the book you mentioned to learn more.

It's easy to jump to conclusions. It's also easy to look at other people and think they should live their lives as you do, i.e. frugally. But just because some people don't choose to live frugally doesn't somehow make them morally deficient. People have different priorities, and it's possible that the perception isn't a perfect match for reality. Not everybody has such an easy time simply walking into a place and getting a job.

So I guess the point where I start to have an objection is when the perception strays too far for reality. If you're making enough to get by, but racking up significant credit card and/or other debt on unnecessary extras such as fancy phones, rims, fancy cars, etc., it's where the perception is significantly different enough from reality that it's causing yourself considerable harm. Yes, sometimes people will make poor decisions, and I don't have a problem with isolated cases of it; we all make poor decisions at times and if you buy a $600 phone and rack up $400 in interest before paying it off, it can be a useful life lesson in finances so long as you learn from it. It's when it becomes a repeated pattern of overspending to the point of causing significant financial problem where one could live comfortably without debt (outside of sensibly financed housing/car/education) that the perception not matching reality becomes a problem IMO.

Famous because they are improbable. If going from rags to riches was an everyday occurrence, they wouldn't be famous.

This is interesting for me because I have a friend who, if not quite rags to riches at this point, is at least on the path to it. Yet talking with him about having kids in the future, he puts far less emphasis in things such as quality schools and being around people in successful careers - police officers, doctors, welders, businesspeople, etc. - than other friends who grew up in more prosperous surroundings. I think that some of it is because he feels that as he was able to overcome adversity with a difficult background, so should his children - but IMO he underestimates his own luck in that and trusts more to luck than probability in his planning for his eventual children. And yet part of the reason he's on a good path now is his dad's decision to move to a good school district when he was 14 (and his dad could then afford it), as well as receiving a scholarship that allowed him to afford college and which he may not have received without the move prior to high school.

More generally, I'm sympathetic to metalhead's point that it can make sense to accept government aid if it means spending more time with your children and helping them succeed, and that can be a net benefit for society as well if it means the child ends up being more productive and successful in their adult life. Should my friend's parents have waited until they weren't 19 years old to have kids, and provided better opportunities for them earlier? Well, yeah, probably, and I'm glad my parents had the discipline to do that, but his dad at least made the most of what he could provide later on - and accepting aid to allow more time helping your kids succeed as human beings would have been a way to do that in different circumstances.

 

[metalhead]

The thing is, an awful lot of people of all backgrounds do things like live above their means, or get pregnant too young, or act criminally, or what have you. It's just when you start out with less, those bad decisions have a far greater impact, and your ability to have other people excuse them or pick up your slack is also reduced. I don't mean to make it sound like growing up poor is some sentence to a life of poverty, plenty of people can and do come out of poverty. But society most definitely makes it difficult to do so, particularly once one has children. It should be easier. I don't have a problem in general with a meritocracy, to a point. But the problems at the lower end of the socioeconomic continuum are twofold - one, people who in other circumstances would merit advancement and financial security don't make it because of artificial barriers in their way, and two, not having whatever it is that makes someone able to advance in society shouldn't relegate one to a life time of wage servitude and reduced opportunity for their kids.