Pathological Altruism

[arkirk]

Sabine Grant: Thank you for such a thoughtful explanation of the problems in East Africa. We need to deconstruct the notion that most altruism is somehow suspect and possibly pathological.

 

[Togo]

Has there been any reason given to describe altruism as 'pathological' other than people who aren't terribly altruistic not wanting to feel bad?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has there been any reason given to describe altruism as 'pathological' other than people who aren't terribly altruistic not wanting to feel bad?

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Has there been any reason given to describe altruism as 'pathological' other than people who aren't terribly altruistic not wanting to feel bad?

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

are altruistic acts, taken in total, more beneficial or more detrimental to society as a whole?

If the answer is the former, then we need to examine the assumption of the title of the thread again.

 

[DBT]

Has there been any reason given to describe altruism as 'pathological' other than people who aren't terribly altruistic not wanting to feel bad?

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

What altruism seeks to accomplish in terms of better pay and conditions is a matter of debate. Those who are concerned with company profit may not have a greater social interest in mind, a better life for workers on the bottom of the heap (and their greater spending power given higher incomes) then, from the perspective of ''company profit always comes first'' the desire to improve the lot of low income earners may be seen as 'pathological altruism.'

 

[Canard DuJour]

Has there been any reason given to describe altruism as 'pathological' other than people who aren't terribly altruistic not wanting to feel bad?

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

Then no examples have been given. There's no evidence that food aid exacerbates famine, minimum wage exacerbates unemployment and a living wage hasn't really been tried AFAIK.

But I can think of an example. Anyone who still insists that the way to help the poor is tax cuts for the rich/supply-side/trickledown. That has been tested to exhaustion over decades.

 

[Jayjay]

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

Can I get a source for this?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

A person who works 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year would be barely above single-person household poverty line at 6$/h after taxes. Which I think is less than minimum wage in most places.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

What altruism seeks to accomplish in terms of better pay and conditions is a matter of debate. Those who are concerned with company profit may not have a greater social interest in mind, a better life for workers on the bottom of the heap (and their greater spending power given higher incomes) then, from the perspective of ''company profit always comes first'' the desire to improve the lot of low income earners may be seen as 'pathological altruism.'

No. What I'm saying is that altruism classes as pathological when it helps the very people it's intended to help. For example, improving poor jobs into unemployment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's being called "pathological" because the focus is on the altruism rather than what it accomplishes. People feel good about helping--even when the end effect of their help is to exacerbate the problem.

Then no examples have been given. There's no evidence that food aid exacerbates famine, minimum wage exacerbates unemployment and a living wage hasn't really been tried AFAIK.

Chronic food aid simply means more mouths to starve down the road. Fixing the symptom does nothing about the underlying problem.

As for the minimum wage--look at teen unemployment, not overall unemployment.

I do agree a living wage has never been tried but it's simply a larger minimum wage. You would expect the same effects, only larger.

I can think of examples of worker protections run amok but when countries fuck up that badly it's not just wages so we can't attribute their problems to wages.

But I can think of an example. Anyone who still insists that the way to help the poor is tax cuts for the rich/supply-side/trickledown. That has been tested to exhaustion over decades.

That's not an example of altruism at all.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Then no examples have been given. There's no evidence that food aid exacerbates famine, minimum wage exacerbates unemployment and a living wage hasn't really been tried AFAIK.

Chronic food aid simply means more mouths to starve down the road. Fixing the symptom does nothing about the underlying problem.

So some chronically assert without a shred of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary.

As for the minimum wage--look at teen unemployment, not overall unemployment.

Why? It isn't designed specifically for the benefit of teenagers. You need to look at employment in aggregate where any effect is negligible or non-existent for a sensible price floor. If adults with dependants rather than dependant teenagers who can work for peanuts are thus employed, it's working.

I do agree a living wage has never been tried but it's simply a larger minimum wage. You would expect the same effects, only larger.

Which remains irrelevant without evidence of the results you expect.

I can think of examples of worker protections run amok but when countries fuck up that badly it's not just wages so we can't attribute their problems to wages.

But none that you care to mention or produce a shred of evidence for.

But I can think of an example. Anyone who still insists that the way to help the poor is tax cuts for the rich/supply-side/trickledown. That has been tested to exhaustion over decades.

That's not an example of altruism at all.

It is if anyone really believes it. What exactly are you saying?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Chronic food aid simply means more mouths to starve down the road. Fixing the symptom does nothing about the underlying problem.

So some chronically assert without a shred of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary.

And providing food for an area with a chronic problem does what to solve the chronic problem?

As for the minimum wage--look at teen unemployment, not overall unemployment.

Why? It isn't designed specifically for the benefit of teenagers. You need to look at employment in aggregate where any effect is negligible or non-existent for a sensible price floor. If adults with dependants rather than dependant teenagers who can work for peanuts are thus employed, it's working.

