Liberals and class
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:43:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Liberals and class
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Liberals and class  (Read 1784 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 08, 2005, 12:45:12 PM »

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050607.shtml

The new trinity among liberal intellectuals is race, class and gender. Defining any of these terms is not easy, but it is also not difficult for liberals, because they seldom bother to define them at all.

 The oldest, and perhaps still the most compelling, of these concerns is class. In the vision of the left, we are born, live, and die in a particular class -- unless, of course, we give power to the left to change all that.
 
The latest statistics seized upon to support this class-ridden view of America and other Western societies show that most people in a given part of the income distribution are the children of other people born into that same part of the income distribution.

 Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.

 How startling is that?

 More to the point, does this show that people are trapped in poverty or can coast through life on their parents' wealth? Does it show that "society" denies "access" to the poor?

 Could it just possibly show that the kind of values and behavior which lead a family to succeed or fail are also likely to be passed on to their children and lead them to succeed or fail as well? If so, how much can government policy -- liberal or conservative -- change that in any fundamental way?

 One recent story attempting to show that upward mobility is a "myth" in America today nevertheless noted in passing that many recent immigrants and their children have had "extraordinary upward mobility."

 If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?

 One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.

 The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.

 The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

 Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of non-whites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying?  This is another deadly message, especially for the young.

 But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?

 The same counterproductive and self-destructive attitudes toward education, work and ordinary civility found in many of America's ghettos can also be found in lower-class British communities. Anyone who doubts it should read British doctor Theodore Dalrymple's book "Life at the Bottom," about the white lower class communities in which he has worked.

 These chaotic and violence-prone communities in Britain do not have the excuse of racism or a legacy of slavery. What they do have in common with similar communities in the United States is a similar reliance on the welfare state and a similar set of intellectuals making excuses for their behavior and denouncing anyone who wants them to change their ways.

 The latest round of statistics emboldens more intellectuals to blame "society" for the failure of many people at the bottom to rise to the top. Realistically, if nearly a third of people born to families in the bottom quarter of income earners rise into the top half, that is not a bad record.

 If more were doing so in the past, that does not necessarily mean that "society" is holding them down more today. It may easily mean that the welfare state and liberal ideology both make it less necessary today for them to change their own behavior.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2005, 01:28:22 PM »

Complete rubbish. First off there is not a single estate in the entire U.K as deprived as the ghettos in most large American cities. Sure there's a serious poverty problem in many inner cities in the U.K but it's just not on the same scale as in American inner cities; there's no U.K equivilent of the South Bronx for example. It should also be noted that the sitution in these estates are nowhere near as bad as they were; due to effective and sustained government action (both central and local), something there's been a distinct lack of in the U.S.
The problems in these estates are NOT caused by the welfare state AT ALL; they're mostly caused by bad planning, collapsing local economies, overcrowding, poor community and race relations, outmigration etc. etc. etc... to try to pin the blame on the Welfare State is absurd and intellectually dishonest (we had serious poverty in our cities long before 1945; it was actually worse, far, far, worse, than anything we have now).

The sitution in the U.S is worse (and to deny that it's worse is just burying your head in the sand; sucessive adminstrations of both parties have failed the urban poor) for a whole range of reasons; everything from a welfare system that doesn't work to some of the worst examples of urban planning in the developed world ("I have a GREAT idea! Let's build a big road through the middle of a city!") and it's time that something gets done about it.
Drug abuse, defrauding the welfare system etc. etc. certainly don't help, but even if you could wave a magic wand and make 'em vanish, there'd still be a huge problem in the inner cities. These things didn't cause the problems and nomatter how serious they can get (and they do need to be dealt with) they are ultimately secondary problems, even if they can make the primary problems worse.
Sure some people bring poverty upon themselves, but it's important to remember that the vast majority don't.

Social mobility doesn't really come into this; sure there's always a couple of poor kids who come good, always will be, but focussing on it to a large degree is highly misleading for several obvious reasons.
What matters is the living conditions of the bulk of an areas population.

Not that any of this (or the article) has a lot to do with class. I should add that class doesn't have a lot to do with absolute income; relative income yes. Absolute income, no. $20,000 is a lot more in Tuskegee, AL than New York.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2005, 01:53:46 PM »

I don't think the article was attempting to say anything about whether the poor were better off in the Socialist UK or in American cities. It's obviously the former.

Now, when you say the situation is worse, it may be worse for the poor, but I don't really see that as a worse situation. I don't believe in wealth redistribution. I support education and so forth as a means of giving people a fair shot at life, which is why I would support voucher programs as a means of promoting competition and provide an alternative to the failing schools in many of these cities.

When you say 'sucessive adminstrations of both parties have failed the urban poor,' I assume you mean you want the federal government to ignore the Constitution and launch some illegal programs aimed at keeping people comfortable in their poverty. I also find it disgusting how much emphasis you put on the executive branch, rather than the legislature, and if you believe in these programs, they can just as easily be implemented at the state level, where the Constitution permits them.

Mostly, though, I think it is a bad way of doing 'good' to try to solve this by institutionalized thievery. I don't really think anyone is 'owed' a decent life, but if some do, they're free to donate their own money to whatever cause they please.

I imagine a boost in savings goes a long way when you want to retire somewhere else.

This statistic, though, does show mobility: "Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half." Just because there's a statistical correlation between where you start and where you end up doesn't mean there isn't a solid 30% shifting around. Plus, there's plenty of sh**ting around within those halves of income earners.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2005, 02:12:06 PM »

Now, when you say the situation is worse, it may be worse for the poor, but I don't really see that as a worse situation.

That's a very... strange... way of looking at things. Do you see poor people as inferior to you?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A voucher system is about as likely to help inner city schools as setting fire to them. You end up taking the brightest kids out of a community meaning that the condition of the community gets even worse.
And education isn't the biggest problem inner cities have anyway; I'm not sure where that idea comes from.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Comfortable in their poverty? Absolutely not. That's were things went wrong in the '60's, that's what's wrong with the U.S Welfare system. Eliminating poverty and regenerating inner cities is what American inner cities need and sod all has been done about it.
As for "illegal"; it depends who defines what is "legal" and what is not. I certainly hope it isn't you.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Letting the legislature deal with these issues = a lot of hot air, gesture politics and no action.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

State and local governments are fine for some things, but not really others. They don't have enough money to deal with the problem for one thing.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roll Eyes

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The words of a spoiled little rich kid

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Charities cannot solve the problems caused by inner city decline
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2005, 02:32:57 PM »

I understand that John Dibble would be better off if you have him half of Bill Gates's wealth. However, I don't see that situation as being 'better' just because it's better for John Dibble.

How are you taking the best and brightest out of the community? I would think that this voucher system would be universal, unless you mean they'll grow up and leave the city, but come on, that's what freedom is all about.

Why do I think education is the 'biggest' problem? Because if you're educated, you don't have to stay in the inner city, and no one really cares about whether some areas are poorer than other areas.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bah, it's all artifical. It's not as if they've become any more useful to people, they're just getting state benefits. That doesn't seem like a good thing for the economy. Far better to educate them, which helps all parties.

Read the Federalist Papers some time.

State and local governments may not have enough money to deal with the problem, but then the right thing to do is downsize the fed to free up money for the states. Or, if you planned on the fed raising taxes for this sort of thing, then the states can do so just as easily.

I don't think I'm owed a decent life either. If someone gives it to me, that's such person's business, just as with these 'poor.'

If an area is declining, it obviously isn't good for business.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2005, 02:47:48 PM »

I understand that John Dibble would be better off if you have him half of Bill Gates's wealth. However, I don't see that situation as being 'better' just because it's better for John Dibble.

Not comparing like with like are you?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Generally speaking that's what voucher systems do. They do that because they're designed to do that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why must everyone here use irrelevent appeals to "freedom" all the time? Roll Eyes

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, because you're a selfish git who doesn't understand and can't be bothered to try to understand the problems that inner cities face

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, no it isn't

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh? Are you talking about something different to me, or what?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. From what I recall the Federalist Papers aren't actually part of the U.S Constitution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you don't seem to understand the problem

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because you already have one?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2005, 02:54:26 PM »

This latest post of yours has absolutely no specifics or substance.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2005, 02:58:37 PM »

This latest post of yours has absolutely no specifics or substance.

I don't know bout that, but your post certainly doesn't. Not that it really matters; I'm not going to get involved in the sort of bitchyness that you seem to love so much
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2005, 03:02:07 PM »

Then quit trolling my topic.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2005, 03:16:12 PM »


1. I am not trolling
2. How exactly is this your topic? Sure, you started it, but other people are allowed a right to reply you know.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2005, 03:24:35 PM »
« Edited: June 08, 2005, 03:26:32 PM by Monopolization »

You're not replying with any kind of substance or argument. You're just saying "you're a selfish git who doesn't understand," and "That's what voucher systems do."

You pick out a small part of one of my sentences, which had to do with the freedom to move where one wants, and then call that segment irrelevant.

You didn't respond to my points about education, you just skipped over them and insulted me. To my point on local and state revenues, you again ignore what I said, and just say "You don't understand." That's not an argument.

It's a fact that the Federalist Papers are not a part of the Constitution, but to what end does that matter? Judicial review is found no where in the Constitution, but the basis for it was laid by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2005, 03:37:12 PM »

As far as I can tell, all that that article is doing is throwing out a bunch of statistics, theorizing about why they might be the case, and then using its completely unproven ideas to somehow prove that liberals have everything wrong.

Shouldn't they first attempt to, I don't know, prove that their theories are the correct ones before acting as if their conclusions are a known fact?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2005, 03:41:03 PM »

As far as I can tell, all that that article is doing is throwing out a bunch of statistics, theorizing about why they might be the case, and then using its completely unproven ideas to somehow prove that liberals have everything wrong.

Shouldn't they first attempt to, I don't know, prove that their theories are the correct ones before acting as if their conclusions are a known fact?

I think it makes some fair points, especially with regard to immigrants:

"But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?"

I would suppose much of it has to do with attitudes and values. I don't take the article as implying this is a fact, however.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2005, 03:48:40 PM »

Philip: if all your going to do is throw a hissy fit everytime someone wastes as much time as I did debating with you, then I can't be buggered to carry on with this.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2005, 03:55:53 PM »

If by carrying on with this, you mean ignoring points and just posting text complete devoid of any substance, stopping would not bother me at all. In fact, I believe that's what I asked you to do.

If, on the other hand, you want to debate, feel free to start.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2005, 04:03:30 PM »

If by carrying on with this, you mean ignoring points and just posting text complete devoid of any substance, stopping would not bother me at all. In fact, I believe that's what I asked you to do.

If, on the other hand, you want to debate, feel free to start.

Always after the last word, eh? Roll Eyes

Night
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2005, 04:18:20 PM »

Although some of the points made in the article are valid, the argument made by the author is riddled with a lack of logic.
Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.
I suppose that this portion of the article might be biased. Why does it mention only men? Most probably, the statistics including women would be less favorable to the author's point. It can be said that this is a case of statistical special pleading.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This is a non sequitur. Many immigrants who "rise to the top" are well-educated: more so than many Americans.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
While this certainly may be true, the author ignores the argument that people may not develop "skills, values and attitudes" because of "class barriers." The writer bandies about terms like "liberal" and "intellectual," but doesn't actually prove anything about them.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Clearly, this is based on the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Notice that the author uses "a third of people" in this case. When previously noting this statistic, the author clearly refers to 32% of men.

Clearly, the article includes some illogical and misleading statements. It must definitely be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2005, 04:32:44 PM »

The oldest, and perhaps still the most compelling, of these concerns is class. In the vision of the left, we are born, live, and die in a particular class -- unless, of course, we give power to the left to change all that.

I don't think liberalism makes any claim of altering the class system, merely facing it and emeliorating its worst effects.  One cannot eliminate the class heirarchy of capitalism without actually eliminating capitalism.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2005, 04:35:54 PM »


Have you become a Bakuninist?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2005, 04:37:19 PM »


I couldn't say, as I am not familiar with them.  However anyone can see the heirarchy around us in everyday life.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2005, 05:47:36 PM »

Although some of the points made in the article are valid, the argument made by the author is riddled with a lack of logic.
Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.
I suppose that this portion of the article might be biased. Why does it mention only men? Most probably, the statistics including women would be less favorable to the author's point. It can be said that this is a case of statistical special pleading.

Unless you take the view point that women are less able to climb the latter, I don't see how that's relevant.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This is a non sequitur. Many immigrants who "rise to the top" are well-educated: more so than many Americans. [/quote]

I'm glad you agree with me that the problem is education. However, that alone doesn't really explain why they do so much better -- after all, Asians in particular seem to do better even in college, which I would imagine is well passed anything they learned back home.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
While this certainly may be true, the author ignores the argument that people may not develop "skills, values and attitudes" because of "class barriers." The writer bandies about terms like "liberal" and "intellectual," but doesn't actually prove anything about them.[/quote]

That's actually his point. Class barriers here are really not about the actual wealth, but the skills, values, and attitudes of those families.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Clearly, this is based on the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc.[/quote]

No, complete isolation of two variables is not possible. This is an idea, rather than a derived truth from basic logic, which is rarely possible with regard to anything in the real world.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Notice that the author uses "a third of people" in this case. When previously noting this statistic, the author clearly refers to 32% of men.
[/quote]

Well, he was quoting someone else's statistic. This sounds more like a case of incomplete information to me.

Yeah, Gabu is right - anyone can throw around random statistics and make bad attempts at connecting statistics to problems.

Anyone can, and yet, that does nothing to prove that that's what this guy did.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2005, 06:40:27 PM »

Although some of the points made in the article are valid, the argument made by the author is riddled with a lack of logic.
Among men born in families in the bottom 25 percent of income earners only 32 percent end up in the top half of the income distribution. And among men born to families in the top 25 percent in income earners, only 34 percent end up down in the bottom half.
I suppose that this portion of the article might be biased. Why does it mention only men? Most probably, the statistics including women would be less favorable to the author's point. It can be said that this is a case of statistical special pleading.
Unless you take the view point that women are less able to climb the latter, I don't see how that's relevant.
No, I don't take that point of view. I merely suspect that the statistics for men are (for whatever reason) more favorable to the author's point of view than the statistics for all people. I see no valid reason for excluding women from the statistics used by the author.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I would say that the author is massaging the statistics to make them seem more favorable to his case.

And yes, I do agree with you that  education is a fundamental problem.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2005, 11:44:50 PM »

If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?
This is a non sequitur. Many immigrants who "rise to the top" are well-educated: more so than many Americans.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, many immigrants who appear to 'rise to the top' were in fact from the top of their own societies, and brought capital with them or had access to the borrowing of capital from other upper-class family members.  Of course as Emsworth pointed out above the educational level of successful immigrants is typically very high - another indication they came from the upper class in their own countries.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2005, 01:48:51 AM »


I couldn't say, as I am not familiar with them.  However anyone can see the heirarchy around us in everyday life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2005, 03:11:13 PM »

Complete rubbish. First off there is not a single estate in the entire U.K as deprived as the ghettos in most large American cities. Sure there's a serious poverty problem in many inner cities in the U.K but it's just not on the same scale as in American inner cities; there's no U.K equivilent of the South Bronx for example. It should also be noted that the sitution in these estates are nowhere near as bad as they were; due to effective and sustained government action (both central and local), something there's been a distinct lack of in the U.S.
The problems in these estates are NOT caused by the welfare state AT ALL; they're mostly caused by bad planning, collapsing local economies, overcrowding, poor community and race relations, outmigration etc. etc. etc... to try to pin the blame on the Welfare State is absurd and intellectually dishonest (we had serious poverty in our cities long before 1945; it was actually worse, far, far, worse, than anything we have now).

The sitution in the U.S is worse (and to deny that it's worse is just burying your head in the sand; sucessive adminstrations of both parties have failed the urban poor) for a whole range of reasons; everything from a welfare system that doesn't work to some of the worst examples of urban planning in the developed world ("I have a GREAT idea! Let's build a big road through the middle of a city!") and it's time that something gets done about it.
Drug abuse, defrauding the welfare system etc. etc. certainly don't help, but even if you could wave a magic wand and make 'em vanish, there'd still be a huge problem in the inner cities. These things didn't cause the problems and nomatter how serious they can get (and they do need to be dealt with) they are ultimately secondary problems, even if they can make the primary problems worse.
Sure some people bring poverty upon themselves, but it's important to remember that the vast majority don't.

Social mobility doesn't really come into this; sure there's always a couple of poor kids who come good, always will be, but focussing on it to a large degree is highly misleading for several obvious reasons.
What matters is the living conditions of the bulk of an areas population.

Not that any of this (or the article) has a lot to do with class. I should add that class doesn't have a lot to do with absolute income; relative income yes. Absolute income, no. $20,000 is a lot more in Tuskegee, AL than New York.

and don't forget: every sixth American does not have a health inssurance.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 11 queries.