Breaking down the Tunnels' favorite conservative myth

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Very, very few people obey none of these norms. Look at that table: Only about 3.4 million people, a little over 1 percent of the population, are in families in the "none" column. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Shawn Fremstad notes, there are more poor people who followed all three norms than followed none of them.


•Describing full-time work as a "norm" is slightly bizarre, as plenty of people are out of work despite wanting a job. Sometimes you get laid off, or there are no job openings in your area for someone with your skill set, or your employer won't let you work more than 20 to 30 hours a week. Right now, 8.6 million Americans are looking for a job and can’t find one, an additional 6.8 million have part-time work but say they are trying to find a full-time position, and 6.6 million more have stopped actively looking for a job but say they would like one if the labor market were stronger. This is a particularly crucial point because Haskins and Sawhill identify work as the single most important norm. Shockingly, earning a steady income is a good way to not be in poverty.
•Treating birth timing as a norm is also strange, as it implies that people have more control over when to have children than they often do. Access to birth control and abortion — and the cost of each — varies greatly by income, with poor women losing out. This is why Sawhill is a huge advocate of government programs to expand the use of IUDs and other highly effective, long-lasting forms of birth control.

Addressing these two points in particular:
1. The no full-time-work excuse is really, really stupid. Part of working and developing a work ethic is making good, and often tough, choices about work. What that means is not quitting a job because of little inconsequential things, and not quitting bad jobs that can lead to good jobs because they are too hard or you don't like them. It also means not quitting a job before having something else lined up. Taking into account their "requirement" of having a high school diploma ... do you know anyone with a high school diploma who has never had at least a part time job if they wanted one? And guess what, even if it is a part time job at Burger King, if you show up every day and work reasonably hard, that will become a full time job based simply on the attrition of other workers in that setting. I know it is #anecdotes, but I've worked enough shitty fast food or similar minimum wage jobs to know that all you really have to do is consistently show up and give a reasonable amount of effort, and you will get to full time and probably a management role, simply because most of the people around you will call out consistently. It is not that hard. And then if you don't quit and don't do something extremely stupid, then you can have that job for a long time, and use it to step into something else. But, like anything else, making bad choices (quitting over something stupid or because you don't like the work) has consequences.
2. Access to birth control is such a tired excuse. Poor people don't have access to condoms? Really? Seriously? They cost less than those Big Macs or Jumbo slurpees, and are more readily available. No problem walking to the gas station to pick up that case of beer or those lotto tickets, but can't be bothered to grab the pack of condoms? Bullshit. Just keep making excuses for people.

 

[TownieDeac]

I wonder if any of these pontificating 2&2 types have ever had unprotected sex. Not 2&2 specifically, because, the sex part. But the other grandstanders.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Even if you make a mistake and have unprotected sex once in a while, you have to be really, really unlucky to knock someone up. Our rate of single parent households is not a product of once-in-a-while mistaken unprotected sex.

 

[jhmd2000]

Just read the article, jhmd.

The research is taken from one year of data that leaves out several groups. It has been misinterpreted by conservatives. Several components of those factors are outside of individual control. Noting their own research, one author is an outspoken advocate of government sponsored birth control.

No one is saying any of those things are bad. They're just not automatic, not solely individual, and YMMV depending on how you do them.

But you do you and keep attacking strawmen.

This is quite a galling juxtaposition.

 

[TownieDeac]

Even if you make a mistake and have unprotected sex once in a while, you have to be really, really unlucky to knock someone up. Our rate of single parent households is not a product of once-in-a-while mistaken unprotected sex.

you're right, unprotected sex isn't the only thing creating single parent households

we're chipping away at this really complicated facade, one millimeter at a time

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

No, they don't. But I think he's under some illusion that everyone doesn't do jack shit and is handed absolutely everything. Just because you are white and weren't born on a dirt floor to a destitute mother, doesn't mean you walked around with your hand out and sucked the family tit to get everything you have. That's an extraordinarily lazy viewpoint.

If you think that, it's because you've done a piss poor job of reading and understanding my post/s.

There are hardworking people all over the world in every field, in every social strata. It's ridiculous to pretend that the difference between the socio-economic classes is simply just hard work. Its also important to mention that the trait of being "hardworking" is completely subjective, very similar to being "above average". Nearly everyone considers themselves to be "above average" at everything, and the same goes for being "hard-working", and the more successful someone is, the higher they consider themselves.

Everyone is a product of their surroundings and their upbringing, and there is much more to consider than simply just how much money your parents gave you. Your genetic aptitude, your circumstances, your intellectual influences, your peer influences, the choices you make in your youth all play a huge part in determining whether a hardworking person is working 60 hrs behind the grill at Cookout or a hardworking person found grants and scholarships for college and now owns their own business.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I challenge anyone to go out and ask random people on the street if they are "hard working". You won't get many noes.

 

[jhmd2000]

If you think that, it's because you've done a piss poor job of reading and understanding my post/s.

There are hardworking people all over the world in every field, in every social strata. It's ridiculous to pretend that the difference between the socio-economic classes is simply just hard work. Its also important to mention that the trait of being "hardworking" is completely subjective, very similar to being "above average". Nearly everyone considers themselves to be "above average" at everything, and the same goes for being "hard-working", and the more successful someone is, the higher they consider themselves.

Everyone is a product of their surroundings and their upbringing, and there is much more to consider than simply just how much money your parents gave you. Your genetic aptitude, your circumstances, your intellectual influences, your peer influences, the choices you make in your youth all play a huge part in determining whether a hardworking person is working 60 hrs behind the grill at Cookout or a hardworking person found grants and scholarships for college and now owns their own business.

