Started By
Message

re: An explanation of rich/poor gap

Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:23 pm to
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:23 pm to
quote:

I would argue that poverty is a barrier to successful marriage.


That's cart before the horse. If lower class women did not 'settle' for miscreant poor males then those males would have to get a job to attract a female. That's the way it's been for 1,000s of years.

But the welfare state eliminates the incentive for the male to get a job in order to get pussy. This works to the disadvantage of the female who wants a secure home for offspring.
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10591 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:24 pm to
quote:

Here is a link from the Heritage Foundation siting single parent homes as the #1 cause of child poverty Child poverty

This is the whole causation v correlation thing at its finest. I think single parent households are more correlative. I think lack of education is more causative. Can't link to data supporting me right now, but I'm sure I can when I get back to my cpu.
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:24 pm to
quote:

So only Christians would benefit from having two parents?



That's not even close to what I said, Mr. Martyr.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:25 pm to
Then why were there so few out of wedlock births during the Great Depression? Worst period of poverty.
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:26 pm to
quote:

That's cart before the horse. If lower class women did not 'settle' for miscreant poor males then those males would have to get a job to attract a female. That's the way it's been for 1,000s of years.



So there was no poverty before lower class women began settling for miscreant poor males?

quote:

But the welfare state eliminates the incentive for the male to get a job in order to get pussy. This works to the disadvantage of the female who wants a secure home for offspring.



This sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say.
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10591 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:26 pm to
I'm talking about poverty in 2014, not the early 1900s.
Posted by Walking the Earth
Member since Feb 2013
17260 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:28 pm to
quote:

This is the whole causation v correlation thing at its finest. I think single parent households are more correlative. I think lack of education is more causative.


If I had to pick just one position to "fix" that would cause the greatest positive change, this would be it.

Of course, that's not to say that having more two parent, stable households wouldn't be highly beneficial.

Posted by EthanL
Auburn,AL
Member since Oct 2011
6963 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:29 pm to
quote:

Poverty numbers are skewed because the poor now receive so much welfare which wasn't the case in the 50's.


Explain how poverty numbers are skewed. Because we have more population? Is the deficit numbers skewed because we have more money in circulation?

The welfare programs instituted in the 50's were for all Americans. Everyone, not one specific race, benefits from Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I'm sure the numbers for white poverty dropped drastically when those programs were put in place also. But you can't say something is "skewed" unless it is targeted at one specific group. The only thing that did that was the Civil Rights movement, and that had everything to do with inequality and injustice.

And, according to you guys, the family unit was much stronger back then. The obvious, most critical missing link was education. Family morals factor across the board for all races, but education trumps it all
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:32 pm to
quote:

So there was no poverty before lower class women began settling for miscreant poor males?


This is flying waaay over your head. There has always been poverty. There was MARRIAGE before lower class women started settling. Marriage prevented poverty from becoming cyclical. Thus, the children of poor parents became middle class. Breaking the cycle. What do you not understand about this?
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10591 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:33 pm to
quote:

If I had to pick just one position to "fix" that would cause the greatest positive change, this would be it. Of course, that's not to say that having more two parent, stable households wouldn't be highly beneficial.

Absolutely.

This is a classic example of the confounding third variable imo. No doubt there is a correlation between single parent households and households that place less emphasis on education. So it is easy to erroneously attribute negative effects primarily brought by a lack of education to being primarily caused by single parent households. Without a doubt single parent households do not help, and likely hurt. But its not as bad as the effect lack of education has imo.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:33 pm to
quote:

This sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say.

Don't know. I've never watched his show. Not much into TV.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:35 pm to
quote:

I'm talking about poverty in 2014, not the early 1900s.

Wow, that's a really horrible avoidance of the question. Answer it or look really stupid.

If poverty causes non marriage then why did poor people during the Depression get married?
Posted by EthanL
Auburn,AL
Member since Oct 2011
6963 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:37 pm to
quote:

Then why were there so few out of wedlock births during the Great Depression? Worst period of poverty.


Don't make such naive statements Zach. When depressions/recessions hit, people stop having children. The more severe the economic crisis, the steeper the drop in births.

I shouldn't have to link this for you, I'm sure you agree with that.

Posted by FightinTigersDammit
Louisiana North
Member since Mar 2006
34859 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:37 pm to
quote:

poverty in 2014
means having only one TV.....
Posted by rbWarEagle
Member since Nov 2009
49999 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:37 pm to
quote:

This is flying waaay over your head


No, it's not.

quote:

There has always been poverty


True.

quote:

Marriage prevented poverty from becoming cyclical. Thus, the children of poor parents became middle class. Breaking the cycle. What do you not understand about this?


That's a neat idea but I think it fails to show the complete picture. It may explain some of the effect, but I wouldn't be touting it as the answer. That's all I'm saying.
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10591 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:38 pm to
quote:

Wow, that's a really horrible avoidance of the question. Answer it or look really stupid.

No its not. My focus on education is relevant to poverty today, in 2014. Things change. I don't know much about poverty during the 1920s because 1) I wasnt born, and 2) I hated history in school.

You think all the same factors at play in 1920 poverty are at play in 2014 poverty?
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:42 pm to
quote:

Without a doubt single parent households do not help, and likely hurt. But its not as bad as the effect lack of education has imo.


And your opinion is wrong. We pour more money into public education for failing schools in districts full of dysfunctional, low IQ, single family miscreant people and we get nothing for the investment except that we should spend more money.

The solution is simple:

1. Eliminate welfare of all kinds. Hunger is a great motivator.

2. Shift a lot of public education to vocations and trades for the kids who have no prospects of going to college. You can I.D. this by 6th grade.

3. Stop importing poverty from illegal immigrants by mining the border. Cheap, efficient.
Posted by Vols&Shaft83
Throbbing Member
Member since Dec 2012
69945 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:43 pm to
quote:

I'm talking about poverty in 2014, not the early 1900s.



To be fair, Zach has a first hand account of poverty in the early 1900s.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:44 pm to
quote:

Don't make such naive statements Zach. When depressions/recessions hit, people stop having children. The more severe the economic crisis, the steeper the drop in births.


When the Depression hit people had less children back in the 20s. When Recession hits today people have more children because of the welfare state. Thank you for supporting my position.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112630 posts
Posted on 6/29/14 at 4:45 pm to
quote:

The welfare programs instituted in the 50's were for all Americans.

The welfare programs were instituted in 1964.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram