Yes from an educational perspective. Unfortunately, in the USA college is very expensive and is now considered more as a financial investment rather than a stage of enlightenment and maturation. Anyone who goes to college and blows 100k on a philosophy degree is not wise. Yes, there are successful people that have attained such degrees but the average middle class person shouldn't be going to college to get a philosophy degree due to the meager ROI.My opinions stand for America, do not know the impact on society schools have in other countries.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
10 Poverty Myths, Busted
- Thread starter Vanillalite
- Start date
- Status
Yes from an educational perspective. Unfortunately, in the USA college is very expensive and is now considered more as a financial investment rather than a stage of enlightenment and maturation. Anyone who goes to college and blows 100k on a philosophy degree is not wise. Yes, there are successful people that have attained such degrees but the average middle class person shouldn't be going to college to get a philosophy degree due to the meager ROI.My opinions stand for America, do not know the impact on society schools have in other countries.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Especially since kids (and most of their parents) just don't comprehend debt at all.
In the UK, I still think it is still the case, that higher education is the most effective way to ensure social mobility - the poor don't stay poor.
Pagusas
Elden Member
Thats kinda the impression I get too. The people I hear cry out most for a society free of jobs and money are the people who seem to hate working. It could never work, people will always want things, people will always have some skills that are more needed/sought after than others. People as a whole may all be equal and bleed the same blood, but that doesnt mean our skills are equal. Some people are more valuable than others, when it comes to certain task. And some task are more valuable than others.
nailbombxx
Member
I would argue that the only "war on poverty" is that of politicians making their mission to block welfare funding to reap the benefits of not paying more taxes.
styl3s
Member
Even a lot of computer related jobs are being filled too fast.
I can't count how many young people fresh out of college come to my business looking for work and i can't hire them. But yes, for the most part college is a waste of money and i learned that my 2nd year in and dropped out.
Broder Salsa
Banned
99,6% of "poor households" got a fridge.
Think about that.
Think about that.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Nope, I love my work and I love putting in hard work and I still want our society to reach the point where I don't have to work or else I literally risk starvation and homelessness. The people who care about what they do will always be driven to do what they love, but the sooner we can get people out of mindless, soul-sucking labor the better.
A computer science degree will always be better than a philosophy one. That can't be denied. And you did the right move by knowing where you want your life to go.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
But all tasks need to be done, and if the people doing these tasks are not compensated enough to guarantee a safe, healthy life, then our system is fundamentally broken.
It's astonishing how many people don't understand this idea, or how our society's failure to follow through on it ends up with welfare being a corporate subsidy to allow employment of low wage workers.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
So much this.
There are too many people with fancy titles and multiple degrees that have poor critical thinking skills. I honestly think they'd be better off replacing all their years of study with a single year of math or physics. Even if it took them three or four years to get through it, they'd still be gaining a better education.
Long term and barring total capitalism or a disaster that robs us of our technological advancement, it seems almost inevitable. Not soon, not in my lifetime, but eventually there will be more people than work, and by a large margin.
Physics doesn't teach critical thinking, nor does most maths at an undergraduate level. Classes in critical thinking may be more useful, instead of the narrow focus of maths or physics. And then you would need to get employers to value critical thinking instead of fancy letters after your name, which will never happen. You need the degrees plus the skill and fortune to get a degree in an area that has jobs available at decent salaries. And then maybe you can apply those critical thinking skills that are so important.
#livingthehighlife
#liberalshopped
The sad thing is that things got worse for many families with the expiration of the AARA 2009 in November 2013. This pretty much caused an across the board decrease in SNAP benefits for most.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
All these "corrections" are as stupid as the myths and completely pointless. Should 1.1 million americans making less than $25k mean something? Nothing is put in relation to anything, no ratios to actually show any time of meaningful change is presented. How much has the population changed since 1996 since the people living on under $2 a day was calculated? There's no context or anything of value in pretty much any of the counterpoints. It's the same rhetoric that the people who made the stupid myth use to antagonize people, "LOOK IT'S A BIG NUMBER, OVER 1 MILLION PEOPLE!!!!". I'm not saying things aren't bad but when there counterpoints are nothing of substance and instead employ the same tactics the people making the horrible myths use; it becomes increasingly frustrating.
They mostly disprove the myth as stated. They don't have to prove that the change is a certain magnitude or opposite, just that the myth is not correct.
5. If you're not officially poor, you're doing okay. The federal poverty line for a family of two parents and two children in 2012 was $23,283. Basic needs cost at least twice that in 615 of America's cities and regions.
Doesn't really get much clearer than that. I would call that as unambiguous as it could possibly be.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
#livingthehighlife
He's not gonna finish the meal today... he'll have it for tomorrow... It's good to be the king
Coriolanus
Banned
A post scarcity economy will eventually be about as impossible as an economy based around fiat currency.
You're conflating having basic needs of living with a reward for having a job.
Even with basic needs supplied, people will still want to get out of the house and do something, or want luxurious items. The desire to do something will always exist, regardless if you're actually paying for your groceries or not.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Like I said, I'm not saying all are but pretty much all of the stats with numbers were pointless. It's not hard to take 2 seconds to add context or make your numbers meaningful. I still feel like one of the best ways to crush the myths is by putting it in context and teach people how numbers should be used instead of just going for the shock value of numbers like other people do to sway people on emotion rather than meaningful data.
I can't tell you how happy I am they used that as their stock image for video games. It would be depressing if it was a 360 or something but to use a picture that I'd say most people don't even know was a video game system is just amazing. The ironing is delicious.
Zippedpinhead
Member
This one makes me think, I wonder what the percentage of the population living in Poverty of those 615 cities and regions are.
I imagine that places like the Hamptons, Beverly Hills, and South beach are part of those 615 regions, but that poverty is low in those areas.
Of course, I am sure those 615 cities and regions includes Memphis (my city) and the percentage of people living in Poverty here is 21.2%.
Just a thought exercise, though the whole article makes me want to donate time at soup kitchen or food pantry or something...
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
They most certainly do, if you take the time to properly understand them. People in high positions still fail at the most basic levels of critical thinking, such as forming opinions based on empirical data, separating correlation from causation, and even proper use of elementary logic.
I find it ironic that in an age where information is becoming increasingly accessible and abundant, that more emphasis isn't given to teaching how to actually use that information intelligently.
But this is a subject for a different thread.
All those things are not dependant on being taught mathematics. If you want people to have those skills, teach those skills, not a subject that may need them. Especially one year of undergraduate level work, it is nothing.
I took a course in critical reasoning, it was more useful than all the maths I ever did, so you are right about the skill being needed, but I think you are going the long way to get there by teaching maths and physics. Just teach the skills themselves.
And I'll drop it there, sorry for the reply when you wanted to drop it, but I mostly agree with your aim, just not your method
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Contra this study, which uses a consumption-based measure to conclude War On Poverty has gotten results.
http://m.nber.org//papers/w18718
Try More Than A Meal at Grace St. Luke's on Peabody.
http://m.nber.org//papers/w18718
Try More Than A Meal at Grace St. Luke's on Peabody.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
No need to apologise.All those things are not dependant on being taught mathematics. If you want people to have those skills, teach those skills, not a subject that may need them. Especially one year of undergraduate level work, it is nothing.
I took a course in critical reasoning, it was more useful than all the maths I ever did, so you are right about the skill being needed, but I think you are going the long way to get there by teaching maths and physics. Just teach the skills themselves.
And I'll drop it there, sorry for the reply when you wanted to drop it, but I mostly agree with your aim, just not your method
As long as you acquire the skills, I agree, and you're correct that different people will have different ways of learning these skills. The point we both emphasise is that they should be a requirement for any kind of higher education, independent of the information one needs to know in order to do their job.
OrangeJulius
Member
Going to college and getting a bachelors degree used to mean an almost guaranteed comfortable middle class life in the U.S.
But as more and more people are going to college and getting these degrees, the pool from which to draw employees from get's bigger and bigger, thus making the degree worth less and less.
We are reaching or have already reached a point where you need a masters or doctorate to even get a call for an interview anymore.
And this is going to continue to get worse as more and more of your self worth is tied to a piece of paper in a frame on your wall.
But as more and more people are going to college and getting these degrees, the pool from which to draw employees from get's bigger and bigger, thus making the degree worth less and less.
We are reaching or have already reached a point where you need a masters or doctorate to even get a call for an interview anymore.
And this is going to continue to get worse as more and more of your self worth is tied to a piece of paper in a frame on your wall.
It's 0.47 percent not going to defence.
I am leaning towards this idea because I do believe people, in general, are more greedy than they are lazy.
Is that real? Can't be right?
onadesertedisland
Member
When I was doing hiring, I had tons of master degree holders applying for a part time, entry level position. I didn't interview them because they were overqualified...
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
that's good for you, but the fact so many were applying for the position should tell you something about their other options.
And there is the problem. Not that you used a rather arbitrary metric, but that people need jobs, and they aren't out there, so they apply for any job they can do, then get weeded out by arbitrary metrics.
onadesertedisland
Member
What I was getting at is that our society became too focused on pieces of paper, rather than qualities that suit them for the job. Had they not mentioned the piece of paper, and instead focused on how their talents and abilities made them the right candidate they would have been interviewed.
There will always be poor people in a capitialist society based on the inherent fact that the more capital amassed by the bourgeoise, the worse off the mass of workers is. Income inequality and monopoly are the natural results of the free market. We can talk all day about bad life decisions made by the poor, but the fact is it's a systemic issue, not personal failing. The West, and especially America, view the poor through the lens of Calvinism which teaches that the poor are poor because they are lazy and unworthy in the eyes of God, and thus deserve to be poor. I find even progressive types holding some pretty reactionary views when it comes to this issue so it's no wonder America has basically written off tens of millions of people to a life of soul crushing poverty. It's pretty much impossible to have a dialogue when one side bases their whole worldview on the teachings of a dude from the 16th century.
So had they left their resume the same but left out their education you would have looked at them? Surely you can see how bad that is. If they had bad resumes that didn't meet the skillsets required, that would be a legitimate issue to deny them, but simply because they included their education is a bit harsh.
onadesertedisland
Member
Of course I do, but having the degree center front means that likely they would not have been happy in that role. I admit to being complicit in that, but it was a business decision that I was making. Hiring someone overqualified for the job usually means they aren't there for long.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
This article is polemic, and while polemic has its uses, understanding complex policy questions is not one of them.
Nobody is happy in most jobs they do. I understand about wanting to retain staff, but shit like that is why people are angry about job applications.
not giving them ad clicks with keep someone in poverty
entremet
Member
Posting full articles in OP is verboten here.
People SHOULD hate work in its current form since they are not getting the full fruits of their labor but instead are expected to work more and more hours for less and less pay, while the people who control capital are making off like bandits. If you are not a member of the owner class, you are being exploited, period. The sooner we do away with class distinctions among workers the better. There is no difference between a "middle class" person and an impoverished person in the eyes of business owners. We are all completely expendable and viewed as a commodity to make the rich richer. Hurray capitalism.
Also I have full time job so I guess I'm allowed to bitch, right?
LOL
OrangeJulius
Member
While I sympathize with your argument. I like many others will probably ask you this. Do you know of a better system that can so freely create opportunities for others to live comfortable lives? Capitalism has serious flaws, I admit. And I disdain our college system as well, but what other system out there works? And I mean truly works, not just in theory?
Exactly. I don't see why through automation we could shift to a society where people WANT to work will, and those that don't won't have to. The worst is that we put shame on those "poor" because its "obvious" they aren't working "hard enough".
There's a statistic that shows throughout industrilizatoin no matter what the unemployment rate was, production never faltered and always remained at a steady increase. It's proof we can absolutely create and sustain a post-scarce society and still get shit done. The only thing I can think why we maintain this system is because of social control.
Precisely. If basic needs are met we're always going to want more. Those that don't want more? That's fine. Not everyone needs ipads.
The thing is the system we're currently living is detrimental to people that create luxury goods and items. If the majority of people are scraping by just to eat how are they going to afford all the cool doodads you didn't know you needed but shit you gotta have! We attempted to do this by going into debt and now that well has run dry.
It's very simple, there's more people than jobs. Aside from mass genocide the only way we can support everyone is to move towards post scarcity and let lazy slob live as lazy slobs. The people that actually want more will do more. Why would you want a lazy slob to be responsible anyway?
Or I guess we can just do what we're currently doing, let people starve and sweep it under the rug, out of sight out of mind.
- Status