The damage of poverty is visible as early as kindergarten

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren people will be having kids and don't give a damn what you think about it. Children will be cared for and care about by people in and outside of their family and no one doing that caring will give a damn what you think. Public and private money will be spent and each generation will produce the next be they rich or poor and you sitting there making the oh so sage pronouncement of if you can't afford a child don't have one will produce as much positive effect in the world as pissing in the ocean trying to swell the tide.

IOW, if you have no more original thing to say than that, don't say anything at all, the rest of us can put the oxygen to better use.

Yeah, people think they have a right to abuse children.

Loren

You don't get to complain about child abuse in this breath when you were damning the fact that the children were even born in the previous one.

If you feel the situation is hopeless, which you have made clear that you do, why the fuck are you talking about it?

If you actually have something useful to share, share it.

Otherwise you may feel free to stop beating the don't-have-children-until-you-deemed-worthy horse. That pony died at the starting gate.

Choosing to have a child in a situation you can't care for it adequately is child abuse in my book.

 

[untermensche]

It is about parenting.

Since there is so little upward mobility possible in the US, people with poor parents tend to end up poor themselves.

And as a society we can either try to lift these people from the cycle of poverty, or we can be good capitalists and exploit the poor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is about parenting.

Since there is so little upward mobility possible in the US, people with poor parents tend to end up poor themselves.

And as a society we can either try to lift these people from the cycle of poverty, or we can be good capitalists and exploit the poor.

We have good upward mobility.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren people will be having kids and don't give a damn what you think about it. Children will be cared for and care about by people in and outside of their family and no one doing that caring will give a damn what you think. Public and private money will be spent and each generation will produce the next be they rich or poor and you sitting there making the oh so sage pronouncement of if you can't afford a child don't have one will produce as much positive effect in the world as pissing in the ocean trying to swell the tide.

IOW, if you have no more original thing to say than that, don't say anything at all, the rest of us can put the oxygen to better use.

Yeah, people think they have a right to abuse children.

Loren

You don't get to complain about child abuse in this breath when you were damning the fact that the children were even born in the previous one.

If you feel the situation is hopeless, which you have made clear that you do, why the fuck are you talking about it?

If you actually have something useful to share, share it.

Otherwise you may feel free to stop beating the don't-have-children-until-you-deemed-worthy horse. That pony died at the starting gate.

Choosing to have a child in a situation you can't care for it adequately is child abuse in my book.

Folks fuck, Loren
Fucking makes babies
And you don't have any holier-than-thou right to decide who gets to have children.

And to keep promoting a situation as a solution that is NEVER going to happen is fucking stupid.

And annoying.

- - - Updated - - -

It is about parenting.

Since there is so little upward mobility possible in the US, people with poor parents tend to end up poor themselves.

And as a society we can either try to lift these people from the cycle of poverty, or we can be good capitalists and exploit the poor.

We have good upward mobility.

no we don't.

 

[doubtingt]

Lots of people here are missing the point.

Since the difference predates school it can't be due to bad schools.

It's what's going on at home that matters. Parenting.

do you ever read previous posts?

Providing the mental stimulation for the kid doesn't cost anything.

IOW, the answer is "NO", you do not bother to read or especially think about the contents of prior posts that directly refute your baseless and illogical assertions.
Providing mental stimulation for your kids, including having constant interactive dialogues with them does cost plenty. I explicated numerous plausible factors that are directly or indirectly related to things that cost money, are impacted by being able to spend money to increase one's free time, and stress factors exacerbated by monetary concerns that impinge on the needed time.

If you don't have time to raise a kid you shouldn't be having one in the first place.

Part of parenting is the decision to have one in the first place.

[follow-up comment in subsequent post]
Choosing to have a child in a situation you can't care for it adequately is child abuse in my book.

Wealthy parents don't give any more thought to it and don't put more effort into parenting. It is just fortunate for their kids that the financial circumstances of their parents inherently make it much easier for their parents to provide a superior environment. Take the wealth away from the wealthy and they would still have kids and their same amount of efforts the give now would produce the worse results we see for poor parents. IOW, wealth is the central causal determinant.

Not to mention, kids that know fewer words are not "abused" It is a matter of having fewer advantages relative to others. I realize you "libertarians" don't care about anything but money, but what about relative emotional advantages in terms of having a large extended family to buffer kids against the discord of divorce. It's a 50% chance your kids will suffer through a divorce. Having lots of nearby aunts, uncles, living grandparents can buffer those negative effects by providing a larger context of social stability surrounding the parental instability. So, is it abuse for people to have kids unless they have stable, psychologically and geographically close relations with an extended family network?
The notion that it is abuse to have a child in less than ideal conditions is absurd. Should all people, poor included, be educated on the countless ways in which having multiple children negatively impacts their kids via diluting economic and parenting resources? Yes. And should they be educated very explicitly about birth control, making it a central component of the minimal education requirements and included in standardized testing along with other basic science knowledge? Yes. And should all people be given free access to safe forms of birth control, given the high cost to society of unwanted/unplanned births? Yes. And who are the ones that oppose such sane, ethical, intelligent and efficacious social policies? Conservatives and many self-labeled "libertarians".

