What's on your mind?

Users who are viewing this thread

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"

I've been to Mississippi, so that's a good guess. It's a hell hole in most places there, that's definitely true. I think it, Ohio, Oklahoma and Louisiana are among the worst states to live in. Well, and Kentucky, where I happen to live. The living standards in these states are abysmal, and typically the yearly income doesn't exceed 26k. Crappy roads everywhere, if you even get them, rampant crime and drug issues, corruption in the cops, racism in the cops etc etc. Health care here is a joke too.

Oh, I know you weren't trying to say that, I was just chipping in my two cents on the matter.
 
Can we get an executive summary of this or at least of the point you are trying to make? It seems like dense reading.
Hey, you can't get into complicated topics and expect to get away with not doing dense reading :smile:.

Their main conclusion is that when someone is in a social group that is perceived as bad or undesirable, they tend to feel like they are not part of it and try their best to move away from it. Which seems to contradict your hypothesis.
 
Hey, you can't get into complicated topics and expect to get away with not doing dense reading :smile:.

Their main conclusion is that when someone is in a social group that is perceived as bad or undesirable, they tend to feel like they are not part of it and try their best to move away from it. Which seems to contradict your hypothesis.
Okay, but you can't switch identities on command.

For example, I'm working class from a poor family and I don't want that, so I'll pretend I'm middle class and assume middle class aspirations. I can try to mimic their lifestyle, habits and language, but changing my social identity would take time and I may feel like an impostor in social situations that involve social status, no matter how much money I make.

Let's get to the beginning with a different version of me with the same abilities. My parents tell me to learn a useful trade and get a job (instead of the more expensive and uncertain path of following a higher education), and my buddies all get jobs, flashing their cash at me and get married early popping babies like a boss, earning an adult, respected status within my social group.
These are all pressures that keep my aspirations at the same level of my parents and immediate community (some working class neighborhood). Of course I may break away from this, but the middle class kid's social pressures will automatically push him towards higher aspirations from the get go, which is a serious advantage.

The argument I'm trying to make is that these different class-related social pressures are internalized within one's social identity and therefore harder to overcome than external challenges.
 
Okay, but you can't switch identities on command.

For example, I'm working class from a poor family and I don't want that, so I'll pretend I'm middle class and assume middle class aspirations. I can try to mimic their lifestyle, habits and language, but changing my social identity would take time and I may feel like an impostor in social situations that involve social status, no matter how much money I make.

Let's get to the beginning with a different version of me with the same abilities. My parents tell me to learn a useful trade and get a job (instead of the more expensive and uncertain path of following a higher education), and my buddies all get jobs, flashing their cash at me and get married early popping babies like a boss, earning an adult, respected status within my social group.
These are all pressures that keep my aspirations at the same level of my parents and immediate community (some working class neighborhood). Of course I may break away from this, but the middle class kid's social pressures will automatically push him towards higher aspirations from the get go, which is a serious advantage.

The argument I'm trying to make is that these different class-related social pressures are internalized within one's social identity and therefore harder to overcome than external challenges.
To me though it sounds like there are other factors that would play a much bigger role. Poorer people get access to worse education. They have to go to work early to make money and can't be picky on what job they take. Which in a sense another aspect of what you're saying, just... Less subjective and more of an objective disadvantage I guess.
 
To me though it sounds like there are other factors that would play a much bigger role. Poorer people get access to worse education. They have to go to work early to make money and can't be picky on what job they take. Which in a sense another aspect of what you're saying, just... Less subjective and more of an objective disadvantage I guess.
You and Adorno like objectivity where humans are rational actors, and you may be right. My angle on this is that humans are not quite rational beings and psychological factors like identities play a vital role that's much harder to measure with objective stats.
My theory is more interesting and therefore I win! Thanks for your participation! :iamamoron:
Kentucky, where I happen to live.
Then you must know Kentucky James, a happy redneck by day and a tortured artist by night.
 
Last edited:
I truly hate to be the big brain centrist here, but can't simply both be true? What Vader's saying makes sense to me and aligns with my experience. Even in mega-egalitarian communist Czechoslovakia, where everyone went to the same grade schools and all education and healthcare and whatnot was "free", most people more or less stayed in their parents lane. The percentage of people who diverged was probably (pure speculation) bigger than in the US or the UK or the general West, but it was still a minority. The vast majority of true proles I've known didn't really want middle or upper class lives. They wanted more money, yes, but they were comfortable with the working class manners, values and aesthetics. They thought that white collar jobs were pointless, overpaid, effeminate and derogatorily homosexual. They didn't dream of being a marketing consultant or a college sociology teacher. They didn't want those jobs, they wanted to keep doing their jobs which made sense to them, "just" for higher wages. At least that's how it was with the "real" manual jobs in the olden days before China stole all the steel mills and assembly lines. It's probably harder to find some structure and pride in drifting from a dead-end retail job to driving for Postmates in a post-industrial dystopia.

Anyway, once someone does decide to break through the conditioning of the familiar, the external factors like access to blablabla that whole lefty schtick :razz: become a second filter.
 
A bit off topic, but it's interesting that Fox News and CNN hosts' main complaints about the supply chain crisis right now is that they can't get their holiday gifts in time. People can't buy food (and when they can't, its grossly overpriced) and these people are so disconnected from reality that they're complaining on live TV that this crisis has destroyed their holidays. :roll:

Then you must know Kentucky James, a happy redneck by day and a tortured artist by night.

If he's in Kentucky, I can understand the tortured part well. :lol:

To me though it sounds like there are other factors that would play a much bigger role. Poorer people get access to worse education. They have to go to work early to make money and can't be picky on what job they take. Which in a sense another aspect of what you're saying, just... Less subjective and more of an objective disadvantage I guess.

Poorer folk do get access to far worse education, and there are surveys and research into how poorly those kids are treated in school. There are assumptions about them by the teachers that results in their educational hindrance, such as they are "lazy" if they don't understand because they simply can't be having a hard time understanding, they are always just a problem. Then they get singled out and start to act out because they're viewed as garbage even there and they know they are headed down the same route their poor fathers and mothers have lived for generations.

There are schools in the state of Pennsylvania that are about to crumble to the floor, and the major demographic there are poor people, with most of them being people of color. Low educational results because of it obviously, because since these kids are poor and the neighborhood is poor, there's no care to teach the kids because what value could they grant the state or country? Better to turn that effort and funding towards the nicer folk. Then the kids will turn to crime and drugs, or drop out and then turn to them, or just drop out and become homeless or constantly look for min wage jobs. That isn't even to discuss the results of the poor family itself directly impacting education. If a parent can't pay for new school supplies, clothes etc etc, it starts to negatively influence the child's education too.

The divide between the rich and the poor's education is a terrible look into the U.S. I know that during the Trump Admin, they tried to hide how the divide worsened significantly since the last recession. If I remember right, it's at the highest it has been in fifteen years. The divide just worsens and worsens every year. And until it changes—and it won't, because poor folk are not worth consideration—nothing is going to change for anyone in these circumstances. There's just too much going on to keep poorer folk down than there is to help them.

Raising the min wage is a start but it won't solve anything in the long run. Poor folk will still be stuck in the same rut, only they get a bit more in a time where living costs increase by the year. What would help is to fix our educational system to close the divide and put out effort to help people struggling, such as granting them help with finding and maintaining a job (maybe help them with car rentals or give them a used car), help children more with assistance such as free lunch at school, governmental assistance for clothing or school supplies etc etc. It would also be beneficial to everyone if attending college didn't put you into extreme debt (overpriced so professors etc get to live life phat). All of this is unlikely to happen though, because "socialist" programs or efforts are considered evil by half of the country, and the other half uses the lie and promise of a better future to get in power only to show they are exactly the same as the opposite.
 
I truly hate to be the big brain centrist here, but can't simply both be true?
I agree with Centrist Big Brain. Maybe an important caveat is that more egalitarian societies are more conducive to class fluidity. For example, in Denmark your parents can be cow farmers, but you can become royalty by having sex with royals ("the Danish Dream")
 
Last edited:
Mary Donaldson, he daughter of a math professor?!?!? I am the daughter of a physics professor!!!! What the ****?! I am 6 months younger than that Scottish whore and my name doesn't sound like straight outta nursery rhyme.....agh, I am but a sinner in the hands of an angry God.
 
If he's in Kentucky, I can understand the tortured part well. :lol:
it's worse, he's from london
The divide just worsens and worsens every year. And until it changes—and it won't, because poor folk are not worth consideration—nothing is going to change for anyone in these circumstances.
but have we considered limiting eligibility for assistance even further? maybe putting them in even more dire straits will finally lead them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!
 
The Danish Dream: like the American Dream, but more achieveable, and the added bonus of reaching royalty.

About education: economist Thomas Piketty shows how the French state spends much more resources on the most prestitious and the highest part of the education system. More money is spent on each student in the finest schools, with no rational explanation other than it has a higher priority.
France is also quite conservative in that regard but still has a decent social mobility rate (global ranking 12).

A perspective on minimum wage: Denmark has no minimum wage and especially workers/employees do not want it. The reason is there's a long tradition (dating back to 1899) for employers and employees to negotiate salaries with no interference from the state/government.
The EU is in the process of discussing a minimum wage, but Denmark fears this could affect that model. Worst case scenario is some employers will use it to further push down the lowest paid jobs to the new minimum, which will no doubt be set very low (compared to the relatively high Danish salaries). Many employers are also concerned about it.

It shows how the minimum wage is not much of a victory for employees, but a symptom of how the market is pushing people towards the bottom. The minimum wage is a sad reminder that the free market policies and corporate strategies in recent decades have succeeded in stagnant salaries (again, referencing the 'precariat').
Then EU politicians can impose a minimum wage and seem like they're "protecting" workers, or "doing something", when it's just icing on a rotting cake.
 
It shows how the minimum wage is not much of a victory for employees, but a symptom of how the market is pushing people towards the bottom.
Union membership in the USA was 10.8% in 2020 compared to 67% in Denmark. The US has nothing like Denmark's employment safety nets, putting them worlds apart. https://denmark.dk/society-and-business/the-danish-labour-market
In the absence of such safety nets and without strong unions, a real minimum living wage remains important.
 
Union membership in the USA was 10.8% in 2020 compared to 67% in Denmark. The US has nothing like Denmark's employment safety nets, putting them worlds apart. https://denmark.dk/society-and-business/the-danish-labour-market
In the absence of such safety nets and without strong unions, a real minimum living wage remains important.
I am in favor of increasing the minimum living wage in the US but I also think that it's a bandaid. The real issue is related to deeper cultural problems that see money as the only true God and workers as resources to be exploited for maximum profit. There is no importance placed on actually providing a service to customers and the community, which is honestly what a good company does. Obviously profit is important but if it's the only thing that matters then there's no other way to go than trying to sell at the highest price you can possibly get away with and pay people the lowest amount you can get away with.
 
I am in favor of increasing the minimum living wage in the US but I also think that it's a bandaid. The real issue is related to deeper cultural problems that see money as the only true God and workers as resources to be exploited for maximum profit.
I bet "human resources" would become a non-PC phrase at some point for exactly that reason, while the reality behind it would stay the same.
There is no importance placed on actually providing a service to customers and the community, which is honestly what a good company does. Obviously profit is important but if it's the only thing that matters then there's no other way to go than trying to sell at the highest price you can possibly get away with and pay people the lowest amount you can get away with.
Also, how do you propose to disentangle the financial industry ethics of fear and greed from the public companies' imperatives (which are ROI and stock price growth despite platitudes in mission statements)?
 
Also, how do you propose to disentangle the financial industry ethics of fear and greed from the public companies' imperatives (which are ROI and stock price growth despite platitudes in mission statements)?
Stronger legislation is easily side-stepped by Global Corporates locating manufacturing or other operations in less regulated countries. Accordingly, the only effective pressure comes from customer/consumer boycotts. However, few of us look at the small print on our purchases or try to penalise unethical behaviour.
 
I agree that just increasing the minimum wage won't solve anything in the long run, it's more like a salve for a gunshot wound. However, it would be incredibly helpful even if it's a temporary pick-me-up. Just $12 as a minimum wage would mean a completely different life for so many people, but $15 would do even better. The problem is, just increasing min wage over and over again won't solve the issue. People will still be growing up poor or unable to change their circumstance, so eventually everyone would be right back at the start. So it's just step one of a long line of steps. We need to do something about education too, and how difficult is is for a significant amount of people to find and keep jobs, especially in poorer southern states or small dingy towns where jobs are 1hr or more away.

it's worse, he's from london

Oh, that is worse. :lol:

but have we considered limiting eligibility for assistance even further? maybe putting them in even more dire straits will finally lead them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

I'm a little surprised Kentucky didn't pull the support early too. It's been talked about by Kentucky leaders constantly. :unsure: And it's unbelievable really how many people actually use that saying.
 
... the only effective pressure comes from customer/consumer boycotts. However, few of us look at the small print on our purchases or try to penalise unethical behaviour.
100% wrong. This idea of the 'ethical' or 'conscious' consumer arose sometime around the 1980's (and beame very manifest in the 1990's). Consumers can't regulate anything. They're not a well informed, organised group of people, and they have the memory of a hamster. Try and remember big boycotts of days of yore, like against Nike (with their child labour): nothing happened. Nike is still a huge, well functioning company. Or look a the crimes of facebook making more money than ever.
But putting the responsibility on the consumer to (ethically) regulate the market conveniently removes some of that responsibility from the politicians, organisations and other actors who actually regulate the market.
Politicians, the EU, WTO, IMF etc. is where the work lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom