ADVERTISEMENT

Southernomics

HenriPasseur

Recruit
Nov 27, 2014
84
1
8
Article say:

"If you have free universal health care and free education supported by public school taxes, then you have more bargaining power with your bosses," Lind says. "But if everything is privatized, and ordinary Americans have to pay for everything through their wages, then they're at the mercy of their employers. If the workers know they'll be ruined if they lost their jobs, they're not going to be uppity. You want to break their spirit."

He calls this process the "Southernization" of the American economy and says it's ultimately not about racism.

"The ongoing power struggle between the local elites of the former Confederacy and their allies in other regions and the rest of the United States is not primarily about personal attitudes. It is about power and wealth," Lind wrote in an essay for Salon entitled, "The South is Holding America Hostage."

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/conderate-flag-southern-economics/index.html

My question: Why vote southern worker for rich people?
 
Article say:

"If you have free universal health care and free education supported by public school taxes, then you have more bargaining power with your bosses," Lind says. "But if everything is privatized, and ordinary Americans have to pay for everything through their wages, then they're at the mercy of their employers. If the workers know they'll be ruined if they lost their jobs, they're not going to be uppity. You want to break their spirit."

He calls this process the "Southernization" of the American economy and says it's ultimately not about racism.

"The ongoing power struggle between the local elites of the former Confederacy and their allies in other regions and the rest of the United States is not primarily about personal attitudes. It is about power and wealth," Lind wrote in an essay for Salon entitled, "The South is Holding America Hostage."

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/conderate-flag-southern-economics/index.html

My question: Why vote southern worker for rich people?
Good article.Thank you for posting.
 
Article say:

"If you have free universal health care and free education supported by public school taxes, then you have more bargaining power with your bosses," Lind says. "But if everything is privatized, and ordinary Americans have to pay for everything through their wages, then they're at the mercy of their employers. If the workers know they'll be ruined if they lost their jobs, they're not going to be uppity. You want to break their spirit."

He calls this process the "Southernization" of the American economy and says it's ultimately not about racism.

"The ongoing power struggle between the local elites of the former Confederacy and their allies in other regions and the rest of the United States is not primarily about personal attitudes. It is about power and wealth," Lind wrote in an essay for Salon entitled, "The South is Holding America Hostage."

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/conderate-flag-southern-economics/index.html

My question: Why vote southern worker for rich people?

Why? Because republicans have done an absolutely fantastic job of convincing poor people (poor whites) that other poor people (poor brown people) are the enemy and that other poor people are the reason they stay poor.

They've convinced poor people that they can be one of them. It's an example of this pathetic craving to be part of a world that will always fundamentally despise you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Collett_Park
Why? Because republicans have done an absolutely fantastic job of convincing poor people (poor whites) that other poor people (poor brown people) are the enemy and that other poor people are the reason they stay poor.

They've convinced poor people that they can be one of them. It's an example of this pathetic craving to be part of a world that will always fundamentally despise you.
People are poor for a variety of reasons. If you don't have a skill that is marketable you will be poor, especially today when manufacturing is leaving the U.S. If you have substance abuse issues then you will be poor because you are not fit to work and are unreliable. Nobody thinks of this,but divorce makes people poorer. Some of you guys have talked about the horror stories of losing half your wealth to your ex. Also women who are divorced are more likely to be poor because the man doesn't pay up. There are a lot of reasons why people are poor,but what is the solution? Is it government intervention? I don't think so because we have fought the war on poverty for 50 yrs and have lost. The solution is a growing economy where govt intrusion is to a bare minimum. We don't need more govt, we need less govt so our economy can really start to heat up. Under Obama policies govt has grown. And what we have seen is a contracted economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WisslerIII
People are poor for a variety of reasons. If you don't have a skill that is marketable you will be poor, especially today when manufacturing is leaving the U.S. If you have substance abuse issues then you will be poor because you are not fit to work and are unreliable. Nobody thinks of this,but divorce makes people poorer. Some of you guys have talked about the horror stories of losing half your wealth to your ex. Also women who are divorced are more likely to be poor because the man doesn't pay up. There are a lot of reasons why people are poor,but what is the solution? Is it government intervention? I don't think so because we have fought the war on poverty for 50 yrs and have lost. The solution is a growing economy where govt intrusion is to a bare minimum. We don't need more govt, we need less govt so our economy can really start to heat up. Under Obama policies govt has grown. And what we have seen is a contracted economy.

Well, I can see you've bought the "gubment is bad" crap hook, line, and sinker. I don't want the government to do a goddamn thing for me except to make sure everyone plays by the rules, everyone has a fair shot, and that we ALL have equal rights/protections. That includes regulations on banking and businesses so we all have a chance and so they don't go hog wild and cause a huge financial crash like in '07/'08.

And by keeping "govt intrusion to a bare minimum" do you mean making a woman have a camera shoved up her vagina? Do you mean having government dictate your religious beliefs so some people can't get married? Is that what you mean by "bare minimum"? Just curious. FYI, we are not a Christian nation. We never have been. We never will be. We don't run our country based on God, we run it based on the constitution. If you want to live in a country that is run based on God, I invite you to move to Iran.
 
There is also a Southern style political message. Democrats are beholding to unions and minorities while promoting welfare for the lazy, uneducated, and non-competitive Americans who prefer the dole over working.
 
Ben Stein quote "Fanthom the hyprocisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured..... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." Now add this, "many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens." Think about that awhile.
 
Why? Because republicans have done an absolutely fantastic job of convincing poor people (poor whites) that other poor people (poor brown people) are the enemy and that other poor people are the reason they stay poor.

They've convinced poor people that they can be one of them. It's an example of this pathetic craving to be part of a world that will always fundamentally despise you.
Many democrats, on the other hand, have convinced poor people that they're poor due to the actions of others, and that what they've done or not done has nothing to do with it. further, they've imbued the poor with the permanent stamp of victimhood, ignoring the fact that personal choices overwhelmingly are responsible for one's lot in life. All of this is done, by the way, to garner political support.
 
Well, I think I disagree that Southerners simply "vote for the rich."

But accepting the premise for the sake of argument, there are lots of different reasons with varying degrees of impact:

Voting "pro-business" is also self-serving - without businesses (and therefore, business owners), there are no jobs. Plus, what's worse, being "at the mercy of wages" or being "at the mercy of government benefits"? Southern workers (probably all workers) would prefer to not be "at the mercy" of anyone or anything. At least with wages, you have more direct control. (My experience has been that business owners tell fewer lies than politicans.)

Along the same line, I think the suggestion that companies "want to break [workers] spirit" is misguided, and I don't think Southern workers feel that way. Management at companies are the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters of people in the community. Even in large publically-held companies, the local folks are the local folks. If the business where we work is not profitable, we all lose. Eventually, usually during and just after tough economic times, most folks realize "we're in this together." (That's usually when the politicians and the political partisans start telling the "us vs. them" stories.)

In short, I think the premise of the article is too vague and too broad to be validly applied. "Rich southerners" at odds with "rich" "allies" elsewhere - fighting over the best way to keep workers down. I have never heard a business owner say "let's screw the workers." They typically say "the deal should be a fair wage for fair work."

If you want to see the damage the "us versus them" mentality can do, just read some of the posts on this board every day. Even for the folks who try to stay civil, the meanness and vitriol can become awful. And for the folks who just WANT to be mean, the "us versus them" is like gasoline to a fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WisslerIII
Many democrats, on the other hand, have convinced poor people that they're poor due to the actions of others, and that what they've done or not done has nothing to do with it. further, they've imbued the poor with the permanent stamp of victimhood, ignoring the fact that personal choices overwhelmingly are responsible for one's lot in life. All of this is done, by the way, to garner political support.

Not really, but people like me do have a problem with people like Paul Ryan. People who partially owe "making it" to programs like SS, then they want to cut it off for others. Get to the top, then kick the ladder down. I'm all about a hand up. Yes, there will always be people who abuse whatever system is in place, but we don't dismantle it entirely so we can't help the people who do want to make it. People abuse the fact that we have paved roads by driving too fast and/or without a license, but we don't demolish the roads as a result.
 
Why do almost all discussions degrade into political mudslinging. Which side is the biggest idiot and who really cares about the people and understands what is best for the majority. I think there is very little problem solving and a lot of posturing on all sides.

Just my experience and observation but power and greed are the two biggest things that drive division, separation and inequity. That is not a political party thing but a human condition thing.

It does not matter whether is a corporate executive, union executive, political representative leader, wall street/banking exec, attorney or some other group that is out to protect there interests and try to control their ability to stay in power. Some of the best pensions and benefits are given to all of the above and so they do everything they can to retain control and protect their self serving interests.

Unfortunately we continue to drive more entitlement thinking and less hard work and accountability. If I don't get my way it is automatically unfair and some reason that somebody did not give it to me or allow me the opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
It's amazing how prevalent the myth that personal choices are the primary factor in success still is on this board, despite the number of times many of us have shared studies that show the contrary. Personal choices play a role, yes, but it should be clear to anyone that the largest determining factor for your success in life is the success of your parents.
As I have shown several times now by linking the data, the majority of the people born into the bottom quintile do move out of it. I agree that where you start is a big factor in how easy you move out and even how far you move up, I'd argue that the majority of those moving up are doing so because of the choices they make (staying away from crime, drugs, doing well in school, hard work, not having children early, etc.) and the majority of those that don't don't because of the choices they make. It's happened with me, fsmily members and many friends. I look at those that I grew up with in the same circumstances that didn't really move up and mostly see people that made choices that were not ones that often lead to upward mobility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WisslerIII
As I have shown several times now by linking the data, the majority of the people born into the bottom quintile do move out of it. I agree that where you start is a big factor in how easy you move out and even how far you move up, I'd argue that the majority of those moving up are doing so because of the choices they make (staying away from crime, drugs, doing well in school, hard work, not having children early, etc.) and the majority of those that don't don't because of the choices they make. It's happened with me, fsmily members and many friends. I look at those that I grew up with in the same circumstances that didn't really move up and mostly see people that made choices that were not ones that often lead to upward mobility.
The Pew study I linked agreed. 60% of people in the bottom quintile move out of it. However, half of those people only move up one quintile. The other 30% of the total are the only ones to even reach the middle quintile (or higher). Obviously not the numbers you'd expect if everything was based on ability or hard work or other individual choices. There is an anchoring effect to being born at the bottom. It can be broken, yes, but it's much harder to do than people realize.

Edit: I can't find the link for this, but I saw our numbers compared to European countries. The UK had even less mobility than us, while most continental countries had far more. Some countries had near ideal spreads, where there was almost no correlation between where you were born and where you ended up (i.e., you had a 20% chance of being in any quintile, regardless of which one you were born into). Obviously there are structural factors in government, culture or society that cause these differences.
 
It's amazing how prevalent the myth that personal choices are the primary factor in success still is on this board, despite the number of times many of us have shared studies that show the contrary. Personal choices play a role, yes, but it should be clear to anyone that the largest determining factor for your success in life is the success of your parents.
It's amazing how often you and a few others fail to understand or acknowledge the reality that one of those personal choices is to have children when unable to provide either adequate financial or emotional support for them. Those choices lead directly to both poverty of one or both of the parents as well as their children (and future generations). That you fail to understand this isn't surprising given your lack of experience in the real world, along with your cliched "reasoning" that results from your extreme partisanship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjvcaj
It's amazing how often you and a few others fail to understand or acknowledge the reality that one of those personal choices is to have children when unable to provide either adequate financial or emotional support for them. Those choices lead directly to both poverty of one or both of the parents as well as their children (and future generations). That you fail to understand this isn't surprising given your lack of experience in the real world, along with your cliched "reasoning" that results from your extreme partisanship.
LOL. In other words, some poor people are hampered, not by their own individual choices, but by things out of their control, i.e., the choices made by their parents. Just like I've been arguing, and you'd deny.

Do you even realize you made my argument for me in your post?
 
LOL. In other words, some poor people are hampered, not by their own individual choices, but by things out of their control, i.e., the choices made by their parents. Just like I've been arguing, and you'd deny.

Do you even realize you made my argument for me in your post?
Your reading comprehension is poor, likely on purpose. People who have babies too early essentially destroy their ability to escape poverty and perpetuate (you need a dictionary, obviously) their plight on their children and future generations. Are you really so blind to the real world that you fail to comprehend this or is your lack of real world experience so limited that you truly just don't get it? Likely a combination of both, sadly (for you).

Do you even realize how cliched and vacant your thinking is on this?
 
Your reading comprehension is poor, likely on purpose. People who have babies too early essentially destroy their ability to escape poverty and perpetuate (you need a dictionary, obviously) their plight on their children and future generations. Are you really so blind to the real world that you fail to comprehend this or is your lack of real world experience so limited that you truly just don't get it? Likely a combination of both, sadly (for you).

Do you even realize how cliched and vacant your thinking is on this?
Like I said, you do understand you are making my point, right? The point that people are hampered by the situation into which they are born? You do understand this, right?
 