 

[ksen]

Lots of people here are missing the point.

Since the difference predates school it can't be due to bad schools.

So are you if you think the OP was about bad schools.

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5797186/the-damage-of-poverty-is-visible-as-early-as-kindergarten

Hahaha, maybe those dumb kids should have picked better parents!

Not to troll or anything, but correlation does not imply causation. Intelligence could be heridary (well... it is). It could be that the kids from poor familes really are dumber and would be dumber even when all else is the same. I'm not saying that I believe this. But.. .I'm just looking at the study critically

 

[ksen]

good lord

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's a 50% chance your kids will suffer through a divorce.

Is there a source for this statistic? I know that I've heard that 50% of USA marriages end in divorce, but that must include childless marriages too, so I wonder if the divorce rate among couples with children is different.

 

[doubtingt]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5797186/the-damage-of-poverty-is-visible-as-early-as-kindergarten

Hahaha, maybe those dumb kids should have picked better parents!

Not to troll or anything, but correlation does not imply causation. Intelligence could be heridary (well... it is). It could be that the kids from poor familes really are dumber and would be dumber even when all else is the same. I'm not saying that I believe this. But.. .I'm just looking at the study critically

As with all science, the OP study should be interpreted in the context of all other relevant science. That includes that studies I cited early showing huge differences in language exposure by income level, and other research supporting a clear causal role of language exposure on all of the cognitive variables measured in the OP study. In other words, existing science strongly supports a mechanism of opportunities to learn mechanism, whereas a genetics mechanism would be purely speculative. You're right that all potential mechanisms should be considered, and its irrational anti-science just to dismiss the possibility that biological constraints on cognitive development play a role in the kids performance and in their parents poverty. Note that this would still allow for all the many historical and social injustice factors to also play a key role in poverty and income disparity. It would only require a small portion of the variance in income to be due to biological constraints on cognitive abilities. But in this case, we don't know that income groups differ in such biological constraints but we do know they differ on other environmental factors known to impact the cognitive development in question.

 

[doubtingt]

It's a 50% chance your kids will suffer through a divorce.

Is there a source for this statistic? I know that I've heard that 50% of USA marriages end in divorce, but that must include childless marriages too, so I wonder if the divorce rate among couples with children is different.

How much would the divorce rate for couples with kids need to differ from the 50% rate among all couple in order for it to make any meaningful difference to the point being made? If its a mere 40% of married people with kids that get divorced, then that still a very high risk of this negative event impacting any person choosing to have kids. Technically, you have a point. I didn't factor lower rates of divorce for couples with kids. But I don't think it matters to the point. Besides, most of the differences in rates is likely due to unhappy, discordant marriages suffering along for "the sake of the kids", and thus cause as much harm or more to the kids than divorce. It is highly likely that having many other close relations with members of extended families, not only buffers kids from divorce effects but from the effects of combative parents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Choosing to have a child in a situation you can't care for it adequately is child abuse in my book.

Folks fuck, Loren
Fucking makes babies
And you don't have any holier-than-thou right to decide who gets to have children.

People drink. Drunks drive. Does that mean we shouldn't make DUI a crime?

We have good upward mobility.

no we don't.

About 10% of those born into the bottom quintile make it to the top. In a perfect world only 20% would. Given the parenting handicaps in the bottom quintile I'm surprised the number is even this high.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Choosing to have a child in a situation you can't care for it adequately is child abuse in my book.

Folks fuck, Loren
Fucking makes babies
And you don't have any holier-than-thou right to decide who gets to have children.

People drink. Drunks drive. Does that mean we shouldn't make DUI a crime?

you think the species' drive to procreate is equal to alcohol addiction and the impaired decision to drive?

Seriously?

Show me a civilization any place and any time that ever considered the procreation of the species to be abuse.

We have good upward mobility.

no we don't.

About 10% of those born into the bottom quintile make it to the top. In a perfect world only 20% would. Given the parenting handicaps in the bottom quintile I'm surprised the number is even this high.

 

[Juma]

About 10% of those born into the bottom quintile make it to the top.

source?

 

[DrZoidberg]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5797186/the-damage-of-poverty-is-visible-as-early-as-kindergarten

Hahaha, maybe those dumb kids should have picked better parents!

