Poor pay more because they make bad decisions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Another of his points though is that poor people are poor because they make more bad decisions than people who are not as poor as them.

---

Someone's decisions turned out poorly, someone makes poor decisions, and someone is a poor decision-maker are three rather different statements, meaning three different things. I suspect Lewk does not and would not parse them all that correctly or distinctly though, and I know for certain that he's wrongly conflating the first of those, that someone has made decisions which turned out poorly, with someone makes decisions that are going to turn out poorly. He thinks bad outcomes in the past provides predictive power for bad outcomes in the future which is absolutely untrue and is weak even as a correlate since it's at about three removes from the actual causes and effects.

I think the general point is that many poor people have willingly engaged in actions that a reasonable person would have known is likely to produce bad outcomes. Each of those bad decisions is entirely avoidable on an individual basis, even if being in a certain environment increases one's odds of making that decision. Though it's obvious that people born into a better position can afford to make a greater amount of bad decisions before they find themselves in the same place as someone born into a bad environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think the general point is that many poor people have willingly engaged in actions that a reasonable person would have known is likely to produce bad outcomes.

---

I want everyone to get this, and understand it, and I especially am calling out you Lewk. But also anyone else with these views.. Poor people and rich people are the same peopole. They are geneticially very similar, the average poor person is very akin to the average rich person, there talents ability, and IQs are incredibly similar the only difference is environment.. let that current child being born to a wealthy persons home be born to a poor environment, and they'll likely turn out much the same as the poor around them. It is environmental difference, having money buys you more luxuries, better education, and more free time. This is the difference. One of the many key advantages of starting wealth.

It's an environmental problem, not that people chose to be poor. Poor people are not embodied by all the slackers in life. And a rich person would behave just the same as a poor person would if they were born into that poor family.

This isn't always true, it's a statemet of on the aggregate.

I garuantee you look into the statistics if you are born into a poor family, you are very likely to be poor.

I would be much more comfortable with insurance companies actually using income as a variable, wouldn't you? As it stands, they aren't unfairly penalizing low-income drivers, they are unfairly penalizing people who live in certain zip codes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Someone's decisions turned out poorly, someone makes poor decisions, and someone is a poor decision-maker are three rather different statements, meaning three different things. I suspect Lewk does not and would not parse them all that correctly or distinctly though, and I know for certain that he's wrongly conflating the first of those, that someone has made decisions which turned out poorly, with someone makes decisions that are going to turn out poorly. He thinks bad outcomes in the past provides predictive power for bad outcomes in the future which is absolutely untrue and is weak even as a correlate since it's at about three removes from the actual causes and effects.

---

That is quite understandable, and it also seems like, at least for certain actions, a decision isn't bad or good in Lewk's mind until the consequences are observable. Two people could start two separate businesses, each with an equal, but unknown random chance of success/failure, and the person whose business succeeded in making them money would have been a good decision maker, while if the other person's business failed, costing them money, then they would be a poor decision maker. Judgement of their decision making ability is only rendered in hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

That is quite understandable, and it also seems like, at least for certain actions, a decision isn't bad or good in Lewk's mind until the consequences are observable. Two people could start two separate businesses, each with an equal, but unknown random chance of success/failure, and the person whose business succeeded in making them money would have been a good decision maker, while if the other person's business failed, costing them money, then they would be a poor decision maker. Judgement of their decision making ability is only rendered in hindsight.

---

Couldn't he just evoke the micro v. macro argument? The other guy obviously made better day-to-day calls, etc. That's kind of how the Theology of Wealth seems to work, Calvinist as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think the general point is that many poor people have willingly engaged in actions that a reasonable person would have known is likely to produce bad outcomes. Each of those bad decisions is entirely avoidable on an individual basis, even if being in a certain environment increases one's odds of making that decision. Though it's obvious that people born into a better position can afford to make a greater amount of bad decisions before they find themselves in the same place as someone born into a bad environment.

---

Everyone makes bad choices. Willingly and consistently. You want something that can have take out a big bite from personal finances, consider getting married and then committing adultery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Everyone makes bad choices. Willingly and consistently. You want something that can have take out a big bite from personal finances, consider getting married and then committing adultery.

---

And what percentage of rich people dropped out of high school, never went to college, got knocked up/knocked someone up in high school, have a felony on their record, got addicted to drugs, etc.? You really think that percentage would be the same as for poor people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And what percentage of rich people dropped out of high school, never went to college, got knocked up/knocked someone up in high school, have a felony on their record, got addicted to drugs, etc.? You really think that percentage would be the same as for poor people?

---

Well, there is Paris Hilton.

But what I would ask you, and I am sure I will get a useless response, is whether the "punishment" these people receive for their "transgressions", bad choices, is a) "deserved" 2) good for society as a whole. It is blithe to point out those without means have little way of escaping the consequences of poor choices compared to those with means. What is the follow-up? Is this desirable?

It's called environment. It's so easy to see why a richer kid would less likely get involved with drugs, or get knocked up etc... It obviously still happens.

Quote:

---

Couldn't he just evoke the micro v. macro argument? The other guy obviously made better day-to-day calls, etc. That's kind of how the Theology of Wealth seems to work, Calvinist as it is.

---

Life is like poker, even if you played perfectly there is a still an element of chance where the guy who played right loses to the guy who played wrong. Perhaps the guy who played right had a 98% chance to win in this situation, whereas the other guy had a 2% chance to win. It just doesn't happen.

I would say the first person is the better decision maker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

But what I would ask you, and I am sure I will get a useless response, is whether the "punishment" these people receive for their "transgressions", bad choices, is a) "deserved" 2) good for society as a whole. It is blithe to point out those without means have little way of escaping the consequences of poor choices compared to those with means. What is the follow-up? Is this desirable?

---

It's bad for society that people are continuing to make these bad choices. To some extent, they must face bad consequences or more people would be making these choices. Does that mean it would be good for society to have a bunch of people who either can't get jobs or can only get jobs that pay very poorly? Obviously not, which is why there are GED courses, various training/retraining programs, and numerous social benefits, but some severe consequences still need to remain in place.

As for whether the punishment is deserved, I'm all for giving people second chances, but I'm also not going to force colleges to accept high school drop outs or force employers to hire felons (if they want to, that's their choice as well). As sad as it is to see people ruin their lives, I believe in individualism, and that means people must take responsibility for their choices.

Leb, the environment sets constraints, it doesn't determine outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's bad for society that people are continuing to make these bad choices. To some extent, they must face bad consequences or more people would be making these choices. Does that mean it would be good for society to have a bunch of people who either can't get jobs or can only get jobs that pay very poorly? Obviously not, which is why there are GED courses, various training/retraining programs, and numerous social benefits, but some severe consequences still need to remain in place.

As for whether the punishment is deserved, I'm all for giving people second chances, but I'm also not going to force colleges to accept high school drop outs or force employers to hire felons (if they want to, that's their choice as well). As sad as it is to see people ruin their lives, I believe in individualism, and that means people must take responsibility for their choices.

---

The argument before was that these bad choices will be made, anyway. The deterrent effect should, therefore, be of little consequence. Previously, you high-lighted teen pregnancy, which arguably involves "choices" made under circumstance bereft reasoning, from what we today understand of brain development. Yet, these teens must be punished as an example for others? Others unable to absorb that message, be their situation of a certain configuration? I do not comprehend how this follows.

I understand the argument that it is undesirable for society to face these burdens, disenfranchised, unskilled and generally useless people with off-spring to feed and little chances of producing anything of value. But my question, now, is whether this is more effectively combated through example via punishment, or measures preventative? And what of the produce of these teen pregnancies? These children most of all face the most miserable of surroundings within which to attempt to mature. Must they pay for the "sins" of their fathers and mothers? This also applies to children of drug addicts, people society certainly needs not be breeding!

As you say, it is probably not wise to force acceptance of these delinquents into halls of higher learning, what would they comprehend of it anyway, but we both also know that Lewkowski's ideology of social darwinism calls for them starving to death, and whatever acts of desperation beforehand. These acts are also unwanted insofar as society is concerned. Society as we accept it, at any rate.

The theology of wealth is wrong-headed because of this. It seeks the wailing and the gnashing of teeth for their own sake, rather than any demonstrable good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

The argument before was that these bad choices will be made, anyway. The deterrent effect should, therefore, be of little consequence. Previously, you high-lighted teen pregnancy, which arguably involves "choices" made under circumstance bereft reasoning, from what we today understand of brain development. Yet, these teens must be punished as an example for others? Others unable to absorb that message, be their situation of a certain configuration? I do not comprehend how this follows.

I understand the argument that it is undesirable for society to face these burdens, disenfranchised, unskilled and generally useless people with off-spring to feed and little chances of producing anything of value. But my question, now, is whether this is more effectively combated through example via punishment, or measures preventative? And what of the produce of these teen pregnancies? These children most of all face the most miserable of surroundings within which to attempt to mature. Must they pay for the "sins" of their fathers and mothers? This also applies to children of drug addicts, people society certainly needs not be breeding!

As you say, it is probably not wise to force acceptance of these delinquents into halls of higher learning, what would they comprehend of it anyway, but we both also know that Lewkowski's ideology of social darwinism calls for them starving to death, and whatever acts of desperation beforehand. These acts are also unwanted insofar as society is concerned. Society as we accept it, at any rate.

The theology of wealth is wrong-headed because of this. It seeks the wailing and the gnashing of teeth for their own sake, rather than any demonstrable good.

---

I think you're underestimating the role of rationality, even if it's of a limited variety. People do think about consequences, even if they're not perfectly informed or think about every possible option. There is evidence that harsher punishments have some effect on "crimes of passion", for example. You make a good point about society's notion of how capable teens are of making wise decisions. Having said that, teens who get knocked up can get back up. There's always adoption (and abortion), and various day-care programs for teenage moms who return to school. It makes it harder, but not impossible to succeed.

I think there are already preventive measures in place, as well as programs to help those who made the mistakes. The former will never dissuade everyone, and many people don't take advantage of the latter. And let's be honest, success in life isn't easy; it requires dedication. Someone who failed as a 20-year-old isn't likely to acquire that dedication after 10 years in prison or 10 years doing dope.

As for the Lewkosian ideology, I think you'll find that most people who claim to be die-hard capitalists would still support many of the social programs we have now. The problem the right here has with the welfare state (for the most part) is that it gets taken advantage of (whether by bureaucrats or unsavory individuals), not that it exists per se.

I take back my predictions of unworkable answers. In these broad terms we speak, I think we've found agreement of sorts.

What I would now, in the face of all our success and seeing eye to eye, ask is how true those claims of mis-use of social programs are. I have been made to understand by sources I would consider, if not reputable at least respectable, that these mis-use stories are blown up out of proportion to fuel arguments founded on certain ideological premises. That is to say, welfare fraud is not so prevalent nor financially disastrous as some mockumentaries would have it. Again, I have no quantitative data and you are more than welcome to disagree, but the idea was that one fraudulent case out of several thousands was blown up, high-lighted, because it involved the mis-use of tens of thousands of dollars. The "wel-fare queens" aspect, as you know. But these advantage-takers, do they truly represent a noticeable percentage? Let us also remember, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that many people technically defraud the welfare state of the US in order to gain sustenance level benefits on a monthly basis; these are not people robbing tax payers for designer watches and purses, these are people trying to eat and maintain house and warmth.

I hesitate in responding to your reasoning towards the failed 20-year-old. It is an age where one can, certainly, just pick up a meth habit and be on a fast-track to the dead-book. I do not know whether there can ever be enough of incentives society can throw at them to not choose the meth habit. But what I do perceive as a wrong-headed idea is that they ought to be left to fend for themselves, ie to elect the meth, because they would do so anyways. I would see empirical evidence of that before I believed it. As we acknowledged, people will make bad decisions some part of the time. Will they persistently make bad choices? Can a series of bad choices be diverted? I think the position of abandonment of these questions requires some hard data behind it, just to be morally coherent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I take back my predictions of unworkable answers. In these broad terms we speak, I think we've found agreement of sorts.

What I would now, in the face of all our success and seeing eye to eye, ask is how true those claims of mis-use of social programs are. I have been made to understand by sources I would consider, if not reputable at least respectable, that these mis-use stories are blown up out of proportion to fuel arguments founded on certain ideological premises. That is to say, welfare fraud is not so prevalent nor financially disastrous as some mockumentaries would have it. Again, I have no quantitative data and you are more than welcome to disagree, but the idea was that one fraudulent case out of several thousands was blown up, high-lighted, because it involved the mis-use of tens of thousands of dollars. The "wel-fare queens" aspect, as you know. But these advantage-takers, do they truly represent a noticeable percentage? Let us also remember, for the sake of intellectual honesty, that many people technically defraud the welfare state of the US in order to gain sustenance level benefits on a monthly basis; these are not people robbing tax payers for designer watches and purses, these are people trying to eat and maintain house and warmth.

I hesitate in responding to your reasoning towards the failed 20-year-old. It is an age where one can, certainly, just pick up a meth habit and be on a fast-track to the dead-book. I do not know whether there can ever be enough of incentives society can throw at them to not choose the meth habit. But what I do perceive as a wrong-headed idea is that they ought to be left to fend for themselves, ie to elect the meth, because they would do so anyways. I would see empirical evidence of that before I believed it. As we acknowledged, people will make bad decisions some part of the time. Will they persistently make bad choices? Can a series of bad choices be diverted? I think the position of abandonment of these questions requires some hard data behind it, just to be morally coherent.

---

I've seen estimates showing that up to a quarter of all Medicaid (free health insurance for the poor and disabled) spending is fraudulent/waste. In the immigrant neighborhood where I was raised, I would guess the number was higher, and I can give you the many specific ways in which this takes place (and these aren't minor expenses either). I won't go into how utterly lazy and incompetent most low-level government employees I've come across are. And before you say anything, anyone acting the same way in a McDonald's would be quickly fired. Yes, these things are blown out of proportion, but I don't think people buy it for ideological reasons. People have a fairly basic conception of fairness and seeing people like them take advantage of the system seems unfair to them. You're not going to convince these people with facts, even if it was a tiny portion of people taking advantage of the system. It's the same way that people are willing to support harsh punishments for crime any time there are some gruesome murders in the news. Coincidentally, when you ask most conservatives whether they'd support completely getting rid of specific social programs, you usually get an overwhelming no, even when they claim to be against "big government".

My point isn't that it's somehow morally justified to leave these people behind; it's that the kind of people who make these kind of mistakes tend to be the kind of people who are going to continue to continue making these mistakes. The past is a pretty reliable indicator of the future. As far as I know, the Nordic model doesn't "fix" these people any better than the Anglo-Saxon one. All you you do is provide more generous benefits, including disability and unemployment, and have higher minimum wages, theoretically allowing these people to earn more money. Various labor laws also makes it harder to fire someone for making bad decisions.

No, even we cannot fix everyone. We jail people for substantially smaller time periods than you, and we offer more generous benefits to completely useless people, and this does sometimes evoke feelings of unfairness from some segments of society. Mostly the jail thing; I suspect it is easier to demand for wailing and the gnashing of teeth from those perceived to deserve it, and as the theology of wealth hasn't permeated the society in the way it has in the US, criminals are seen as lesser beings contrasted with poor people. Obviously Lewkowski's Weltanschauung does not make this distinction, the poor exist only to be penalized in public spectacle for him to see, and ostensibly show his off-spring as a warning.

You are probably right about the labour laws, I am woefully ignorant on that front as I personally exist in the sphere of competing for funding, a high-risk arena with no guarantees even here. And I am mostly friends with people in the same straits. I see on the news sometimes that Finland does okay in Europe-wide comparisons of economic competitiveness, but I don't keep up with statistics the way you do; I don't claim to know we're 'better' on all metrics. My stance inherently calls for sacrificing some effectiveness out of empathy, or at the very least out of societal peace. This kind of value of all individuals, regardless of output, is not afforded by either capitalism or communism, least of all the "third option" we experimented with in the 30's.

It is possible, it might even be probable, that this kind of value does not need to be placed on all individuals, that it is more significant in the long-term to secure only those most advantageous to the cause. I see the merits of social darwinism. But for it to be practiced in a consistent manner, both logically and morally, would require eugenics on such a scale that it would be extremely difficult to culturally orient society. We both know that this chain of thinking, when realized, would involve monstrous things serving the "greater good"; rarely are proprietors of such operations universally lauded by history.

The visceral desire for chain-gangs and public hangings is just that, and does not deserve much further consideration. Examining the direction of the species, the choice of socio-economic system, that might, but is it possible for an individual (even of our caliber) to make an informed decision? Let alone have an impact on the species-scale decision? Eh.

I'd like to add, While I know it's lame, but if a group is a higher risk for whatever statistically provable reason then I support fees that are approriate. If for some reason having a million dollars or more made you at a higher risk then I'd be fine with them charging a higher rate to those people. They just need to look at and use the data not be biased by anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

....What a load of garbage. Of course the poor are going to pay more for auto insurance. They are larger risks. The whole location issues is retarded as well. Certain zip codes have more theft and more accidents this seems incredibly obvious.

---

Another thread about poor people making bad decisions? :rolleyes:

Maybe we should "thank" the Insurance Industry Lobbyists for getting mandatory auto insurance in (many) states? Maybe we should "thank" the American Bar Association for our litigious society and multi-million dollar personal injury law suits? Should we "thank" the Healthcare Industry for emergency care so expensive and unaffordable that a broken bone, or "whiplash" means hundreds of thousand of dollars in costs?

It's a vicious cycle of pay-to-play and "The Poor" are running as fast as they can, just to keep up. But since you ALSO want a smaller and limited gummint, with fewer regulations, don't worry about them. The Freeee Markets will eventually (theoretically) price them out of owning or driving a car.....

Quote:

---

Next thing people will be complaining that the poor pay higher rates on loans....

---

Or maybe we'll complain about Banks that abuse GSEs like VHA/FHA or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and vice versa) to line their own pockets, while practicing fraudulent-predatory-abusive-robosigning lending to "poor people". The Insurance Industry is deep into that shit, too---by requiring Private Mortgage Insurance in escrow before these "poor people" get their home loan. It's supposed to safeguard the lender against default and foreclosure. How's that workin' out? Oh yeah, oops, the Insurers can't possibly meet their fiduciary obligations for all those loans in default and foreclosure. Neither can the banks.

Blame the Poor People for all those bad decisions, too!

:donkey: