If you want to claim that poor Americans and residents of Flint lack agency and cannot make good choices for themselves, then the natural question is why do we allow them the freedom to make choices?
Making choices isn't free. We don't just let people make them, we often make people make them. We haven't set things up to give everyone personalized think tank support yet.
Trust is also an issue. If I had a personalized think tank I'd want to be part of the process of personalizing it and so on. Ultimately we give people freedom because we value freedom, and not having to trust or depend on other people. Sometimes to a fault. Sometimes to our own societal detriment.
Yes. It seems that for some folks, idleness (supplemented by wealth transfers) is more fun than work, and that's why we have poverty.
That is not what I said.
For one I'm explicitly avoiding any claims about what the situation actually is on average, or on a case by case basis, because I don't actually know.
But two, fun is far from the only factor in the cost benefit analysis I am describing.
Looking for a job is a cost. You don't actually do anything productive to society while looking for a job. Your cultivation options are limited while actively looking for a job. It's not worth very much to the person looking for a job or for anyone else in the economy until a job is actually acquired. Looking for a job is not always the best way to not die, or even the best way to contribute to society. In some cases, looking for a job is legitimately a waste of everyone's time, because the individual is worth little to employers and their time is worth more elsewhere. I'm not talking about playing video games here.
Which media do you believe is actually conveying this message?
Not nearly convinced of that message but-
Yeah the media is fucked. The main issue is I don't see a way to gain epistemic certainty about the object level of anything politically charged by watching the news.
There might be some outlet that has a complete model of why people are poor. But it's not like I can tell without becoming an expert myself.
We haven't set things up to give everyone personalized think tank support yet.
I'm not proposing personalized think tank support, merely in loco parentis. If a person is part of this "unable to make good choices" class, they get to live in an institutionalized environment where important choices are made for them. They don't make the choice to overconsume soda and other junk food (as the current poor do), they get to pick a few options off a menu in a healthy food cafeteria. They don't get to control their own TV, there's a TV that plays wholesome programming a couple of hours a day and they don't get to use it if they don't participate in exercise and productive labor. Etc.
In short, the setup my 2 year old lives with.
Looking for a job is a cost. You don't actually do anything productive to society while looking for a job.
Yes, searching for something isn't productive until you find it. But refusing to search is a great way to ensure that you won't find it.
Looking for full time work (or having a job) at least 27 weeks/year is a 97.3% effective way to avoid poverty in the US.
In contrast, about 21% of people outside the labor force were poor. (28M poor people outside the labor force as per BLS report above) / (330M people x 40% outside the labor force).
For one I'm explicitly avoiding any claims about what the situation actually is on average, or on a case by case basis, because I don't actually know.
Why am I unsurprised you don't know? But it's actually not hard to know - it's pretty well documented that the situation is "drugs and video games are fun".
I suppose a theoretical alternative explanation is that jobs have suddenly become far more dangerous and people are becoming injured and turning to drugs to cope with pain. This change happened concurrently with the available jobs shifting away from factories/coal mines and towards air conditioned offices. Using a laptop is dangerous I guess!
In some cases, looking for a job is legitimately a waste of everyone's time, because the individual is worth little to employers and their time is worth more elsewhere. I'm not talking about playing video games here.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Making choices isn't free. We don't just let people make them, we often make people make them. We haven't set things up to give everyone personalized think tank support yet.
Trust is also an issue. If I had a personalized think tank I'd want to be part of the process of personalizing it and so on. Ultimately we give people freedom because we value freedom, and not having to trust or depend on other people. Sometimes to a fault. Sometimes to our own societal detriment.
That is not what I said.
For one I'm explicitly avoiding any claims about what the situation actually is on average, or on a case by case basis, because I don't actually know.
But two, fun is far from the only factor in the cost benefit analysis I am describing.
Looking for a job is a cost. You don't actually do anything productive to society while looking for a job. Your cultivation options are limited while actively looking for a job. It's not worth very much to the person looking for a job or for anyone else in the economy until a job is actually acquired. Looking for a job is not always the best way to not die, or even the best way to contribute to society. In some cases, looking for a job is legitimately a waste of everyone's time, because the individual is worth little to employers and their time is worth more elsewhere. I'm not talking about playing video games here.
Not nearly convinced of that message but-
Yeah the media is fucked. The main issue is I don't see a way to gain epistemic certainty about the object level of anything politically charged by watching the news.
There might be some outlet that has a complete model of why people are poor. But it's not like I can tell without becoming an expert myself.
I'm not proposing personalized think tank support, merely in loco parentis. If a person is part of this "unable to make good choices" class, they get to live in an institutionalized environment where important choices are made for them. They don't make the choice to overconsume soda and other junk food (as the current poor do), they get to pick a few options off a menu in a healthy food cafeteria. They don't get to control their own TV, there's a TV that plays wholesome programming a couple of hours a day and they don't get to use it if they don't participate in exercise and productive labor. Etc.
In short, the setup my 2 year old lives with.
Yes, searching for something isn't productive until you find it. But refusing to search is a great way to ensure that you won't find it.
Looking for full time work (or having a job) at least 27 weeks/year is a 97.3% effective way to avoid poverty in the US.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2019/home.htm
In contrast, about 21% of people outside the labor force were poor. (28M poor people outside the labor force as per BLS report above) / (330M people x 40% outside the labor force).
Why am I unsurprised you don't know? But it's actually not hard to know - it's pretty well documented that the situation is "drugs and video games are fun".
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23552/w23552.pdf https://qz.com/1070206/nearly-half-of-working-age-american-men-who-are-out-of-the-labor-force-are-using-painkillers-daily https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/video-killed-radio-star
I suppose a theoretical alternative explanation is that jobs have suddenly become far more dangerous and people are becoming injured and turning to drugs to cope with pain. This change happened concurrently with the available jobs shifting away from factories/coal mines and towards air conditioned offices. Using a laptop is dangerous I guess!
Perhaps you should speak plainly and be specific.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link