Not to troll or anything, but correlation does not imply causation. Intelligence could be heridary (well... it is). It could be that the kids from poor familes really are dumber and would be dumber even when all else is the same. I'm not saying that I believe this. But.. .I'm just looking at the study critically

As with all science, the OP study should be interpreted in the context of all other relevant science. That includes that studies I cited early showing huge differences in language exposure by income level, and other research supporting a clear causal role of language exposure on all of the cognitive variables measured in the OP study. In other words, existing science strongly supports a mechanism of opportunities to learn mechanism, whereas a genetics mechanism would be purely speculative. You're right that all potential mechanisms should be considered, and its irrational anti-science just to dismiss the possibility that biological constraints on cognitive development play a role in the kids performance and in their parents poverty. Note that this would still allow for all the many historical and social injustice factors to also play a key role in poverty and income disparity. It would only require a small portion of the variance in income to be due to biological constraints on cognitive abilities. But in this case, we don't know that income groups differ in such biological constraints but we do know they differ on other environmental factors known to impact the cognitive development in question.

My point is that there's too many factors to be able to isolate any singular to draw any strong conclusion.

Maybe. Maybe not

 

[ksen]

Choosing to have a child in a situation you can't care for it adequately is child abuse in my book.

Folks fuck, Loren
Fucking makes babies
And you don't have any holier-than-thou right to decide who gets to have children.

People drink. Drunks drive. Does that mean we shouldn't make DUI a crime?

Good lord, are you really advocating making it illegal for poor people to have kids?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

how The US compares in mobility to other countries

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

 

[doubtingt]

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5797186/the-damage-of-poverty-is-visible-as-early-as-kindergarten

Hahaha, maybe those dumb kids should have picked better parents!

Not to troll or anything, but correlation does not imply causation. Intelligence could be heridary (well... it is). It could be that the kids from poor familes really are dumber and would be dumber even when all else is the same. I'm not saying that I believe this. But.. .I'm just looking at the study critically

As with all science, the OP study should be interpreted in the context of all other relevant science. That includes that studies I cited early showing huge differences in language exposure by income level, and other research supporting a clear causal role of language exposure on all of the cognitive variables measured in the OP study. In other words, existing science strongly supports a mechanism of opportunities to learn mechanism, whereas a genetics mechanism would be purely speculative. You're right that all potential mechanisms should be considered, and its irrational anti-science just to dismiss the possibility that biological constraints on cognitive development play a role in the kids performance and in their parents poverty. Note that this would still allow for all the many historical and social injustice factors to also play a key role in poverty and income disparity. It would only require a small portion of the variance in income to be due to biological constraints on cognitive abilities. But in this case, we don't know that income groups differ in such biological constraints but we do know they differ on other environmental factors known to impact the cognitive development in question.

My point is that there's too many factors to be able to isolate any singular to draw any strong conclusion.

Maybe. Maybe not

If we have strong evidence that B causes C, and that B is a byproduct of A. Then we have strong evidence that A will relate to C via causal mechanism B.
In the present case B is language exposure, C is language developed of the sort assessed by the tests in the OP study, and A is poverty.
Thus, even prior to the OP study we had strong evidence that poverty relates to language development via the causal mechanism of language exposure.
The OP study just shows that A to C relationship, which we already knew would exist due to their mutual relation to B (language exposure).

That makes language exposure a far more plausible explanatory candidate than genes limiting intellectual ability, since the prior evidence showing links between genes and A and C is not nearly as strong as the evidence for language exposure. We can conclude that at least a portion of the relationship is due to language exposure. Whether anything else is also at work (i.e., genes) is an open question, but currently the most parsimonious explanation is language exposure alone would produce and can account for the relationship in the OP study.
I don't what you mean by "strong conclusion" but we can infer much more than "maybe. maybe not".

 

[doubtingt]

how The US compares in mobility to other countries

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

In truth, those correlations for father-son income are somewhat low in absolute terms, even if higher than most other countries. A .47 correlation means that only 22% of the variance in son's income is predicted by father's income, meaning that 78% of the variance is not predicted. However, such correlations are a really poor under-estimate of the true dependence of income on parental income. Changes in relative income inequality from generation to generation will lower the correlation, even if the change is increased inequality and it reflects a rich get even richer effect from father to son. IOW, if a person born into poverty stays poor but a person born into wealth is able to use that wealth to get even wealthier than their parents (which is what every scientific model of recent economic changes in the US shows is happening), this will reduce the inter-generational correlation. IOW, the dependence of wealth on parental wealth is very strong but it is non-linear because the more wealth you start with the more ability you have to increase your wealth beyond the wealth you were born into. This non-linear feature of the relationship weakens the observed simple linear correlation such as used in the cited "elasticity" index.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Show me a civilization any place and any time that ever considered the procreation of the species to be abuse.

The laws haven't caught up with the times yet.

- - - Updated - - -

About 10% of those born into the bottom quintile make it to the top.

source?

It was on the old forum. I wasn't the one who posted it.