Get Rich Slowly interviews Adam Shepard, a young guy who set out with $25 in his pocket to see how far he could get in a year. In it, he hits on the central problem with Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed:
Well, first of all, I’ll say that Ehrenreich is a very talented journalist. From the point of view that she writes well, Ehrenreich is okay with me.
But the thing about Nickel and Dimed that is so depressing is Ehrenreich’s attitude. Forget politics and economics for a moment. She had an agenda, and she wrote along those lines. She had a point to prove and she proved it. (Of course, the same can be said for my side of the story, although I’d like to think I went down to Charleston with a little bit more of an open mind.)
She wrote about how tough and depressing poverty is. Really? Tough and depressing? Of course it is! I wanted to believe that there were people living in these tumultuous circumstances who weren’t living the life of cyclical misery that Ehrenreich was writing about. So I sought a discovery of my own with this project.
The economics side of Ehrenreich’s story didn’t make sense to me from the beginning and she never proved her point. To me, anyway. She lived in a hotel, ate out, didn’t look for ways to really save money.
In the end, I discovered that both Ehrenreich and I have valid points. But there is a stark difference in her attitude. She postured to fail, and she did. I postured to succeed, and I did.
If you set out to prove you can fail, you will generally find it is not that hard. That failure is therefore not good evidence of the impossibility of success. The problem is even more pronounced in her follow-up, Bait and Switch, in which Ehrenreich attempts to land a mid-career job in PR despite the fact that she has not worked in PR before. Ehrenreich spends most of the book acting like a total lunatic. Journalism is a career that is highly, highly dependent on networking and self-promotion, yet in the book she comes across as someone who has never mastered the rudiments of personal contact, like not gratuitously insulting people with whom you are trying to secure employment. It doesn't help that her contempt for the business world seems to have convinced her that it ought to be easy for someone with absolutely no experience to secure a well-paying job in a competitive field. The book mostly serves as a poignant reminder that yes, there really are intellectuals so provincial that they seriously believe the business world is run something along the lines of the presidency in Dave.
It's fair, of course, to be skeptical about Shepard's story. Playing poor is not the same thing as actually having to spend the rest of your life in a housing project; and didn't his social capital help out a great deal? But Shepard makes a convincing case that he acquired most of his survival skills from the real life low-wage workers around him:
Of course it’s easy for me to say it was easy. I had a goal. I was out to prove a point. I had the mentality and I knew what I had to do to get the results I wanted.
But what surprised me most, and what makes my story so fascinating, is that so many people around me were doing the same thing. It was most prevalent in the shelter (where some people had spent a lifetime learning from their mistakes), but it was just as prevalent outside of the shelter with guys like Derrick Hale, who emerges as the hero of my experience in Charleston.
Derrick was a guy I was working with at the moving company. He had come from rural Kingstree, SC, and he truly knew what poverty was like having grown up in a world of bologna and pickle sandwiches and maybe the lights will turn on, maybe not. And there he was in Charleston, saving his money just like I was. Actually, that’s cocky of me to say, since I was learning so many lessons from him.
Derrick was unique in that not only did he have a goal, but he had a vision for achieving that goal. There’s a monumental difference, and I really learned that throughout the course of my time in Charleston. Everybody knows what they want (nice house, car, vacation money, etc.) and many people know what can get in the way of achieving those goals (see poor spending habits above). But! Some people really struggle with the discipline of their vision. Derrick wanted a house, and near the end of my time in Charleston, he moved into a brand new 3-bedroom, two-story house, with a patio and a fenced in yard for his daughter and dog to play. He was 25 and he worked as a mover, but he knew how to handle his money.
So, is it realistic to set goals and save your money and make worthy investments? Of course it is! Are people doing it? Of course they are, just as there are people that are squandering their money to bad habits.
. . .
I was complaining about my woes in the workforce one night with a couple of the guys at the shelter. One of them, Phil Coleman, and I had a pretty colorful exchange where he essentially told me that I needed to be a whole heckuva lot more assertive. “You think managers are going to call here, eager to hire a homeless dude?”
So, he gave me the secret. To paraphrase, he told me to go to these managers and tell them who you are, that you are the greatest worker on the planet and that it would be a mistake not to hire you. If they take you on, great. If not, move on down the line. By day’s end, you’re gonna have a job.
So I did. The next day, I went to see Curtis at Fast Company, a moving company where I’d already applied. “Curt!” I said. “I’m Adam Shepard, and I’m the greatest mover on the planet. It would be a mistake for you not to hire me.” He looked at me across the table and smiled, knowing I was lying like hell to him. But he liked my attitude – especially after I offered to work a day for free – so he hired me on the spot.
Again, it’s interesting that I needed a boost from a comrade at the homeless shelter. I would have gotten a job eventually, but Phil Coleman gave me a hand up.
Pretty awesome
From what I've read about the unskilled labor market (or the moderately skilled OJT-able market), it's not too hard to get a job if you say something like:
"I don't know how to do this job, today - I have no experience at all.
But I'll show up on time every day, sober, and I'll learn whatever you want me to do."
It may well be that "anyone" can be a mover, or move boxes in a warehouse, or cook fries.
But not "anyone" will show up on time, every day, sober and willing to work their whole shift.
(This is another form of "liking your attitude", really.)
Much as I hate Barbara Ehrenreich, the criticisms of Nickel and Dimed actually make me sympathize with the left. So you, Megan_McArdle and Tyler_Cowen (he wrote about this before), readily concede that if I don't, er, already have a career in field X (like, you know, a college graduate might), then OBVIOUSLY I'm not going to find anything close to a decent job in field X? And that this Catch-22 is a good thing?
Pardon all of us college graduates who thought that getting good grades was actually more important than getting drunk with frat boys (i.e. networking). Guess you're gladly admitting that anyone who missed the lesson that in the end, friends are more important than grades, deserves to be locked out of a career in whatever they got a degree in.
***
In other news, it's hard to actually perform this experiment. How do you remove just enough of your human capital (address, credit score, education, attitude, general appearance, SSN, etc.), LEGALLY, so you don't have the advantage of it, but not so much as to look like a criminal fleeing a past life? You cannot.
Yes, Adam Shepard can start in a homeless shelter and find work, get an apartment, buy a truck, and save money. He's young, health, smart, educated and does not suffer from poor impulse control. I'm not as young as Shepard, but I have little doubt that I could do the same. And it's heartening to know there are people like Derrick who have it together and are moving up.
BUT...the problem is that there are so people stuck down there are not like Adam Shepard or Derrick. They're neither bright nor educated. They're often not healthy. They have poor impulse control, and they undermine themselves with a series of bad decisions about money and jobs and relationships.
Ehrenreich was flat wrong that it isn't possible to survive and work your way out of the minimum wage ghetto. But it's also wrong to conclude that anybody can do it in short order. Yes, anyone can -- provided they have the necessary personal qualities. But most of the people in that situation don't have those qualities (that's why they ended up that way).
The question remains -- what do we do about them?
Oh, and one more thing: I was actually considering doing something like what's described here: that is, take a few office temp gigs, and see if I run enough circles around the temps they usually get, to see what they would offer me for a permanent job, if any.
Megan_McArdle, make sure to toss me the access codes so I can post about it here ;-)
If you leaf through the first part of Jim Cramer's memoir, Coneffions of a Street Addict, you'll learn that he used essentially the same approach as Andrew Shepard to get a job at Goldman Sachs. Maybe his nephew Chip Mason is lurking and will fill in the relevant quote.
This Shepard kid's got moxie. Great story.
I dunno--I'm sympathetic to both sides, and I don't think that slumming it for a year proves much of a point either way.
Yeah, if you're young and healthy there's always going to be low-skilled jobs available to you. And if you know how to manage your money, and don't have any outstanding debts or ongoing expenses, you can probably do alright. I don't know that anybody really disputes that. The question is more one of what we do with--and what we expect of--people who don't meet those criteria.
BUT...the problem is that there are so people stuck down there are not like Adam Shepard or Derrick. They're neither bright nor educated. They're often not healthy. They have poor impulse control, and they undermine themselves with a series of bad decisions about money and jobs and relationships.
The point is that, contrary to the endless blather of the bleeding-heart left, the main reason people become poor and remain poor is not that they lack the opportunity to better themselves, but because of their own personal failings.
So you, Megan_McArdle and Tyler_Cowen (he wrote about this before), readily concede that if I don't, er, already have a career in field X (like, you know, a college graduate might), then OBVIOUSLY I'm not going to find anything close to a decent job in field X? And that this Catch-22 is a good thing?
I believe what she said is that you're not going to walk into a field for which you have no education or experience and land a job that requires education and experience. How is that a Catch-22? You have to get the training then you have to start at the entry level and work your way up. The fact that you can't jump it at mid-level position (and ahead of people who DO have both at least some training and experience) is not at Catch-22.
In other news, it's hard to actually perform this experiment. How do you remove just enough of your human capital (address, credit score, education, attitude, general appearance, SSN, etc.), LEGALLY, so you don't have the advantage of it, but not so much as to look like a criminal fleeing a past life? You cannot.
That doesn't make any sense -- obviously he wasn't trying to undermine his chances by adopting a bad attitude and showing up dirty, smelly, and late (that's kind of the point). But I seriously doubt the moving company checked his credit score before giving him a job.
Person, you can get a good job--for a college graduate. You can't get a job that really requires experience and contacts if you don't have any. This is not shocking news; it would be surprising if Barbara Ehrenreich could bullshit her way into a well-paying job with essentially nothing on her resume. Luckily, very few people arrive at the age of 45 with absolutely no work experience.
I'll show up on time every day, sober, and I'll learn whatever you want me to do.
I have several times gotten temporary employment by saying roughly that. My pitch goes: I'm not going to be here in 6 months--but I will be here next month, unlike half the other losers you hire today.
Those of you who buy this "lift yourself up by your bootstraps" crap are invited to read about what poverty is really like.
Yes, that's the question. One answer is to create a government program that relieves them, by right, of the ill effects of their poverty. Another answer is to rely on the generosity of individuals to relieve them from the ill effects of poverty. The problem with the government program approach is that it removes much of the incentive to learn new, more successful, behaviors. Worse, because the help is received as a right, no one need feel grateful or humbled for the help or for the need to receive aid. Gratitude and humility are virtues that often precede healthy change in behavior.
On the other hand, the problem with relying on charity is that some people will fall through the cracks. Someone's behavior might be so offensive that, no matter how real the need, charity might not be forthcoming. Or, real needs may go unseen and unacknowledged. As unfortunate as the possibility that some needs might go unmet would be, the very fact that some needs might go unmet would discourage the behaviors that lead to poverty. Our welfare system is often likened to a safety net. Well, where there are safety nets, people are more apt to walk the high wire. Remove the safety net and there will be less high wire acts -- and fewer cases of poverty.
The point is that, contrary to the endless blather of the bleeding-heart left, the main reason people become poor and remain poor is not that they lack the opportunity to better themselves, but because of their own personal failings.
Well, no--it proves that the young, healthy, drug-free, debt-free, child-free, educated, and eloquent don't lack opportunity. Nobody's even arguing that point.
Meanwhile, good luck bootstrapping if you have a bad knee and collection agencies waiting to garnish your paychecks. That's not to say it can't be done, but you're not going to find anyone writing a book about it how easy it is.
Well, no--it proves that the young, healthy, drug-free, debt-free, child-free, educated, and eloquent don't lack opportunity. Nobody's even arguing that point.
Well, no. First, Shepard's experience doesn't really "prove" anything about what is true in general. But more importantly, his ability to better himself did not depend on his possessing any of the characteristics you list above.
I have no doubt that lack of opportunity does present some obstacle to some people seeking to improve their lives. But in general self-defeating personal behavior is a far greater obstacle.
Re: Our welfare system is often likened to a safety net. Well, where there are safety nets, people are more apt to walk the high wire.
I would think we'd want people to be willing to take risks, not always play it safe (and see Megan's posts about bankruptcy too).
Also, there's something deeply inhumane and anti-democratic about your demand that the poor must be humble before their betters. Why not scrap the clause in the Constitution that bans titles of nobility then go whole-hog back to feudalism, so us lesser mortals can kowtow before Excellencies, Graces, milords and assorted other grandees? No, David Walser, I prefer a world in which citizens have equal rights-- and don't have to bow low in humility and gratitude in exchange for their very existence. If you'd prefer something else, there are still a few societies like that, albeit mainly in the Middle East.
young, healthy, drug-free, debt-free, child-free
Isn't that how most of us start out, and go downhill from there by our own choices?
(education and eloquence are clearly unevenly distributed, but I'm not sure how important they are in the moving business)
Matt,
How many people who are in need of work have a bad knee?
The point of the study appears to be "if you're reasonably healthy and willing to put forth some effort, you can succeed".
Matt, the point of your comment seems to be, "Some people aren't healthy and therefore we need to..." [insert policy perscription here]
Sounds good with me. But as long as their healthy and can work you don't deserve more than a few months of "getting back on your feet" help from society. If you feel you deserve it, ask your neighboors or your family. Otherwise, get off your butt and work for it.
Whoa JonF, thats some crazy talk. A couple of points...
Some types of "risk" is good for society, people who end up on welfare very rarely took good, society benefiting risk, and those who did don't stay on welfare very long.
If the poor need to ask the rest of us for money, then they need to realize that they have made bad decisions in the past and that they need to change their behavior. This does require humility. Emphasizing the few exceptions to this distracts from the bulk of the welfare problem.
So can we give the 80-90% of the US the grand and noble title of "non-welfare recipient".
If you believe so much in equal rights, can we all collect welfare?
He didn't strike me as particularly eloquent -- at least not beyond the point where public schools could plausibly get students. He saved $5000, which speaks well of the ability to get out of debt.
So really, is the tough thing supporting children or drug addictions?
Everything I've seen stresses the difficulty of working with children -- how much of the poverty problem can be solved by helping people avoid having children when they clearly aren't ready for them?
That's a serious value-neutral question.
I'm surprised no one has commented on the obvious - that working for a moving company takes attributes that not everyone has, and that it's actually a pretty good way to make money for someone with no skills, about $22,000/yr, on average, if my google-fu is accurate.
Iow, this is not a $5.50/hr Walmart job, and it is in no way surprising that a single young man - I'm guessing this Adam Fellow at least average height and weight or better - can do this, at least for a few years.
But. It's a physically demanding job, one that favors the young, and one that few people will be doing into their 40's unless they're bossing the crew. A lot of construction falls into this category, btw, at least the type that I am familiar with: Good pay (relatively speaking) for the young and unskilled, but not something you can depend upon for the rest of your life unless you become a successful contractor employing others, which requires another, different skill set.
So no, I don't think that Barbara Ehrenreich was thinking of large, strong young men as being the sort she was writing about (I'm wondering if our hero, Adam, is going to suggest that those people at Merry Maids should just get some 'initiative' and start moving furniture, instead of being loser whiner-babies.)
And no, even by his own story, Adam wasn't working a particularly low-paying job, though it might seem so to his target audience. I bet they read this little performance art piece of his and eat it right up.
Most of the complaints here seem to center around the fact that not everyone can do what Adam Shepard and Adam's friend Derrick did. Not everyone is young, healthy, childless, and good with money. And while that's certainly true, I also wonder whether that means that the poverty crisis is not so much economic as it is something different. I don't mean this to sound insensitive, but, in general, what seems to keep people in truly abject poverty in America these days seems to be the choices they make.
Allow me to offer up a personal experience. I work part time as a parking ticket hearing officer for the city of Hartford, CT and a young woman came into who's car had just been towed because she owed over $800 in parking tickets. She was in tears because she had no money and she needed the car to pick up her daughter at the end of the day, a daughter who happened to be over an hour away. I felt bad for the woman and did what I could to help her, but I couldn't just eliminate all her parking tickets because that's the sort of thing that would cost me my job. I did what I could and left the case in the hand's of the city attorneys, who are paid much better money than I am to deal with these sorts of situations.
Now while I felt sorry for the women, the parking tickets were all of her own doing- they were for not having money in the meter, as she chose to park at the meter outside the restaurant where she worked rather than pay $7.00 to park in the parking lot. She accumulated 12 tickets since the start of 2008, none of which she had paid.
To top it all off, the woman's daughter was over an hour away because that's where she lived- she was commuting over an hour to work as a waitress. I asked her- politely- why she didn't park in the lot and she said it was because she had to spend all her extra money on food for her child and gas to get to work.
Like I said, the situation today sucked in so many ways. And yeah, the young woman didn't have it easy. But at the same time, she was in trouble because of the poor choices she had made. The truth is too, the more wealthy your background, the more you're shielded from the poor choices you make, but I've never seen a non-Marxist answer to addressing that sort of problem. Meanwhile, when it comes to the poor, short of actually running their lives, how do you force people to make the right decisions?
I'm not saying that there aren't cases of bad luck- accidents, unexpected health problems, unexpected layoffs- that can set people back, but stories like Adam's and Derrick's, along with personal experience, seem to show that people suffering setbacks can get back on track while people who struggle to make the right choices continue to struggle with poverty. I don't even mean to suggest the government has no role in ending poverty (although I'm not sure what the government's role should be), I'm only pointing out that poverty is always talked about in economic terms and maybe economics and money aren't really the issues.
I also wonder whether that means that the poverty crisis is not so much economic as it is something different. I don't mean this to sound insensitive, but, in general, what seems to keep people in truly abject poverty in America these days seems to be the choices they make.
Oh, zip up that Nomex suit...you're asking for it now....
I wanted to comment on the last story, where Shepard offers his labor for a free trial period to try to overcome the risk of hiring someone with no work history.
This type of discounting is very normal reaction to managing risk -- if you want someone to take a risk, you try to reduce the cost for him. Not sure you want to try our product? We'll give you a free sample. In this case, he agreed to work for free to convince the manager he was a good worker. This makes sense -- to emerge from homelessness and to get a job with no skills and no work history, one needs to be willing to give a bit of a discount on your labor, at least at first, to get someone to give you a chance.
But here is the interesting part -- the arrangement Curtis and Adam Shepard made is ILLEGAL. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which includes Federal minimum wage law, does not allow Curtis to accept unpaid labor and does not even allow Mr. Shepard to offer it. The fact that the deal makes so much sense and it so clearly is in the mutual best interest of both parties is absolutely irrelevant under the law. Fast Company could be busted, should the DOL choose to focus its attention their way.
When people argue that the minimum wage is most harmful to the poor, because it prices the first rung of the labor ladder beyond what their minimal skills can justify, this is what they mean.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Planned Parenthood will pretty much give you birth control pills and condoms if you ask. Plus, accidents happen.
Its there. People don't do it for a variety of reasons, but the govt. isn't going to "help" people not have kids when they aren't interested in preventing it.
A lot of people's sexual behavior is as far from rational as it can get. I know several women who went to a pretty expensive (25k a year a decade ago) private college who pretty much took a Molotov cocktail to their lives through some very poor choices re: the men they married and their attitude towards birth control.
Nickel and Dimed gave those of us who have never lived in poverty some valuable real life examples of how that condition can be self perpetuating. It was not a scientific study, and though it's been a while since I read it, I don't think Ehrenreich ever claims it is. Certainly she never says it's impossible for anyone to ever escape poverty. That would of course be a ridiculous thing to say.
Scent,
Iow, this is not a $5.50/hr Walmart job
Er, in 2001, Walmart's median hourly wage was just under $9. For a full-time position, that's about $18,000 per year. That was seven years ago. It is certainly higher than that now, probably at least double your figure, and certainly around $22,000/year, which you yourself characterize as "pretty good" for someone with no skills.
I think I remember reading a study somewhere which showed a lot of the "drag" on people in poverty wasn't so much due to their individual choices, but that they had someone in the family who was on drugs, violent, an addict, etc. Or, if you're female, you end up taking care of elderly parents. (Note the link between poverty and certain chronic illnesses such as diabetes as well.)
And may I point out that Adam dropped his schtick when there was a family illness to go deal with? I would have been far more impressed with his tale of "pulling himself up by his bootstraps" if he had weathered at least one family crisis under the same circumstances.
The question remains -- what do we do about them?
The question remains -- why do anything about them?
Exactly, Grumpy. This kid hardly faced 'real life' problems, in fact, as you point out, when that happened, he dropped the schtick. Here's something relevant to the poverty trap angle:
I'm guessing that the archetype for a lot of people is some single person, probably male, probably not a very nice one, or polite one, and that's what they respond to unconsciously when they label this class 'shiftless' or 'irresponsible' or 'selfish'. And you know, I agree that the people who fit that profile probably need a qood swift kick in the rear, not more sympathy and yet another chance to abuse(unfortunately, I happen to know this type very well, and in the best of circumstances, they would not be known as exemplary citizens.)
The other archetype that figures prominently - and probably just as unconsciously - is 'single parent, subtype unskilled'(and - surprise! - I just happen to know a lot of people who figure into this category. Trust me, they deserve any help you can give them.) And those are the ones that prefigure in the philosophy that 'something must be done'.
If the first archetype is what comes to mind, quite possibly you're a 'conservative'; it it's the second, just as possibly you're a 'liberal'.
So it seems as if the difficulty is in sorting out the two.
Well, David, to be blunt, you need to learn some humility about your choice of words. Are you teachable in this respect? Are you just not humble enough to acknowledge that this might be the case?
Yes, it behooves them to be "grateful" for help, because nobody should be an ingrate. When people help you, are you grateful? Are you an ingrate? I hope not. And they should be "humble", because (a) they failed on their own, and (b) humility is an important part of learning. When you fail, does this swell your chest with pride? Or does it make you feel low, which in turn leads you to learn how to succeed? Well, when I fail, it makes me feel bad -- humbled.
As for "democracy", nobody has said that people that accept public charity should not be allowed to vote. Humility and democracy are totally unrelated things. A humble man may vote, and an arrogant man may vote as well. But, since you mentioned it... I will say it: people who accept public money -- not just charity, but any money, including military pay, farm subsidies, government contracts, or government salaries of any kind -- should not be allowed to vote. That they can vote distorts democracy, because what man will vote against his own livelihood?
But his project actually failed -- he had to bail on the project early to care for his sick mother who lacked health insurance.
ScentOfViolets:
I think you would agree that Archetype #1 often end up having children. However, it would seem, by doing so, they instantly move into Archetype #2. Would you agree that more needs to be done to try and prevent people who don't have the skills to be a parent, or the resources to raise a child, from having children?
Can you think of a healthy (both mentally and physically), childless, sober, young person, who is desperatly poor?
Having worked at Subway, Wal Mart, and delivering pizzas, I was bothered by 'Nickled and Dimed.' I did not understand why anyone would STAY in those jobs. You do service industry to pay the bills while you look for other opportunities. At the very least, move up to nicer restaurants, become a bartender, be a kitchen manager, etc. The conceit that any job that someone ever has MUST pay a 'living wage' is a big obstacle to understanding how things work. Jobs need to be done, and someone has to do them. You don't have to like it.
Sure, there's people who work their whole lives as waitresses and bartenders, but for the most part people do it as a phase. Then they move on. Anyone who's worked at a restaurant knows that staff turnover is high. I don't still make sandwiches for a living. I landed a job at the local library, and then decided to get a degree when I didn't get promoted because I didn't have one. I graduate in April.
Generally, people who look out for themselves do better than people who expect someone to help them. People who are open to opportunity do better than people in a rut. If the only skill you have is making sandwiches, you need to re-evaluate what you're doing! If you have other skills, find a better job after you pay the rent.
If you hate your job, quit! It's not the end of the world. I found that at the bottom of the labor market, there was usually nowhere to go but up. Losing a bad job is an opportunity, and you're motivated.
One does not have to be "at least average height and weight or better" or particularly "large" or "strong" to be a moving man, though youth certainly helps. I'm 6'1", weighed 130 when I graduated from high school, and have never voluntarily participated in any organized or unorganized sport more strenuous than croquet, being a total nerd and bookworm. I spent the four summers after high school paying my way through college working 50-70 hours a week for Mayflower. The first few days were certainly difficult and unpleasant, especially since the temperature was in the 90s most days (this was in Norfolk and Virginia Beach). By the second summer I was driving a packing truck and by the third I was driving a tractor-trailer, though only locally. (The regular drivers would spend a week on the road, then come home to say hello to their wives and kids and sleep for a couple of days, while I and a couple of helpers emptied their trailers at 2-3 different houses, then filled them up at 2-3 more for the next trip west or south. They didn't go north because it depressed them to pay union helpers more than they were making themselves. I didn't get to drive the big diesel tractors, but used a relatively small gas one instead.)
If you know what you're doing (e.g. lift with the legs, carry heavy loads on your back whenever possible, slide couches through doorways on pads), use the 2-wheel and 4-wheel dollies and humpstrap, and pace yourself, even a skinny nerd can move furniture. It's actually your legs and feet that get most of the wear and tear, especially when a house is set way back from the road or you're moving an 3rd- or 4th-floor walkup. In short, it doesn't take much brute strength, just a fair amount of endurance, to move furniture professionally. It helps if you can resist the urge to drink or smoke dope on the job, like some of my colleagues: they broke a lot of furniture.
A little counterexample:
I shunned fraternities and drank only rarely and lightly in college, and graudated with an engineering degree at the unfortunate time of May 2002. I pursued employment aggressively in multiple states after completing additional post-grad work in December 2003. I faithfully attended my school's Career Day events in a suit and tie, passed out resumes to a wide range of employers both there and elsewhere (including many employers that had relevant positions in their companies even though the work didn't interest me so much), maintained an active account with a placement agency and attempted to establish an account with a second one in a different geographic region, and watched money trickle out my fingers like sand.
In between December 2003 and the start of my first full-time job in May 2007, I worked several temp jobs and did a signficant amount of independent consulting/contract work. Every job I worked during that period was linked into via networking, while every cold resume-drop and cold call I attempted either fell through, or produced an interview but no offer. All told, I received one second interview due entirely to networking, and then received three offers, also the fruits of networking, in a short time period as the economy was finally picking up. I declined two on account of personal and economic factors and accepted the third, hence the job I am working now.
During a strong economic period, or if you are a skilled professional with years of valuable experience, then sure -- you can get a job out of the blue simply by knocking on enough doors. In less favorable circumstances (which is basically the plight of the poor persons under consideration), good networking is imeprative for moving forward and upward.
Actually, #1 does not typically morph into #2, the point of difference being, I am ashamed to say, gender. Yes, there are certainly single parent males, but they tend to be a rather small fraction of the total. And, again, I am ashamed to say, if they are single parents, that probably means they were Archetype 1 for a relatively short period of time before they woke up and smelled the coffee. For females, it's just a little bit harder to escape responsibility.
But yes, I emphatically agree that those who don't have the skills, the inclinations, and the resources should by all means be discouraged from having children. Fortunately, in a great many cases, this seems amenable to a technological solution, or soon will be.
I don't know what you mean by desperately poor, unfortunately. I had a lot less 40 years ago, but on the other hand, I needed a lot less(in fact, I thought I had it pretty good . . . the demands and impulses of youth being what they are, sigh.) But in any case, lacking skills, I was rather poor, definitely in the lowest quintile in terms of earnings.
Needless to say, I soon became discontent, or bored, and moved on to other things. It helped that I was young, could take a lot of abuse, and had absolutely zero obligations to anyone but myself. Isn't that the pattern for a lot of people though?
Something about splinters and beams comes to mind at this juncture...
No, anony-mouse, I don't think so. I really don't think so. Use your head on this one, eh?
Note: I don't celebrate that humility is tied so closely to learning. I just observe it's a fact of human nature. Our sense of compassion may lead us to try to alleviate the pain associated humiliation. At times, such compassion may lead us to do more harm than good.
So then who takes the old jobs? Are you maintaining that somehow, there will always be someone even less skilled to take them over? Iow, what you are advocating on the micro scale may not make sense on the macro scale.
And the problem with _that_ little premise is, quite simply, a big obstacle to understanding how things _really_ work. The libertarian ideal is that employer and employee meet on a level playing field, there is a certain 'natural' equilibrium that determines wages, etc., which sounds fine and dandy, but it Just Ain't So.
Yes, jobs need to be done, and yes someone has to do them. But the fact of the matter is, if you can't find someone to do the job at the wages you're offering, you can either go out of business, or you can raise the pay of the job you need to be done.
You most emphatically cannot hire illegals, and then glibly explain that they're doing the jobs that Americans just won't do, but nevertheless need to be done. No, you need to offer enough incentive to make it worthwhile to an employee.
This is a specific example to make the more general point that what's being done is often not being adequately compensated for, and that seems to be a general failure of the marketplace. The converse, of course, is also true, that in many cases people are being paid too much for the actual work that they do.
Speaking as a numbers sort of person myself, I think you need to justify what you said, give some reasons for why you believe this to be true, before I can commit myself one way or the other.
I will say that in some instances (relatively few, percentage-wise, I would guess) the problem is precisely that 'humility' is what 'the poor' have already had a bellyful of.
But that's getting ahead; explain your reasoning, please.
ScentOfViolets:
Would you agree that if you find yourself 30 year old and poor (here defined as a single person making less than $10,400 a year) - and you're mentally and physically healthy, then you must have done something wrong?
By wrong I mean things like - you're a really bad judge of charcter i.e. you were a 15yo girl who really thought your 19yo boyfriend loved you. Or, maybe you should have gone home and studied, but instead you went out drinking with your buddies, etc.
ScentOfViolets:
Oh, and I don't mean wrong in a moral sense. I don't think drinking or having sex is wrong(even for teenagers). I mean wrong in the sense of doing the wrong things with the wrong people at the wrong time.
Jmo:
You should probably add a proviso: if you're 30 and living on less than $10,000/year because you have freely chosen to spend your time writing a book or painting or playing in a band or surfing or being a priest or nun or 'activist', that doesn't count as failure. It's only if you would like to be financially successful but are a (financial) failure at 30 that you should be wondering what you did wrong along the way. Otherwise, you've just chosen to compete in a different league, and 30 is a little young to give up dreams of (e.g.) artistic success and look for a job selling insurance. Unless you have kids, of course, in which case you'd better switch to part-time art and full-time work.
Well, David, to be blunt, you need to learn some humility about your choice of words. Are you teachable in this respect? Are you just not humble enough to acknowledge that this might be the case?
Bow down before me! Humble yourself! You will not be safe from the Almighty Bunghole! I am Cornholio! Humiliate yourself!
Dr. Weevil,
Loved your story. I had a somewhat similar experience. I had dropped out of grad school (sociology, what was I thinking?) to enter the work force (grad school burnout, won't bore you). I was doing contract web design for 1-2 months, and then landed a FT job writing training modules for a web-based training company. I got that job someone in the neighborhood that I just moved into. But after 1.5 years, the company shut down the office, and I was out of work for 6 months. During this time, I defended my thesis (all that was left), graduated, and got a job that I had applied for 8 months earlier (doing data analysis). 1.5 years later, they laid off 1/4 of the company, which included me and my boss. In the next 6 months, I interviewed 16 times. I interviewed for jobs that I was overqualified for, jobs that paid $10/hour, just to get the opportunity to work. It was demoralizing. Being unemployed stinks, and I feel for those who are. But while I was employed I didn't run up large debts, I had saved some money, I had networks that helped out charity-wise, and I've returned the favor now that I'm doing better.
And I couldn't have gone on if I had given up.
So then who takes the old jobs?
Deadbeats and Mexicans. :)
More seriously -- if there isn't an sufficient pool of labor to take the old jobs, one of three things will happen:
(1): The salary for the old job will be increased to make it more attractive to people who could be doing something else.
(2): Employers lower their standards to increase the size of the labor pool
(3): The job, if it isn't particularly necessary to the employer, is eliminated because nobody can be found to fill it.
Now it may be that in an economy in which everyone was busting their ass to get ahead, truly ambitious people might end up trapped in a job as a McDonald's fry-cook because equally ambitious but smarter and better-skilled people have taken all the good jobs. But we'll never know, because that world has never existed and shows no signs of ever existing. Here in the real America there are tens of millions of people who approach their lives in a half-assed, unambitious manner. Those are the people who end up working the cash register at Albertson's Supermarket for 25 years while people with no more skills or intelligence -- but more personal ambition -- cruise past them and land better jobs.
"And may I point out that Adam dropped his schtick when there was a family illness to go deal with?"
In other words, he declared the experiment a success stopped it at the first first sign of negative results. Or I guess other poor people trying to work themselves out of poverty never have relatives getting sick in ways that nobody has any control over.
And people take this seriously?????
My favorite comment, on surfing the web and reading all the left-wing naysayers commenting on the book, is "Well, he's a white male and he is college educated and is well spoken, so it's not a good example."
Have these people not noticed all those Mexican immigrants, who are not white, don't speak English, and don't have college degrees, who manage to work here, often for sub-minimum wage, and not only survive, but save up enough to regularly send money home to support their families.
Some people do that; other people whine about not being paid a living wage.
The immigrant comment is great. If low end jobs really are such a bottomless pit, why is it that immigrants come to the country illegally in order to take jobs that are even worse than the low end jobs?
I posted last night that problems with poverty are more about people's choices than about actual economics and the whole notion of immigration really helps convince me of that. Maybe there's more we need to do for the poor in this country, maybe not. But what I'd ask the left is this: At what point does poverty become more about bad choices than wealth?
David,
Does Drew pay his Mexicans sub-minimum wage? I haven't seen any rigorous data on the salaries of illegal immigrants, but all the anecdotal information I've seen suggests that most of them are earning significantly more than minimum wage. A recent NYT story, for example, pegged the going rate for busboys at diners at $10 per hour. Mexicans in the construction trades (before the real estate bust sent many home) probably averaged $12-$15 or more per hour.
It is possible for anyone who is sufficiently talented to succeed in the United States. Good or bad luck can make it easier or more difficult. Jim Cramer lived out of his car for a while. Now he's filthy rich. I went to high school with a guy whose father immigrated to the US with $40 in his pocket and no English. He became successful enough to send his kid to an expensive private school.
My own father grew up in rural East Texas and was fairly poor and from a poor family who were not successful. His father was unemployed and alcoholic and his mother worked at low-paying jobs to make ends meet. He is now a high level director at a big company. He still has not bought a new car. He pays cash for used cars. When I was a kid and he was paying for my school, he bought 10-15 year old cars and worked on them. Now he buys 2-3 year old cars.
=============================================
What the heck is wrong with humility? I have generally understood it to be a virtue:
Pride, on the other hand, is generally seen as a vice:
When one is receiving charity or assistance, one should feel some humility. This doesn't mean that one should feel worthless or "bad"... just humble.
=============================================
While Adam's experiement is interesting, I don't fault him for stopping to take care of a sick family. Family should be more important than making a point. It would have strengthened his point to stick with it, but at the cost of family.
=============================================
I would like to see the government provide a safety net to take care of those who are having trouble providing for themselves. I would like this safety net to provide a minimum of support, though. It should offer just enough to keep one alive and allow one to get out of poverty, but not enough to be comfortable.
The only exception I would make is for children. I would love to see more childcare options for the poor. I don't really want to see children suffering for the bad decisions of their parents. I'm not sure what form such assistance should take, thoug... perhaps public day care centers and after school programs.
"I'm not sure what form such assistance should take"
Orphanages would be best. Republicans were mocked for this suggestion a decade ago, but it makes sense for a few reasons. First, it's easier to supervise children and make sure they are well-treated in an orphanage than in foster homes. Second, it removes the incentive for the poor to have children in order to receive public assistance. Third, it can break the cycle of poverty by taking children out of dysfunctional environments. An orphanage need not be Dickensian.
I now work retail with the archtypes that were detailed in "Nickled and Dimed". This is not fluffy-puffy make-work for college students. The work and conditions are real and last for years. Your outlook changes greatly when you view the road ahead and there is no escape. It's easy to be hopeful and deride the poor when one isn't. Kind of like the South when discussing their "peculiar institution".
WalMart only has a few employees on full-time. The rest are part-time and the hours vary. So, you might be paid $9.00/hour. How many hours did you get this week?
Kid proved his gutlessness by bailing at the first sign of difficulty. I work with women that take care of grands, parents, and disabled spouses. They labor at the job and then do the next shift at home. He is a typical chickenhawk.
There is a complaint:
From the original article:
Yes, he ended his experiment after ten months because his mother got sick, but he had already met or exceeded his goal for the year before that point. And I am guessing that he went home to a better and higher paying job at that point. So you may want to shift the goal post, but he met his goal.
I am a brown-skinned immigrant who came to the US as a student with two suitcases and a few hundred dollars and have done very well for myself. There are countless immigrants from my country who come here with no education, no belongings or wealth and no sense of entitlement - but plenty of ambition. With their attitude, they make plenty of sacrifices, work very hard, and lift themselves out of poverty and into the middle class, while raising families and sending money to relatives in their home countries.
The US has admitted about a million legal immigrants every year for the last 40 years, most of them from the Third World. And millions more try very hard to get in illegally! What do these people know that the rest of us don't seem to grasp?
There are so many exceptions to what you are outlining that I really couldn't comment(for example, on could simply choose to take the road less travelled.)
But let me address your two specific examples: a fifteen-year-old girl who (presumably) gets pregnant, drops out of school and into a bad living arrangement, choosing to have a baby instead of an abortion(assuming that option is available)? You've got to be kidding me. That's a child, not an adult. The guy who went out drinking, never(again presumably) graduated?
Oh, don't get me wrong, those are bad decisions, but they are bad decisions made by young people, and more importantly, this is just _one_ bad decision.
Oh yes, one bad mistake can definitely alter the rest of your life, turning it irrevocably down a much darker, seamier path.
But that's just the point: one bad mistake shouldn't be enough. Or two or three, for that matter. And in my opinion, that is what separates the 'deserving poor' from the rest of us. The girl who was pregnant at fifteen, alone in the world at seventeen, an abandoned mother with a two-year-old? I've known people like that, people who had the support of family who went back home to live with their parents, who enrolled in school and graduated, and moved on to get a masters in finance before they were 26. I've also known people like that who are not allowed to come home, who have no support at all, who have to live with the consequences of that mistake (at fifteen!) all their lives.
Iow, it's not that these people don't take responsibility for their mistakes (it's kind of impossible for them not too), it's that people who are better positioned (many of them calling for some of that 'personal responsibility') are often able to evade the consequences of those same mistakes.
I know one no-longer-young lady who was expelled three different times from three different schools before she graduated finally. Yes, it took her that long to grow up. No, she did not have to live with the consequences of her first three (big) mistakes. And yes, she's settled down, productive, and a 'success'. Also, unfortunately, one of those types who rails against the irresponsibility of the lower classes, and what they need is some tough lovin'.
Oh, and again from personal experience, I also know, or rather, have known, more than a few of the undeserving poor. And yeah, they're that way because of bad decisions, in fact a whole string of bad decisions which seem to be based upon a fundamental and unpleasant defect of character - think Bush the lesser without the family connections - and there really isn't a lot you can do for them, other than rounding them up and putting them in some sort of work camp. Iow, dim-witted, poor, unconnected psychopaths as opposed to smart, well-heeled psychopaths.
(4) Illegal aliens are found to do the job, because 'there are some jobs that Americans just won't do' (for the miserable pay that I'm offering.) Isn't that a real-world scenario?
Pardon me, but how could you possibly know this? Is it your gut that's informing you? Some sort of ideological 'theory'? Or do you have the facts of the matter close at hand, research you've done (or others who have), scholarship, cites, facts?
We already know that those jobs need to be done. We also know that the likely-hood of the supply of new, unskilled labor just happening to match at all times the number of positions available as cashiers, fry cooks, stockers is rather remote. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not the default position to assume.
Don't mistake this for an either/or proposition by the way. It would be a fallacy of the excluded middle to assume that both facts couldn't be true at the same time - and others as well. Are there people stuck through no fault of their own in these dead-end positions, competent, up-and-at'em people? Undoubtedly. Are there millions of these lazy, unambitious people just coasting, using up all their disposal income on booze, cigarettes, and lottery tickets when there is surely enough left over at the end of the month to make some sort of a go at a realistic savings plan?
You better believe it. And are there lazy, unambitious people working at well-paying jobs, jobs not generally available to, shall we say, a certain strata of society? Brother, I've met a _lot_ of those types.
Tell me, what should we do with them? How shall we deal with the problem of these people taking up good jobs that other people, more ambitious, more skilled people should by all rights have?
What's your solution to that problem?
ScentofViolets:
As someone who at the age of 15 was hyper-aware of the consequences of my actions, I have a hard time sympathizing with those who threw caution to the wind.
The person I'm thinking of won a free ride baseball scholorship to a good school. He partied too hard and flunked out after two semesters. He's now busting his ass as a roofer. I can't help but think; society gave you your chance and you blew it.
Therefore, I guess the biggest difference between us is how many chances we feel society owes to each individual. I would argue that society owes you one chance, if you cock it up you're on your own.
Right. Let's carry out the full twelve-month experiment: at ten months, young Adam had a car, $5,000 in the bank, rising prospects. At eleven months, three weeks, Adam was broke and working the 11-to-7 shift at the local convenience store, have exhausted his savings on deductibles and co-pays. To make ends meet, he took a second job, which caused him to oversleep, and the second time he did so, his boss remarked that if Adam didn't take his job seriously enough to show up on time, he'd find someone else who did. When Adam tried to explain his situation, that his Mom was sick and that he was only getting four hours of sleep on the weekdays, his boss cut him off, rubbed his first and middle fingers together and said "Here that? That's the worlds saddest song being played on the worlds smallest violin. You're personal life is your own affair. Not get out there and get to work. And if you're late one more time, you're fired."
jmo,
Maybe your friend didn't have the interested or aptitude for college anyway. If so, it's too bad he couldn't have put that scholarship money toward something else, e.g., equipment and training to start his own roofing business.
You're asking for a simple answer to very complex question. But to the extent that you want a simple solution, my reply is this: just as the law takes the liberal position of innocent until proven guilty, the equally liberal position would be that we assume the best until the worst becomes very apparent.
As an illustration: my mother's daughter does a lot of do-gooder work, God bless her, and among other jobs, she's been employed by the state as a social worker. One day she came home at 10:30, crying mad. Seems that someone who had a good sob story, someone she had worked long, unpaid hours for, someone she told me was going to make good, just wait and see (said in a rather gloating fashion, I'm afraid), had come in around 10:00 smelling strongly of alcohol and demanded to see her. Turns out that he had shown up to work at 8:00, and by 9:30 had been told by the shift supervisor to go home and not come back. This fellow, reeking, and reeling, and self-righteous, had demanded, demanded, to know what sort of grievance procedure who could start up against these guys. Said that someone there must have 'had it in for him', and that he was going to sue them for ten million dollars, goddamnit, and this was his meal-ticket, they'd know not to mess with him and on and on and on until she could get him out of her office.
That guy? Yeah. You're right about him. Other people? Maybe not so much.
I don't see how that matters. We had a recent quote in the local paper about how a certain commercial animal operation used illegals because 'Americans just wouldn't do the work', and they was paying, I think, about $12/hr. So what? Did he try offering $20/hr, or $30/hr? The bottom line was that he wasn't willing to pay enough money for people to work.
How could you possibly disagree with this?
If it's such a big virtue, how come we don't see more of it? Specifically, how come we don't see more of it from _you_? Or is it just a virtue in other people?
And that's totally okay. What I don't understand is why don't we just let these people do what they want and deal with whatever consequences result?
Why do we feel we have to "fix" them, or "help" them? Likely because they are ranting that this really isn't the reason they are where they are.
Yes, but a legal failure more than a market one don't you think?
I assume you're referring to government, politics, and/or academia, as those commonly are places where you don't usually have to play a positive part in creating wealth to get promoted, have tenure, or avoid being fired.
I say do away with all three. ;)
That guy? Yeah. You're right about him. Other people? Maybe not so much.
Speaking for myself, the problem I see with the Leftist crowd is the refusal to accept or acknoledge that the former even exist.
That guy? Yeah. You're right about him. Other people? Maybe not so much.
Speaking for myself, the problem I see with the Leftist crowd is the refusal to accept or acknowledge that the former even exist.
I think you've hit on one of the major causes of poverty. People from dysfunctional families are often surrounded by dysfunctional people who are constantly holding them back. They have a diabetic mother who won't follow her doctors advise to control her blood sugar. They have the drug addict brother who is always in trouble and always in need of money.
At some point, I honestly think, people need to cut the ties to those that are holding them down.
Uh-huh. The clear implication being, among other things, that fifteen-year-olds should be allowed to drive, vote, and drink legally. Is that really your position? That is very definitely a minority opinion, in my experience.
The problem with this is all the other people who had more than one chance. People all around you who you probably know, who would be one of those poor people if they had not had a second, a third, a fourth chance.
Tell me, jmo, have you _never_ made a mistake? From the way you post here, that seems very, very unlikely. Could we have a few biographical details, please?
Tell me, why is it that certain people should _not_ have to suffer the consequences of their actions? Don't you have even a small problem with this?
No, it's the one you just attributed to him.
You disagree that an average fifteen-year-old can understand that some decisions might be bad and/or have far-reaching consequences?
What the?!?!?! Where did that come from? Is it a problem or is it not? And if it's a problem, how do you propose to fix it? Your response is hardly a serious answer.
Now there's someone to be taken seriously. TF, no one is forcing you to reply here. If you can't take the trouble to take the time to think, and think carefully before you reply, why should I, or anyone else bother to listen to you?
Instead, you sound exactly like those poor people you think are so irresponsible. But perhaps having more (I would guess a lot more) chances?
Now, do be a good fellow and try to form a coherent response.
How many times do I have to say that I am not a 'Leftist' before it sinks in?
Oh well, SoV is here... time to move on.
Do you have a job? Shouldn't you be doing it?
Life is never going to be fair nor is everyone going to have the same opportunities. The government can't fix this. Some people are going to have advantages due to their circumstances.
As a society, we should work to help the unlucky to become self sufficient.
Adam had no obligation to let his sick relative suffer just so that he could make a point. He did have the choice and he made the right one. You can dismiss his success if you want, but he wasn't proving a general rule, just making an example.
How many times do I have to say that I am not a 'Leftist' before it sinks in?
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
As a former addict I can say that not having a family to fall back on was the main reason I'm here today. Many of my former friends are still addicts because they have parents who won't cut them off.
The risk in having the government play the roll of enabling parent is that people won't be forced to make painful changes.
I'm certain that you would agree that some point - after 1 change or after 100 - society will have to cut you loose.
How many times do I have to say that I am not a 'Leftist' before it sinks in?
Applying mathematical logic (which which I trust we are all familiar) to TF's statement that leftists do not acknowledge "that guy," we see that he considers being a leftist a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for failure to acknowledge. This of course means that failure to acknowledge is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being identified as a leftist.
Hence the TF leftist-identification syllogism:
Nobody who acknowledges "that guy" is a leftist.
SoV acknowleges "that guy."
Therefore, SoV is not a leftist.
I'm surprised to see that the opposite conclusion was drawn by a mathematician, no less.
Sigh. No. The correct formulation is: If someone is a leftist, they will not acknowledge condition X (or, alternatively, leftists will not acknowledge condition X.) The contrapositive is, if someone acknowledges condition X then they are not a conservative.
You do know what a contrapositive is, right?
As for the rest, no, I do not have to work today, because we had our first major exam last night, but yes, I am going to go into the office to check my mail, and I have seventy-odd exams to grade, so I'm going to get started soon.
So let me get this straight: a fifteen-year-old is easily mature, enough, adult enough, to make a very complex, difficult decision about whether to have an abortion, to give the child up for adoption, or try to make of go of it(a decision I've seen 30-plus-year-olds agonize over and still get wrong, despite being very successful otherwise.) But she is _not_ mature enough to go in to pull the lever for the party of choice candidate, because that's just how her family and neighbors vote? Or to drive (something myself and most kids had been doing for many months if not more than a year before that magic age, at least where I come from.)
Do you have any idea how detached from reality that makes you look?
if someone acknowledges condition X then they are not a conservative.
I suspect that "conservative" should be "leftist."
SoV, you can be as condescending as you like on style, but I don't see how you've disagreed with me on substance.
I have seventy-odd exams to grade
I suggest that if a student wrote something correct, but phrased differently than you would have phrased it, you write "Sigh" next to it along with a pompous question like "You do know what a contrapositive is, right?"
How many times do I have to say that I am not a 'Leftist' before it sinks in?
Keep trying, apparently.
Snarkiness aside, my comment was not intended to attempt to jab at - or even identify - your political persuasion. I was just using your comment as a springboard to air my peeve. As Rob pointed out, I didn't think my comment would be misunderstood since you indeed do acknowledge "that guy." Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
What the?!?!?! Where did that come from? Is it a problem or is it not? And if it's a problem, how do you propose to fix it? Your response is hardly a serious answer.
I was just trying to get a jump start, as it's only a matter of time before someone (a 'Leftist', no doubt) cries "market failure!" whenever a problem exists.
So let me get this straight: a fifteen-year-old is easily mature, enough, adult enough, to make a very complex, difficult decision about whether to have an abortion, to give the child up for adoption, or try to make of go of it(a decision I've seen 30-plus-year-olds agonize over and still get wrong, despite being very successful otherwise.) But she is _not_ mature enough to go in to pull the lever for the party of choice candidate, because that's just how her family and neighbors vote? Or to drive (something myself and most kids had been doing for many months if not more than a year before that magic age, at least where I come from.)
Many 15 year olds are easily mature enough to at least avoid situations where they could become pregnant, commit a crime, etc where they could end up in over their head.
Many adults "pull the lever for the party of choice candidate, because that's just how her family and neighbors vote." Like you just said, many 15-ers drive. Let me add some more: you can hold a student pilot license at 16, and a private pilot license at 17. You seem to be making my point for me, and I think you're responding to arguments I'm not making. I'm not defending voting or driving laws. I'm just giving teenagers more credit (and responsibility) than you are.
"You seem to be making my point for me, and I think you're responding to arguments I'm not making. "
That seems to be habit of SoV. See, for example, his comment in response to mine where I pointed out that the meme that illegals work for sub-minimum wage appears to be false.
Scent,
Why do you consistently accuse those who refer to humility as a virtue as lacking in humility? What does your correspondent's humility or lack thereof have to do with anything we're discussing? The most arrogant prig in the world can still believe that humility is a virtue that leads to self-improvement. His pride and lack of humility tells us nothing about the validity of his beliefs about the efficacy of humility.
You've questioned my assertions that the virtues of gratitude and humility are necessary to bring about positive changes in people. (We've been talking about the poor, but I believe this is true of most people without regard to their financial wellbeing.) You've also demanded proof that government programs at times make it more difficult to acquire these virtues. These questions do not lend themselves to resolution through double-blind studies, so I cannot offer the proof you demand. All I can offer is the evidence of my own experience and note that my claims are consistent with the conclusions of most careful observers of the human condition.
About 20 years ago, my wife and I graduated from school and I accepted my first "real" job with a major CPA firm. We carefully planned the use of the little money we had so it would last until my first paycheck arrived. I knew that the firm paid twice a month, on the 7th and the 21st. I started work on the 1st and we expected our first paycheck on the 7th. On the 7th, we learned that the 1st paycheck would come on the 21st.
To make a long story short, we quickly ran out of cash. My wife kept me blissfully ignorant of the situation until she called at work on or about the 14th. She was in tears. A women from our church had dropped by to welcome us to the area. While they chatted in our small kitchen, the women started opening the cupboards, which were bare. We had a little milk, a couple slices of bread, and some peanut butter. The woman asked, "What are you going to fix your husband and children for supper?" She, through the church, provided us with enough food to last the rest of the month.
I tear up with gratitude every time I think of that experience. God bless that woman for taking the time to visit and being willing to be intrusive enough to open up our empty cupboards! God bless those who contributed of their own resources to make it possible for the church to provide us with food! In part out of gratitude, in our relative abundance, my wife and I give monthly to allow the church to continue to help those in need.
Did we have a right to expect such help? No, and that's why we were so grateful. That gratitude lead us to be humbled by such unexpected and undeserved generosity. We learned a lot of important lessons from this experience. Our errors were not the result of malice but but of ignorance, but our problems were still largely of our own making. Had my wife shared her concerns about our food shortage, I could have asked my parents for help (we lived in another state and, before the internet, it would have taken at least three days for a check to arrive from my parents) or I could have skipped lunch at work (company policy required that I eat lunch at restaurants). Had I taken a closer interest in our finances, we might have avoided the problem. Had we maintained a cash reserve, instead of spending every penny in anticipation of my 1st paycheck.... Etc., etc. We learned and we changed. We've faced a lot of financial crises since then, but nothing we could not handle and nothing quite so urgent.
Given my profession, I've worked -- pro bono -- with dozens of people helping them resolve their own financial problems. Sec. 8 housing subsidies, WIC and other food assistance programs, etc., were theirs by right. Too often, they weren't grateful for this help and never humbled themselves enough to acknowledge that their own actions may have contributed to their problem. (Often they didn't think they had a problem. They only spoke with me because their case worker had suggested I might be able to help.) Too often, they choose to focus on what others had done rather than what they could do better. (One example, a father lost his job because, after being told not to by his boss, he took the day off to attend the wedding of a close friend. The man had a history of poor attendance and was already on probation. He told me his employer shouldn't have the right to tell him he couldn't attend a wedding. Family was more important than work and they could get by because his rent would go down and his food assistance up because he was now unemployed.)
Scent, I freely acknowledge that some people are overcome by circumstances beyond their control. (Frequently, these are circumstances that could have been insured against, but sometimes they are not.) Still, even in those cases, recovery requires focusing on what you can do -- not on blaming everyone else (even if that is the proper place for the blame) for the situation.
SOV,
Now, do be a good fellow and try to form a coherent response.
So I take it that you disagree that government, politics, and academia are places where lazy, unambitious people have an easier time maintaining their status than those in more market-oriented jobs?
I certainly think a good case could be made. Professors and politicians live within socialist eddies of the economy, at one remove from the actual creation of wealth, and are not paid quid pro quo for what value they are producing.
Show me a lazy, unambitious salesman or entrepreneur and I'll show you a poor man.
Show me a lazy, unambitious government worker or academic and I'll show you a secure, well-paid (probably union contracted) individual.
In any event, do understand that I'm not claiming that all government, political, and academic workers are lazy.
Please indulge me two anecdotes.
My brother-in-law, whom I've previously mentioned here for his conviction for a violent felony and declared bankruptcy, grew up the son of a degenerate gambler so his family was either doing quite well, or very poorly. He and his brother got into a lot of trouble as kids, and he got his first tattoos in Juvenile Detention. The first time he got suspended from school in the 7th grade his dad told him he needed a trade, since it was obvious that he wasn't interested in school. So his dad took him along to his masonry jobs and he was apprenticing at age 12. He dropped out of high school and was doing, manufacturing, and selling pretty heavy drugs while working intermittantly for his dad. At one point he got involved with a woman who had gotten pregnant with some biker dude's kid, and shortly thereafter they had their own kid. She was on drugs, he was on drugs, they were stupid and crazy. She left him and later her kids. He went to prison after getting involved in a pretty bad bar fight. Later, when he got out, his hot-headedness led him to declare bankruptcy over $50.
So this guy has made a LOT of bad decisions. I've just listed some of them, but it's by no means an exhaustive list. But yet, today he owns his own masonry business, is married to my sister (a hyper-ethical individual), is a responsible dad to both (now grown) kids his baby mama left behind, and considers it part of his responsibility to help out guys coming from similar situations by giving them work, even if they don't know jack about masonry, or even construction.
Contrast this with my half-brother, who has been universally praised for his intelligence and creativity, has a plethora of caring, well-off siblings, lives for free in his deceased mother's house, is a Vietnam-era vet, and thus receives his health care free from the VA, and has been the recipient of many job opportunities due to his siblings' connections.
He is a miserable jerk. He can't keep a job, even as a bagger at the local grocery store, because he's mean and nasty, and routinely tells people how stupid/evil they are. He has epilepsy, but won't take his (free) meds to control it so he's nearly killed himself and others several times when having severe grand mal seizures when driving cars (illegally) or operating other heavy machinery. He has practically destroyed his mother's house by turning it into a literal zoo of stray wild animals he takes in. And what little money he manages to get, he spends on beer instead of heating oil for the house. At the last family reunion, there was great effort made to bring him, and he spent the entire weekend making people uncomfortable with his mean comments and general douche-iness. Interestingly enough, the person most offended by his behavior was my brother-in-law described above.
So I'd say that yes, there are many ways to become poor, but in this country, there are many ways to escape it. Most of it relies on people being decent and somewhat responsible for themselves. That's pretty much it. Smarts and family connections can only do so much, unless you are insanely rich, but that's such a small percentage of the population as to be negligible for the purposes of this conversation.
At eleven months, three weeks, Adam was broke and working the 11-to-7 shift at the local convenience store, have exhausted his savings on deductibles and co-pays.
Except that if he'd actually come from a poor family, his mother would have been covered by Medicaid, or would have gone to the emergency room and stiffed them on payment. It's only us middle-class types that have to worry about paying for medical treatment.
Yes.
Because you have confused 'necessary' with 'sufficient'. Try as I might, I can't see how this is merely a matter of style, and not one of substance.
Done with those exams, I see.
I would point out that this is abusive and nasty, but then someone would surely post that I was over-reacting.
Isn't this ducking the issue? The point I was making was that the difference between the poor and the not-poor is often times _not_ because one group has made a bad decision and the other has not, the difference is that the margins are thinner for the poor, and that the not-poor often have the luxury of making many mistakes.
Iow, there is no particular difference in the moral fiber, or initiative, or willingness to work between the two groups (or rather, between subsets of the two groups), contrary to what has been asserted here.
You seem to admitting that this is true, but that this means that these unfortunates just have to exhibit _more_ fortitude, pluckiness, etc., than the non-poor who have made mistakes but do have a saftey net of sorts.
Which sort of undercuts your initial position.
No, if Adam truly wanted to 'make a point', he would have helped his relative while still working his menial job. Just like the poor have to. That he abandoned his project at the first sign of adversity does prove a point, just not the one he was intending.
Furthermore, you can scroll back through the comments to your hearts content, and post some actual words of mine where I 'dismissed' his success. To the contrary, I applaud his success, such as it was. I - like a lot of other people - just object to using this specific incident as proof of a general rule.
What does this specific example have to do with the general point, that some people got more than one chance and so living relatively well today, while other people, possessing no less character, are doomed by only one mistake?
This sounds like a vague platitude trying to force a conclusion. Why don't you give specific examples of the government behaving like an enabling parent, and in a way that was harmful to the people in question?
You mean like the guy I referenced above? Or my comment that what seem people need is a good swift kick in the rear?
If you knew me at all personally, you'd know I that I am just about the last person whose going to be crying over the poor little darlin's who make one wrong-headed move after another.
I'm just concerned that there really are people out there who really would be a lot better off if they had the advantages that a lot of people take for granted, people who will be dismissed for 'not trying hard enough', or 'having a defeatist attitude'.
Because you have confused 'necessary' with 'sufficient'.
That would indeed be a substantive error--if I had made it.
But I don't think that I have; "leftists do X" means that being a leftist is a sufficient condition for doing X; if you're leftist, you do X, regardless of whatever else you might be or do. It is not a necessary condition, however, as "leftists do X" is also consistent with "non-leftists do X". A necessary (but not sufficient) condition would take the form "only leftists do X." This statement is consistent with "some leftists do not do X," i.e., no non-leftists do X (so it's necessary) but some leftists do not (so it is not sufficient).
But if X is a sufficient condition for Y, then (speaking contrapositively), Y must be necessary for X. If X, then Y = If not Y, then not X.
I believe that's exactly what I said above (in fewer words the first time).
Suffice to say, TF didn't call you a leftist, and indeed you are plainly excluded from his definition of "leftist."
SoV wrote: I have seventy-odd exams to grade
Would you mind video-recording the classroom when you return those exams and posting the results on YouTube? I'm curious to see how your students react to the grading comments, for example when you call them lying liars who are incapable of providing cites.
I would also enjoy observing the exchange where one of them calls your bluff over some common knowledge piece of information, and you furiously Google an alternative point of view and then snow them out with the lecture equivalent of an irrational number.
And you know, you _still_ haven't answered the question. So I'm guessing that you agree that it is a problem, and that you have no idea how to fix it.
Do you even keep track of what you say? Here is the initial response and your reply:
Do you see that what you are saying now makes no sense? If not, then go ahead and point to where I'm attributing to you positions you do not hold. If you can't do this, be at least responsible enough, show enough humility to admit you made a mistake. Try answering what I write instead of what you wish I had said.
Now, try to attend to the subject instead of ducking and weaving. If you can't do this, it is really not worth my time to follow up.
I consistently accuse those who do because they seem to be conspicuously lacking it. And, imo, wishing to see more of it in others while not necessarily practicing it yourself is on a par with advocating the occupation in Iraq when one has no intention of actually putting their own selves in harms way. That might be okay if you're a sixty-something woman. That most definitely is _not_ okay if you're a twenty-something male promoting this occupation as one front in the Clash of Civilizations.
Me? I don't think being humble is particularly virtuous. I think trying to force other people to display it is often some sort of sick, twisted dominance game.
I require my students to do the work. I encourage them to read the books. I implore them to come to me if they have any questions or if they need any help. I certainly don't ask that they 'show humility' or that they be 'humble'.
I don't think being humble is particularly virtuous.
Do tell.
I think trying to force other people to display it is often some sort of sick, twisted dominance game.
But now we are left to wonder: is there anything virtuous about not playing sick, twisted dominance games?
I certainly don't ask that they 'show humility' or that they be 'humble'.
That's funny, because you are constantly asking people here to do things that might be construed as demonstrating humility, like apologizing for slights real and imagined.
And as long as we're deciding whether you're a leftist or not, the belief that hypocrisy is a deadly sin is definitely a left-ish belief; conservatives tend to prefer one who advocates goodness while being too weak to practice it over one who authentically embraces his own debauchery as virtuous.
As a conservative myself, I tend to accept hypocrisy as an inevitable part of the human condition, and as an inevitable price of elevating virtue over vice. If only saints can advocate for goodness (if sainthood is a necessary condition for advocacy, so to speak), then it's impossible for any of us to do so.
Obviously there people who are poor through no fault of their own and there are people who are poor through some flaw or bad decision on their part.
Obviously rich people have more chances to recover from mistakes.
I don't think anyone is arguing that poor people are one bad choice away from being rich, if they would just make the right choice.
The point is that even poor people CAN improve their situation through hard work, will power, and a little planning. It does not require extraordinary talent or fantastic luck or a wealthy patron to get out of poverty.
I guess the real debate is about how many are stuck in poverty in spite of being capable and how many are stuck in poverty through their own bad decisions. That's very hard to answer and certainly not something that can be answered through a debate on a blog.
And you can't force anyone to be humble. That doesn't many any sense. Humility is a virtue, though excessive or false humility isn't. Humility doesn't preclude self-confidence.
Sorry about being nasty, SoV, but sometimes it's hard to take your relentless condescension. Your total lack of humility is probably what I find so grating.
I guess the real debate is about how many are stuck in poverty in spite of being capable and how many are stuck in poverty through their own bad decisions.
You've forgotten a third category: Those who are in poverty through no fault their own and incapable of escaping. The handicapped, etc.
Er, no. In fact, dead wrong. The general form is this: If P implies Q (note that P is sufficient, but not necessary), then the contrapositive of this would be Not-P implies Not-Q (note that, again, Not-Q is sufficient, but _not_ necessary). A specific example: if a number greater than two is prime, then it is odd. The contrapositive is that if a number greater than two is not odd, then it is not prime.
Now let's look at what was said:
Iow, if you are a 'Leftist', then you refuse to accept or acknowledge that the former even exist. Taking the negative of each statement gives: If you accept or acknowledge that the former exists (that is, does not 'not exist'), then you must not be a 'Leftist'.
See? Now was that all that difficult?
And as I just pointed out, that's wrong (if I'm reading what you wrote correctly, it's rather confused; X is sufficient for Y implies that Y is necessary for X? I'm having trouble parsing this in terms of what you're claiming.)
Suffice to say, TF didn't call you a leftist, and indeed you are plainly excluded from his definition of "leftist."
Posted by Rob Lyman
And indeed, I never said he did; I'm merely complaining that people acting as if I am, despite evidence and protests to the contrary. See what Fraggle wrote above, for example.
A specific example: if a number greater than two is prime, then it is odd.
In other words, above 2, being prime is a sufficient condition for being odd.
The contrapositive is that if a number greater than two is not odd, then it is not prime.
That is, being odd is a necessary condition for being prime (above 2). But obviously not sufficient; 9, 27, etc.
Look, I may be expressing these concepts in a non-standard format (it's been a number of years since I wrote a proof), but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. And considering that your arguments are (as we were once taught to say) congruent to mine (although in different words), I'm inclined to think I'm right.
Iow, if you are a 'Leftist', then you refuse to accept or acknowledge that the former even exist. Taking the negative of each statement gives: If you accept or acknowledge that the former exists (that is, does not 'not exist'), then you must not be a 'Leftist'.
See? Now was that all that difficult?
No, not difficult. In fact, exactly what I've been saying all along.
Granted, you never said, in so many words, that TF called you a leftist. You just put his words in blockquote and then denied being a leftist.
If P implies Q (note that P is sufficient, but not necessary), then the contrapositive of this would be Not-P implies Not-Q
Wait, no, this is wrong, SoV. If P then Q = If not-Q then not-P (the contrapositive). "If not-P then not-Q is the converse," not the contrapositive, and it may or may not be true. The failure of a sufficient condition for Q does not mean "not-Q." The failure of a necessary condition for Q means not-Q.
Not converse, inverse, my bad. Still, not correct.
And for those seeking cites and links, here's one
But of course . . . this isn't abusive, and if I were to say so or respond in kind, I would be accused of 'over-reacting'.
Uh-huh.
Actually, since the exam covered basic limits, continuity, the definition of a derivative, and some rules for taking derivatives (product rule, quotient rule, etc.), all of my comments are completely justifiable. In detail. And no, things like this are not particularly amenable to a google search, though I suppose you could evaluate a few things with Mathematica if you insisted on a 'more authoritative' arbiter.
Such being the case with a subject like math.
I'm guessing you don't do a lot of math.
Apologies for the typo here, obviously the contrapositive goes like this:
f P implies Q (note that P is sufficient, but not necessary), then the contrapositive of this would be Not-Q implies Not-P (note that, again, Not-Q is sufficient, but _not_ necessary). For the contrapositive, you have to invert as well as negate.
Sorry, just posted the correct formulation. Note that in my original example, the formulation of the contrapositive was correct.
Not a problem. Now, I'll admit to a certain lack of humility, but then again, I don't think it's particularly virtuous. Also, considering that I _am_ one of those people who (more or less) pulled themselves up by their bootstraps out of a rather grim environment peopled by all sorts of freaks and low-lifes who actively derided anyone who wanted to get a for-real and tru kolledge edication, was in fact kicked out of the house on my seventeenth birthday with no notice (going to college was sinnin' against Jesus, accordin' to Daddy), I think I am entitled to a little self-satisfaction.
But the condescension I don't see, I'm sorry.
Fo real?
Do you have your own blog? If not, why not?
While I don't agree with 100% of what you say, I'd like to hear more.
something that is necessary but not sufficient in the original becomes sufficient but not necessary when it is negated in the contrapositive.
Well, that's exactly what I've been trying to say all along. If I've screwed it up somewhere along the way, mea culpa. That is one disadvantage of English over mathematical symbols; it's harder to get it right.
If leftist, then deny "that guy." SoV not deny that guy, so SoV not leftist. Yes?
But the condescension I don't see, I'm sorry.
That would be in the incessant sighing, the questions like "You do know that..., don't you?" and the persistent insinuation that you're smarter than the rest of us.
It doesn't bother me, but it does give me an excuse to tweak your tail when I should be doing real work. So don't ever change.
Christina,
I know of a somewhat similar story. A friend of my father's had two children -- one got good grades and went to a top-tier state university. She got a masters degree and is now an education official. Her brother was in and out of reform schools. He is now a multimillionaire real estate developer in Brooklyn.
Not everyone has the aptitude to do well in academic environments, but many hustle and become successful regardless. Politicians frequently pontificate about higher education as a panacea, because that was their path in many cases. This is myopic though.
Megan,
The key to science is repeatability.
You have Ehrenreich. You have Sheppard. Same experiment, different results.
It's up to you to do the research to prove Sheppard right and Ehrenreich wrong.
Good luck, let us know you've accepted the challenge by resigning from the Atlantic.
(Give Matt a kiss goodbye...)
Comfortable, well-off people who've never known anything but comfort and entitlement doing "experiments", passing judgement on "the poor", berating others about "humility".
Jesus, I wish you all could just get your own goddamn planet.
Hey, someone wants to work a day for free? I'll hire you (for a day at least...)
something that is necessary but not sufficient in the original becomes sufficient but not necessary when it is negated in the contrapositive.
Upon further review, I once again think this is wrong as stated.
If P then Q: P is sufficient for Q, but not necessary.
Contrapositive: If not-Q, then not-P. Not-Q is also sufficient for not-P, but not necessary. The construction is exactly parallel to the above. So the negation does not require reversal of the necessary/sufficient axis.
With me so far? OK, here's the step I've been taking: I assert that the following is equivalent to both the orignial statement and the contraposibive:
Only if Q, then P: Q is necessary, but not sufficient, condition for P.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitching about the poor.
Jesus, I wish you all could just get your own goddamn planet.
Whom would you tax to pay for welfare?
SOV,
Sigh. You took jmo's simple statement that 15-year-olds can often be capable of making good decisions and built it up into your imaginary, attributed "position" that fifteen-year-olds should be allowed to drive, vote, and drink legally.
This is you putting words in his mouth, and I said so. I did not indicate whether I agreed with it or not.
I then asked if you disagree that an average fifteen-year-old can understand that some decisions might be bad and/or have far-reaching consequences. I was trying to find a reasonable base from which we could probably agree and argue constructively.
You apparently thought I was implying ("So let me get this straight...") that (1) I do think they are "easily mature, enough, adult enough, to make a very complex, difficult decision", (2) that I agree that they should not be allowed to drive, vote, and drink legally, and (3) this makes me hypocritical (or "detached from reality", to use a more non-condescending phrase).
[That is where I think you are attributing to me positions I do not hold. Am I incorrect?]
I then attempted to clarify my actual position, simply that "Many 15 year olds are easily mature enough to at least avoid situations where they could become pregnant, commit a crime, etc where they could end up in over their head." That 15-year-olds are not somehow de facto immune from all personal responsibility.
I then pointed out that the laws preventing them from driving, voting, and drinking can seem very arbitrary since many adults vote with no more attention to the process than the 15-year-old, some youngsters (like you indicated) drive without issues, and we also legally allow people to fly before we allow them to drink or rent cars.
I am implying that current laws restricting their activities should not be used as a "proof" that 15-year-olds are incapable of acting responsibly.
Where have I gone off track?
Personally, I've been lucky. I haven't had any real hardship. If I did, I'd probably fail and end up poor and unable to escape from poverty. I'm pretty sure that, while I'm smart and talented, I'm also lazy and unmotivated.
I don't fault people for failing or ending up poor. I don't even fault people for making mistakes or dumb decisions.
I DO fault people for feeling entitled to assistance or handouts. If i were poor, I'd WANT assistance and handouts. But I wouldn't feel like they were owed to me. I would also be extremely grateful for anything I got. I have had some hardship in my life and have had help (mostly from family). I feel guilty for being a burden and am grateful for the help.
As far as humility goes, I know that I'm intelligent. Contrary to what anyone here might believe, I have objective proof of it. I also know that my intelligence is an accident of birth and upbringing. I didn't earn it. My accomplishments are my own. I'm proud of what I have accomplished and aware of my failings.
I don't see self-satisfaction as conflicting with humility.
What he said. Also, the assumption that those of us who disagree with you are probably young and naive. The references to your past comments that imply that a) what was posted is unambiguous and any misunderstanding is the fault of the reader and b) that everyone should be rigorously keeping track of every comment posted (especially your marathon posts). And your demands for intellectual rigor far beyond anything I've ever seen or expected in blog comments, with the comment that anyone not meeting your standard shouldn't waste your time.
Is that enough?
Honestly, I sometimes choose not to respond to you when I disagree because I know that my post won't meet your standards and you'll just nitpick (at great length) unless I take the time to really research the point. Since I don't have time to do the research, I just don't post.
You need to stop making it up as you go along. I really, really mean that. Here's what was actually said(and you could have looked it up yourself with little effort)
So, we already see that you got it wrong from the get-go. Then you say:
No, this _you_ putting words in his mouth, and my mouth too, for that matter. Again, let's scroll back to what was _actually_ said (and you know, I really shouldn't have to do this):
Do you have any idea of what the word implication means? Do you see the question mark there? I really can't believe you missed it.
And again, we see a complete misreading; no, I said, quite clearly if 'you' - that's the generic 'you' take that position, you really are way, way, way, out of the mainstream. Instead of your avowed position (a position I asked about, remember), which is merely way, way out of the mainstream. And again, do you see those things that we English-speaking people call 'question marks'? I didn't put them in there because I thought they looked purty. Though I am curious as to what you think I put them in there for.
See, this is one of the reasons why I call for cites, quotes, and such. Rather than really upon your, shall we say, idiosyncratic interpretation of what was said. Next time, before going off on such absurd accusations, go back and read what was written; my unpleasant suspicion is that you are responding to what you hoped I had written. Do try to disabuse me of this uncharitable thought.