What's on your mind?

[Ser Jon]

I have worked federal minimum wage all my life, and so has my immediate family. We were able to get food stamps once, and it was during late Bush admin, and was revoked as soon as my parents got a job that paid $.50 more than minimum wage.

You certainly can qualify for "assistance" if you work min wage, but you sure as hell likely are not to get it, so it's very accurate to say you are not going to have a great time. I, for example, have tried to apply to them numerous times through out my life, and it has not been pleasant or easy. Every single time I apply to a program, I am told I am "too poor" to make the cut. How does that even work? I'm not sure, but they are persistent on it.

For food stamps, now they have the wackiest requirements. You are screwed if you try to apply with a large family, and even more screwed if you are still living with your parents (even if the circumstance as to why is extreme, such as injuries, lost a job etc). You would think a program supposedly designed to help poor people wouldn't discriminate based on this, but hey, the U.S am I right?

That's not your only challenges in applying though. If you somehow make it passed the family limit requirement and age, you have to prove to that you can and will prepare the food in a separate area from those who do not have Food Stamps, and not only that, you must prove you are buying it separately from them as well. Which is asinine of course, as how could you do that if you are living with them? If you are alone and apply for food stamps, it gets a bit easier, but not by much. You must not have a job or exceed $300 in checks every 2 weeks. This ensures that you do not either get a job on Food Stamps, or get Food Stamps because you earn more than $300 but still far less to actually survive on.

As for housing benefits? You must first be on a list for five years and not have any sort of debt that goes over 3k (technically it can go higher, but they tell you its almost impossible to get help with it like that), but even then you are not guaranteed help. And if you do not fall within the salary range AND family limits, you are denied because you have a "rich work history" or "family that can help you".

And Medicaid? It is the biggest joke of them all, well, right after Food Stamps. It's a complete comedy. Mean while, in places like Israel, pay $36 a month and get full coverage, no matter what. And some countries provide you a monthly living wage of 1k-2k because you can't grow the country poor or dead, but no, all of that is much too expensive or impossible for the U.S to achieve. ?

Working minimum-wage jobs (and I use the plural because those who must do it can't survive with just one) in America is marginally better than living in a third-world country.

Yes, definitely feels like it. I don't think people actually realize how bad it is to work those jobs and how bad poor people are living in this country.

 

[kurczak]

Do you live in Wyoming or something? Come to NY, everybody has Section 8 and EBT here. Sorry, America can't afford Israeli style healthcare, no money left after paying for Israeli healthcare

I jest, but seriously - "of course", living off minimum wage is dreadful, let's just paint the whole picture.

 

[Mad Vader]

Honestly, the idea of capitalism being a savior has never really made much sense to me, though I do admit it has its benefits.

I sincerely believe it's most suitable to humans as it harnesses in (mostly) productive way powerful instincts - ambition, greed and fear.
That is, if you compare it to systems that depend more on good will and solidarity, where the baser instincts that work for capitalism are shunned.

In every experience that I have had though, the only people who truly believe in it like that, are the better off people. Because they are nurtured on it, they come to the conclusion that nothing is fundamentally wrong with it, and that everyone else who does have a problem, just isn't "working" hard enough.

This works in every which way. If someone is raised in a working class family with expectations to struggle most of his life, his aspiration levels would be set lower than for a middle class person of the same aptitude, which in turn would cause the person with lesser aspirations to miss some chances in life, that the middle class person would actively seek out.
Of course there are other built-in class advantages and disadvantages, but I think the difference in outlook is a big part of the explanation why there's not more social mobility.
Edit: the difficulty here is in consciously reconstructing your social identity given to you as a kid, when you were an unwitting sponge.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

And then again (as Adorno said and looking at the big picture) it has generally speaking improved things for our species quite a bit.

The thing is: it’s probably kind of true that capitalism is the worst form of economic system out there, except every other form we’ve tried so far.. what feasible alternatives do we have anyway?

Calling everything from 1700s tea imperialism to our postmodern mess "capitalism" is kind of misleading. The dominant economic system in Europe and America has collapsed multiple times over the last few centuries and each catastrophic failure has resulted in something completely unrecognizable. In liberal democracies it doesn't usually happen suddenly, but even comparing the current system to previous systems, they are not even comparable in form.

For instance think about how nowadays, the generalised factory-oriented working class of the past (which is the sole basis of classical economist definitions of capitalism) barely exists anywhere on earth. Everyone in the west is expected to be their own businessman and hunt down work in specialised industries. CEOs are less like evil 1880s industrialists and more like cultural mascots. Labour is now subservient to more abstract types of wealth like stock and debt, and even stuff like data and people's attention is worth more than money. Just because there wasn't a violent uprising doesn't mean there haven't been multiple economic revolutions since Adam Smith. I think historians have mostly agreed that this is the reason the Soviet Union collapsed, because it made an improper transition in the final stage from wage capitalism to speculative investment capitalism, a transition the west mostly made in the 1970s and 80s.

I think out of the current crisis will emerge something that nobody will really call capitalism anymore. What's unique about this compared to all the previous revolutions in capitalism is that it's no longer just about corporations not paying people enough or whatever, it's the emergence of entirely new forms of currency like data and "computer labour" that would make Smith's and Marx's heads explode and threaten to make money itself obsolete.

The Soviet Union and China both went through phases like this as well, roughly analogous to every other industrializing country. It's also kind of misleading to call both countries a "different system" because they went through similar economic revolutions as they industrialised, far more radical than in America, to where the 1920s USSR is completely unrecognizable by 1960 and then again in 1990. The reason China is doing so well right now is that it's leaders recognised these phases and didn't crudely try to prevent or curtail them like Mao. I think the Chinese economy is where America will be in a few decades, with most of the larger corporations broken up or made subservient to the state, and actual money just being an abstract resource the government plays with, and the actual power being in data and media.
I actually hate the sound of this, but it's just the natural conclusion of previous systems and there is nothing anyone can do to avoid passing through this phase without excess violence. It would be like trying to avoid going through puberty, or trying to prevent a tree from growing too tall without killing it.

To put it simply we are already living in an alternative to capitalism. The version of capitalism that most people, (especially most anti-capitalists) have in their mind ceased to exist around the time of the Napoleonic Wars. If you read Adam Smith today nothing makes any damn sense, because the capitalism he described no longer exists.

 

[Adorno]

Of course there are other built-in class advantages and disadvantages, but I think the difference in outlook is a big part of the explanation why there's not more social mobility.

It's not about psychology. The US has one of the lowest rates of social mobility in the western world (ironically, because "American dream"),
whereas smaller, wealthy countries with high tax rates and mostly free access to education have the highest.
It's of course not the only factor, but an important step on the ladder to moving up.
When you can make statistics showing how people "decide" their social position it's not just about outlook but social structures, and in the end political decisions on the kind of society you want.

Spoiler: Social Mobility (US is no. 27)

Spoiler: And it's hurting the economy

These are the 10 countries with the best social mobility

The US (27th) and Britain (21st) are lagging behind their peers when it comes to creating a fair playing field.

www.weforum.org

 

[Mad Vader]

Your sociological argument about correlation between cheap/free education (and perhaps other free stuff) and social mobility doesn't disprove that class-determined upbringing doesn't play a part.
I have no data to prove it's significant, but it's an observation that I hope makes sense. The interesting thing about it is that it works on a subconscious level of a social identity acquired during childhood.

 

[NPC99]

Watching from across the Atlantic, I despair of US politics. Candidates need too much funding to get elected, indenturing them to those that bankroll their campaigns. The failure of Congress to raise the Federal minimum wage since 2009 is a disgrace only overshadowed by the 15 states who have stuck to it.

 

[Ser Jon]

Do you live in Wyoming or something? Come to NY, everybody has Section 8 and EBT here. Sorry, America can't afford Israeli style healthcare, no money left after paying for Israeli healthcare

I jest, but seriously - "of course", living off minimum wage is dreadful, let's just paint the whole picture.

No, I live in the worst state, well, just after California. lol

Maybe we could stop helping them and help ourselves? We need to stop pocketing out what we don't have to other countries. Our own people are hurting and starving. If paying for Israel's security and health care (and refusing to stop that) is what's stopping our government from being decent to its own people, then we could cut back some military funding, or some funding on bizarre experiments we don't need, or any other questionable thing our government pours money into.

Hell, I'd settle on getting actual governmental assistance for people on job searching. I hate to bring up Israel again, but their are required to help anyone looking for a job to help them get one. And to keep helping them until they do. If I remember right, they even have a program that helps you for the first year of employment to make sure you stay on your feet.

I sincerely believe it's most suitable to humans as it harnesses in (mostly) productive way powerful instincts - ambition, greed and fear.
That is, if you compare it to systems that depend more on good will and solidarity, where the baser instincts that work for capitalism are shunned.

There are Scandinavian countries with flourishing capitalism and socialist programs, and it's going just fine for them. I think it's just because it's more easily abusable (by those in power) without direct show of its corruption, which means a more swayed people. People who are terrified by anything socialist might point to failed socialist countries because the signs of its disease are more easily seeable, but with capitalism, it's a rot beneath the skin. So since you can't see it, maybe it's alright after all.

I'm not saying capitalism should be eradicated by the way, I'm just trying to say it's not perfect and people betting on it like it is, is bizarre to me.

This works in every which way. If someone is raised in a working class family with expectations to struggle most of his life, his aspiration levels would be set lower than for a middle class person of the same aptitude, which in turn would cause the person with lesser aspirations to miss some chances in life, that the middle class person would actively seek out.
Of course there are other built-in class advantages and disadvantages, but I think the difference in outlook is a big part of the explanation why there's not more social mobility.
Edit: the difficulty here is in consciously reconstructing your social identity given to you as a kid, when you were an unwitting sponge.

It isn't about aspirations or outlooks, it's almost always about circumstance. You could be poorer than salted Earth with all the aspirations in the world, but it's not going to drive you into a better life alone. A few examples but are painfully common is living in a small town hours away from cities and only a handful of available jobs near you, which are choked to death with applications. Or being so poor you cannot afford gas, let alone a car and its insurance to get to work with, because you live off $8 wage and if you do happen to have money, you have to pay anywhere from $200-300 on electric bills alone. Aspirations mean nothing if you do not have the circumstance to use it. And poor folk don't really ever have that circumstance, whereas richer folk typically do, so they tend to excel far more easily. Which in the end, gives them this grand illusion that it's about "outlook" rather than circumstance and environment.

Our society measures people by their education and whether they went to college—and not if they are actually valuable—and then determines if you hadn't, you don't deserve anything more than that McDonald's job and to live in a run down house/trailer for the rest of your life. That's the painful lot hundreds of thousands of people are living in across this country, and there's far more who are homeless due to the extreme requirements to get an upstart in this country.

Watching from across the Atlantic, I despair of US politics. Candidates need too much funding to get elected, indenturing them to those that bankroll their campaigns. The failure of Congress to raise the Federal minimum wage since 2009 is a disgrace only overshadowed by the 15 states who have stuck to it.

We have senators who actually think that giving child tax cuts of $200 to families is going to make us all "quit our jobs and be welfare leeches!". Yes, because that totally makes sense. lol Our leaders are completely out of touch and corrupt down to the very essence of their being, and it's not even just the Republicans, it's the Democrats too.

Another excuse they have is that 1) it will just make costs of living raise so it's pointless or 2) it will remove incentives to get a college education if low-tier jobs pay more than $8.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

This works in every which way. If someone is raised in a working class family with expectations to struggle most of his life, his aspiration levels would be set lower than for a middle class person of the same aptitude, which in turn would cause the person with lesser aspirations to miss some chances in life, that the middle class person would actively seek out.

ayn rand moment

 

[Mad Vader]

ayn rand moment

I realize who uses such arguments and why, but this is something I noticed outside culture wars and wish to discuss on merit.
The liberal me (who is basically Adorno) does not wish it to be true, but the curious me that is interested in how the world and humans work have seen enough evidence to be convinced it's important.
Besides the vast (and I mean VAST) number of years I have under my belt, virtually guarantees this is something wise and profound, young padawan.

 

[Adorno]

Your sociological argument about correlation between cheap/free education (and perhaps other free stuff) and social mobility doesn't disprove that class-determined upbringing doesn't play a part.
I have no data to prove it's significant, but it's an observation that I hope makes sense. The interesting thing about it is that it works on a subconscious level of a social identity acquired during childhood.

Yes, you can observe a psychological phenomenon, like upbringing, and it's true, children from poor background are less likely to strive towards higher education. But it doesn't explain differences between cultures.
You still need to explain why a child of poor parents in the US doesn't socially move up, whereas the same child in Scandinavia does (statistically speaking, of course). Both children have the same "outlook" on education from their uneducated parents.

I'm not saying you're wrong that "class-determined upbringing doesn't play a part", but without relativity to other cultures you could falsely think no socio-economic factors are at play, and it's all just psychology - choices individuals make.
Children make decisions from the possibilities they're given (such as education) and those possibilities are literally worlds apart (like US vs western Europe).

