Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Social assistance programs need to be overhauled, that I think is correct. For the time being, all they do is perpetuate unemployment and general poverty. Most people living on welfare aren't going out and blowing it on X-boxes or flatscreens, they're using it to scrape by; but that doesn't mean they're actively going out and looking for work either (whether due to incapacity, complacency, or other mitigating factors like taking care of children or sick relatives).

It would be interesting if a study would be funded (of course the left-outrage machine would howl ever so loudly at the racistness of the suggestion even though more whites in raw numbers are on govt assistance) to see what the overlap is in households on govt assistance and households with flatscreens and/or current or just previous gen consoles (and generally recent flagship smartphones). I would put money on the number being well over 50% - 80%+ wouldn't suprise me. There might be any number of explanations for those findings, but the overall point is that poor people typically have poor spending habits to compound all their other problems. There are limitations to some levels of poor living that prevent smarter spending in some ways, but what mentally traps people in that sort of vortex of unhappiness? No imagination or no hope?

Even self-proclaimed socialists champion small businesses, and I don't think you'll find a vast majority of democrats who are anti-entrepreneurship. But there's no reason why increased entrepreneurship and social assistance programs can't exist side by side. I'm wary of arguments that suggest that new businesses can "solve" the unemployment problem. I think they can help, but they can't solve it.

I would agree both with the fact that being comfortably unemployed is not amenable to entrepreneurship and that low to no social net is cruel next to a burdensome business regulatory apparatus.

Honestly, I agree with Glaeser that what's needed is social reform, calculated educational interventions at local levels, and better financial management. I'm not for cutting anything in this regard. If anything, I think more money needs to be pumped into these programs, but they need to be revised and they need to allocate more funds toward educational outreach, not toward welfare checks. If empowering entrepreneurship would also help, then go for it.

The one problem that I have with the increased educational opportunity angle is that prior research and current states of public education suggest that free to-near free education is not valued by those that need it most. People value what has been worked for more than what has not been.

 

[rms]

suggest that free to-near free education is not valued by those that need it most. People value what has been worked for more than what has not been.

this would coincide with the author's point though, right?

i think he should have gone into more detail about why Germany is the better place for education. From my understanding, it's a government directed and mandated system based on testing at far too young of an age, and I do not agree with their model even though it is successful (outside of needing Turkish and other middle eastern refugees for every other kind of labor)

 

[Einherjar86]

The one problem that I have with the increased educational opportunity angle is that prior research and current states of public education suggest that free to-near free education is not valued by those that need it most. People value what has been worked for more than what has not been.

Just to clarify, by "calculated educational interventions" I meant outreach programs designed to work with unemployed individuals on things like job hunting and planning, materials (letters, resumes, etc.), interviews, and possibly courses geared toward training, public speaking, financial planning, etc. This would be pitched as quite directly related to, and intended to assist, individuals on job searches. It needs to be understood as "You earn this retroactively, once you use what we give you to get a job."

I wasn't envisioning courses on nuclear chemistry, modernist fiction, or the Civil War (for example).

 

[CiG]

Most people living on welfare aren't going out and blowing it on X-boxes or flatscreens, they're using it to scrape by

You don't know too many welfare recipients do you?

 

[Einherjar86]

It would be interesting if a study would be funded (of course the left-outrage machine would howl ever so loudly at the racistness of the suggestion even though more whites in raw numbers are on govt assistance) to see what the overlap is in households on govt assistance and households with flatscreens and/or current or just previous gen consoles (and generally recent flagship smartphones). I would put money on the number being well over 50% - 80%+ wouldn't suprise me. There might be any number of explanations for those findings, but the overall point is that poor people typically have poor spending habits to compound all their other problems.

You don't know too many welfare recipients do you?

No, I don't.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...d_their_money_it_s_not_steak_and_seafood.html

The point of these charts isn't that food stamp and welfare recipients never overspend, or make what might seem to be poor financial decisions. (Personally, I would love to see a distribution curve showing the range of spending patterns among families). Nor am I suggesting that these programs are 100 percent free of fraud; believe it or not, investigators found cases in California where welfare beneficiaries withdrew their benefits on cruise ships (the state later banned them from doing so). The point is, these are fringe cases, and they're used to demonize a group of people who are often working extremely hard just to get by.

 

[Dak]

How are they working hard to get by when working hard makes it harder to get by (at least initially)?

I tryed to find raw respondant numbers to that survey based on assistance and where from. Household selection methodology doesn't seem problematic at a glance but just a little more than half of total eligible households agreed to participate. Depending despersal, you wind up with a non-random sample due to self-selection effects. Additionally, reporting spending habits are definitely subject to demand characteristics (responses based on what the participant thinks the study is really about/responses based on what is socially acceptable).Both self-selection and demand characteristics are threats to external validity.

These are common threats to many survey studies and are an unfortunate fact of limits to study funding. However, due to these problems in a national survey with the additional problem of wildly fluctuating micro-economies, I'd take that graph with a large grain of salt. For instance: I'm sure $900 a month on housing would get you a premium cardboard box for 1 in San Francisco (outside of rentlocked housing). Conversely, one person can sublet for less than 400 a month all inclusive here in reasonable housing in parts of NC. To compare more closely to the average of 3.7 with my household of 5 atm, I don't pay 900 a month even in the summer all told for an apt.

Since crab was mentioned, I do have several locations within a couple of miles of me selling crab (and/or other non-necessities) with signs "EBT Accepted" prominently displayed.

 

[Einherjar86]

How are they working hard to get by when working hard makes it harder to get by (at least initially)?

That's a conundrum that no amount of hard work can fix.

I tryed to find raw respondant numbers to that survey based on assistance and where from. Household selection methodology doesn't seem problematic at a glance but just a little more than half of total eligible households agreed to participate. Depending despersal, you wind up with a non-random sample due to self-selection effects. Additionally, reporting spending habits are definitely subject to demand characteristics (responses based on what the participant thinks the study is really about/responses based on what is socially acceptable).Both self-selection and demand characteristics are threats to external validity.

Agreed--the observation has an effect on the observed, as we like to say. But if we're going to admit that kind of thinking now, at this point, then the entire enterprise becomes irrelevant. I doubt that all people are tweaking their spending numbers, and if some are I doubt they're doing it drastically. This doesn't give us a perfect model of welfare spending habits, but I'm inclined to think that it's vaguely accurate as opposed to wildly off-base.

These are common threats to many survey studies and are an unfortunate fact of limits to study funding. However, due to these problems in a national survey with the additional problem of wildly fluctuating micro-economies, I'd take that graph with a large grain of salt. For instance: I'm sure $900 a month on housing would get you a premium cardboard box for 1 in San Francisco (outside of rentlocked housing). Conversely, one person can sublet for less than 400 a month all inclusive here in reasonable housing in parts of NC. To compare more closely to the average of 3.7 with my household of 5 atm, I don't pay 900 a month even in the summer all told for an apt.

I do take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think a general suspicion toward the specificity of the numbers proves, or is strong evidence for the fact, that the majority of welfare recipients are taking advantage of the system. Even if some of them make frivolous purchases, and even if some are massaging the numbers, I don't think the takeaway should then be "they're mostly liars who spend their money on Fiji water and aged Japanese whiskey." No, they're spending their money on Wegmans water (or soda, which is a problem, but not a spending one) and Evan Williams.

Cost of living in general fluctuates from city to city, and income reflects that. Our rent doubled when my wife and I moved to Boston (for a smaller apartment than we were renting in Florida), but her income also went way up (for the same position). Things we spend money on might vary in cost, but so does the dispersal of spending money, why wouldn't welfare adjust accordingly?

 

[Dak]

but I'm inclined to think that it's vaguely accurate as opposed to wildly off-base.

I'm inclined to also think it's vaguely accurate, with an emphasis on the vaguely. I also didn't see exactly what the criteria was for putting someone in the "assistance" category. If you're only on WIC, that's a bit different than using Section 8/Public housing and SNAP (plus whatever other assistance is available).

