Except affirmative action did not require the lowering of standards.Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
Except the gov't did not implement policies to encourage lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers.The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...
All of your examples require the misuse or misinterpretation of the original aim. Perhaps this thread is an example of pathological conservative memeAid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.
It's same old same old conservatism and has been vocalised ad nauseam.
Why not get into specific examples? The only one here (so far) is the minimum wage, about which proponents endlessly cite evidence and opponents endlessly cite abstract principles.
...??
Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...
Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development.
Hmm. Perhaps my mentioning that your question was a reduction to absurdity, the great big smiley, and the follow-on comment about this not implying that it is at all morally justifiable weren't quite enough to make it clear to you that this is not my position, but is merely an application of logic to your otherwise ridiculous reductive question...even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.If having no job guarantees that you have no home and no food, and represents certain death, then I would argue that indentured servitude which provides for shelter and sustenance is unquestionably better than the alternative. .
This is where I was going with the question. The op is basically a false dichotomy ie no job vs sub-living wage. If basic needs aren't being met the entire system is up for readjustment using any means.even that is a ridiculous false dichotomy, because i can assure you that "no longer abiding by the polite rules of society" would happen long before mass starvation.
Except affirmative action did not require the lowering of standards.
Except the gov't did not implement policies to encourage lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers.The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...
All of your examples require the misuse or misinterpretation of the original aim. Perhaps this thread is an example of pathological conservative memeAid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.
On September 30, 1999, a New York Times reporter, Steven Holmes published a piece
titled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending”. The crux of the story was that Fannie
Mae was lowering its credit standards, which in turn would increase home ownership. Franklin
Raines, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fannie Mae, is quoted in the article:
“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by
reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remain too many borrowers whose
credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated
to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
i wasn't suggesting it was your position, hence why i said "even that" - my whole reply was stating that a tongue-in-cheek mockery of an extreme position didn't go far enough in its ridiculousness.Hmm. Perhaps my mentioning that your question was a reduction to absurdity, the great big smiley, and the follow-on comment about this not implying that it is at all morally justifiable weren't quite enough to make it clear to you that this is not my position, but is merely an application of logic to your otherwise ridiculous reductive question...
i wasn't suggesting it was your position, hence why i said "even that" - my whole reply was stating that a tongue-in-cheek mockery of an extreme position didn't go far enough in its ridiculousness.Hmm. Perhaps my mentioning that your question was a reduction to absurdity, the great big smiley, and the follow-on comment about this not implying that it is at all morally justifiable weren't quite enough to make it clear to you that this is not my position, but is merely an application of logic to your otherwise ridiculous reductive question...
and yes, i used that as an excuse to go off on a bender on a thought tangent i'd already mentioned, but i wasn't pinning it on you personally.
There is no need to persist in giving more examples of the pathological conservative meme. Affirmative action does not mandate nor require the lowering of standards. The fact some places did so is not the fault of aa nor of its goals.Except affirmative action did not require the lowering of standards.
Except the gov't did not implement policies to encourage lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers.
All of your examples require the misuse or misinterpretation of the original aim. Perhaps this thread is an example of pathological conservative memeAid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.
Lowered standards for affirmative action: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02/do-medical-school-acceptance-rates-from.html
Reducing down payment requirements was not the problem in the housing crisis. No gov't program forced or even induced lenders to lend to people they knew could not repay their mortgages.Government participation in housing crisis: https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/White.pdf
On September 30, 1999, a New York Times reporter, Steven Holmes published a piece
titled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending”. The crux of the story was that Fannie
Mae was lowering its credit standards, which in turn would increase home ownership. Franklin
Raines, the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fannie Mae, is quoted in the article:
“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by
reducing down payment requirements. Yet there remain too many borrowers whose
credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated
to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
This might be the only example that even comes close to "pathological altruism".Harm of aid to Africa: http://www.dambisamoyo.com/books-and-publications/book/dead-aid and Moyo's paper: http://www2.fiu.edu/~ganapati/6838/02_15_10_Moyo.pdf
Wanting the world of man to operate fairly and with justice, even economic justice, is not altruism.
It is self interest.
A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.
If a company says, we can only stay in business if we are allowed to dump X thousands of gallons of toxic sludge into the river, expel X tons of coal ash into the air, kill X amount of patients who take our medicine, are the people opposed to those businesses being allowed to do those things pathological?
I still say we hsould have a guaranteed basic income for all supplied through the tax system, and let employers and employees agree to whatever wages above that that they want to pay. Take the threat of starvation away from the table and let the two bargain a fair price. The government should not be forcing any particular price, and the employer should not be funding welfare by paying employees more than their work is worth.
A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.
The problem is that when you mandate a "living wage" job you get some people with living wages and others with zero.
(Never mind that the real problem is hours, not the hourly rate anyway.)
The economy isn't big enough to support this yet. Eventually I think it's the right answer.
A living wage job is better than a lower than living wage job.
The problem is that when you mandate a "living wage" job you get some people with living wages and others with zero.
Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...
Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development. This is also true for aid to Haiti, in that the local farmers cannot compete with cheap and free foreign aid.
Here's a NYT article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04angier.html?pagewanted=all
So basically anything to do with black people.
The more you know.
Actually I have made no such assumption, hidden or otherwise. I asked a question about the pathology of people who oppose certain things. And you have not answered the question and it appears you have no intentions of doing so.You're making a hidden assumption that there are other jobs available.
And?The fact that people are taking the low-wage jobs shows there aren't high wage jobs available.
Thus they aren't dumping X thousand gallons of toxic sludge, they are intercepting a naturally occurring stream of toxic sludge and removing half of it.
- - - Updated - - -
I still say we hsould have a guaranteed basic income for all supplied through the tax system, and let employers and employees agree to whatever wages above that that they want to pay. Take the threat of starvation away from the table and let the two bargain a fair price. The government should not be forcing any particular price, and the employer should not be funding welfare by paying employees more than their work is worth.
The economy isn't big enough to support this yet. Eventually I think it's the right answer.
So basically anything to do with black people.
The more you know.
The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.
So basically anything to do with black people.
The more you know.
The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.
Specific examples. Affirmative action, whereby standards are lowered for assumed disadvantaged persons giving them preference in admission to academic institutions. Intentions, good. Harm - academic mismatch: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
Yet Affirmative Action actually did good as well by forcing those academic institutions to take measures to avoid institutional racism. So, even in hindsight, it is not a clear cut case of reasonably forseeable consequences.
]The housing crisis, whereby the government implemented policies encouraging the lending of mortgages to at-risk borrowers to promote minority home ownership. Intentions, good. Harm - well, yeah know...
Did those policies do nothing but harm? Was it the policy decisions, and thus pathological altruism, that caused the crisis, or self-serving corporations and individuals, and thus pathological greed, that actually caused the crises? You missed the mark again, here.
Aid to Africa, meant for development but used to prop up dictatorships, cronyism, and impeding local economic development.
So no aid to Africa has ever done any good? Good luck proving that one. Once again, pathological greed on the part of they dictators and cronies has more to do with these failures than any form of altruism.
All of these examples are bad examples of what the paper you cite was getting at. Why don't you use actual examples from the paper, from those who know about the subject they were researching, instead of using this to prop up your personal hobby horse?