Robert Putnam on the gap between rich kids and poor kids

Post by msandford » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

jellicle wrote: post #15

msandford wrote: post #2

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect" sort of way. In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse, large federally fund…

But we've had thousands of years of testing of your hypothesis, and no, individuals do not step up in any great number to solve massive societal problems of poverty. Which is why we invented governmental action to solve them. Which has proved extremely effective.

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #29

saturdaysaint wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet violence has dropped impressively in the west in the last 50 years, both in crime statistics and in the absence of wars between major powers. And the last 50 years mark many incredible advancements in society: civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, the first attempts to take sexual violence seriously, etc. etc. etc. I'd much rather be a random American today than 50 years ago.

That drop may have more to do with removing lead from gasoline than any social changes. Biological factors are staggeringly huge.

Post by 21echoes » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 10:35 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #32

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it's because things are objectively worse. Cringing doesn't change the facts. The original claim that we're less violent is easy to debunk, and has been debunked by many people. See e.g. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/john-gray-steven-... But more than that, it's clear that economics and politics have become prime vectors for social violence in the 'developed' West: particularly economics, which…

> even starter jobs offered comfortable salaries. Source?

Post by xrange » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 11:02 PM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #14

msandford wrote: post #2

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect" sort of way. In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse, large federally fund…

Do you believe that our population would effectively self-educate without gov't funded education?

Post by foobarqux » Mon, Mar 16, 2015, 11:35 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #19

dzdt wrote: post #7

The last few decades in the US have seen a shift from 1 parent working sufficing to support a family to 2 parents working beening needed for middle class living, and longer hours than before. And more kids have only 1 parent in the household. There simply isn't time for participating in the community-building activities that filled the gaps before. So we are more isolated, and people's lies are in a more fragile bala…

Hours worked per worker is slightly down from 1950: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2812.pdf (Table 1). Inflation-adjusted single earner income is flat since 1950: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cah_slides.pdf , while HHI for two-income households is up over 15%. In summary, people have made the choice to have more money instead of having one parent stay home. And who can blame them? I love being a p…