 

[Mad Vader]

Yes, you can observe a psychological phenomenon, like upbringing, and it's true, children from poor background are less likely to strive towards higher education. But it doesn't explain differences between cultures.
You still need to explain why a child of poor parents in the US doesn't socially move up, whereas the same child in Scandinavia does (statistically speaking, of course). Both children have the same "outlook" on education from their uneducated parents.

It's not the outlook on education that matters, but the much more comprehensive social identity, and by that I mean a person's idea of where he belongs in a society. This is something everyone picks up from their parents as a kid, and is not quite aware of it.
For example, a young person from an upper middle class upbringing could take for granted that it's his role to lead and manage, and would be comfortable in luxurious surroundings with important people. A working class kid would try to prove himself on merit and would shy away from VIP people and places (at least at first). The difference is in the self-entitlement and the confidence.

 

[eddiemccandless]

It's not the outlook on education that matters, but the much more comprehensive social identity, and by that I mean a person's idea of where he belongs in a society. This is something everyone picks up from their parents as a kid, and is not quite aware of it.
For example, a young person from an upper middle class upbringing could take for granted that it's his role to lead and manage, and would be comfortable in luxurious surroundings with important people. A working class kid would try to prove himself on merit and would shy away from VIP people and places (at least at first). The difference is in the self-entitlement and the confidence.

Not quite.

 

[Mad Vader]

Not quite.

Can we get an executive summary of this or at least of the point you are trying to make? It seems like dense reading.

 

[Adorno]

... social identity, and by that I mean a person's idea of where he belongs in a society. This is something everyone picks up from their parents as a kid, and is not quite aware of it.

And how do you explain the differences? A poor child in the US and in Denmark have the same social identity (idea of place in society) and yet one moves more easily upwards in society. How can that be?

 

[Mad Vader]

And how do you explain the differences? A poor child in the US and in Denmark have the same social identity (idea of place in society) and yet one moves more easily upwards in society. How can that be?

Free education is one factor that works for some kids.
But how many poor children in Denmark don't move upwards because of their self-limiting social identity, despite their ability?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Every single middle class person I know who has a job got it through relatives or connections. That's basically it. If those family or social structures collapse, they fall all the way down to precariat and have no way to recover.

You really are completely deluded if you think poorer people have the chance to have better jobs, but just pass them by because they're lazy, or they don't think they can get them, or lack sheer will, or whatever you seem to think happens at that level. Good luck trying to explain to the growing number of unemployed and minimum wage workers in this country that they lack the will to get a job that doesn't pay well.

You talk like someone who's never applied for a job in their life. I know you probably have, but again it's genuinely hilarious how much you talk like a 13 year old despite also using your age as an argument whenever you get the chance.

 

[Adorno]

But how many poor children in Denmark don't move upwards because of their self-limiting social identity, despite their ability?

Fewer than in the US. I thought we established that

 

[Mad Vader]

Less butthurt would be nice Jacob, you miss some obvious jokes.
I probably know enough about the rules of job searching and the role of connections (stats say 80% jobs are filled that way and we know who has the good connections, especially in the class-conscious UK), but I'm not going to show off here, as it's not central to the point I'm trying to make.
(Of course everyone else who doesn't think like you is deluded and to demonstrate that you are strawmanning to the max. I'll just ignore that.)

What is relevant to the social identity is the idea to apply for certain kinds of jobs (like those that lead to a management path) instead of others (like technical jobs). The confidence you show both in your approach to applying for a job and in your job interview performance may be the deciding factor for getting that job, and that confidence may rely on your social identity and not just the confidence in your skills or personality.
The first job you hold is a pretty good indicator of the quality and heights of your future professional life, so that confidence based on social class is all the more important before you have any worthwhile professional achievements.
I'm not saying that this is some kind of rule in majority of cases because I don't know that. But it's insidious enough that it is easy to miss.

Fewer than in the US. I thought we established that

If the Danish society is more egalitarian and less class-conscious, sure. On the other hand, you still have a monarchy and bow to your feudal overlord.

 

[kurczak]

No, I live in the worst state, well, just after California. lol
...

Worst overall? Hmm, Mississippi?

I'm not against raising the federal minimum, we're basically on the same page about the "ought to", I was just commenting on the "is"