Once poor, always poor? • Hacker News Board

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#321

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

eadmund wrote: post #313

drdec wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the U.S., this is due to the fact that employers practically may not use proficiency exams What do you mean here? I'm a life-long US resident and I've never heard such a thing. I've also taken exams when applying to jobs. There is also the civil service exam which is a prerequisite for many government jobs. Jobs like the police and military have exams, both written and physical. I can't square my experience and…

> What do you mean here? Griggs v. Duke Power held that if a test has a disparate impact on ethnic minorities, then the burden of proof is on employers to demonstrate that the test is reasonably related to the job. The practical effect is that private employers are highly unlikely to use these tests, since doing so opens themselves up to liability, particularly since due to socioeconomic factors any fair test will ha…

> Griggs v. Duke Power held that if a test has a disparate impact on ethnic minorities, then the burden of proof is on employers to demonstrate that the test is reasonably related to the job.

It actually held that for any employer-imposed hiring requirement (not merely a test), and later cases have made it clear that applies pretty much to any element of the hiring, advancement, retention, or disciplinary process.

> The practical effect is that private employers are highly unlikely to use these tests

No, its not. The practical effect is that employers doing cargo cult HR (which is quite common) are highly unlikely to use the specific tests that have been at issue in superficially well-known cases like Griggs (e.g., specifically due to Griggs, IQ tests) even when they could easily meet the test laid out Griggs but simultaneously using many employer-imposed job requirements for which they could not meet the test.

OTOH, employers that have decent legal advice regularly use tests of even the specific types that have been problematic in other cases, but make sure that there is a job rationale supported by evidence for both tests and other requirements in case they are challenged, because that’s the thing that actually matters.

Proficiency exams are exceedingly common (heck, when I did clerical temporary work for a while, it was pretty much the entirety of the hiring and placement process.)

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#322

Post by imtringued » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:09 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #58

culi wrote: post #52

Relevant: A study in India found that a one-time boost of capital could help families avoid poverty even decades later[0]. The truth is, you probably don't understand poverty. It's both much simpler and much more complicated than your personal anecdata might lead you to believe. By far the best series I've heard on this is On The Media's 5-part series breaking down the biggest poverty myths and what the current scien…

Poverty in poor countries and poverty in rich countries are two totally different issues though. In poor countries poor people don't learn to read, get physical trauma from being near starvation so often etc. That is relatively easy to fix, we have already fixed all of those in every developed country, that we are able to fix them in other countries by injecting money isn't big news. We already try to do that in ever…

>Fixing the kind of poverty you find in Sweden is much much harder though, we don't know how to fix that.

It's not a question of how, it's a question of whether you care.

For example, I have recently read an article about whether inflation or unemployment is worse and it is quite obvious that unemployment is worse. However, a reader comment pointed out that inflation impacts everyone and therefore people will vote for less inflation even if it is at the expense of people who are on the margin who get a job because of inflation.

It's the same with housing. People vote for exclusive zoning policies that screw anyone who is born too late.

In other words, we already know how these problems can be solved but we consider having poverty an acceptable trade off for getting other things we want.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#323

Post by jokoon » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

Blackstone4 wrote: post #172

jokoon wrote: post #158

I just have the belief that civilization is a system that tames people into obedience. Very obedient/normed people who adheres to a culture or lifestyle habits, will often acquire a high social status because they can get access to the benefits of a group. You don't escape poverty through merit or effort, you just "belong" with people of a certain social status that identify with cultures and habits. That's how civil…

Normally you have a job interview because on paper you are deemed to be skilled enough to do the job. Belonging is helpful but effort and merit go a long way. It’s a multi factor problem. At my work, I’ve had to move people into new roles out of the company because while they ‘belonged’ socially… they were not up to the job…

A resume and a degree are just enough to be hired, yet we always do interviews. That's not for nothing.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#324

Post by imtringued » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #48

krapp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. Which societies have gone extinct due to this?

I'm not aware of such societies: the whole idea of women not being destined for childbearing is relatively new. Some countries are firmly on the course though: https://www.scb.se/en/About-us/news-and-press-releases/2020-...

Once you get rid of all the irrational babies (e.g. through unplanned unprotected sex), the rational babies never get born as people notice how "unprofitable" it is to have children.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#325

Post by AussieWog93 » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

baq wrote: post #206

AussieWog93 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Money is a necessary tool and be well managed, but it should not be a priority. I have to disagree with you there. Money shouldn't be #1 priority, of course, but it's definitely up there. Allowing your kids to experience poverty because you're unwilling to provide for them is a form of negligence.

it's fine as long as you teach your kids that 'stop being poor' is not an option for poor people.

It absolutely is, though. I'm not saying it's easy to go from rags to riches, but the only barriers stopping someone working their way up from the bottom 10% to middle class[1] are in their head[2].

I've spent most of my adult life living in lower socio-economic areas. Far too many people shoot themselves in the foot and blame the system for me to buy the whole "the poor are trapped" argument.

[1] At least in Australia, or other countries with similar opportunities. [2] Sometimes what's "in their head" can be severe mental illness or substance abuse issues. I'm not denying this is trivial to overcome, but I have seen it.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#326

Post by User23 » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #318

User23 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By that logic, Jeff Bezos would be an amazing human being. I believe we can agree he isn't. You know what a proxy is. Please don't straw-man it's against the guidelines and not very interesting besides. One can always pick out individual exceptions. "My grandfather smoked two packs a day his whole life and never got lung cancer," doesn't refute that smoking is correlated with lung cancer. > That's not charitable Yo…

> Your highest obligations of charity are to yourself, your spouse, and your children. That’s not charity. That’s self interest, specially if I can save on taxes while I increase the value of my property. > It's observably true that poor school quality in the USA isn't due to a lack of funding. California's school system is proof. There’s a multitude of reasons for school failure that are unrelated to funding - viole…

> That’s not charity. That’s self interest, specially if I can save on taxes while I increase the value of my property.

