or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 26

post #376 of 5110
I await her Maybeline commercials.
post #377 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Ta-Nehisi Coates is an idiot. Up there with Matt Yglesias in the blogger/retard category.

He's been hard at work:

And then there is us, ashamed at our own nakedness, at our humanity. Racism is a kind of fatalism, so seductive, that it enthralls even its victims. But we will not get out of this by being on our best behavior—sometimes it has taken our worse. There's never been a single thing wrong with black people that the total destruction of white supremacy would not fix.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/01/richard-shermans-best-behavior/283198/
post #378 of 5110
Richard Sherman went to Stanford, and I went to Princeton, and I don't think either one of us understands what that paragraph means.
post #379 of 5110
I think he's saying that trash talking might be the only way to get rid of racism.

But given that I don't follow football anymore, I'm only vaguely aware of what Sherman did or said, so take that with a grain of salt.
post #380 of 5110

Gawker/Deadspin are in a feeding frenzy right now. As if we didn't already know, all white people are vile racist pieces of shit.

post #381 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Today's musing has to do with poverty, mental health, and becoming a productive citizen. Found this blog post, which links to studies, that would indicate a minimum income approach is probably better than the patchwork of paternalistic and capricious programs we have.


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens-when-the-poor-receive-a-stipend/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

We've tried the current approach since at least LBJ's time. Maybe time for a new approach?
Quote:
So Professor Costello’s findings are not necessarily a sweeping endorsement of Native American gaming, and casinos generally. Rather, they suggest that a little extra money may confer long-lasting benefits on poor children. And in that respect, the Cherokee experience is unique in several important ways.

First, this was not a top-down intervention. The income supplements came from a business owned by the beneficiaries. The tribe decided how to help itself. Moreover, the supplements weren’t enough for members to stop working entirely, but they were unconditional. Both attributes may avoid perverse incentives not to work.

Also, fluctuations in the casino business aside, the supplements would continue indefinitely. That “ad infinitum” quality may both change how the money is spent and also protect against the corrosive psychological effects of chronic uncertainty.

And maybe most important, about half the casino profits went to infrastructure and social services, including free addiction counseling and improved health care. Ann Bullock, a doctor and medical consultant to the Cherokee tribal government, argues that these factors together — which she calls the exercising of “collective efficacy” — also may have contributed to the improved outcomes. She describes a “sea change” in the collective mood when the tribe began to fund its own projects. A group that was historically disenfranchised began making decisions about its own fate.

“You feel controlled by the world when you’re poor,” she said. “That was simply no longer the case.”

Professor Costello and Professor Akee don’t entirely agree. They think cold hard cash made the real difference. For one thing, Professor Akee says, outcomes started improving as soon as the supplements began, before many of the communitywide services went into effect.
post #382 of 5110
We almost had it in the Nixon administration. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (I believe he was an Assistant Secretary of Labor at the time) formulated a Guaranteed Minimum Income proposal but alas it did not happen.
post #383 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Didn't Nixon suggest universal healthcare too?
post #384 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Been thinking quite a bit about this minimum income thing and for me the issue always comes back to kids. Up until now the thought has been how to make sure the parent/guardian spends the portion they might receive per child on the kid. I'm okay if an adult wants to blow their entire income on blow, crack, smack, or booze but how do we deal with things when the parent/guardian neglects the children in their charge? I don't have a good answer to that.

Today I was reading this article: http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/22/news/economy/minimum-living-wage?hpt=hp_t1

It's another in the endless articles about inequality, living wage, etc. I really feel sorry for folks earning low wages, having been there myself for many, many years, but this stuck out at me today:
Quote:
Amy Glasmeier, a professor of economic geography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has created a living wage calculator based on government data, which bears out this argument.

She breaks down the total cost of living, including food, housing, transportation, child and health care, based on the county in which people live.

Glasmeier said the cost of living rises with the size of the city.

For instance, in places with fewer than 250,000 people, Glasmeier found that the living wage would be between $12 and $15 per hour. In cities with 250,000 to 1 million residents, its $17, and in cities with more than one million residents, it's $20 per hour.

"The living wage calculator shows what you really need to make it, to survive," Glasmeier siad. "The minimum wage was never meant to be something for people to live on."

Using Glasmeier's calculator, Burgos would need to make about $15 per hour. But because he has three kids, his living wage would need to be slightly higher.

Okay, I agree on a mechanical basis he would need to earn more, due to having three kids, for their lives to be comfortable. This triggered a thought along the lines of, and I know who'll be here to say this is a horrible thought, why does he get to decide how much of society's resources he can claim through having more kids? Again, I do not have the answer but I think instituting a minimum income is going to meet up with resistance due the per child portion.
post #385 of 5110
Sure, pay the exact people that no rational society should be encouraging to procreate to have more kids.
post #386 of 5110
Aren't there some people that shouldn't earn a minimum income? Children and second income earners of a family for example?
post #387 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Been thinking quite a bit about this minimum income thing and for me the issue always comes back to kids. Up until now the thought has been how to make sure the parent/guardian spends the portion they might receive per child on the kid. I'm okay if an adult wants to blow their entire income on blow, crack, smack, or booze but how do we deal with things when the parent/guardian neglects the children in their charge? I don't have a good answer to that.

Today I was reading this article: http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/22/news/economy/minimum-living-wage?hpt=hp_t1

It's another in the endless articles about inequality, living wage, etc. I really feel sorry for folks earning low wages, having been there myself for many, many years, but this stuck out at me today:
Okay, I agree on a mechanical basis he would need to earn more, due to having three kids, for their lives to be comfortable. This triggered a thought along the lines of, and I know who'll be here to say this is a horrible thought, why does he get to decide how much of society's resources he can claim through having more kids? Again, I do not have the answer but I think instituting a minimum income is going to meet up with resistance due the per child portion.

because rich people don't really procreate? our population growth is the lowest since the great depression. so somebody has to make babies. otherwise we could slowly end up being japan
post #388 of 5110
Poppycock. We're all going to have sexy robot bodies and live forever by 2030. At least, the non-poors of us will.
post #389 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post


because rich people don't really procreate? our population growth is the lowest since the great depression. so somebody has to make babies. otherwise we could slowly end up being japan

 

I've never met a poor Mormon, and those folks pop out kids by the dozen.

post #390 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

because rich people don't really procreate? our population growth is the lowest since the great depression. so somebody has to make babies. otherwise we could slowly end up being japan

You actually raise a point that I wish Manton were still here to talk about with.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob