Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 387 posts

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#351

Post by iguy »

eikenberry wrote: post #350
iguy wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median is the 50th percentile, it's unaffected by Bill Gates. So half the median is a better measure than half the mean. However as you say it's still a measure of disparity, not an absolute level.

The median is the 50th percentile including outliers, so the Bill Gates of the world to impact it. The mean normally removes outliers to get a better idea of the real average.

No, I think you may have this backwards. The median really is unaffected by adding a zero (or ten zeros) to Bill's income. All that matters is that if half the population makes less than Joe the plumber, and half more, then Joe is at the median. (There's a chance that if you shot Bill, then Joe's brother who earned 0.1c less would become the median, but this will be tiny, tiny effect.)

The mean would however be affected by such things.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#352

Post by dragonwriter »

foldr wrote: post #224
EdSharkey wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Democrats (or Republicans when they take power) are clever/smart/kind/honest enough to offer universal single-payer healthcare without rationing. Is there an intent to take my health care choices away, and is that intent benevolent or malicious? You paint a very abstractly wonderful picture, so let's assume yes and benevolent if rationing is to be expected given the finite tax base. I still need more de…

Health care is always "rationed". In the US it's rationed by ability to pay. This is far worse both ethically and practically than any means of rationing it via a cost/benefit calculation. As far as I know, no presidential candidate is proposing to stop people from buying private medical insurance, so your worries seem entirely unfounded in fact. Even in the UK, you can get private medical insurance if you want to.

> As far as I know, no presidential candidate is proposing to stop people from buying private medical insurance

A couple of the variants of Medicare-for-All, including Sanders’, would prohibit normal private health insurance (they would allow private plans for certain non-core benefits, but those aren't what people talking about private medical insurance are mostly talking to about.) I mean, technically, they don't prohibit buying plans, only selling them, but...

> Even in the UK, you can get private medical insurance if you want to

As far as I know, no Presidential candidate is campaigning on a healthcare plan based even loosely on what the UK currently does.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#353

Post by dragonwriter »

mschuster91 wrote: post #155
Sharlin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my god, I just read news about some "centrist" Democrats arguing against universal single-payer healthcare on the grounds that some segment of the working population already gets a nice healthcare package as a benefit, and somehow it would be unfair to those people if everyone was eligible to reasonable medical care. I mean, with Democrats like that, why do you even need Republicans?

The core problem at hand is FPTP and the Electoral College. The presidential election is decided in the swing states and with the current system the centrist Democrats do have a point - even if the hardcore Democrat states love Sanders or Warren, their landslide victories in these states won't help anything if all the swing states go Republican. America needs two periods with Democrats: the first one won with/by cent…

> The presidential election is decided in the swing states

That's both true and misleading. The decisive factor in Presidential elections is base turnout. Obviously, the states where the outcome is least certain are most decisive, but this doesn't make centrism a particularly winning general election strategy for either party, which is why the Republicans haven't nominated a centrist Republican in decades, and the Democrats have consistently underperformed where they naturally should perform from party ID (including taking into account he state-by-state distribution), despite nominating candidates from the center-right neoliberal wing in every Presidential election since 1992.

> and with the current system the centrist Democrats do have a point

No, they don't. Their point is literally “We should keep doing the thing that we've been doing and expect that doing so will result in something other than the results it keeps producing.”

> America needs two periods with Democrats: the first one won with/by centrists, who then fix up the electoral system issues (gerrymandering, FPTP, voter suppression, campaign financing)

Why would centrists Democrats—who use all those things to argue for why progressives must vote for them instead of actual progressive candidates (and despite the fact that that strategy manifestly doesn't work)—want to fix any of those things and thereby terminate their own argument for dominance within the party?

You might as well expect Republicans to fix them; they have just as much (that is, negative) incentive to do so.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#354

Post by cglace »

fatbird wrote: post #330
cglace wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been a microbiologist in a past life I'm very familiar with Typhoid Mary. I do however think you are attacking a straw man. "Under Board of Cosmetology regulations, an individual “must complete not less than 300 hours of instruction on the theory and practice of shampooing” at an approved school. That instruction includes how to answer the phone, order products, information about the composition of shampoos, a…

You ignored the substance of my point: a dishwasher is an employee of a licenced/regulated business operator, who is answerable to a regulatory regime. The state has a regulatory handle on the dishwasher already, and doesn't need to licence them or force them to take training to ensure minimal standards. Cosmetologists are usually independent contractors and are the responsible party, equivalent in legal terms to the…

I understand what you are saying. However, I believe your conclusion is absurd. Considering most of the US does not require licensing for a "shampoo technician", it would appear you are arguing for something that is currently a fringe practice to become mainstream. Is that correct?

Also, a cosmetologist and a shampoo technician are two distinct positions.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#355

Post by wallace_f »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #308
RankingMember wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think that the reason that some people act callous towards those who are poor/experiencing misfortune is ultimately because they're afraid. If you tell yourself that people end up poor because of a moral failing, you make poverty seem like something that won't and can't ever happen to you, because the very fact that you're not currently in poverty proves that you must have a better moral constitution som…

Yes. Fear drives a lot, if not all, negative human behavior. What makes matters worse is it's difficult to self-identity that we are acting out of fear.

I want to believe in such a redeeming explanation for moral failings, but I think my experiences have shown that a lot of people just care about themselves, and some are enthused to defeat or put down others, even by cheating or other abuse.

I wish I knew where to get help. I just want to have a normal life.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#356

Post by jacobush »

CalRobert wrote: post #325
ckris wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're not getting an employment contract, for example, to work in Burger King in Stockholm because it wouldn't pass the labour market needs test. As far as I know there isn't any labour market test in Sweden anymore. The unions only gets to comment on whether the contract is similar to that of the collective agreement for the sector. http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/in-focus-2013/soc...

Are you saying a poor American can go work at Burger King in Sweden? That's revelatory.

Come over here, please. :)

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#357

Post by netsharc »

AstralStorm wrote: post #314
netsharc wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good explanation on meritocracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ TL;DW: if you believe the crap that hard work will make you successful (discounting luck), than you'd have to believe the opposite is true: that poor people are lazy.

Only if you discount luck completely. There are degrees of bad luck otherwise that nobody can surmount. As a simple example, do you consider a person bedridden due to a sickness lazy?

hestipod's response says what I mean... I remember reading an article saying that trust fund kids living in luxury can't live with themselves when they tell themselves their richness is due to luck, so they make up a reality where their success is due to hard work...

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#358

Post by disordinary »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #239
disordinary wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much paid vacation do you get? Sick days? How much maternity leave does your wife get? What sort of employment protection do you have? The difference isn't as clear cut as it seems on the surface.

Four weeks. No sick days part of the four weeks. None but I can afford to support her while she is home with our daughter for as long as they need. None besides about 5 job offers in my inbox per day.

You're privileged enough to be in the right industry in the right location, with the right skill sets and experience, at the right time. If things were different you'd get no holidays, no job security, etc. I know people in tech on the east coast of the US who struggle to get two weeks leave and struggle to change jobs. Four weeks is something the rest of the world just takes for granted. I also know people that have been bankrupted because of health costs, this was my uncle who was a millionaire and had the best insurance money could buy. His wife got cancer, they fought the insurance company, sold the business and the car collection and houses, she died, he went bankrupt. It was very sad.

I used to work in the bay area but ultimately decided to come home. Here in NZ in the tech industry I earn a couple of hundred thousand which is admittedly less than I'd learn in the US but while things like employment protection aren't important to me right now I also take comfort by the fact that if I get hit by a car ACC will cover my loss of income and rehabilitation, I simply don't have to worry about getting sick or injured. I also take comfort by the fact that everyone, be it a barista or a barrister, has the same perks (like four weeks paid leave, sick leave) and protection that I do.

Another example: a company I worked for in NZ was a US multinational, they did a big restructure where they laid off thousands. Because of employment law most of the lay offs were people in the US, South America, and Asia. Europe and New Zealand were almost completely unscathed, it was just easier.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#359

Post by disordinary »

philliphaydon wrote: post #277
disordinary wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitely have elective surgery through the public health system but there's a set number done per year whereas all other treatment are done as soon as possible.

Interesting. Learn something new every day. My dad’s cancer treatment last year was completely covered. Even the hospital lodge my parents stayed at for a few weeks while he was in hospital was covered. I’m Glad that NZ isn’t a completely socialist country and just has socialist ideals.

It's always going to be a balance. Capitalism drives innovation and investment but making money at the expense of everything else isn't good for individuals or the environment. Socialism might be better for the environment or individuals in theory but it's not good for investment or innovation.

Like with most things in life being a purist is damaging, you need to be pragmatic and let capitalism do what it's good at and temper it with socialism when it's counterproductive.

Re: Stop Blaming America’s Poor for Their Poverty

#360

Post by disordinary »

briandear wrote: post #244
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My girlfriend recently moved in with me so we've done a lot of research. It's relatively easy to move here from within Europe, as in, if you move from an EU country you have a right to work and live here, and you get the same rights and responsibilities as soon as you register yourself as living here. If you want to move here from outside of the EU it's a whole other matter though. It boils down to two things though:…

How ironic that the “progressive” European welfare states have highly restricted immigration and America naturalizes more new citizens each year than the rest of the world combined. The US also allows illegal aliens de facto residence assuming they haven’t committed a significant crime. We even provide free education. If those illegal aliens have a child in the US, we give that child citizenship and subsequently make…

I don't think you'll find that progressive people outside of the US advocate open borders. Having a points based system which actually means you bring in people who'll have a job waiting for them is better for everyone involved. You also have humanitarian based immigration as well of course. The US is big enough that it can absorb people from all industries and backgrounds, but in smaller countries that's not the case. And it's wrong to bring in people if they end up being Uber drivers because there's not the jobs available for them and their expertise.

You also can't rely on charity and the community. Just look at people who crowd fund for operations, etc. that biases to people who are attractive, young, outgoing, etc. I don't want anything to do with a church based charity personally and I'd feel embarrassed begging for money, I would not want to rely on such a corrupt institution with their ulterior motives. It's much more practical to centralise the costs of looking after the poor, if you look at the US they pay more per person than pretty much any country on healthcare yet it's ineffective and expensive because of everyone clipping the ticket.

People also don't use misery to buy votes. Here in NZ even the most right wing party wouldn't dream of going to private healthcare. Different parties do have different priorities and because it's a proportionate system with multiple parties in government it's a better reflection on the will of the people. I think one of the biggest problems that you have is that you've got a pretty broken democracy where the majority don't get a say and even if they did you're restricted to two parties and their policies, there's no compromise or grey area it's an all or nothing approach.

Post reply on HN