I do take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think a general suspicion toward the specificity of the numbers proves, or is strong evidence for the fact, that the majority of welfare recipients are taking advantage of the system. Even if some of them make frivolous purchases, and even if some are massaging the numbers, I don't think the takeaway should then be "they're mostly liars who spend their money on Fiji water and aged Japanese whiskey." No, they're spending their money on Wegmans water (or soda, which is a problem, but not a spending one) and Evan Williams.

Cost of living in general fluctuates from city to city, and income reflects that. Our rent doubled when my wife and I moved to Boston (for a smaller apartment than we were renting in Florida), but her income also went way up (for the same position). Things we spend money on might vary in cost, but so does the dispersal of spending money, why wouldn't welfare adjust accordingly?

I'll agree that the large majority of people in dire need of assistance aren't drinking only FIJI water. But it's a problem of perspective which I see when people point out that "middle class/rich people waste way more money" (not saying you are doing that here, just that I see it commonly). It's a luxury of having to not track things as closely. When you have a smoking habit in the middle class, it's not great for your budget but the bigger concern is lung cancer. When on public assistance, you're more likely to smoke and smoke heavier - which could equate to "rent money" (plus winding up on disability/medicare sooner). When you make six figures, buying that new PS4 is a drop in your annual budget. When on public assistance, it's "rent money" (even buying it a year later from a pawn shop), and it's a poor financial move relative to the situation. Especially when, given the fact you're living off of the "generosity" of others, your time needs to be spent trying to get on your own feet, not finding new ways to while away the hours. Arguments about how these are coping mechanisms for the depressive nature of living in poverty/being unemployed are enabling destructive/mal-adaptive coping, not helping the situation. Purpose is better for the psyche than 12 hours of Grand Theft Auto V and a pack of smokes on the dime of Uncle Sam.

 

[CiG]

My entire indigenous Australian family is on welfare save for a few black sheep who have jobs. My mother has been on welfare since my parents divorced like 23 years ago.

Frivolous spending is one of the main traits among them all.

 

[Dak]

My entire indigenous Australian family is on welfare save for a few black sheep who have jobs. My mother has been on welfare since my parents divorced like 23 years ago.

Frivolous spending is one of the main traits among them all.

Referring again to my point above, humans in general typically enjoy various things which could be labeled as frivolous. The question is: Are you generating the surplus which warrants it? Those on public assistance are absolutely not.

 

[CiG]

Referring again to my point above, humans in general typically enjoy various things which could be labeled as frivolous. The question is: Are you generating the surplus which warrants it? Those on public assistance are absolutely not.

Sure, I am not arguing against frivolity. Just make sure to do it with your own money.

 

[Dak]

https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/06/2...lars-better-spent-on-prisons-than-on-schools/

I will read an interesting article, want to see what people are saying about it, pop the link in the Twitter search bar, and I will be absolutely amazed at what % of the reactions demonstrate that the people talking about it haven’t actually read the piece. You will see conversations about various essays that go on for dozens and dozens of exchanges where it is glaringly clear that not one person in the conversation actually has a grasp of what the essay says. And these aren’t just randoms, either, but usually writers themselves, people who have built careers producing text. Go to any event where established people give young writers advice and they always say, you have to read to write! But my impression is that many, many professional writers don’t.

I get that there are structural reasons that professional writers don’t read. I get that it’s not all a character or integrity issue. I get that the modern media economy forces people to be producing at a pace that makes reading enough difficult. I’m not unsympathetic. But at some point people have to make the personal decision to say “I’m not going to comment on something I haven’t read.”

I meet people IRL who know me from writing a lot more often, now that I live in New York. And sometimes there’s tension. I’ll be introduced by a friend of a friend to someone who is sure they don’t like me. If I get the chance, I’ll eventually try to tease out which of my opinions they reject. Likewise, I sometimes challenge people on social media or in my email to list their actual grievances, to tell me what I believe that is so objectionable. Often enough – maybe a majority of the time – it will turn out that they are mad at me about something I don’t believe and have never said. I am fine with being controversial or personally disliked for what I actually think and have actually said. But at present my online reputation has almost nothing to do with me or my actual beliefs, because no one online reads anything.

