Is Poverty Even Breakable In The US?

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact there is a much disparity in Americans' cognitive skills is certainly not in dispute. As just one example, consider Trump voters vs Biden voters,. Simple tests show that the former are on average demonstrably inferior in real-world understanding and ability to form valid conclusions.

So the people of East Cleveland referenced in the OP; your hunch is that they were Trump voters?

Their white equivalent is out east near Youngstown. And even though the magic beans didn’t grow, they still support him. But that is off topic.

 

[Trausti]

NPR had an piece on the temporary status of Haitians in America due to the Earthquake in Haiti in 2010. The Haitian representative did their best to talk down about the conditions in Haiti and why that temporary status needed to remain. Haiti definitely has a dubious and sad history like the Cleveland Browns between 2000 and 2018. And I pondered about what was needed to fix it. And then that made me think of East Cleveland, a suburb of Cleveland that is in complete and utter collapse. There is really no government there. It is extraordinarily poor (for America) and the school system is run by the state (which usually means it isn't being run well, but better than it would have).

And the same thought keeps coming to mind. In order to fix places like this, the solution in America isn't ending poverty, it is displacing it, because any improvements that are made would make the areas unaffordable to those that live there. If people are to invest their money into an area, they need something to show for it. So if you tear down dilapidated buildings and replace them with new homes, the people that lived there aren't the ones that'll move in them. You have companies move in to provide higher paying jobs, the people that live there likely won't have the skills for those jobs.

Effectively, to improve such areas, you need to get rid of the poor, at least in a capitalist society because they lack the skills and finances to either be part of or afford to live in an improved area. After all, if they could, they would have left a long time ago! Yes, the poor can be trained, the poor can be lifted up, but that is a generational investment, which involves a substantial amount of foresight and empathy... things in short supply in the US.

Of course poverty is breakable in USA. It's more breakable in USA than anywhere else. USA is the richest country on Earth with a wide margin. If there would be political will, it'd be easy. At least easier in USA than anywhere else on the planet.

What capitalism has going for it is that it works even when the politicians in charge are incompetent. As long as they stay away from fucking with the market it'll go just fine. That's why USA is so rich. Capitalism is great for a lot of things. The nice thing with mixed economies, like the Scandinavian countries is that we combine capitalism and socialism. But without the capitalism we wouldn't have the money for the socialism.

I think USA's reluctance to introduce socialist reforms has to do with not wanting to fuck with a system that works. While not working for everyone. In general, it works. If USA would switch to socialism and try to seriously eradicate poverty there's no guarantee it wouldn't all just go to shit and USA would end up just making everybody equally poor. Even the most skeptical political commentator must be aware of that. Greece tried a Scandinavian style mixed market approach. But incompetent mismanagement squandered public funds and it all went to shit.

Mixed market economies are very hard to get right. I live in Denmark. I grew up in Sweden. I love living here. This is the way to go. But I have no illusions. It's been a bumpy ride all along. It can be done. But it's far from easy or trivial.

Human capital is kinda important regardless of the economic system. Scandinavia does well because Scandinavians live there. Minnesota, with its high proportion of people with Scandinavian descent, used to be regarded as the best run State in the Union.

 

[prideandfall]

We’d first have to acknowledge cognitive inequality, which just ain’t gonna happen.

pretty sure we do, it's just that for a particular segment of the population "cognitive inequality" doesn't mean "scientifically justified excuse for mistreatment of a swath of people", but for another segment of the population it does 100% of the time.
thus, even allowing it into the conversation immediately means denigration.

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming <DELETED> about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

 

[Worldtraveller]

We’d first have to acknowledge cognitive inequality, which just ain’t gonna happen.

pretty sure we do, it's just that for a particular segment of the population "cognitive inequality" doesn't mean "scientifically justified excuse for mistreatment of a swath of people", but for another segment of the population it does 100% of the time.
thus, even allowing it into the conversation immediately means denigration.

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming <DELETED> about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

TBF, the right wing like to elect those people to office.

 

[Elixir]

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming sack of shit about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

TBF, the right wing like to elect those people to office.

i don't think right wingers actually believe that "cognitive inferiority" baloney. They certainly don't apply the same disregard to their drooling trumpsucker cohorts in "conservatism", that they do to victims of institutionalized racism. That, even though the latter group tests out with higher intelligence than the former.


Studies ... generally reveal lower cognitive ability to be associated with stronger endorsement of right-wing ideological attitudes and greater prejudice.

Right, @Trausti?

 

[Swammerdami]

The fact there is a much disparity in Americans' cognitive skills is certainly not in dispute. As just one example, consider Trump voters vs Biden voters,. Simple tests show that the former are on average demonstrably inferior in real-world understanding and ability to form valid conclusions.

So the people of East Cleveland referenced in the OP; your hunch is that they were Trump voters?

@ Trausti -- Write a brief essay, 25 words or less, to confirm your understanding of the phrase I've emphasized. Thank you.

While you're at at it, let's take the GOP luminary MTG as another example. Offer your assessment of her cognitive ability. Thanks again.

 

[laughing dog]

The idea that recognizing "cognitive inequality" is the first step in breaking poverty is simply an example of "cognitive inequality".

There are many causes of poverty. Which suggests focusing on one or even two will be inadequate.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, if believing that a Jewish Space Laser caused forest fires in Cali makes me superior, I'm happy to be inferior. If enslaving people based on the color of their skin for 200 years makes me superior, I'm glad I'm inferior. If using science to destroy communities and environments for financial gain makes me superior, please call me inferior.

Kthx bye

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, if believing that a Jewish Space Laser caused forest fires in Cali makes me superior, I'm happy to be inferior.

She didn't say "Jewish Space Laser"!

She said that the Rothchild funded company's satellite (which doesn't exist) was observed misfiring (via technology that does not exist), but she knew nothing of it, and causing fires in California. Stop making her sound like a loon.

 

[prideandfall]

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming <DELETED> about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

i can no longer edit this, but i meant the royal 'you', not trausti specifically. it really wasn't 'insulting' so much as 'vaguely pejorative towards people who are sacks of shit to the cognitively inferior'

 

[Elixir]

@ Trausti -- Write a brief essay, 25 words or less, to confirm your understanding of the phrase I've emphasized. Thank you.

While you're at at it, let's take the GOP luminary MTG as another example. Offer your assessment of her cognitive ability. Thanks again.

God intended broad brushes to be used to paint Dems and lib'ruls based on single examples. It's heresy to bring up one idiot and use her to tar all conservative patriots! Maybe you should add that Boebert bobblehead, just to add credibility?

 

[Trausti]

@ Trausti -- Write a brief essay, 25 words or less, to confirm your understanding of the phrase I've emphasized. Thank you.

While you're at at it, let's take the GOP luminary MTG as another example. Offer your assessment of her cognitive ability. Thanks again.

Pictures are worth thousands of words.

 

[Trausti]

We’d first have to acknowledge cognitive inequality, which just ain’t gonna happen.

pretty sure we do, it's just that for a particular segment of the population "cognitive inequality" doesn't mean "scientifically justified excuse for mistreatment of a swath of people", but for another segment of the population it does 100% of the time.
thus, even allowing it into the conversation immediately means denigration.

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming <DELETED> about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

You can't hope to solve a problem if you don't first acknowledge it. It doesn't mean denigration. But it does mean the 50 plus year of liberal spending and social engineering should probably stop. If such policies were helpful, then the issue would have gone away along time ago.

 

[Trausti]

What about banning rap music? Or at least having lyrics be approved by the Federal Government. It could help I think.

 

[Trausti]

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming sack of shit about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

TBF, the right wing like to elect those people to office.

i don't think right wingers actually believe that "cognitive inferiority" baloney. They certainly don't apply the same disregard to their drooling trumpsucker cohorts in "conservatism", that they do to victims of institutionalized racism. That, even though the latter group tests out with higher intelligence than the former.


Studies ... generally reveal lower cognitive ability to be associated with stronger endorsement of right-wing ideological attitudes and greater prejudice.

Right, @Trausti?

Eh, if you design a study to only assess people with right-wing views, then you'll certainly get the conclusion you're looking for.

 

[Trausti]

It's just silly when on side says they're better by imagining the other side is dumb. The extremes of both sides are dumb. Few actually think for themselves.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12550

 

[SimpleDon]

<<<<snip>>>​

I am sorry, I tried to respond to this on my phone and it requires a level of manual dexterity I don't have this morning.

