If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Well I haven't been able to find the stats on that, or for other races. But how much of a difference do you think you would find? The last number I found for raised was 17% for blacks. That would be an 11% difference as per the above chart. That's significant but not paradigm-shifting. OTOH, there are statblobs that attempt to counter the narrative a bit like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/13/1383179/-The-absent-black-father-myth-debunked-by-CDC

Bottom line is that black families have it a bit worse than whites, and have had. This was never under debate. But contributors are. I don't see anything in any of these stats to suggest that the welfare state has been helpful. If it has not been helpful, it has been a serious waste of resources to the tune of at least billions, if not trillions. A new approach would be, at a minimum, pragmatic.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think the difference between children "born" to single-parent households and children "raised" in single-parent households is significant. And I've never found Sowell to be a consistent critic of black culture.

As far as welfare goes, it may be true that it hasn't overwhelmingly enabled black families to begin earning a living wage. But has it allowed black families to survive who would have otherwise starved? What exactly is "helpful" in this context?

 

[Dak]

I think the difference between children "born" to single-parent households and children "raised" in single-parent households is significant. And I've never found Sowell to be a consistent critic of black culture.

Well you can't color me shocked to hear you don't like Sowell's analyses . What do you think the significance is (obviously not speaking statistically) in being born vs raised single parent?

As far as welfare goes, it may be true that it hasn't overwhelmingly enabled black families to begin earning a living wage. But has it allowed black families to survive who would have otherwise starved? What exactly is "helpful" in this context?

"Earning a living wage" seems the least of the non-enablements. Seems a fun negative to prove re: preventing starvation.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well you can't color me shocked to hear you don't like Sowell's analyses . What do you think the significance is (obviously not speaking statistically) in being born vs raised single parent?

I mis-typed. Replace single-parent with double-parent.

"Earning a living wage" seems the least of the non-enablements. Seems a fun negative to prove re: preventing starvation.

But these are important questions. Just because they may not be provable doesn't mean they're irrelevant.

 

[Dak]

I mis-typed. Replace single-parent with double-parent.

That's a huge difference though. Even still, being raised by a person not-your-bio-parent isn't the same.

But these are important questions. Just because they may not be provable doesn't mean they're irrelevant.

They are only important insofar as they might be answerable, as far as having some sort of argumentative weight. Otherwise it is really less legitimate than "what if prayer works?". At least we can find a placebo effect in prayer.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

A lot of our welfare spending is not what I would call enablement. Out of the $380 billion federal welfare budget, $60B is Supplemental Security Income (i.e. disability), $60B is the Earned Income Tax Credit (which requires the recipient to be employed), $16B is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which as the name implies is temporary), $36B is unemployment (plenty of requirements there, including having worked in the previous year), and $22B is child nutrition (arguably a good investment in child health).

 

[rms]

This is the Mort Divine thread, not the rms thread, and pragmatism is my middle name. Unfortunately pragmatism has been coopted to mean "easy".

You called me out by name, man.

I can't believe you think any of your views on here on any issue are pragmatic

1. Why is your first concern "how it sounds" vs is it true?

Because there's no evidence to support it.

"Blacks get liberated, blacks live together, everything falls apart. Why? Because they are black and the United States provided services. What are these services? Not stated. How did these services expand by year to year or decade? Not stated. Why? Because that would take some actual work by me"

And I won't do the research for the author and whether or not that evidence supports his mildly racist narrative.

So ridiculous you didn't even have to bother checking whether or not it was true amirite? Because how things sound is an acceptable barometer.

How things sound = bullshit barometer. Don't act like you are above this human phenomenon. The fact that any reader has do check whether or true it's not tells me the author is full of bullshit.

Let's assume that the murder rate did rise from 1950s to the 1960s. Why did this happen? Oh, a shitty connection between 'marriage rates at birth' and the increasing murder rate? Where are the numbers, because if this is actually a trend, the more unmarried births should increase a rise in murders.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a huge difference though. Even still, being raised by a person not-your-bio-parent isn't the same.

Yeah, I know. That was my point. Statistics that count children born into two-parent households are not necessarily counting children raised in two-parent households. That's what I'm saying; and parental abandonment has been an issue for black families since well before the 1960s (again, using Sowell's dates here).

They are only important insofar as they might be answerable, as far as having some sort of argumentative weight. Otherwise it is really less legitimate than "what if prayer works?". At least we can find a placebo effect in prayer.

That's your prerogative. In my opinion, saying that questions are only important insofar as they are answerable is a very teleological perspective.

 

[Dak]

You called me out by name, man.

I can't believe you think any of your views on here on any issue are pragmatic

I called you out by name because you did a drive by jeeeeebus, after spending pages debating the qualities of a certain video game(s).

The problem is you are confused about the meaning of pragmatism. Practical does mean simply expedient or easy, in fact, it can often mean the opposite.

Because there's no evidence to support it.

"Blacks get liberated, blacks live together, everything falls apart. Why? Because they are black and the United States provided services. What are these services? Not stated. How did these services expand by year to year or decade? Not stated. Why? Because that would take some actual work by me"

And I won't do the research for the author and whether or not that evidence supports his mildly racist narrative.


How things sound = bullshit barometer. Don't act like you are above this human phenomenon. The fact that any reader has do check whether or true it's not tells me the author is full of bullshit.

Let's assume that the murder rate did rise from 1950s to the 1960s. Why did this happen? Oh, a shitty connection between 'marriage rates at birth' and the increasing murder rate? Where are the numbers, because if this is actually a trend, the more unmarried births should increase a rise in murders.

It's a short piece. If every single piece ever written had to provide the full catalogue of backing data good god - we may as well get rid of articles. Pragmatism bro. Sowell has written full books on the subject - does he need to relist them for your convenience?

You might want to slow your roll on criticizing how things sound when you are selectively reading from the piece to support what is apparently a kneejerk reaction. You're saying it sounds racist because you obviously skipped the parts that didn't back up that interpretation:

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

A lot of our welfare spending is not what I would call enablement. Out of the $380 billion federal welfare budget, $60B is Supplemental Security Income (i.e. disability), $60B is the Earned Income Tax Credit (which requires the recipient to be employed), $16B is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which as the name implies is temporary), $36B is unemployment (plenty of requirements there, including having worked in the previous year), and $22B is child nutrition (arguably a good investment in child health).

So a little more than half of all federal gimmedats have some stipulations. Why can't they still be enabling, and what about the remaining hundreds of billions in federal and state spending + the message from nearly every corner that "nothing bad is your fault/there are no differences in qualities in behaviors/all choices are equally valid"?

Yeah, I know. That was my point. Statistics that count children born into two-parent households are not necessarily counting children raised in two-parent households. That's what I'm saying; and parental abandonment has been an issue for black families since well before the 1960s (again, using Sowell's dates here).

It probably has been an issue for a while, and a root of the issue could probably be traced to the breaking up of families via slave owning practices. However, the point is that the problem has grown tremendously after the implementation of The Great Society. Between the CRA and the explosion in gimmedats, were the leftist paradigm true, after 50 years we should see tremendous strides across the board or in the least a holding pattern, not mostly regression.

That's your prerogative. In my opinion, saying that questions are only important insofar as they are answerable is a very teleological perspective.

Less important, not unimportant. Otherwise we could attach all importance to the unanswerable questions and starve to death - ensuring no questions get answered.

 

[Einherjar86]

It probably has been an issue for a while, and a root of the issue could probably be traced to the breaking up of families via slave owning practices. However, the point is that the problem has grown tremendously after the implementation of The Great Society. Between the CRA and the explosion in gimmedats, were the leftist paradigm true, after 50 years we should see tremendous strides across the board or in the least a holding pattern, not mostly regression.

Okay, something needs to be addressed here.

Personally speaking, injecting money isn't going to ultimately help anybody - it needs to be supplemented with educational efforts and programs as well, which currently are not in effect. But this doesn't mean that the welfare state has been overwhelmingly responsible for black poverty and violence. The welfare may not be effective enough in combating certain effects of other historical factors - but this doesn't mean that it is directly responsible for the behavior of those it targets.

You want to align the welfare state being "ineffective" with it also being responsible for black poverty/violence. That's a false association; if something is ineffective at combating other factors that doesn't mean that it becomes responsible for those factors. A vaccine may not ward off a disease, but you wouldn't say the vaccine is responsible for producing/perpetuating the disease (or maybe you would, who knows; but I wouldn't).

You're upset about the welfare state because it's taking the money of those who don't benefit from it and giving it away to other people, many of whom in your eyes probably don't deserve it. This doesn't make the welfare state responsible for those problems.

Now, Sowell is also drawing correlations between marriage, family, and violence - more than correlations, in fact. He's suggesting that married households leads to less crime. Yet we have seen a decrease in black women choosing to get married, and a decrease in black violence, both over the past twenty years or so. This strikes me as a quasi-religious, pseudo-moralistic residue on Sowell's part, and one that is really off the mark.

 

[rms]

I called you out by name because you did a drive by jeeeeebus, after spending pages debating the qualities of a certain video game(s).

Damn, did I forget to call you after our first date? I think I replied maybe 4 times about that topic, and then zabu makes a crazy point about property law.

You're saying it sounds racist because you obviously skipped the parts that didn't back up that interpretation:

I didn't skip it, it's the 'nice' attempt by the author to not sound racist when he actually is. No one has likely read that book or would to supplement that 800 word article, but Sowell seems to ignore that all groups get these benefits and yet he only critiques blacks. And this critique is not logically fundamental in this piece. It's just this 1 group, even though all groups get these benefits, has this problem because they are black and they don't have the protestant work ethic.

It's a short piece. If every single piece ever written had to provide the full catalogue of backing data good god - we may as well get rid of articles. Pragmatism bro. Sowell has written full books on the subject - does he need to relist them for your convenience?

Short piece = author leaves out information that he hopes his readers will fill in with a shared understanding. If the author himself has written so much on it, why can't he simply cite it? It's not that hard to link data/arguments from others.

This strikes me as a quasi-religious, pseudo-moralistic residue on Sowell's part, and one that is really off the mark.

This is exactly how I see it too

 

[Dak]

Okay, something needs to be addressed here.

Personally speaking, injecting money isn't going to ultimately help anybody - it needs to be supplemented with educational efforts and programs as well, which currently are not in effect. But this doesn't mean that the welfare state has been overwhelmingly responsible for black poverty and violence. The welfare may not be effective enough in combating certain effects of other historical factors - but this doesn't mean that it is directly responsible for the behavior of those it targets.

You want to align the welfare state being "ineffective" with it also being responsible for black poverty/violence. That's a false association; if something is ineffective at combating other factors that doesn't mean that it becomes responsible for those factors. A vaccine may not ward off a disease, but you wouldn't say the vaccine is responsible for producing/perpetuating the disease (or maybe you would, who knows; but I wouldn't).

Vaccines and monetary transfers are different enough to the point where there is no comparison or acceptable metaphor.

If welfare were demonstrated to improve outcomes for every ethnic/racial/whatever you want to call it group other than blacks, then we could suggest that the problem lies in black history in the US. But this isn't the case, and Sowell specifically points out similar outcomes for other groups. That blacks in the US received the most of this "aid" in larger numbers and earlier than many other groups would merely mean that any direct or indirect effects would be the most severe and immediate.

I don't know what programs/educational efforts you could be thinking of which are "not in effect". For those poor enough to receive all measure of other assistance, 16 years+ of school is free as well, in addition to a plethora of other benefits.

You're upset about the welfare state because it's taking the money of those who don't benefit from it and giving it away to other people, many of whom in your eyes probably don't deserve it. This doesn't make the welfare state responsible for those problems.

Now, Sowell is also drawing correlations between marriage, family, and violence - more than correlations, in fact. He's suggesting that married households leads to less crime. Yet we have seen a decrease in black women choosing to get married, and a decrease in black violence, both over the past twenty years or so. This strikes me as a quasi-religious, pseudo-moralistic residue on Sowell's part, and one that is really off the mark.

Violence across the board is down, but blacks are still responsible for a greatly disproportionate amount. Differences in outcomes related to environmental/familial instability are not some sort of fringe pseudosocioscientific assertions, in contrast they are thoroughly documented and have been the lynchpin of both left and right social activism, and always with moral overtones in either case.

Sowell seems to ignore that all groups get these benefits and yet he only critiques blacks. And this critique is not logically fundamental in this piece. It's just this 1 group, even though all groups get these benefits, has this problem because they are black and they don't have the protestant work ethic.

Maybe it's because Sowell is black and is specifically concerned about fellow blacks? Sort of the Anti-Coates.

 

[Einherjar86]

Vaccines and monetary transfers are different enough to the point where there is no comparison or acceptable metaphor.

The point of comparison has nothing to do with the actual quality of either vaccines or monetary transfers, but with the expectations for improvement that accompany both.

I don't want to argue about metaphors.

If welfare were demonstrated to improve outcomes for every ethnic/racial/whatever you want to call it group other than blacks, then we could suggest that the problem lies in black history in the US. But this isn't the case, and Sowell specifically points out similar outcomes for other groups. That blacks in the US received the most of this "aid" in larger numbers and earlier than many other groups would merely mean that any direct or indirect effects would be the most severe and immediate.

How come the only acceptable conclusion for the inefficiency of welfare is that black history has little effect in today's socioeconomic climate? I think it's a perfectly acceptable argument to suggest that welfare is not working - but to say that it's responsible for black behavior, or that the failure of the welfare state forecloses the possibility that history has contributed to the plight of blacks, does not make any sense. It's an association that may have some impact, sure, but there's nothing here from which to draw a substantive and convincing conclusion.

This isn't me being hardheaded, this is me saying that Sowell's conclusion is far from definitive. It's a leap, nothing more.

I don't know what programs/educational efforts you could be thinking of which are "not in effect". For those poor enough to receive all measure of other assistance, 16 years+ of school is free as well, in addition to a plethora of other benefits.

I just assumed this would be a part of your proposed solution. Obviously the money isn't working, or else there needs to be some kind of educational program supplementing it so that adolescents and their parents have some working knowledge of how to save/manage their money.

Violence across the board is down, but blacks are still responsible for a greatly disproportionate amount. Differences in outcomes related to environmental/familial instability are not some sort of fringe pseudosocioscientific assertions, in contrast they are thoroughly documented and have been the lynchpin of both left and right social activism, and always with moral overtones in either case.

They are documented, and the evidence is not that there's a direct relationship between marriage and good citizenship; if anything, it's that there's an inverse relationship - marriage rates have gone down as have violent crimes. If marriage rates are going down, and marriage somehow informs good citizenship, then crimes rates should be increasing.

 

[Dak]

How come the only acceptable conclusion for the inefficiency of welfare is that black history has little effect in today's socioeconomic climate? I think it's a perfectly acceptable argument to suggest that welfare is not working - but to say that it's responsible for black behavior, or that the failure of the welfare state forecloses the possibility that history has contributed to the plight of blacks, does not make any sense. It's an association that may have some impact, sure, but there's nothing here from which to draw a substantive and convincing conclusion.

This isn't me being hardheaded, this is me saying that Sowell's conclusion is far from definitive. It's a leap, nothing more.

They are documented, and the evidence is not that there's a direct relationship between marriage and good citizenship; if anything, it's that there's an inverse relationship - marriage rates have gone down as have violent crimes. If marriage rates are going down, and marriage somehow informs good citizenship, then crimes rates should be increasing.

I'll be willing to agree that the link isn't definitive, in that it isn't the sole source of the entire problem. Crime rates in general the US have dropped over the last two decades, and particularly violent crime rates. However, this is across the US, where blacks are both a minority and relatively geographically segregated. Comparing FBI statistics on crime in comparison with the chart on the prior page, especially in comparing a "white state" like Oregon with a "black state" like Alabama, shows holding patterns in most crime statistics one might expect when accounting for the delay between birth/teenage years, even after taking the decreases from the 90s into account.

http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

I just assumed this would be a part of your proposed solution. Obviously the money isn't working, or else there needs to be some kind of educational program supplementing it so that adolescents and their parents have some working knowledge of how to save/manage their money.

Based on what I've seen, as well as what I've heard about my wife's experience growing up in a poor community (although rural instead of urban) as a minority with non-"Protestant" ethics (low time preference), I think the fetishization of education as a panacea is the result of it being panacea for the ills of academics - which in no way reflects the situation for non-academics at a minimum, much less those living in radically different environments and from radically different cultural and genetic backgrounds. I would say at a minimum education couldn't hurt (where we can't say the same thing about monetary transfers), but I would have extremely low expectations for outcome improvement for any such programs. Cultural dismissiveness about the value of education and/or working/saving towards the future are difficult hurdles for an individual to overcome when immersed in such a culture, hurdles some classes will barely begin to give a leg up on.

Comprehensive, paternalistic programs combining targeted aid along with job skill and "home economic" training may be the best case scenario, but such programs will not only be expensive but come under significant fire from the left as it will require the ever dreaded "judgement" of some ways of living as worse than others/a measure of personal responsibility for changes in behavior/outcome. You can't help someone change if they don't think they have any effect on future outcomes. There's simply no incentive and worse, everyone they know and/or love + leftist activists will actively be fighting them on it.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say at a minimum education couldn't hurt (where we can't say the same thing about monetary transfers)

Of course, I don't see why we can't say the same thing about monetary transfers, and I'm still unclear on why you think we can't.

Comprehensive, paternalistic programs combining targeted aid along with job skill and "home economic" training may be the best case scenario, but such programs will not only be expensive but come under significant fire from the left as it will require the ever dreaded "judgement" of some ways of living as worse than others/a measure of personal responsibility for changes in behavior/outcome. You can't help someone change if they don't think they have any effect on future outcomes. There's simply no incentive and worse, everyone they know and/or love + leftist activists will actively be fighting them on it.

Language aside, I don't see why this can't be combined with education (or how it's different, to be entirely honest...) other than the fact that it will significantly increase costs. But as you said, that's already going to be an issue.

This is the point where, it seems to me, disagreement trumps discourse. I find it somewhat humorous that certain stats you've shared seem to suggest entirely opposite things, to my eyes, than what you use them to argue. This is why I also think it's as useful (if not more useful) to argue the un-provable as it is to argue about using facts and statistics. Everyone finds different stats, and everyone has reasons for believing their stats over another's. There's metadata abound in these kinds of issues, and that's data that can't really be quantified, much less qualified in any remotely accurate sense. My interests have more to do with providing conceptual analyses of various cultural narratives (your favorite, I know) and seeing which ones are the most effective or influential, and attempting to see where those narratives elide serious contradictions or misinformations.

And I see arguments like Sowell's as constructing narratives of cultural behavior that actively conceal as much as they claim to reveal.

 

[Dak]

Of course, I don't see why we can't say the same thing about monetary transfers, and I'm still unclear on why you think we can't.

If for no other reason (there are other reasons), monetary transfers obstruct learning the lessons any socioeconomic training program would provide. People are paid for not doing the things the program would be teaching. There's certainly a beneficial pavlovian effect in working and receiving a paycheck (even if "working" is attending school and getting passing grades). Substitute doing little to nothing vs doing work and you get different reinforced behaviors.

Language aside, I don't see why this can't be combined with education (or how it's different, to be entirely honest...) other than the fact that it will significantly increase costs. But as you said, that's already going to be an issue.

One of the myriad issues with democracy.

 

[arg]

Welfare exacerbates the problem because it helps them survive and be healthy enough to reproduce and receive more welfare.

Adding publicly funded education is a bad idea because the quality of that education is usually shit and won't get them out of poverty and it'll cost more taxpayer money

The correct solution is to stop all welfare so they starve and die off, mandatory abortions and sterilizations

 

[Dak]

Welfare exacerbates the problem because it helps them survive and be healthy enough to reproduce and receive more welfare.

Adding publicly funded education is a bad idea because the quality of that education is usually shit and won't get them out of poverty and it'll cost more taxpayer money

The correct solution is to stop all welfare so they starve and die off, mandatory abortions and sterilizations

Or maybe they become productive members of society after two-three generations.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So a little more than half of all federal gimmedats have some stipulations. Why can't they still be enabling, and what about the remaining hundreds of billions in federal and state spending + the message from nearly every corner that "nothing bad is your fault/there are no differences in qualities in behaviors/all choices are equally valid"?

They obviously all have stipulations. I just pointed out the half that have enough stipulations to make a good case that they're not enabling people to leech off the system.

Why can't they still be enabling? I just gave you evidence that they're not - it's your turn to show evidence that they are.

I'd also add that poor people aren't the only ones who hear "nothing bad is your fault" -- the bankers who ripped off America during the financial crisis, and avoided criminal charges while their businesses failed, got that message too.

11 million working Americans live in poverty, while the wealthiest 1% own over 40% (and growing), or $34 trillion, of the country's wealth. That 1% could pay off the entire national debt right now, and balance the budget for as long as you could possibly forecast. That you and other conservatives ignore this problem because you're more worried about poor people "leeching off the welfare state" is beyond absurd.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I love how everybody just completely ignores arg. What a dink