The problem with the minimum wage is that it cuts the bottom off the ladder to success. Thus it bites very disproportionately those at the bottom--workers just starting out.

I can think of examples of worker protections run amok but when countries fuck up that badly it's not just wages so we can't attribute their problems to wages.

But none that you care to mention or produce a shred of evidence for.

As I said, they fucked up many things so they can't be used as evidence of any particular cause. The example I had in mind was Zimbabwe.

But I can think of an example. Anyone who still insists that the way to help the poor is tax cuts for the rich/supply-side/trickledown. That has been tested to exhaustion over decades.

That's not an example of altruism at all.

It is if anyone really believes it. What exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that isn't about altruism in the first place as it's not trying to send aid to those who need it. Rather, it's saying that they will benefit as a side effect.

 

[bilby]

So some chronically assert without a shred of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary.

And providing food for an area with a chronic problem does what to solve the chronic problem?

Well in the case of Ethiopia, providing food allowed many people who would have died to survive; they now live (by African standards) comfortable lives, with little threat from drought - it turns out that there wasn't a chronic problem at all, and the country is quite capable of supporting twice the population, even in times of drought, once the warring stops and rule of law returns.

By incorrectly assuming that the problem was due to the combination of drought and population (and was therefore chronic)*, you would have chosen to let people starve to death needlessly - simply because of your belief that feeding them would make things worse. Now THAT'S an example of pathological altruism.

Providing food to an area with an ephemeral problem allows people to live to see the day the problem is solved. The world can produce enough food for all the people living on it; and will be able to do so for the foreseeable future (based on UN population projections, population will peak at a level we could feed with just current production of food). Famine has essentially disappeared from the world; one reason for this is that people in places where growing food is a marginal prospect at best have instead started doing something that is valued by those who have massive food surpluses. You can't eat coffee, or flowers; but you can sell them to the EU - and use the proceeds to buy far more food from the EU grain mountain than you could have grown yourself. The only thing is, that to do this, people need to be alive.

It seems to me that you simply underestimate the enormous increase in value that being alive, rather than dead (or indeed, never born) gives to a person, and to his community. You see the cost of a 'mouth to feed', but don't see how that cost is more than matched by the value of the work that person can do - whether in a field, a factory or a home. The thing is though, in order to realise the return on investment of feeding the mouth, it is necessary for the person to remain alive. Children born in Ethiopia in the 1980s are the exact same people whose work today is preventing famine. Except for the ones who died. They represent a net drain on their community, on their country, and on the world - All the food, water, shelter and labour that went into their few short years of life wasted for the want of a handful of free millet.

The solution to the population 'problem' is clear - and lots of people dying of starvation isn't it. Indeed, with African fertility rates, massive fatalities have little impact on population numbers. Education, wealth, and availability of the contraceptive pill to all who want it has solved the problem; in fact, by the time of the famines of the 1980s, it was already solved. Of course, it will take a while for the headline number to stabilise - but that's just demographic lag.

There is no chronic problem; and providing food aid to help people survive a short term problem is not only morally right; it is also better for everyone in the long term, so we should do it EVEN IF we only care about our own selfish interests.



*A widespread belief at the time, and one you appear to still hold despite the fact that a similar drought today with TWICE the mouths to feed has caused no disaster; If you still think there is a chronic problem, then you have to be deliberately ignoring or avoiding the facts.

 

[Canard DuJour]

So some chronically assert without a shred of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary.

And providing food for an area with a chronic problem does what to solve the chronic problem?

What bilby said. Your still unsupported assertion was that it exacerbates a problem.

As for the minimum wage--lookProbably not but what have you got against more experienced workers? What has this to do with "pathological altruism" ? MW is not intended as aid for teenagers. at teen unemployment, not overall unemployment.

Why? It isn't designed specifically for the benefit of teenagers. You need to look at employment in aggregate where any effect is negligible or non-existent for a sensible price floor. If adults with dependants rather than dependant teenagers who can work for peanuts are thus employed, it's working.

The problem with the minimum wage is that it cuts the bottom off the ladder to success. Thus it bites very disproportionately those at the bottom--workers just starting out.

Probably not but what have you got against more experienced workers? What has this to do with "pathological altruism" ? MW is not intended as aid for teenagers.

I can think of examples of worker protections run amok but when countries fuck up that badly it's not just wages so we can't attribute their problems to wages.

But none that you care to mention or produce a shred of evidence for.

As I said, they fucked up many things so they can't be used as evidence of any particular cause. The example I had in mind was Zimbabwe.

What's that got to do with "pathological altruism"? Evidence doesn't mean things that can't be used as evidence.

But I can think of an example. Anyone who still insists that the way to help the poor is tax cuts for the rich/supply-side/trickledown. That has been tested to exhaustion over decades.

That's not an example of altruism at all.

It is if anyone really believes it. What exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that isn't about altruism in the first place as it's not trying to send aid to those who need it. Rather, it's saying that they will benefit as a side effect.

Altruism doesn't just mean sending aid. Poor, welfare-dependent teabaggers campaigning for tax cuts for the rich (because trickledown is going to start working any decade now) are as near as I can think of to an example of pathological altruism. Regular folks lay off when some policy is having an undesired effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Probably not but what have you got against more experienced workers? What has this to do with "pathological altruism" ? MW is not intended as aid for teenagers.

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

What's that got to do with "pathological altruism"? Evidence doesn't mean things that can't be used as evidence.

The problem is that you can't prove which factor did the harm.

You find a corpse with lethal levels of cyanide, hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide. What killed him?

Altruism doesn't just mean sending aid. Poor, welfare-dependent teabaggers campaigning for tax cuts for the rich (because trickledown is going to start working any decade now) are as near as I can think of to an example of pathological altruism. Regular folks lay off when some policy is having an undesired effect.

Trickle-down is an economic policy, not altruism. As with so much of Republican "economics" it suffers from a lack of scale--yes, trickle-down "works"--just not very well.

 

[bilby]

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

What's that got to do with "pathological altruism"? Evidence doesn't mean things that can't be used as evidence.

The problem is that you can't prove which factor did the harm.

You find a corpse with lethal levels of cyanide, hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide. What killed him?

Altruism doesn't just mean sending aid. Poor, welfare-dependent teabaggers campaigning for tax cuts for the rich (because trickledown is going to start working any decade now) are as near as I can think of to an example of pathological altruism. Regular folks lay off when some policy is having an undesired effect.

Trickle-down is an economic policy, not altruism. As with so much of Republican "economics" it suffers from a lack of scale--yes, trickle-down "works"--just not very well.

Yes, the Earth is flat--just not very flat.

 

[laughing dog]

Trickle-down is an economic policy, not altruism. As with so much of Republican "economics" it suffers from a lack of scale--yes, trickle-down "works"--just not very well.

Why would you think that a policy cannot be an example of altruism in action ?

 

[DBT]

What altruism seeks to accomplish in terms of better pay and conditions is a matter of debate. Those who are concerned with company profit may not have a greater social interest in mind, a better life for workers on the bottom of the heap (and their greater spending power given higher incomes) then, from the perspective of ''company profit always comes first'' the desire to improve the lot of low income earners may be seen as 'pathological altruism.'

No. What I'm saying is that altruism classes as pathological when it helps the very people it's intended to help. For example, improving poor jobs into unemployment.

That's not necessarily the case. There are examples, Australia, Scandinavia, England, etc, etc, where minimum wage is higher than the US (adjusted for cost of living) and it is not the case, employment rates are often lower.

So it can be done in practice.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Probably not but what have you got against more experienced workers? What has this to do with "pathological altruism" ? MW is not intended as aid for teenagers.

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

Well that's just plain wrong..



..as I'm sure has been pointed out to you every other time you've made the same assertion.

When people ask for evidence they're not asking you to prepend the same assertion with "the reality is that" or "what you're missing is that" etc

What's that got to do with "pathological altruism"? Evidence doesn't mean things that can't be used as evidence.

The problem is that you can't prove which factor did the harm.

You find a corpse with lethal levels of cyanide, hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide. What killed him?

Your problem is that you can't even find a corpse.

Altruism doesn't just mean sending aid. Poor, welfare-dependent teabaggers campaigning for tax cuts for the rich (because trickledown is going to start working any decade now) are as near as I can think of to an example of pathological altruism. Regular folks lay off when some policy is having an undesired effect.

Trickle-down is an economic policy, not altruism.

Then MW is an economic policy, not altruism. What were you on about again..?

As with so much of Republican "economics" it suffers from a lack of scale--yes, trickle-down "works"--just not very well.

Yes, the Earth is flat--just not very flat.

Heh heh. Yup.

 

[ksen]

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

Well that's just plain wrong.. When people ask for evidence they're not asking you to prepend the same assertion with "the reality is that" or "what you're missing is that" etc

You find a corpse with lethal levels of cyanide, hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide. What killed him?

Your problem is that you can't even find a corpse.

No, no, no Canard. The reality that your missing is that there is a corpse.

 

[RavenSky]

But the reality is that few other workers are working for minimum wage. That's why teen unemployment is so relevant to the minimum wage discussion.

Well that's just plain wrong..

View attachment 1149

The chart you've included perhaps does, however, indicate the real reason the Tea Party types are against raising minimum wage. It isn't about protecting teenagers, but rather about keeping females at an economic disadvantage.