Pathological Altruism

[ksen]

The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.

View attachment 1087​

This is why I hope Loren never stops posting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is that success is judged on the number of minorities, not on whether they are suitable. When you use a broken yardstick you get a broken result. Any working yardstick is called discriminatory.

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.

Yes, they did. The problem is the CRA mandated the loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers. That's why the government eased the rules for Fannie Mae mortgages--so the banks could sell the loans they were being forced to write.

Then the scum jumped on the eased rules and blew the whole thing up.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The problems are with black people because that's who we are trying to help. It has nothing to do with them being black.

View attachment 1087​

ditto

 

[rousseau]

It's same old same old conservatism and has been vocalised ad nauseam.

Without getting into specific examples of it being applied, there does seem to be a tendency for people to form strong beliefs of what's 'right' without really questioning their own beliefs. Then they'll spend their lives fighting to the death for a false proposition.

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.

...??

Because I'm interested in the concept of pathological altruism, not partisan politics.

 

[KeepTalking]

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 current problems are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of continuing the programs long past the point where the problem they were addressing became a minor issue.

But not a problem with altruism, as it did have positive results at least initially, so it is not a case of pathological altruism. Thanks for supporting my argument.

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.

Where's the evidence of good from them?

Sorry, but I believe it is incumbent upon the person characterizing this as pathological altruism to make the case that there were nothing but negative consequences, and that these negative consequences were reasonably forseeable.

Locally at least the actual "problem" seems to have been that the underwriters were looking at the expected appreciation of the house. They were more willing to write a shaky loan if they expected the house value to go up substantially.

So, you agree with me that this was more of a problem with pathological greed than pathological altruism.

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?

Financial aid to Africa has probably done a lot more harm than good. The only aid that actually works is going in and making something useful--but those two-bit dictators generally would not accept that kind of aid because they couldn't pocket it.

(And this has nothing to do with being black. It has to do with corrupt two-bit dictators. It's just that most of them are in Africa.)

So, you agree with me that this was more of a problem with pathological greed than pathological altruism.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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.

...??

Because I'm interested in the concept of pathological altruism, not partisan politics.

Please yerself. Not a particularly interesting hypothetical IMO.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is that success is judged on the number of minorities, not on whether they are suitable. When you use a broken yardstick you get a broken result. Any working yardstick is called discriminatory.

I literally have idea what this means in practice.

Yes, they did. The problem is the CRA mandated the loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers. That's why the government eased the rules for Fannie Mae mortgages--so the banks could sell the loans they were being forced to write.

You should be able to support your claim with evidence that the CRA mandated loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

...??

Because I'm interested in the concept of pathological altruism, not partisan politics.

Well the problem the author attempted to move the paper from individuals to governments and the partisans jumped on it missing her points that some programs hurt more than they help (abstinence only education) and made it into ALL social programs build dependency.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I literally have idea what this means in practice.

Yes, they did. The problem is the CRA mandated the loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers. That's why the government eased the rules for Fannie Mae mortgages--so the banks could sell the loans they were being forced to write.

You should be able to support your claim with evidence that the CRA mandated loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers.

Maybe it wasn't the selling of misrepresented mortgage backed securities and the need to mask the high risk for high profits and resulting bubble, but poor (Black) people who should have know better than to buy a house.

Nice narrative!

 

[bilby]

By barbos :As for fast food industry, I think they should make $15/hour law, I really want to see robots doing it as a result

What this mantra about "robots" keeps dismissing is that those fast food chains corporations will have to assume expenditures related to hiring or contracting personnel qualified in the maintenance of the said "robots". Further, "robots" and when it comes to automation in general, they are programmed based on what are the most common requests from customers. Anything out of the ordinary will be responded with "sorry, we cannot process your request".

Further and based on the number of times I have encountered folks who get very frustrated with automated voices when calling a company, I am not so certain that we would see a majority of consumers cheering for the "robotisation" of any given business.

To also add that there is a great variety of businesses within the US industry where "robots" would never be able to replace humans. Take health care and my job for example. I would defy anyone to demonstrate how a "robot" would be able to provide the services my employer provides through me.

Automation sounds attractive to managers, because they talk to salespeople, not actual technical experts (and certainly not customers - yuk.). Those with an actual technical understanding of how machines work in real world customer facing applications are less impressed:

The other false assumption about self-service tills is that computers cost less than people. I was amazed to see this lunacy repeated by someone responsible for replacing seated cashiers at Barclays bank with anxious-looking, clipboard-wielding staff whose job it is to wander around the branch looking lost and occasionally pointing out to customers which of the self-service tills have broken down that day.

“Computers don’t need to go to the toilet or take lunches,” she said.

