Which posters? I don't think Abbaddabba is conservative for one. His ideas seem to be more in line more with Communist China's One Child Policy. Seems like his stance is akin to a left wing idea to me. Also it fits in with the idea of less restrictions on late term abortions. Ymmv.

Did this dude just post a 90s raps video as a chessmate of some sort?

This thread could be great.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/r...ncome-welfare/

The GOP put the kibosh on Tricky Dick


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/r...ncome-welfare/

Ol' Milt

Grunching, bur define poverty first.

Poverty Line

You chose to use the word poverty in your post and I made the distinction that it isn't equivalent to inequality. The meaning of poverty is pretty clear even if we can't accurately measure it or define the exact cutoff point. I'd agree that there're a lot of people who show up as living in poverty on some metrics when in reality they're living a pretty high quality of life off the grid via an exchange economy, but that doesn't mean there aren't large numbers who have terrible lives.

Saying that there're periods of time when it's been worse doesn't mean it's not worth improving.

And we do give generously when the people who're struggling are a part of our own family/network/community. If your kid pops out semi tarded, you don't say "well, if you can't figure it all out on your own, gtfo". Even if you're not generous in terms of money (though who are we kidding, people always heavily subsidize the lives of their own children when money is no object), it's the time and effort put towards teaching the lessons / guiding them on a life path that people from the ****tiest situations will never get which is the difference between them ending up in a comfortable white collar career instead of sucking dick on a street corner.

Nobody really puts any stock in that survival of the fittest mentality when push comes to shove. It's just a lie people tell themselves to avoid the guilt of living a great life while there're huge numbers living in poverty who if given the right environment would likely have done just as well.

No reasonable economic theorist would support this as it is in a country's long term financial interests to have an increased population as it will broaden the tax base (mainly to support the social security and health costs associated with an ageing population). However, they may be saying it from a mistaken belief that in reality it will place a greater burden on the welfare system and other government expenditure (health, education, etc.) and no net benefit to the country will be derived when in fact the opposite is true.

In relation to the question itself, I for one am not a believer increasing welfare payments to the less well off in society as I agree with some of others that the money will become more of a motivating factor for them to remain unemployed. I think a country really needs to adopt an approach that lends support services to these people rather than one that focuses on financial relief to be able to assist these people to find their feet and to obtain a stable base to be able to find long-term steady employment (and yes that does include getting these people to work for the financial assistance that they are receiving from the government to again provide an incentive to them to find work themselves).

To encourage governments to grow their population to cash in on a piece of the action so they can afford to give the previous generation more than they've earned is almost the definition of a ponzi scheme.

Even if beefing up the population was a viable solution, vetted immigrants would make far better citizens than the children of local dregs.

Exactly. This is how Australia's immigration system is set up.

So then what objections do you have to snipping and tying tubes of people who're having babies with no realistic chance of supporting themselves much less their children?

So many assumptions in the op.

This thread is a fail blog. Thanks for contributing. If you subsidize people having children, you'll get more of them. If you have single moms, you'll have more criminals. Thoughtful parents who have children brought-up in a good environment will contribute to society. Blanketly subsidizing having children with welfare schemes will create social problems. Parents need to plan for their own futures.

Better Educational Outcomes Lead to Less Poverty Almost Certainly

This is an area where I think government could help a lot. However, I don't think that Common Core is very helpful.

^ Yes, and you clearly get better education outcomes by having bloated costs, and a bureaucracy. All hail government schools. Clearly we should institute a K-16 system, because people who complete college make more money than people who do not complete college. Let's throw competition out the window. I mean, some people might lose. Government should raise our kids, because otherwise some might do better than others. Peddle to the medal on nannystatism. No foreseeable consequences.

Yes but you still need to provide them with a basic financial welfare payment from the State so that it supplements the parents' wage to enable them to have children in the first place because without it the business case for having children doesn't stack up for many parents (the ones on lower to middle income and I'm not including the ones purely on welfare as no circumstances should permit them having children unless they get off welfare) and it is provided on the basis that over the life of most children their value to the economy will more than make up for it.