Like I said, you do understand you are making my point, right? The point that people are hampered by the situation into which they are born? You do understand this, right?
What you clearly do not understand is that, regardless of the circumstances of one's birth, they nonetheless are free to make decisions that will elevate their lives (financial and otherwise). That anyone born into a difficult situation chooses to not make better decisions than their parents is far different than your unknowing notion that they're simply victims with no hope or chance or ability to make their lives better. In your world, it's always someone else's fault, and personal responsibility doesn't have a meaningful role in life.

Your lack of real world experience is telling. For someone who tries so transparently hard to be perceived as an intellectual, your intellect is quite undeveloped. In short, you really need to get out more. You're missing what actually goes on in the world.
 
What you clearly do not understand is that, regardless of the circumstances of one's birth, they nonetheless are free to make decisions that will elevate their lives (financial and otherwise). That anyone born into a difficult situation chooses to not make better decisions than their parents is far different than your unknowing notion that they're simply victims with no hope or chance or ability to make their lives better. In your world, it's always someone else's fault, and personal responsibility doesn't have a meaningful role in life.

Your lack of real world experience is telling. For someone who tries so transparently hard to be perceived as an intellectual, your intellect is quite undeveloped. In short, you really need to get out more. You're missing what actually goes on in the world.
Can't believe I gave you another chance. Go away, troll.
 
Actually, strip away the insult parts and his first paragraph is correct. You and I agree that where we start in life can be advantageous or disadvantageous. dont we agree that it's possible to improve or make worse our personal situation by the decisions we make?
But we also agree that your birth situation is important, as well. The troll denies this fact and cites parents dooming their children to poverty as some sort of paradoxical evidence.
 
Give me a break. He's a troll. Doesn't matter if he agrees with me.
I'm hardly a troll. You're simply unable or unwilling to think outside of your scripted talking points and tha, combined with your lack of real world experience, exposes you. At that point, you turn to false allegations and foot stomping. When one has the facts, one pounds the facts. When facts aren't on your side, pound the table. Or, in your case, make stuff up and stomp your feet.
 
Article say:

"If you have free universal health care and free education supported by public school taxes, then you have more bargaining power with your bosses," Lind says. "But if everything is privatized, and ordinary Americans have to pay for everything through their wages, then they're at the mercy of their employers. If the workers know they'll be ruined if they lost their jobs, they're not going to be uppity. You want to break their spirit."

He calls this process the "Southernization" of the American economy and says it's ultimately not about racism.

"The ongoing power struggle between the local elites of the former Confederacy and their allies in other regions and the rest of the United States is not primarily about personal attitudes. It is about power and wealth," Lind wrote in an essay for Salon entitled, "The South is Holding America Hostage."

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/conderate-flag-southern-economics/index.html

My question: Why vote southern worker for rich people?

That's an interesting article

I think the author will be voting for Bernie Sanders. But it is really nothing but a different application of the age-old arguments of socialism vs. capitalism. The argument employers screw employees has been around as long as we have had employers and employees. Limiting leverage of employees is not "southernization" it is, in many cases, leveling the playing field.

I don't have the time nor the interest now to go into the pro and cons in detail. Except I will point out that the observation that the employer/employee relationship is governed by power and wealth is about like saying it is governed by air. Power and wealth or maybe power or wealth governs all relationships whether it is a family, business, sports or social friends.

My response to the criticism of southernization are summed up pretty well by people like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
 
I'm hardly a troll. You're simply unable or unwilling to think outside of your scripted talking points and tha, combined with your lack of real world experience, exposes you. At that point, you turn to false allegations and foot stomping. When one has the facts, one pounds the facts. When facts aren't on your side, pound the table. Or, in your case, make stuff up and stomp your feet.

What were the facts that you supplied? Aloha and Goat have at least brought some studies to the table in this ongoing conversation. Their contributions have been built around those studies and the actual facts contained within. It pretty much looks like you brought what you derided...scripted talking points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
What were the facts that you supplied? Aloha and Goat have at least brought some studies to the table in this ongoing conversation. Their contributions have been built around those studies and the actual facts contained within. It pretty much looks like you brought what you derided...scripted talking points.

Getting caught up in academia and studies is not always the best way to look at complex issues. His points are valid, even if you might disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
That includes regulations on banking and businesses so we all have a chance and so they don't go hog wild and cause a huge financial crash like in '07/'08.

You should read "Reckless Endangerment" for a more accurate description of what caused that. Simply put, it wasn't the lack of regulations on banking and businesses....it was the perverse incentives created by the body of regulations we had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
Actually, strip away the insult parts and his first paragraph is correct. You and I agree that where we start in life can be advantageous or disadvantageous. dont we agree that it's possible to improve or make worse our personal situation by the decisions we make?