I used to find that naïve way of thinking amusing but these days I’m getting worried that some people actually believe all that bollocks. Unlike inefficient staff, they say, a computer never needs training: it knows what to do and gets on with it (how, by magic?) It doesn’t require support (ha!) or improvement (oh?) A computer never falls ill (ha ha ha!) It costs nothing to run (wot?) It never needs to be retired (oh please). It just works forever, for free! (ffs)

While we’re at it, a computer can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Alistair Dabbs. A man who knows rather more about computerised customer service machines than most.

 

[Tigers!]

A minimum-wage job is better than no job.

Is indentured servitude better than no job?

If t mans being fed or being able to feed your family then possibly so.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is indentured servitude better than no job?

If t mans being fed or being able to feed your family then possibly so.

My Great-Great-Grandmother was fed and her children were fed. Of course, they were slaves and of the 17 children she had by the end of the Civil War, all but two had died or been sold from her.

Now I admit this is an extreme case in this day and age, but the point is, life isn't about just being fed, and there are tradeoffs that go along with being fed.

Tradeoffs that one side of this debate never bring up.

 

[dystopian]

the "a minimum wage job is better than no job" argument is just an excuse to maintain an unfair level of inequality.

False, are you really so uncharitable with the opposition argument that you have to paint them as evil psychopaths who will do anything to oppose decreases to inequality?

The fact that not all of the people who put forth the argument are doing so because they want to maintain rather than decrease unfair inequality does not mean what I said is false and that they are all evil psychopaths; it just means that some of the people putting forth the argument have been duped by the evil psychopaths; or, arguably worse, think they are genuinely arguing for a good thing when in fact they are not and are inadvertently arguing for maintaining an unfair system.

Do you even have the most basic empathy for a person who is unemployed and unable to find a job, who will certainly have all that much more a difficult of a time if you double the minimum wage?

No, because the idea that he'll have a more difficult time with double the minimum wage is not evident from the facts; it is the kind of flawed assumption that leads to people arguing against positive change. "If we try to change things for the better, we'll end up making things worse!"

You focus like hell on those who have jobs (and how they should get better pay), but seem to give a rat's ass about the unemployed (other than pay lip service to how they government should just pay them money while they remain bored and unemployed and very prone to depression as a result).

And you'd have something half-way approaching a point if not for the fact that I *am* unemployed. Oops.

 

[Sabine Grant]

(Never mind that the real problem is hours, not the hourly rate anyway.)

Such as this ?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2345-Pathological-Altruism&p=63585&viewfull=1#post63585

Let me illustrate via my direct observation "those at the bottom". In the industry which is my work environment, "those at the bottom" are hourly wage dependent health care workers under the designation of CNAs and HHAs. In Florida, hourly wages for such non skilled nursing designation ranges from 9 to 11 dollars per hour. Such workers cannot assume their Basic Living Expenses unless they work an average of 50 to 60 hours a week if not more (depending on whether they are a single individual household or have dependent children).The majority of agencies/companies employing those workers will avoid providing overtime. Resulting in those workers supplementing their limited number of hours to 40 weekly by holding one or two other jobs.

Speaking of productivity, it would be greatly unreasonable to expect that they will still be able provide quality services to those companies/agencies clients. It can hardly be expected of a CNA/HHA who just left a 12 hour night shift to then function productively while picking up another shift of 6 hours for another agency/company following her 12 hour shift.

Key word here being productivity (in view of the specific I was replying to). There seems to be an assumption that an overtired worker due to an accumulation of working hours is going to be productive. That their interaction with customers is going to reflect a customer oriented service promoted by the business/company they work for.

Working to live or "living wage" ought to signify generating an income which meets one's Basic Living Expenses. By "Basic", most people will understand that it addresses shelter, utilities, food, transportation, clothing and a budgeting which allows for savings ("rainy days" situations). The symptoms of an ongoing inadequate living wage are ever so present within the elderly population of folks who today have no choice but depend on their children's assistance. They are representative of a generation of "those at the bottom" who despite of working hard and long hours had no flexibility in their budget to save up for older days.

If no children or no willing children, those folks will have to supplement their SS check by picking up manual jobs here and there. In such fashion, the elderly who gather carts from the parking lot of a grocery store and bag groceries. A common sight in my geographical area.

 

[arkirk]

Such as this ?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2345-Pathological-Altruism&p=63585&viewfull=1#post63585

Let me illustrate via my direct observation "those at the bottom". In the industry which is my work environment, "those at the bottom" are hourly wage dependent health care workers under the designation of CNAs and HHAs. In Florida, hourly wages for such non skilled nursing designation ranges from 9 to 11 dollars per hour. Such workers cannot assume their Basic Living Expenses unless they work an average of 50 to 60 hours a week if not more (depending on whether they are a single individual household or have dependent children).The majority of agencies/companies employing those workers will avoid providing overtime. Resulting in those workers supplementing their limited number of hours to 40 weekly by holding one or two other jobs.

Speaking of productivity, it would be greatly unreasonable to expect that they will still be able provide quality services to those companies/agencies clients. It can hardly be expected of a CNA/HHA who just left a 12 hour night shift to then function productively while picking up another shift of 6 hours for another agency/company following her 12 hour shift.

Key word here being productivity (in view of the specific I was replying to). There seems to be an assumption that an overtired worker due to an accumulation of working hours is going to be productive. That their interaction with customers is going to reflect a customer oriented service promoted by the business/company they work for.

Working to live or "living wage" ought to signify generating an income which meets one's Basic Living Expenses. By "Basic", most people will understand that it addresses shelter, utilities, food, transportation, clothing and a budgeting which allows for savings ("rainy days" situations). The symptoms of an ongoing inadequate living wage are ever so present within the elderly population of folks who today have no choice but depend on their children's assistance. They are representative of a generation of "those at the bottom" who despite of working hard and long hours had no flexibility in their budget to save up for older days.

If no children or no willing children, those folks will have to supplement their SS check by picking up manual jobs here and there. In such fashion, the elderly who gather carts from the parking lot of a grocery store and bag groceries. A common sight in my geographical area.

Wouldn't you have to call this situation for older people the result of exploitation throughout life. Maybe we need a big shot of that good old "pathological altruism." It amazes me that some are so crass, they warn us not to be too good to our neighbors or we will be violating the inviolable free market model.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I literally have idea what this means in practice.

Yes, they did. The problem is the CRA mandated the loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers. That's why the government eased the rules for Fannie Mae mortgages--so the banks could sell the loans they were being forced to write.

You should be able to support your claim with evidence that the CRA mandated loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers.

If there wasn't a problem why did Fannie Mae relax lending standards???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Such as this ?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?2345-Pathological-Altruism&p=63585&viewfull=1#post63585

Let me illustrate via my direct observation "those at the bottom". In the industry which is my work environment, "those at the bottom" are hourly wage dependent health care workers under the designation of CNAs and HHAs. In Florida, hourly wages for such non skilled nursing designation ranges from 9 to 11 dollars per hour. Such workers cannot assume their Basic Living Expenses unless they work an average of 50 to 60 hours a week if not more (depending on whether they are a single individual household or have dependent children).The majority of agencies/companies employing those workers will avoid providing overtime. Resulting in those workers supplementing their limited number of hours to 40 weekly by holding one or two other jobs.

Speaking of productivity, it would be greatly unreasonable to expect that they will still be able provide quality services to those companies/agencies clients. It can hardly be expected of a CNA/HHA who just left a 12 hour night shift to then function productively while picking up another shift of 6 hours for another agency/company following her 12 hour shift.

Key word here being productivity (in view of the specific I was replying to). There seems to be an assumption that an overtired worker due to an accumulation of working hours is going to be productive. That their interaction with customers is going to reflect a customer oriented service promoted by the business/company they work for.

Working to live or "living wage" ought to signify generating an income which meets one's Basic Living Expenses. By "Basic", most people will understand that it addresses shelter, utilities, food, transportation, clothing and a budgeting which allows for savings ("rainy days" situations). The symptoms of an ongoing inadequate living wage are ever so present within the elderly population of folks who today have no choice but depend on their children's assistance. They are representative of a generation of "those at the bottom" who despite of working hard and long hours had no flexibility in their budget to save up for older days.

If no children or no willing children, those folks will have to supplement their SS check by picking up manual jobs here and there. In such fashion, the elderly who gather carts from the parking lot of a grocery store and bag groceries. A common sight in my geographical area.

40 hr/wk at minimum wage is above the poverty line for one person.

Two people at 40 hr/wk at minimum wage is above the poverty line unless they have too many kids.

The reality is that most people below the poverty line are not working 40 hr/wk.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The reality is that most people below the poverty line are not working 40 hr/wk.

Can I get a source for this?

 

[laughing dog]

I literally have idea what this means in practice.
You should be able to support your claim with evidence that the CRA mandated loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers.

If there wasn't a problem why did Fannie Mae relax lending standards???

I asked you to support your claim with evidence. Obviously you do not understand what supporting a claim with evidence means, so I will rephrase my question. Please provide a link or a citation to an independent source that substantiates your claim that the CRA mandated loans whether or not there were enough qualified borrowers.

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact that people are taking the low-wage jobs shows there aren't high wage jobs available.

This doesn't follow.