 

[Einherjar86]

That is sad but true, and a lot of it has to do with clickbait titles, I think.

(btw, I didn't read anything other than that excerpt )

 

[Dak]

I like deBoer's writing in terms of mechanics, logic, and clarity. However, I pretty much always find his premises or his extrapolations from his conclusions problematic.

Edit: The one area I do appreciate his perspective are his critiques of academia.

 

[Dak]

http://evonomics.com/pro-social-institutions-come/

Incredibly long read with research sprinkled throughout. TL;DR version: Intelligence (and patience - which is highly correlated with intelligence) appears to mediate differences in social behaviors.

Understanding the benefits of working together in complex situations — which is what a repeated prisoner’s dilemma simulates — implicitly requires reasoning skills, the ability to learn from mistakes, the ability to anticipate, and accurate beliefs about other people’s motives.

The ethical implication: the intelligent are more likely to practise the Golden Rule, and this actually breeds trust; and the less intelligent are more likely to think they can get away with it, and this breeds mistrust. You only need intelligence to generate this difference. You can immediately see where social and civic capital might come from, at least in part.

Also read a deBoer piece essentially talking about the same thing in:
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias-is-the-most-powerful-force-in-education/

The screening mechanism is the educational mechanism.

Thinking about selection bias compels us to consider our perceptions of educational cause and effect in general. A common complaint of liberal education reformers is that students who face consistent achievement gaps, such as poor minority students, suffer because they are systematically excluded from the best schools, screened out by high housing prices in these affluent, white districts. But what if this confuses cause and effect? Isn’t it more likely that we perceive those districts to be the best precisely because they effectively exclude students who suffer under the burdens of racial discrimination and poverty? Of course schools look good when, through geography and policy, they are responsible for educating only those students who receive the greatest socioeconomic advantages our society provides. But this reversal of perceived cause and effect is almost entirely absent from education talk, in either liberal or conservative media.

However, deBoer points the finger at poverty, which is probably overblamed. Recent largescale study:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/bjprcpsych/205/4/286.full.pdf

There were no associations between childhood family
income and subsequent violent criminality and substance
misuse once we had adjusted for unobserved familial risk
factors.

Now I can see some immediate responses to that study - one being that "Well Sweden is a great place to be poor - what about Detroit or Chicago?" and the other being that "What if all of the other risk factors are present because of poverty?". To the first I would say that sounds kind of racist (minorities can only respond to poverty with crime?) as well as disproven through lower rates of crime from "model minorities" - which just so happen to be of higher average intelligence. To the latter, I would point to periods like The Great Depression, where crime did not skyrocket in response to mass unemployment and depressed wages. If poverty were such a powerful influence on the emergence of antisocial behaviors, we should expect a different picture.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/crime-and-great-recession-13399.html

Pinker points to the Flynn effect in Better Angels, and although I'm not sold on it, it's at least a better theory about crime than the increasingly unlikely proffered root in poverty.

 

[Einherjar86]

I can't craft a response to all this information, so I'll only address the points that don't jive--which are probably predictable by this point.

The ethical implication: the intelligent are more likely to practise the Golden Rule, and this actually breeds trust; and the less intelligent are more likely to think they can get away with it, and this breeds mistrust. You only need intelligence to generate this difference. You can immediately see where social and civic capital might come from, at least in part.

I see the data and the correlation, but I don't see the causal relationship between intelligence and cooperation. I do see generation after generation of people who are told by their elders not to trust other people, likely because of shit pulled on them in the past; and so the cycle continues. This doesn't support a causal relation between lower intelligence and reluctance to trust others.

Now I can see some immediate responses to that study - one being that "Well Sweden is a great place to be poor - what about Detroit or Chicago?" and the other being that "What if all of the other risk factors are present because of poverty?". To the first I would say that sounds kind of racist (minorities can only respond to poverty with crime?)

No, minorities cannot respond only to poverty with crime. But that's not the argument, and I think you're smart enough to know that.

This isn't the first time I've reacted this way to this exact comment from you, and it isn't the first time you've ignored my objection. You absolutize appeals to poverty as a definitive causal explanations for why poor people commit crimes. That's a misinterpretation of the argument, which is that poverty is a contributing factor to criminal behavior. But there are a lot of rich people who also commit crimes, and plenty of poor people who don't.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop insinuating that I'm a racist because I acknowledge the arguments that suggest poverty contributes to criminal behavior.

 

[Dak]

I can't craft a response to all this information, so I'll only address the points that don't jive--which are probably predictable by this point.


I see the data and the correlation, but I don't see the causal relationship between intelligence and cooperation. I do see generation after generation of people who are told by their elders not to trust other people, likely because of shit pulled on them in the past; and so the cycle continues. This doesn't support a causal relation between lower intelligence and reluctance to trust others.

I think the point about "don't trust others" advice lines up with that article. I certainly "didn't trust" the kids in my poor childhood neighborhood, and my parents probably told me not to either. And having some toys stolen and my bball goal broken reinforced it. However, I didn't broadly apply it. The argument via cooperation games is that those of lower intelligence are more likely to apply that behavior in all situations. It might have some utility where everyone is shitty, but that is rather the point.

No, minorities cannot respond only to poverty with crime. But that's not the argument, and I think you're smart enough to know that.

This isn't the first time I've reacted this way to this exact comment from you, and it isn't the first time you've ignored my objection. You absolutize appeals to poverty as a definitive causal explanations for why poor people commit crimes. That's a misinterpretation of the argument, which is that poverty is a contributing factor to criminal behavior. But there are a lot of rich people who also commit crimes, and plenty of poor people who don't.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop insinuating that I'm a racist because I acknowledge the arguments that suggest poverty contributes to criminal behavior.

I'll borrow something along the lines of something you've said before and say I don't think you're racist, but I think some positions you argue are of the "racism of low expectations" variety.

The argument that poverty is a contributing factor , either at all or of consequence, to crime is under dispute.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think the point about "don't trust others" advice lines up with that article. I certainly "didn't trust" the kids in my poor childhood neighborhood, and my parents probably told me not to either. And having some toys stolen and my bball goal broken reinforced it. However, I didn't broadly apply it. The argument via cooperation games is that those of lower intelligence are more likely to apply that behavior in all situations. It might have some utility where everyone is shitty, but that is rather the point.

A lot of people never get a chance to consider the broad applications--for instance, if they never leave the community in which they were born.

I'll borrow something along the lines of something you've said before and say I don't think you're racist, but I think some positions you argue are of the "racism of low expectations" variety.

But that's not true either because I don't think we should rationalize and admit whatever the low expectations are that you're talking about. I think we need to address people's disadvantages according to their situations, and poverty is one of element that I don't think we can avoid.

The argument that poverty is a contributing factor , either at all or of consequence, to crime is under dispute.

If we're saying that poverty is a factor and not a cause, then simply noting a correlation between the presence of poverty and a decrease in crime doesn't prove there's no relation. It means that some other factor could have intervened and overcome the influence that poverty has on crime.

Again, I haven't read these links and so I can't have an informed discussion. The little bits that I looked at seem to simply say that inverse trends have occurred (i.e. that crime decreased when it shouldn't have). But I didn't see where the studies considered alternative reasons for said decreases. Poverty doesn't happen in a vacuum, and neither does crime. Until other studies weigh the factors, I don't see how we can dissociate the two.

 

[Dak]

@Einherjar86

www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/better-business-through-sci-fi

 

[Einherjar86]

I remember when that came out. It was exciting. There have been other articles over the past couple years to suggest a similar influence. It makes sense, since science fiction has been looking more like real life since about the 1980s. Sci-fi will never be as strange as real life though.