Well put.

I liken this concept to the battle of the bulge. Some people are lucky enough to be blessed with the genes to eat pretty much anything they want and maintain a buff BMI. I'm not one of these people, alas. For me, weight is a struggle -- but one that I have the ultimate say over. If I maintain a poor diet and sedentary lifestyle, I will get (and remain) fat.

As such, I make a concerted effort every day to eat right and get some exercise. And, because of this, I'm in decent shape. The better my decisions are, the better my outcomes are.

The exact same maxim applies to money issues. Of course we're all born into different circumstances. But that doesn't mean that our patterns of choices and behaviors aren't ultimately determinative. Because they are.

The heir to "Oriental Trading" inherited over $100 million from his father. Over the course of 2 years, he had gambled every penny of it away in Vegas. He's now flat broke. The circumstances of his birth made him rich. His choices made him poor.

And that goes both ways. His father, on the other hand, was born into meager circumstances and made himself wealthy. Both of these examples are, of course, extreme. Not many people are going to make, or lose, 9 digit fortunes. But the lessons posed by these two men apply just as much to those dealing in smaller numbers, too.

Our circumstances matter. Our choices matter even more.
 
Getting caught up in academia and studies is not always the best way to look at complex issues. His points are valid, even if you might disagree.
What points? He argued that your lot in life is determined by your own actions, and then offered as explanation (???) the fact that parents can have children in poverty, dooming those children to a hard life. He did this without irony and while insulting me. This isn't merely a matter of whether or not he's correct. It's the matter that he's being entirely incoherent. He's a troll. Whatever good point you think he made, he didn't. You're reading that good point into his post for him.
 
What points? He argued that your lot in life is determined by your own actions, and then offered as explanation (???) the fact that parents can have children in poverty, dooming those children to a hard life. He did this without irony and while insulting me. This isn't merely a matter of whether or not he's correct. It's the matter that he's being entirely incoherent. He's a troll. Whatever good point you think he made, he didn't. You're reading that good point into his post for him.
What I was referring to was this:

What you clearly do not understand is that, regardless of the circumstances of one's birth, they nonetheless are free to make decisions that will elevate their lives (financial and otherwise). That anyone born into a difficult situation chooses to not make better decisions than their parents is far different than your unknowing notion that they're simply victims with no hope or chance or ability to make their lives better. In your world, it's always someone else's fault, and personal responsibility doesn't have a meaningful role in life.

This is the point I pretty much agree with. Regardless of the circumstances our start in life, we can make decisions that can make our circumstances better or worse. It's not predetermined by our original circumstances. Not all of us can make it to the top 5 percent from probably the bottom 10 percent as I have (I mostly credit my decisions and hard work for that, but don't ignore some good fortune here and there). My daughter isn't guaranteed to end up in the top 5 or even 20 percent because of where she began either (though during her lifetime I've gone from the middle quintile to the top quintile, so she has a range of experience and where she "began" is subjective). She has advantages, such as having a collge education (soon to complete that - finally ;)) and no debt (unlike me, but like her mother), a car to drive, and a safety net in her parents should she have some rough times, but her decisions are, and will be, the major factors for how she ultimately does in life. I could be wrong, but you seem to believe that we are doomed to, or blessed to have, a particular life (poor, middle or rich) based on the circumstances we're born into. I just totally disagree with that notion. I've just seen way too many people from poor circumstances (family, friends, countless numbers of Sailors especially) that have done very well in their economic lives because of how the decisions they've made. Since I mentioned Sailors, I've had many (and a few Officers too) that believed the Navy owed them a paycheck for minimal effort - like showing up to work sober bascially. Some of my most frequent words of advice to these young Sailors (often in uncomfortable circumstances for them like at formal counseling sessions or disciplinary sessions) was that the Navy and the taxpayers do not owe them a paycheck, they needed to earn it, and if they didn't earn it they wouldn't be in my Navy long. Those that didn't heed this advice either ended up out soon as their commitment was up (if they did the barely acceptable minimum), or they ended up out before their commitment was up because they were booted out. Those that did listen worked hard, took advantage of educational and training opportunities and strived to be ready to do the job of their immediate superiors and beyond advanced and succeeded. They either succeeded in their careers in the Navy and beyond or got out and succeeeded in the private community. Of course many Sailors never needed the talk, they got it, and they succeeded. I took a great deal of pride in seeing Sailors succeed and I've seen too many to count. I enjoy keeping in contact with them and hearing about their successes. Many have kept in touch by Facebook. God, I'm starting to sound like an old man and I'm not that old! I'm out for now. Break's over! ;)
 
What I was referring to was this:

What you clearly do not understand is that, regardless of the circumstances of one's birth, they nonetheless are free to make decisions that will elevate their lives (financial and otherwise). That anyone born into a difficult situation chooses to not make better decisions than their parents is far different than your unknowing notion that they're simply victims with no hope or chance or ability to make their lives better. In your world, it's always someone else's fault, and personal responsibility doesn't have a meaningful role in life.

This is the point I pretty much agree with. Regardless of the circumstances our start in life, we can make decisions that can make our circumstances better or worse. It's not predetermined by our original circumstances. Not all of us can make it to the top 5 percent from probably the bottom 10 percent as I have (I mostly credit my decisions and hard work for that, but don't ignore some good fortune here and there). My daughter isn't guaranteed to end up in the top 5 or even 20 percent because of where she began either (though during her lifetime I've gone from the middle quintile to the top quintile, so she has a range of experience and where she "began" is subjective). She has advantages, such as having a collge education (soon to complete that - finally ;)) and no debt (unlike me, but like her mother), a car to drive, and a safety net in her parents should she have some rough times, but her decisions are, and will be, the major factors for how she ultimately does in life. I could be wrong, but you seem to believe that we are doomed to, or blessed to have, a particular life (poor, middle or rich) based on the circumstances we're born into. I just totally disagree with that notion. I've just seen way too many people from poor circumstances (family, friends, countless numbers of Sailors especially) that have done very well in their economic lives because of how the decisions they've made. Since I mentioned Sailors, I've had many (and a few Officers too) that believed the Navy owed them a paycheck for minimal effort - like showing up to work sober bascially. Some of my most frequent words of advice to these young Sailors (often in uncomfortable circumstances for them like at formal counseling sessions or disciplinary sessions) was that the Navy and the taxpayers do not owe them a paycheck, they needed to earn it, and if they didn't earn it they wouldn't be in my Navy long. Those that didn't heed this advice either ended up out soon as their commitment was up (if they did the barely acceptable minimum), or they ended up out before their commitment was up because they were booted out. Those that did listen worked hard, took advantage of educational and training opportunities and strived to be ready to do the job of their immediate superiors and beyond advanced and succeeded. They either succeeded in their careers in the Navy and beyond or got out and succeeeded in the private community. Of course many Sailors never needed the talk, they got it, and they succeeded. I took a great deal of pride in seeing Sailors succeed and I've seen too many to count. I enjoy keeping in contact with them and hearing about their successes. Many have kept in touch by Facebook. God, I'm starting to sound like an old man and I'm not that old! I'm out for now. Break's over! ;)
If you are characterizing my argument the way you seem to be*, you are wrong, for the same reason the Troll was wrong in making the same accusations. I thought we were on the same page here. I think the numbers make it very clear that everyone has opportunities to move up or down in life, but that there is an anchoring effect which means that your starting lot in life plays a much bigger role that most would like to admit. In a purely egalitarian/meritocratic** society, exactly 20% of the bottom quintile would stay in the bottom quintile, another 20% would move up exactly one, and so forth. In a purely aristocratic society, exactly 100% of the bottom quintile would stay there. In our society, it's about 40%, with another 30% moving up exactly one quintile. This is somewhere between the extremes, and suggests that neither individual choices nor birthright can fully account for the situation. I think it's telling that the UK is one of the few other Western countries with even less mobility than the US. Aristocracy is still built into their society, and has been a matter of debate and soreness for years.

I do not think where you are born condemns you to anything. I was born at the bottom. Nevertheless I had some benefits out of my control (good parenting, natural abilities, etc.) which helped me, and I made some good decisions (going to college, etc.) that were up to me, and me alone, to make happen. Of course, being born at the bottom, I also took on extra burdens to accomplish that (i.e., massive debt). I hope one day to successfully use my abilities to move up the economic ladder. I do not think I am doomed to stay at the bottom. But I also recognize that it has been harder for me because of where I was born, and that others are even less lucky than me (born not only poor, but also subjected to bad parenting, etc.), and that this bad lucky increases the odds of failure. The problem with the Troll - and surprisingly, you seem to be leaning the same way - is assuming that by simply mentioning the importance of luck in all of this, I am somehow denying that individuals have any control over their own lives at all. That's obviously nonsense, and I've never made that claim. And in our previous discussions, I was under the impression that you understood me on this point.

* It's hard to say for sure, because you previously mentioned that you agreed with your quoted paragraph "minus the insults."

** NB - Originally, I put "egalitarian" here, but I added "meritocratic," as well, as recognition that they are not the same thing, but may still have the same results. In a purely meritocratic society, where only individual choices matter, we should see a fair distribution of income. On the other hand, there are other forms of egalitarianism (i.e., socialism) that would tend to the same result. I don't mean to suggest they are interchangeable or morally equal, rather that I recognize that not all egalitarian models of society are also meritocratic.
 
What points? He argued that your lot in life is determined by your own actions, and then offered as explanation (???) the fact that parents can have children in poverty, dooming those children to a hard life. He did this without irony and while insulting me. This isn't merely a matter of whether or not he's correct. It's the matter that he's being entirely incoherent. He's a troll. Whatever good point you think he made, he didn't. You're reading that good point into his post for him.

His point was pretty clear. He was discussing generational poverty and the younger generation not learning any lessons from their parents mistakes, and starting another cycle of having more children they cannot afford. That was his point.

Yes a child born to a young, poor, mother is likely to have a much more difficult time climbing out of poverty. But they compound it exponentially when they then follow the identical path, having the next generation of kids before they could ever support them. I'd be a much bigger advocate of welfare systems if you could show some significant signs that it worked to raise people from poverty, from one generation from the next. There are anecdotal examples of it, but by and large it's a failure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WisslerIII
His point was pretty clear. He was discussing generational poverty and the younger generation not learning any lessons from their parents mistakes, and starting another cycle of having more children they cannot afford. That was his point.
First of all, that wasn't his point. Maybe he tried to move it in that direction, but his first flame didn't explain that he was talking about "learning from the mistakes of your parents." He simply insulted my post by restating my argument as his own.
Second of all, as I included that exact issue in my response to Aloha, that still represents something that's not entirely in your control. Your values are at least partially determined by how you were raised. If parents teach you bad lessons, you are naturally more likely to make bad decisions. It's simply not helpful to dismiss the importance of your rearing by focusing on the fact that these are individual choices, while ignoring the factors out of your control that might lead you to make those choices.
 
I think the numbers make it very clear that everyone has opportunities to move up or down in life, but that there is an anchoring effect which means that your starting lot in life plays a much bigger role that most would like to admit..

There's no question that fortune (or misfortune) plays a role in affecting where we end up in life. But I don't even think what should concern us is how "big" or "small" that role is. It really kind of depends on the unique situation, doesn't it? I mean, for somebody who contracts ALS or terminal cancer or who is killed by a drunk driver, luck obviously plays an outsize role in their life. No matter what choices they made in life, no matter how they lived, their quality of life and longevity are going to be almost entirely determined by something over which they exerted little, if any, control.

The critical aspect with how we approach luck/circumstance versus choice comes down to attitude. Thankfully, most of us aren't going to be hobbled by a debilitating disease or killed by drunk drivers. As such, we will exert a lot more control over our outcomes than such people who, sadly, will. But if our attitude is that it doesn't matter what we do or don't do, that "luck" is the determinative factor that separates people who prosper from people in constant need, then you're probably facing a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. If you think "I was born into bad circumstances and I'm going to die in bad circumstances," then chances are good that you probably will.

There is no magic formula to determine how big or small a role luck plays in our lives. It plays a role in all of our lives -- some more than others, some less than others. How to deal with this is, I think, best embodied in Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer":

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

That last line is key. There's nothing we can do about things we can truly do nothing about. But, sometimes, we trick ourselves into thinking that our roadmap is already determined by things beyond our control. In most cases, it really isn't -- or, at least, is actually *less* so than we think it is. As such, the reason it takes "courage" to change things we can, is because it's always a lot easier on the psyche to just accept what is -- or what we perceive as what is -- as what will always be. And, in circumstances where that's a bad thing, to complain as loudly as hell about it -- effectively putting the blames and burdens onto other shoulders.
 
There's no question that fortune (or misfortune) plays a role in affecting where we end up in life. But I don't even think what should concern us is how "big" or "small" that role is. It really kind of depends on the unique situation, doesn't it? I mean, for somebody who contracts ALS or terminal cancer or who is killed by a drunk driver, luck obviously plays an outsize role in their life. No matter what choices they made in life, no matter how they lived, their quality of life and longevity are going to be almost entirely determined by something over which they exerted little, if any, control.

The critical aspect with how we approach luck/circumstance versus choice comes down to attitude. Thankfully, most of us aren't going to be hobbled by a debilitating disease or killed by drunk drivers. As such, we will exert a lot more control over our outcomes than such people who, sadly, will. But if our attitude is that it doesn't matter what we do or don't do, that "luck" is the determinative factor that separates people who prosper from people in constant need, then you're probably facing a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. If you think "I was born into bad circumstances and I'm going to die in bad circumstances," then chances are good that you probably will.

There is no magic formula to determine how big or small a role luck plays in our lives. It plays a role in all of our lives -- some more than others, some less than others. How to deal with this is, I think, best embodied in Reinhold Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer":

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

That last line is key. There's nothing we can do about things we can truly do nothing about. But, sometimes, we trick ourselves into thinking that our roadmap is already determined by things beyond our control. In most cases, it really isn't -- or, at least, is actually *less* so than we think it is. As such, the reason it takes "courage" to change things we can, is because it's always a lot easier on the psyche to just accept what is -- or what we perceive as what is -- as what will always be. And, in circumstances where that's a bad thing, to complain as loudly as hell about it -- effectively putting the blames and burdens onto other shoulders.
Why shouldn't we address it to the extent we can?

Let me give you a radical example. What if we tried to move our tax burden away from income and onto estates? Let people keep more of the wealth they earn, but pass less of it on to the next generation. Doing so would naturally, I think, help income mobility, because it would ease the burden on people who are working hard to move up in life, while also diminishing the advantages given to those people who benefit from the fact their parents worked hard in life.

Point is, some of the luck/fortune aspect of your success in life can be changed, through policy. Why should we just accept, "This is the way things are?" Why not explore the possibility of making them better?
 
You should read "Reckless Endangerment" for a more accurate description of what caused that. Simply put, it wasn't the lack of regulations on banking and businesses....it was the perverse incentives created by the body of regulations we had.

Author Gretchen Morgenson of the book Reckless Endangerment is a admittedly a rather creative writer, but I really question many of her conclusions about the financial crisis of 2008.

The following excerpt from this Forbes book review sums up my thoughts perfectly,

The book will appeal to extremes. The hard right will love Reckless given their belief – despite basic evidence – that the recessionary rush to housing was caused by Fannie, Freddie, and Democrats in thrall to both. The hard left will be cheered by Reckless owing to their equally dim view that Wall Street, deregulation and greed drove the housing boom. Both sides will finish the book bursting with facts and quotes that will merely confirm views already held deeply. As for those still searching for answers to explain what just happened, they still won’t know.
 
Author Gretchen Morgenson of the book Reckless Endangerment is a admittedly a rather creative writer, but I really question many of her conclusions about the financial crisis of 2008.

The following excerpt from this Forbes book review sums up my thoughts perfectly,

The book will appeal to extremes. The hard right will love Reckless given their belief – despite basic evidence – that the recessionary rush to housing was caused by Fannie, Freddie, and Democrats in thrall to both. The hard left will be cheered by Reckless owing to their equally dim view that Wall Street, deregulation and greed drove the housing boom. Both sides will finish the book bursting with facts and quotes that will merely confirm views already held deeply. As for those still searching for answers to explain what just happened, they still won’t know.

The primary catalyst -- that which got the ball rolling -- was the significant reduction in lending standards pushed by the Clinton-era HUD (as well as Congress, of course). Forget Freddie and Fannie on their own. They were nothing more than a vehicle -- just as the private sector folks were who got in on the feast a couple years later when the CDS markets got up and running.

I will point it out until the cows come home that the crisis was actually *predicted* -- in a New York Times piece, no less -- back in the late 90s when the lending standards were being monkeyed with. In actuality, we learned later that the GSEs *questioned* the wisdom of reducing lending standards in the name of "affordable housing." But it was a gravy train for them, with the implicit backing (which ultimately became explicit, of course) of Uncle Sam.

Here's some smoking-gun text from that NYT piece -- which, again, was published in 1999:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''​

I think that is simply fascinating text to read with the luxury of hindsight. There was a reason that the borrowers in question had a hard time getting (or, at least, affording) loans. And it was absolutely stupid to lower those barriers. This wasn't the only planet to align, of course. But, without it, the rest of it would've been immaterial.

A borrower, after all, can't default on a loan that never got approved in the first place.
 
ADVERTISEMENT