But the reason why welfare recipients and even higher income earners still receive family tax subsidies from the State is purely just for equality reasons (i.e. if one person gets it someone else should too no matter what they earn (it isn't means tested)) even though there are different but compelling reasons why these two groups shouldn't be receiving anything (for the welfare recipients they shouldn't be receiving anything because they don't have a wage which supplements the family tax benefit to a degree that they can reasonably afford to support a child for the long term and for the high income earners well they can reasonably afford to support a child without any subsidies or family tax breaks).

So you think that the vast majority of poor people are just lazy then right? I mean obviously the inner schools are just fine

The first sentence makes no sense. You're the one that thinks poor people, etc. everyone could use a govnanny. Since when were inner city schools privatized?

Too many variables at play to allow this but hopefully for your sake most of these babies never see the light of day and their births are aborted.

The kids aren't lazy; they just need some inspiration from SuperNanny. Statism with a British accent.



I mean, I feel like I'm reading Plato's Republic all over again, where you give up your kids to the state to be redistributed.

The results are misleading. Degrees and prosperity are tightly linked for reasons that have nothing to do with the degrees adding value. It also greatly overstates the rate of poverty for people with no educational attainment since a lot of these people if they do succeed will be doing it in ways that won't show up on paper.

Obviously education can add value and in a lot of cases it does but there's only so much you can expect academically of a kid who spent most of their life watching tv and listening to music. Sure, they could push their way through an undergrad degree at a mediocre school, but they'll almost definitely end up being one of a growing and enormous number of people who can't find work in their field whose critical thinking skills according to plenty of research are no better for wear.

It's the damage in the early developmental years that end up hurting them the most. And as long as there are incompetent people having children (often many) this will happen.

Actually it does make sense.

You are making stuff up

This is an example of a non sensical response.

LOL at this statement. How about a cite to back this up.

Definitely another citation needed for this. You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts.

Improving inner city school educational outcomes is about improving educational outcomes in grades k-12. Even for those kids that don't get a 4 year degree getting a 2 year degree is better than getting a HS diploma or GED. Getting a HS diploma or GED is better than dropping out. It isn't hard.

So poor people are poor because of "incompetence" then for the most part?

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publi...s/wp201606.pdf

They controlled for a lot of factors though that in the context of the conversation we're having make the effect look less dramatic than it actually is since poor people overwhelmingly perform more poorly on cognitive tests, choose inferior majors and all sorts of other factors that make them even more likely to fail.

I don't even think most of this is from cognitive differences or work ethic as much as it does the benefits of having a well networked family that presents you with a ton of opportunities other people wouldnt have. But using these statistics to represent the payoff for degrees to people that have no networks or family business to take over is misrepresenting the opportunities.

The 2 year college program is likely the superior option despite the fact that a degree correlates with a lower incidence of poverty. And if we're being honest the superior option still, for many, is often doing business under the table and collecting government benefits.

Some combination of incompetence and lack of opportunity. They may be clever in how they've found ways to navigate the world they live in, but if you live in a compassionate society that generally means taking advantage of all of the benefits the government will offer making you a net burden. No guilt in it. But if we're trying to gauge the probability of someone in that situation raising a child that will be net asset to society, do you really need a study to prove the obvious?

No, stripping of power means regulating. We need to adjust the flows of welath and income to what we all say we want, which is a meritocratic, humane society in which those who work harder and contribute more are rewarded more but to within reasonable limits dictated by the majority.

You're just basically arguing for a more progressive tax system, which plenty of people like in spirit. The real reason we don't tax the mega rich more though is because they'd leave and never come back. Countries have to be competitive with respect to their tax rates. To get around that stumbling block you need a functional international governing body and doesn't seem like it'll be happening any time soon.