 

[SimpleDon]

NPR had an piece on the temporary status of Haitians in America due to the Earthquake in Haiti in 2010. The Haitian representative did their best to talk down about the conditions in Haiti and why that temporary status needed to remain. Haiti definitely has a dubious and sad history like the Cleveland Browns between 2000 and 2018. And I pondered about what was needed to fix it. And then that made me think of East Cleveland, a suburb of Cleveland that is incomplete and utter collapse. There is really no government there. It is extraordinarily poor (for America) and the school system is run by the state (which usually means it isn't being run well, but better than it would have).

And the same thought keeps coming to mind. In order to fix places like this, the solution in America isn't ending poverty, it is displacing it, because any improvements that are made would make the areas unaffordable to those that live there. If people are to invest their money into an area, they need something to show for it. So if you tear down dilapidated buildings and replace them with new homes, the people that lived there aren't the ones that'll move in them. You have companies move in to provide higher-paying jobs, the people that live there likely won't have the skills for those jobs.



Effectively, to improve such areas, you need to get rid of the poor, at least in a capitalist society because they lack the skills and finances to either be part of or afford to live in an improved area. After all, if they could, they would have left a long time ago! Yes, the poor can be trained, the poor can be lifted up, but that is a generational investment, which involves a substantial amount of foresight and empathy... things in short supply in the US.

Yes, you have to get rid of the poor in order to get rid of poverty. This is a tautology, saying the same thing using different words. But it doesn't follow that you have to get rid of the people who are in poverty now, i.e. the poor.

Yes, capitalism doesn't work very well when large numbers of people are excluded from sharing in the rewards from the surplus produced by the system. This is what has happened in the US since the founding of the nation, but due to the industrial revolution and the continuous improvements to the efficiency of production since industrialization appeared, the surplus above what is needed for substance keeps growing as well as our ability to eliminate the growing income and wealth inequality.

And why is the growing inequality the biggest threat to capitalism that exists today?

It is because the number of people who are left out of sharing in the surplus keeps growing and as more of them realize that something is wrong they strike out in inappropriate ways like voting for an incompetent to be the president, especially someone who has profited so much from the existing income and wealth inequality. Or they strike out by rioting. Or both.

The way to reduce income inequality is simple, pay the lowest-paid people more for the work that they are already doing. We have tried everything else to eliminate poverty; relying on education, demonizing the poor for being lazy or congenially impaired, eliminating child welfare, softening the indignities of poverty like substandard housing, etc. None have worked so isn't it about time we try the most obvious one?

 

[SimpleDon]

We’d first have to acknowledge cognitive inequality, which just ain’t gonna happen.

pretty sure we do, it's just that for a particular segment of the population "cognitive inequality" doesn't mean "scientifically justified excuse for mistreatment of a swath of people", but for another segment of the population it does 100% of the time.
thus, even allowing it into the conversation immediately means denigration.

if you want cognitive inequality to be part of the national consciousness, stop being such an overwhelming <DELETED> about how to treat people who are cognitively inferior.

You can't hope to solve a problem if you don't first acknowledge it. It doesn't mean denigration. But it does mean the 50 plus year of liberal spending and social engineering should probably stop. If such policies were helpful, then the issue would have gone away a long time ago.

I fully agree. The War on Poverty of the 1960s only solved one-half of the problem. It obviously didn't work. Why settle for half measure? This is why we slowly got rid of it.

But you are demonizing the poor for having a congenital defect, do you honestly believe that what you are doing will eliminate poverty? I think not.

It probably is because it somehow absolves you in your mind from supporting the obvious solution embraced by most other highly developed countries, pay the poor more for the work that they already do.

 

[SimpleDon]

As long as they're dominated by a capitalist country/economy, I see little hope.

I believe otherwise. Capitalism is the most adaptable economic system that we have right now. There is no reason that it couldn't absorb what is needed, to raise the wages of the working poor. The biggest block to doing this isn't capitalism, it is that paying low wages increases profits, and the people who benefit from higher profits have an outsized influence on the government to their numbers. It doesn't have to be this way.