Comment by micromacrofoot
2 years ago
I think the idea is that "only support your family" harms everyone. The example, Alex, has 2 kids, works manual labor to earn poverty wages, and is depressed. Which one of the types of teen do you think his kids will be?
The common refrain is "then he shouldn't have had kids" but unless you're going to create an authoritarian state people will always have kids (and restricting kids went awfully for China anyway).
Convincing people that their problems are outside of their control and that the only way to solve them is to vote a certain way is also a form of authoritarianism. If you aren't to blame for your own life that implies you have no control over it.
Saying that problems are completely outside of someone's control or completely their own fault is a false dichotomy. Reality is usually somewhere in the middle, especially in studies like this one on teenagers. Everyone's situation is shaped by a mix of personal choices and the world around them. It's not just about blaming people or the system; it’s about seeing how both play a role. Voting is one way to make a difference, but it’s not the only way—people have a lot of ways to shape their lives.
> Convincing people that their problems are outside of their control and that the only way to solve them is to vote a certain way is also a form of authoritarianism
Yes, systemic poverty can only be solved politically. That is just the nature of a systemic problem. I am pretty sure encouraging people to be active in the political process of which voting is a small but important part is the opposite of authoritarianism.
> If you aren't to blame for your own life that implies you have no control over it.
Yes. Bitter pill to swallow but that is the reality. We are mostly defined by nature and nurture and we can't choose with which genetics we are born with or our upbringing and if we will have adverse childhood experiences.
The circle of influence most people have over their own life is very tiny, especially the lower they are on the ladder.
The ideology of personal responsibility is propagated to justify the current status quo and block political change that would help poor people.
I would say that the circle of influence people have is by far the most impactful on their happiness and that of their family. The individual choice to try meth or not will vastly outweigh any genetic or environmental factor on personal outcome. Beating ones children is much more influential than your socioeconomic class.
No a mount of political action can compensate for dissolution of individual responsibilities.
Ideally, they are complementary, but they can easily be antagonists.
Teach a generation of juveniles that they have no agency, and their individual efforts and work, and they will never succeed.
4 replies →
Statistically most people born into poverty stay there. Do you think most of them aren't trying? Conversely, do you thing most people born wealthy have to put as much effort into staying wealthy?
There are a number of systemic barriers, one of the big ones mentioned in this demonstration is education.
If we had equal baseline access to education, housing, healthcare, and food... then sure, if people stayed impoverished I might begin to agree with you.
We're not even close in our current state so "you're in control of your own life" is a completely ignorant argument.
>Statistically most people born into poverty stay there.
That simply isn't true. Look at the data on economic mobility, and the vast majority of people born in the bottom 20% leave the bottom 20%.
Outcomes obviously aren't random, but are far from deterministic.
For example, this article puts the number at 63% leaving the bottom 20%. 80% would require that there are no impacts whatsoever from every factor correlated with poverty
https://www.wsj.com/articles/upward-mobility-income-quintile...
2 replies →
The system is obviously not fair but individuals are still responsible for how they play their hand.
You really think it is ignorant to believe you have control over your life? What do you do just lay on the floor and wait for things to wash over you?
2 replies →
Being born into a situation where your problems are minor is a great way to be ignorant of how systemic issues affect people.
If a child shows up to school every day unfed for breakfast and without lunch money, right-wing states have decided that somehow their kid not having food is a motivational issue for the parent. And their solution for when a distracted, hungry student is unable to focus in class is to bring back corporal punishment and post religious texts in classrooms.
If it were merely a motivational issue for parents, then the child would already be fed. The political situation that made the most sense for the school district in which I grew up, which is a bright red area that is also a public education stronghold, was to dip into the budget to ensure that all kids got breakfast and lunch if they wanted it. That way it can't be framed as a political issue.
The issue was never about the benefit, it was about the race and class of people who received it.
Same thing with work. We have age-based workplace discrimination laws precisely because a class of workers who are over the age of 50 have been discriminated against due to their age and in lieu of other concerns. Those problems are outside of their control. Most people with 20+ year careers are unemployed for reasons that have nothing to do with performance, and they can't help what age they are.
This isn't authoritarianism. It's basic common sense.
Basic, simple logic, says not all of someones problems are in their control either.
I think social and individual expectations are a big part of this. Why is Alex depressed? If they had 20k more a year, would they be happier, or just 2 steps ahead on and empty hedonistic treadmill. Alex now has a new mustang, but is still depressed and fails as a parent.
I think it would be interesting to see the relative impact of a 2 parent + low risk home vs income, and I think there is a lot lost when people assume every variable reduces to income.
What about Alex when they have low income, but a healthy home life? What about Alex when they have higher income, but a shit home life?
Money actually does buy happiness, despite what the wealthy would like you to believe.
It is very likely that yes, he would in fact be happier with an extra 20k a year.
You don't know he'd have a new mustang; that's just you projecting. He might put the extra 20k a year into savings for his kid's education - I know that feeling like I'm setting my kids up for future success makes me happy.
Money buys happiness, up to a point. It's like a pretty linear increase in happiness to some spot somewhere above median income (I forget, something like 1.5x median income). After that, it has very little impact on happiness, if at all.
Supposedly, based on some studies.
1 reply →
> Money actually does buy happiness, despite what the wealthy would like you to believe.
Individual happiness and being a good parent (which contributes to breaking the cycle) don't necessarily intersect as much as you think, or at least it's based on the individual.
Some people's happiness is only marginally related to how well their kids are doing (as evident by rise in single-parent households), so the 20k may contribute essentially 0 to the long term solution.
> You don't know he'd have a new mustang; that's just you projecting.
If I don't know, then you don't know either. You're taking the other good extreme and presenting is at fact. The reality is somewhere in the middle.
4 replies →
Money can buy happiness, but it isn't a guarantee, and isn't necessarily the most important factor.
Kill Alex's parents, and rape them as a child, addict them to meth, and 20k wont fix that.
This article and data is in desperate need of a Analysis of variance for the different factors.
I'm not sure who you know that makes $40k and has a foot on a "hedonistic treadmill"
Most everyone I know, of all incomes, are on some form of hedonistic treadmill.
Sometimes it is one beer and cigarette to the next, sometimes it's one sailboat and handbag to the next.
3 replies →
You can certainly go into debt to get your foot onto that treadmill. You can live with your parents and spend the entire $40k on entertainment. The exact figure of the income barely matters. FOMO and consumerist culture almost ensures that everyone is participating.
The companies are certainly happy to take your money, regardless of how hard it will be to pay back.