You are evidently using a definition of charity that’s somehow related to the tax code. From context it should be clear that by charity I meant our obligation to love our fellow humans. And a person who neglects his own family to provide for another is doing evil not good. Get your own house in order first.

> Supporting those in need is always more important than supporting those who don’t need support.

This is a surprising claim. If you also find this exchange interesting please elaborate. I’d agree that it’s true in some cases, but universally? Ought parents always give away all their resources except what is required for their family’s basic subsistence?

> I don’t see how genetics are involved here. It’s been proven many times it has little relation with academic success. Growing up in a favourable environment to learning is a much more powerful predictor.

The tabula rasa position has been thoroughly discredited. That said, growing up in a favorable environment for learning is also very much dependent on one’s parents’ mating strategy. Please construe that broadly: where they choose to settle, etc.

> One important role of public universal schooling is to form an informed electorate that can operate a democracy. If the last few years didn’t teach us we have been failing at that, I can’t imagine what will.

On this we agree. I believe I articulated my position on why that might be. What’s yours?

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#327

Post by imtringued » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:49 PM UTC

lucian1900 wrote: post #190

unsigner wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eastern Europe is firmly on this path under the twin depopulation factors of abysmal fertility and powerful brain drain towards the West. Come visit a middle-sized town anywhere in the Three Seas region and you’ll see industry, infrastructure, housing built for a much larger, more successful civilization.

That is due to imposing “shock therapy” and neoliberalism on the populations of the defeated socialist countries as punishment. It has nothing to do with what girls are encouraged to do.

I personally think the euro is a failure. It only works if every nation cooperates and the nation at the heart of the euro zone (Germany) doesn't play along with the rest.

For example, a simple way to make the euro area boom again is to let wages in Germany rise. This will never happen as German politicians think that exporting goods to eastern europe while never importing anything back is sound economics and politics.

Some economists point at Say's Law (people sell something because they want to buy something else) which postulates that this behavior should be impossible or at least highly irrational and resolves itself over the long term. Yet for some strange reason Germans have instinctively discovered that money is superior over goods and services and this hasn't changed at all since the euro was introduced.

In my opinion, neoliberalism is not really the source of the problem but rather a misguided attempt at serving near endless demand for efficiency and competitiveness. One could argue that the owners of the means of production are themselves just puppets of a higher force.

Think about lending a sack of potatoes with interest. If the borrower really needs potatoes today he might accept that offer, but what if he doesn't? Threatened with the prospect of having your potatoes go bad, it is you that is in trouble and therefore must lower the amount of interest that you charge. Even 0% interest may be profitable to you as getting fresh potatoes back next year would be still better than having yours spoil. There is an opportunity cost to doing nothing (spoilage is a effectively a negative interest rate), therefore the negotiations happen in a way that both parties end up happy.

Now repeat the exercise with money. As the lender you can always walk away from the deal and collect 0% interest on your cash but as money is necessary for economic specialization (through employment at a company) there will always be a borrower who will take your money. As the lender has the upper hand in these negotiations, he can get away with charging way more interest than he really ought to and we can forget the idea of 0% interest altogether.

The end result? People twist their brain into somehow paying that excessive interest. There is your endless demand for efficiency and competitiveness. Of course, thanks to our central banks interest rates do fall, but the potato analogy still isn't true. Once money spoils (negative interest rates), the problem is most likely gone.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#328

Post by imtringued » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

diordiderot wrote: post #109

zhoujianfu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I just read the chapter on open borders in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_for_Realists and he argues none of that is true. Open borders (more immigrants) actually increases wealth of the country letting them in, even refugees…

And If you cut taxes workers will get paid more. At least that's what the books say.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about cutting taxes for the rich or do you mean that if workers do not pay taxes that they will no longer benefit from government spending (education, infrastructure, etc)?

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#329

Post by imtringued » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

culi wrote: post #54

josephcsible wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we can't afford to do that, and if we tried, all that would happen is our own standard of living would go down the toilet.

If our high living of standard requires the subjugation of the rest of the world, maybe it's time to rethink the way we organize our global economy? There's more slaves today than ever before (some say even per capita). Pacific islanders are being enslaved for your fish, south american labor leaders are being assassinated for your bananas, and indigenous communities are being violently displaced for the minerals need…

It not only requires the subjugation of the rest of the world, it also requires the subjugation of nature and the atmosphere.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#330

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #326

rbanffy wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your highest obligations of charity are to yourself, your spouse, and your children. That’s not charity. That’s self interest, specially if I can save on taxes while I increase the value of my property. > It's observably true that poor school quality in the USA isn't due to a lack of funding. California's school system is proof. There’s a multitude of reasons for school failure that are unrelated to funding - viole…

> That’s not charity. That’s self interest, specially if I can save on taxes while I increase the value of my property. You are evidently using a definition of charity that’s somehow related to the tax code. From context it should be clear that by charity I meant our obligation to love our fellow humans. And a person who neglects his own family to provide for another is doing evil not good. Get your own house in orde…

> And a person who neglects his own family to provide for another is doing evil not good.

I never suggested that. I suggested it’d be more charitable to use the money set aside for charity in a way that benefits others. You don’t benefit your family and say it was charity.

> I believe I articulated my position on why that might be.

If you agree with that, then you agree it’s our job to maximise the number of functional well informed members of our society in order to have solid democracies. If we condemn a large part of the population to sub-par education, we get the flawed democracies we’ve seen flourishing in the past couple years.