Do you think that's what people are arguing against? If so, then it's probably not very hard to stay #undefeated.

 

[BarcaDeac]

If you think that, it's because you've done a piss poor job of reading and understanding my post/s.

There are hardworking people all over the world in every field, in every social strata. It's ridiculous to pretend that the difference between the socio-economic classes is simply just hard work. Its also important to mention that the trait of being "hardworking" is completely subjective, very similar to being "above average". Nearly everyone considers themselves to be "above average" at everything, and the same goes for being "hard-working", and the more successful someone is, the higher they consider themselves.

Everyone is a product of their surroundings and their upbringing, and there is much more to consider than simply just how much money your parents gave you. Your genetic aptitude, your circumstances, your intellectual influences, your peer influences, the choices you make in your youth all play a huge part in determining whether a hardworking person is working 60 hrs behind the grill at Cookout or a hardworking person found grants and scholarships for college and now owns their own business.

rich white folks are the hard-workinest people around

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Do you think that's what people are arguing against? If so, then it's probably not very hard to stay #undefeated.

You circumstance deniers are in fact arguing against it. Its a disengenious statistical model. These life events such as graduating high school, not becoming pregnant, and working full time are not the simple binary choices that you pretend they are, and for many people, the life outcomes don't change much at all. You've been punting from the beginning of this conversation by only tacitly defending the statistic with strawman arguments, the most recent one being supplied to you by DG3.

 

[jhmd2000]

You circumstance deniers are in fact arguing against it. Its a disengenious statistical model. These life events such as graduating high school, not becoming pregnant, and working full time are not the simple binary choices that you pretend they are, and for many people, the life outcomes don't change much at all. You've been punting from the beginning of this conversation by only tacitly defending the statistic with strawman arguments, the most recent one being supplied to you by DG3.

I appreciate how your insecurity on these issues compels you to keyboard aggression. That's special.

Allow me to focus you in on what's happening here: "the debate" is not whether you should "work hard" at Cookout or "work hard" at a hedge fund.

The real conversation is the one our culture should be having with someone whose options are a) "work hard" at Cookout or b) no better option. By emphasizing the statistical benefit that a) has over b), people will be in a better position to make informed choices (because version 5,345 of the privilege apologia isn't going to work any better than #5,344. Thank you, Eeyore, PhD.). Is everyone going to be born into identical circumstances? Does all of history happen in a vacuum? Is life "fair" No, and thank you for once again bringing this breaking news to all of our attention. That's never been the conversation, except when you lapse into your own war on hayfigures.

 

[DG3]

No one is wholly responsible for themselves, and only the ignorant proud claim to be. People such as yourselves only acknowledge suckling teats when they're your own teats. You and all of your accomplishments are the work of others, as indignantly as you might argue otherwise. Denying the existence of privilege is a denial of social interconnectedness.

This statement is entirely different than being a product of your environment. This is what we are arguing.

 

[jhmd2000]

This statement is entirely different than being a product of your environment. This is what we are arguing.

It should be, but it takes two to argue that point. We're one short.

They're having to make up their mind about whether the argument is "These statistics are misleading!" and No one is arguing those [four] things are bad, but...."

Those four things are to be set against the alternatives: not completing your education, not working at the best available job, not making sound family structure choices. Our buddies on the Board Left are deeply, "indignantly!" (I believe the word was) concerned that the rest of us should get the wrong message. Fine. We get it. Life isn't fair.

Now...what do we do about it? Do we control those things that are more (albeit not completely, as if someone has argued that) within our control than other factors? Yes, yes we should do that, and we should focus our policy around those factors.

Fourth request: who will benefit most when we do?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

This statement is entirely different than being a product of your environment. This is what we are arguing.

I don't believe it's different. "Circumstance" in this context means the choices of other people. The stability of your patents relationship, financial or emotional. The support you received from your teachers and professors. The professional advice you received, and your access to people capable of giving professional advice. Your ability to get and keep a job to save money for capital, or your ability to get a loan for capital. The list goes on an on, and none of that takes away from the work that you've done to achieve your goals. There have probably been hundreds of times in your life where someone could have made a different choice that would have set you on a different path than you're on now, made your life more difficult, or easier.

 

[jhmd2000]

I don't believe it's different. "Circumstance" in this context means the choices of other people. The stability of your patents relationship, financial or emotional. The support you received from your teachers and professors. The professional advice you received, and your access to people capable of giving professional advice. Your ability to get and keep a job to save money for capital, or your ability to get a loan for capital. The list goes on an on, and none of that takes away from the work that you've done to achieve your goals. There have probably been hundreds of times in your life where someone could have made a different choice that would have set you on a different path than you're on now, made your life more difficult, or easier.

Yes. And?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Yes. And?

Oh, I'm sorry, I was answering someone else's question. What was it that you wanted?

 

[PhDeac]

This is quite a galling juxtaposition.

So you're arguing that individuals solely decide they if and where get a high school diploma, when and who they marry and when they have kids. By themselves. With no other input. And the quality of everyone's options is the same.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

So you're arguing that individuals solely decide they if and where get a high school diploma, when and who they marry and when they have kids. By themselves. With no other input. And the quality of everyone's options is the same.

I think it's perfectly clear that he's arguing poor folks - especially minorities - should be twice-as-good, not that circumstances are equal.

 

[jhmd2000]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was answering someone else's question. What was it that you wanted?

I've asked it four times.

 

[jhmd2000]

So you're arguing that individuals solely decide they if and where get a high school diploma, when and who they marry and when they have kids. By themselves. With no other input. And the quality of everyone's options is the same.

For a smart guy, you don't read very well. Or maybe you do, and you just don't do it very honestly. Neither is a great trait.