Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

Because you have better than the bare minimum right now, so it's a net loss. The kid just starting out, who's prospects are minimum wage entry level positions? Not so much of an issue. He's already used to living at the bare minimum. He's been taught his whole life that he can't achieve better than that on his own. So it's not a hard choice for him to just take that minimum and be grateful for it.



And yet, your the one who supports a political agenda predicated on the assumption that there are lots of people who simply could not possibly achieve even that bare minimum if it weren't for the government giving it to them. It's your ideology Joph. Not mine.

I'm the one arguing that we could end all our social safety nets tomorrow and no one would starve or suffer as a result. So which is it?

Yeah. Because...wait for it...there are.


Aaand, you'd be wrong. Again.

So why didn't I stop years ago when I wouldn't have been "losing" anything?


That's not what I said either. Keep stacking the straw though, it seems to be the only trick you know.

Inertia. You were taught growing up that if you work hard, you'll succeed. You were taught to finish high school, so you could succeed. And you did. You were taught to go to college and get a degree, cause it would help you succeed. And you did (I'm assuming you have some post-secondary education at least). Having done that, it seemed normal to move right into the work force. And you worked hard, and worked your way up, never once thinking "I could just not spend any of this effort and get by if I wanted to".

You get that for people growing up in an environment where welfare is normal, where they're taught to believe that trying hard wont help them succeed, the odds are stacked against them, etc, where jobs are actually scarce, and where welfare sign up offices are on every block, full of helpful people willing to assist them in finding creative ways to fill out the forms to get free stuff without having to work for it, that this is going to somewhat dramatically affect their odds in this regard, right? As I've been saying all along, it's not any one single factor. It's them all in combination. But the biggest one is the easy availability of welfare. That's what drives the parents of these kids to tell them that welfare is normal (cause parents aren't usually going to say "we're failures"). It's what makes that choice more readily available (I'm reasonably certain that when you were in your late teens and early 20s you couldn't have found a welfare office if you wanted to). It helps perpetuate the other conditions that lead to increased failure rates within those communities, if for no other reason than it enables far more people to live in areas than the job environment would naturally allow. It focuses and amplifies the effect of poverty in specific areas, and makes it that much harder for anyone living there to get out.


It's a trap. I get that many people think they're helping people with these programs, but I honestly believe that in the long run we're creating far far more misery with them than would exist otherwise.

Kids are also taught that once a year someone would give them stuff for free, that there's an invisible wizard judging them, and that they can be anything they wanted to be when they grew up.

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 9:43pm by lolgaxe

No. The forces in your life have pushed you towards gainful employment. It's not about being "lazy", but what you've been taught is normal. For you, it would be unthinkable to not have a job to support yourself, and you'll do almost anything to make sure you remain employed. For someone not taught to place the same high value on employment, it's a hell of a lot easier to make the choice not to work. So, not "easy" in the sense of physical labor, but "easy" in the sense of going with or against your own core values.

If you grow up in a neighborhood where your parents (more likely your single mom), and almost all the other adults you know, are all on some form of government assistance, do you think you're going to develop as strong a work ethic? How do you suppose that will happen? Magic? Nope. You're going to be taught every excuse that adults give for why it's ok to live off the government dime. It's not their fault. It's hard to get a job. And the ones you can get don't pay anything anyway. The system is rigged. You're owed those entitlements. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You honestly don't realize that the environment you grew up had a huge effect on your choices later in life? This is *why* there are such dramatic statistical differences between certain groups within our society. We've created barriers to success for those currently in poverty (which at the time, and still today disproportionately includes blacks and latinos), and a big part of that is the creation of the welfare state. Those programs tend to institutionalize poverty among concentrated population groups. Are they the only factor to poverty? Absolutely not. But they make the choices needed to leave poverty behind harder to make. Especially among those living in the most concentrated areas (again, most likely to be black and latino). A poor person living in the sticks? Probably wont be poor in 20 years, and their kids probably wont either. Poor person living in the projects? Very very high probability that person will still be living in the same poor neighborhood their whole lives, as will their kids, and their grandkids. We've created generational poverty where it really didn't exist before hand.


That's the accomplishment of the "great society". It's been a disaster. The real shocking thing is how many people just can't see it. How do people continue to buy the whole "we must help the poor with more government programs" arguments, even after 50 years of utter failure?

You don't think you get your values from your parents and environment you grew up in? Seriously? That's your argument? Um... Ok. Weak as hell, but if that's what you want to tie your boat to, who am I to stop you?

If he intended his argument to be a counter to mine, then yes, it was. If it wasn't, then it wasn't (a counter to my argument). See how that works? My argument is that the environment you grow up in affects the values you adopt, and thus the choices you will make and that this is why someone like Joph will place a great value on employment, but someone else might not. So the fact that Joph would never consciously choose entitlement over work, does not prove that no one else would (and that *was* his earlier argument).

Oh. And part two of my argument is that the thing most likely to create an environment accepting of entitlement is... wait for it... entitlement. Hence the whole "it's a trap" and "it creates generational poverty" statements. Kids who grow up in welfare homes are vastly more likely to end out on welfare themselves. Part of this is surely because of reduced starting position and opportunities. But part of it kinda has to be that "being on welfare" isn't as likely to be seen as a failure and something to avoid.

I then further conclude that the short term benefits of these sorts of programs are more than outweighed by the long term negative effects on those who receive them and their children.

Edited, Apr 4th 2014 7:39pm by gbaji

You not seeing how something works? Nope. Not surprising at all.

FTFY, weasel-word boy.


Edited, Apr 4th 2014 9:22pm by Bijou

When I finally decided to enter the I.T. field from the pizza-making field my single "welfare mother" fought me tooth and nail before she finally broke down and signed the required paper-work for the student-loan.

She was genuinely perplexed and actually tried to talk me out of it and suggested that I join the military like my father if I wanted to "do something like this". I think that she genuinely had no concept of "career-path" and either didn't understand that this was something that I could succeed in or else couldn't understand why someone would NOT try to work the system (or a little bit of both).

In my late teens she actually took me to the unemployment offices to teach me how to apply for it rather than actually try to encourage me to really do anything.

At the time I didn't have any friends in the I.T. field.. I actually hated technology at the time and didn't play video games nor own a computer (though I was(am) an avid Trekkie.

One day someone I knew told me they'd smoke a blunt with me if I gave her a ride to some school so she could apply for a student loan.. I just thought it was a good idea at the time so I applied.. and now over a decade later I'm a pretty well-paid IT admin and the chick that I gave the ride to never did anything with her education and is now a welfare mom herself.. and her parents were standard middle-class home owners.

Take from that what you will.

Mostly? Yes. Let's not introduce absolutes, ok?



How the hell did you equate getting values from your parents with being stuck with whatever lot your parents are in? If the values your parents teach you are "don't bother trying to succeed", then yes, you're going to be likely to end out stuck in the same lot they were in. But that's not because all people universally are, but because you were taught to be. Way to completely miss the point I was making though.



Why did you stop? "That'll give you just the spur you need to become successful rather than wallowing in failure". Nothing wrong with that, and I'm perfectly willing to defend it. No need to pretend that we conservatives don't have an ending to that sentence. I know that the Left loves to mock this concept, but it's a pretty well established fact that people do actually tend to try harder when they have to and/or when it actually means something. But if you disagree, at least be man enough to say "this is what I disagree with" rather than pretending that there isn't even a position on the other side.



Wrong. The belief is that in the absence of a safety net, more people will find ways to support themselves and their families and over time there will be less poverty and less hunger. They wont "stay poor and starving". They will succeed. See, we want to help people actually make something of themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, want to treat the poor like children who can't do anything on their own and require complete assistance to even put food in their mouths. Ridiculous!



What I'm saying is that when your political agenda relies on the assumption that a whole set of people can't possibly succeed on their own, we shouldn't be surprised when some of them actually believe it. And that, over time, leads to an increase in the very problem you originally set out to address.

I don't actually give a shit four days later to keep arguing/reading (plus I have hyenas to look for) but good on you for typing.