Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

That if they choose to have children, they MUST be responsible for their support?

Because you're not punishing the parents when you don't give them anything, you're punishing a next generation of children.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Not so! Not even close!!! See this reference or this one (at Wikipedia), or any of a wide variety of others. Income disparity in the US is middle-of-the-pack, with some countries being moderately lower and others being drastically higher.

Hm. It appears I was inaccurate in stating what I meant.
I was more referring to wealth distribution (which might also be a better indicator for intergenerational (and to a lesser extent intragenerational) social mobility. Throwaway lines like "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth." come to mind (From ISBN 1583227385), or this:

"While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households."

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Social mobility is a funny thing to measure. For example, do you include an individual's movement over time?

I'm more interested in intergenerational social mobility.
Also, I recall reading that while mobility through the top quintiles is fairly common, moving out of the bottom quintile is nearly impossible, for whatever reason.
more wiki:

"Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2006, the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.1 Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than other developed nations except the United Kingdom, which has the lowest standard of living for impoverished children in the developed world."

combined with this:

"The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen... The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum."

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Those "relatively high costs associated with getting a good education" are part of the picture. But even just finishing high-school while making sure you actually learned something is enough to take your household into the middle fifth or even the fourth fifth. And that is a step that is well within the reach of any child who wishes to learn and whose family actually encourages them to do so. No college expenses required.

Sure, but by leaving those families to fend for themselves, you're dooming everyone of the next generation that springs from them as well, except those happy few that are motivated enough to know what they want at age 15.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

And I haven't even touched on the many ways of going to college that are available to motivated students. The Ivy League? If you can get yourself admitted, they'll find a way for you to attend no matter how bad your family's finances. Really! Lots of well-respected private schools do the same. Then there're state schools, community colleges, student loans, gov't grants, etc. When I hear someone say they "can't afford to go to college" I translate that as "I'm not willing to make financial sacrifices now to have a better life later." Because that's what it really boils down to.

Yeah, but available to how many? It's all well and good, this philantropy thing, but it doesn't really solve systemic issues.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Hmmmm... It is immediately obvious to the casual observer that not everybody has "an equal chance to make it." Some are born to wealth, others to poverty. Some are genius-level smart, others are handicapped. But there are plenty of factors that are clearly within the control of motivated individuals, should they choose to control them. Will you work at your schooling in order to learn? Or will you refuse to study because "it's boring" or "that's selling out to the man" (a popular line when I was in grade-school) or <fill-in-popular-excuse-here>? Will you encourage your children to read? Or park them in front of the TV?

And among which classes are these attitudes most common? those who already made it, or those who feel it's hopeless?
It's not about what I would do as a parent, it's about what a parent living in that bottom quintile (or the bottom 30-35%, if you believe the above quotes) would do to their children.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Aside: If you are not a professional teacher, how many people have you taught to read? I haven't hit 10 yet, but I'll get there. Meanwhile, my wife has seen a dozen adult students from barely able to read all the way through their GED (high-school diploma equivalent, for non-US readers). All volunteer effort. And much more typical of the US than "fix it with a government program." See a problem? Don't like it? Get out there and DO something about it!

My whole point with this isn't that it's noble to want to help people, it's that not letting the govt do this means that the efforts will be unreliable for those who want it, and not mandatory for those who don't. Caritas is inefficient, if for no other reason than that it's too small-scale.
Access to primary/secondary education isn't a right, it's a duty.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

As for equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc. I've been in plenty of the "hopeless inner city schools." They suck. But you can still learn there, if you want to.
I note, however, that education outcomes are far more strongly influenced by family attitudes than by the outside world.

Yes, you can. The problem with teens, however, is that their brains aren't even fully grown yet, and specifically those areas of the brain that deal with "persistence", or the strength/will to motivate yourself to do something have not. (Has to do with myelination, which only finishes around your mid-20s.)
Why would you want to create extra barriers for children that probably already come from a bad household (something they can do nothing about)?
Furthermore, and as a last point: access to healthcare is something that benefits all of society, as it will yield a healthier work force. Right now, once you become ill while not holding a job, or if it happens before you get a contract, you're screwed. Oddly, this line of argument is one that has mostly been taken up by your CoCs, and the argument doesn't seem to have made it to the UHC lobby yet. (or they consider it uncaring, or something. anyway) Also, your healthcare system is terribly wasteful (you spend what, 2-3x what we do and still have a population that is unhealthier?), so if that was changed, a large part of the argument against UHC would be invalidated, because you'd be able to afford it at no additional cost compared to the old situation.
Sure, your doctors make more than they do here (probably in part because they have to pay off those silly 100-150k$ debts), and you have so many lawyers because they're being paid by the doctors (although I wonder why there are so many more malpractice suits in the USA than here; are they more incompetent? it boggles the mind :P), but it's not that much more.

Lastly, tertiary education here costs me about €1500 in tuition, and another, say, €4000 in living expenses a year. This is the case for everyone (well, not the living expenses, as I'm probably a bit less spendthrift than most) who gets a bachelor/master here, and even though we're probably not up to the standards of your best universities, we're probably a whole lot better than most of what you have to offer there.

Also, you're welcome

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

That if they choose to have children, they MUST be responsible for their support?

Because you're not punishing the parents when you don't give them anything, you're punishing a next generation of children.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Not so! Not even close!!! See this reference or this one (at Wikipedia), or any of a wide variety of others. Income disparity in the US is middle-of-the-pack, with some countries being moderately lower and others being drastically higher.

Hm. It appears I was inaccurate in stating what I meant.
I was more referring to wealth distribution (which might also be a better indicator for intergenerational (and to a lesser extent intragenerational) social mobility. Throwaway lines like "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth." come to mind (From ISBN 1583227385), or this:

"While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households."

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Social mobility is a funny thing to measure. For example, do you include an individual's movement over time?

I'm more interested in intergenerational social mobility.
Also, I recall reading that while mobility through the top quintiles is fairly common, moving out of the bottom quintile is nearly impossible, for whatever reason.
more wiki:

"Those under the age of 18 were the most likely to be impoverished. In 2006, the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold.1 Moreover, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than other developed nations except the United Kingdom, which has the lowest standard of living for impoverished children in the developed world."

combined with this:

"The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen... The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum."

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Those "relatively high costs associated with getting a good education" are part of the picture. But even just finishing high-school while making sure you actually learned something is enough to take your household into the middle fifth or even the fourth fifth. And that is a step that is well within the reach of any child who wishes to learn and whose family actually encourages them to do so. No college expenses required.

Sure, but by leaving those families to fend for themselves, you're dooming everyone of the next generation that springs from them as well, except those happy few that are motivated enough to know what they want at age 15.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

And I haven't even touched on the many ways of going to college that are available to motivated students. The Ivy League? If you can get yourself admitted, they'll find a way for you to attend no matter how bad your family's finances. Really! Lots of well-respected private schools do the same. Then there're state schools, community colleges, student loans, gov't grants, etc. When I hear someone say they "can't afford to go to college" I translate that as "I'm not willing to make financial sacrifices now to have a better life later." Because that's what it really boils down to.

Yeah, but available to how many? It's all well and good, this philantropy thing, but it doesn't really solve systemic issues.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Hmmmm... It is immediately obvious to the casual observer that not everybody has "an equal chance to make it." Some are born to wealth, others to poverty. Some are genius-level smart, others are handicapped. But there are plenty of factors that are clearly within the control of motivated individuals, should they choose to control them. Will you work at your schooling in order to learn? Or will you refuse to study because "it's boring" or "that's selling out to the man" (a popular line when I was in grade-school) or <fill-in-popular-excuse-here>? Will you encourage your children to read? Or park them in front of the TV?

And among which classes are these attitudes most common? Those (whose parents) already made it, or those who feel it's hopeless?
It's not about what I would do as a parent, it's about what a parent living in that bottom quintile (or the bottom 30-35%, if you believe the above quotes) would do to their children.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Aside: If you are not a professional teacher, how many people have you taught to read? I haven't hit 10 yet, but I'll get there. Meanwhile, my wife has seen a dozen adult students from barely able to read all the way through their GED (high-school diploma equivalent, for non-US readers). All volunteer effort. And much more typical of the US than "fix it with a government program." See a problem? Don't like it? Get out there and DO something about it!

My whole point with this isn't that it's noble to want to help people, it's that not letting the govt do this means that the efforts will be unreliable for those who want it, and not mandatory for those who don't. Caritas is inefficient, if for no other reason than that it's too small-scale. Access to (or attending) primary/secondary education isn't a right, it should be mandatory for children, and a duty for society.

Originally Posted by Xenophon

As for equality of access to healthcare, schooling, etc. I've been in plenty of the "hopeless inner city schools." They suck. But you can still learn there, if you want to.
I note, however, that education outcomes are far more strongly influenced by family attitudes than by the outside world.

Yes, you can. The problem with teens, however, is that their brains aren't even fully grown yet, and specifically those areas of the brain that deal with "persistence", or the strength/will to motivate yourself to do something have not. (Has to do with myelination, which only finishes around your mid-20s.)
Why would you want to create extra barriers for children that probably already come from a bad household (something they can do nothing about)?
Furthermore, and as a last point: access to healthcare is something that benefits all of society, as it will yield a healthier work force. Right now, once you become ill while not holding a job, or if it happens before you get a contract, you're screwed. Oddly, this line of argument is one that has mostly been taken up by your CoCs, and the argument doesn't seem to have made it to the UHC lobby yet. (or they consider it uncaring, or something. anyway) Also, your healthcare system is terribly wasteful (you spend what, 2-3x what we do and still have a population that is unhealthier?), so if that was changed, a large part of the argument against UHC would be invalidated, because you'd be able to afford it at no additional cost compared to the old situation.
Sure, your doctors make more than they do here (probably in part because they have to pay off those silly 100-150k$ debts), and you have so many lawyers because they're being paid by the doctors (although I wonder why there are so many more malpractice suits in the USA than here; are they more incompetent? it boggles the mind :P), but it's not that much more.

Lastly, tertiary education here costs me about €1500 in tuition, and another, say, €4000 in living expenses a year. This is the case for everyone (well, not the living expenses, as I'm probably a bit less spendthrift than most) who is working towards a bachelor/master degree here, and even though we're probably not up to the standards of your best universities, we're probably a whole lot better than most of what you have to offer there.

Also, you're welcome

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Interesting statement. Biologically impossible, but interesting. I had no idea that males had the right to "give birth."

And, I have never found it to be a biological necessity. Eating, sleeping, even going to the bathroom. Those I see as "biological necessities" ... but giving birth?? On what planet would that be a biological necessity?

Got me on that one I was a tad angry at the time. I mean to say that you can't arbitrarily decide who should give birth and who shouldn't, that it is a biological drive in many women, and let's not forget men sometimes play a part in the creation of children, and they also have biological drives too.

And the planet where it is a biological necessity is Omicron Persei 8

[HarryT]

It appears to be a fairly fundamental cultural dichotomy between the US and Western Europe about what we think the role of government should be.

Here in Europe, most people believe that it is one of the fundamental duties of government to provide a good educational (to university level) and healthcare system for its citizens, and to have a decent social "safety net" in the form of a reasonable state pension, livable benefits for those who are out of work, disabled or whatever. We are willing to pay for such things with a reasonably high level of taxation.

In the US the attitude seems to be more that taxation should be lower, and that people who want university education or good healthcare should fund such things themselves through their own efforts.

We probably each believe that "our" way of doing this is better, since that's what we've been brought up to accept is the "right" way to do it.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It appears to be a fairly fundamental cultural dichotomy between the US and Western Europe about what we think the role of government should be.

Here in Europe, most people believe that it is one of the fundamental duties of government to provide a good educational (to university level) and healthcare system for its citizens, and to have a decent social "safety net" in the form of a reasonable state pension, livable benefits for those who are out of work, disabled or whatever. We are willing to pay for such things with a reasonably high level of taxation.

In the US the attitude seems to be more that taxation should be lower, and that people who want university education or good healthcare should fund such things themselves through their own efforts.

We probably each believe that "our" way of doing this is better, since that's what we've been brought up to accept is the "right" way to do it.

We may disagree on many things, Harry, but on this you're bang on. All of us could argue our sides until the cows come home, but it won't change the cultural norms we expect and have been exposed to over our lifetimes.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

but it won't change the cultural norms we expect and have been exposed to over our lifetimes.

And yet we still bother to try. Makes you feel hopeful for the human race, doesn't it?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

And yet we still bother to try. Makes you feel hopeful for the human race, doesn't it?

It certainly does

[astra]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No offence meant but everything you have said is antithetical to the majority opinion in Europe. I fear it's a cultural rift that will never bridged. But (on the whole) we do think that health insurance should be for everyone, that education should be available to all, and not dependent on means, that a child should not go hungry because of their parents and that everyone should have an equal footing, whether state funded or by some other means.

When I see statements such as yours I feel greatly saddened, and that is probably because of my cultural surroundings. But it always brings to mind what my English teacher told me once when he found me with sweets that I refused to share with the rest of the class. It has stuck with me for a very long time:

I care not for thee jack, for I am in the lifeboat.

And where does this European way of "equal footing" lead?
Colleges full of students who don't know why they are in a college? or know quite well that they are there to get 30 or36? quid of a weekly allowance? That if they don't go to college they will have to work! What a horror! Work! Level of education is falling down dramatically. Exam difficulty is lowering so that student can pass no matter how stupid and lazy they are, because teachers are driven crazy by government to achieve goals, numbers, numbers, numbers....doesn't matter how, doesn't matter consequences.
Computer students, 16 years old in a college do not know fractions??
We have almost closed the gap in achievements between white and asian ethnic minorities??????
How can you do it? If someone is stupid/don't want to study/lazy, who cares what is his ethnic background?? How do they close the gap? By lowering exam difficulty levels?
Equality is THE biggest BS I have ever come across and I have studied in former Soviet Union and in Israel. I have a very good idea of how hard one must work and study if one wants to achieve something, to pass a test etc.
You must pay for your education after you leave school or go to work.

It is only one aspect of equal opportunities that are being advertised all over Europe. It is going to have very dire consequences.

I agree with absolutely everything that desertgrandma said here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by astra

I agree with absolutely everything that desertgrandma said here.

Which, with the greatest respect, astra, merely goes to emphasise the point that it's the system you grow up with that seems "right". I'm sure that the American system has its merits, but I don't want to have to worry about how I'm going to afford to pay $30,000 a year to send a child to college, or whether or not I'm going to be able to buy the medicines I need when I grow old. I'd rather have the "comfort" of knowing that such things are funded by my taxes.

Neither system is perfect, but personally (and I'm sure that many people would not agree) I'm pretty happy with things the way that we have them.

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which, with the greatest respect, astra, merely goes to emphasise the point that it's the system you grow up with that seems "right". I'm sure that the American system has its merits, but I don't want to have to worry about how I'm going to afford to pay $30,000 a year to send a child to college, or whether or not I'm going to be able to buy the medicines I need when I grow old. I'd rather have the "comfort" of knowing that such things are funded by my taxes.

No need to pay 36.000
Just mere 50 quid a months. That would stop most of the idiots who come to the college for a "free lunch"

Neither system is perfect, but personally (and I'm sure that many people would not agree) I'm pretty happy with things the way that we have them.

I am sure you are. The system starts to fall apart now. You are going to feel it in let's say 10 years time.
Mark my words.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...I don't want to have to worry about ... whether or not I'm going to be able to buy the medicines I need when I grow old.

That's not a given with the National Health Service - many patients are told their treatment can't be funded. It depends on whether NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) approve of the cost-benefit analysis.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which, with the greatest respect, astra, merely goes to emphasise the point that it's the system you grow up with that seems "right". I'm sure that the American system has its merits, but I don't want to have to worry about how I'm going to afford to pay $30,000 a year to send a child to college, or whether or not I'm going to be able to buy the medicines I need when I grow old. I'd rather have the "comfort" of knowing that such things are funded by my taxes.

Neither system is perfect, but personally (and I'm sure that many people would not agree) I'm pretty happy with things the way that we have them.

Couldn't agree more, Harry. I pay my taxes so that others less fortunate or less able get a fair shake of the stick. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the elderly are denied medicine, children go without food and education, not when I can bloody well do something about it.

EDIT: also I pay my taxes because I have to, it's the law. But my taxes pay for all kinds of good things in my community, not just helping those less fortunate, but everyone.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

That's not a given with the National Health Service - many patients are told their treatment can't be funded. It depends on whether NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) approve of the cost-benefit analysis.

And that's a crying shame right there. It needs to be addressed and changed.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which, with the greatest respect, astra, merely goes to emphasise the point that it's the system you grow up with that seems "right". I'm sure that the American system has its merits, but I don't want to have to worry about how I'm going to afford to pay $30,000 a year to send a child to college, or whether or not I'm going to be able to buy the medicines I need when I grow old. I'd rather have the "comfort" of knowing that such things are funded by my taxes.

Neither system is perfect, but personally (and I'm sure that many people would not agree) I'm pretty happy with things the way that we have them.

While I agree with most of what you say here, I do want to contest the statement that people always believe in whatever system they grew up with. Why else did MLK, Ghandi, women's suffrage, etc. etc. happen? I would hope that presenting arguments for alternatives does something to people, and that they're not entirely too blasé to even consider reconsidering some of the things they've grown up with.

It's fine to believe that people should work for their money, and work to achieve, but "affirmative action" (like, to be cheeky, the Marshall Plan) does work if you can that way help people who are facing otherwise insurmountable obstacles, like initial investment money.

How is it good for society to let someone who is otherwise fully educated sit collecting welfare because he/she became ill once, who then can't or couldn't get medical care because society figures "tough luck. shouldn't have gotten sick while unemployed"? Healthy people are more likely to stay motivated, to be hired, work harder, and perhaps even like the government that's keeping them healthy better.
Anecdote:

I know a guy living in SF who is uninsured like this, and when he goes to a "free clinic" to get a prescription for some sort of airway-related illness, they still send him a 200$ bill somehow. How is that a "free clinic"?

Consider this: this medication costs 20$ when prescribed, or 70$ when bought online, and without a prescription. So if you have insurance, it will cost you 20$, and if you don't, either 220$ or 70$, take your pick.

In comparison, a (5 minute) consult with a GP here will set you back €15-25.
How is it rational to say that people "shouldn't get sick," "shouldn't have had parents who didn't instill the protestant work ethic," etc.? And what is there to gain from creating extra hurdles for those that already get less medical care?

Accountability is one thing, but only creating opportunities for those that are most driven is just a strange form of elitism; it's just a fact of human nature that most people aren't as driven as Mandela was to see something through, so why not try to at least get them a decent education, in stead of either getting "the best" education when you get into MIT or an ivy league, or hardly any at all when you drop out of HS because you lived in the inner city with terrible teachers and no-good schoolbooks.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

While I agree with most of what you say here, I do want to contest the statement that people always believe in whatever system they grew up with.

I would certainly not say that "everyone" will believe in it, but it's probably reasonable to say that the majority of people broadly accept the societal norms of whatever culture they grow up in, and that culture is very different between western Europe and the USA.