Luftwaffles Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 The whole "eww, poor people!" attitude is fucking gross. I don't understand where you're getting this from. The whole last two pages or so where you and Battra have been talking like quality of life measurements are shit because they factor in people with less money than you. Could you have missed the point more entirely? I had nothing to do with factoring in poor people. It has to do with factors like "public transportation" have no effect on the lives of a vast majority of people in many areas. The point is that in your universal healthcare and public transit examples, you've not only come across as completely condescending to people who ride public transit or advocate universal healthcare, but also keep flipflopping on what this abstract thing called "the point" is to suit your own examples. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheMightyEthan Posted May 17, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 No one's saying that access to public transportation, food stamps, and government-subsidized healthcare are the determining factors of standard of living, but they are factors. Disposable income is another factor, as is job opportunities, or access to education. Just because one factor doesn't apply to everyone does not mean that it is not a factor at all. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 1. Your "city" is a town: Highland Park is a town in central Dallas County, Texas, United States. The population was 8,564 at the 2010 census 2. Your "super rich city" has: About 1.6% of families and 3.4% of the population were below the poverty line. Which is about 300 people. And that's just the poor, not the elderly and infirm and underage which also use the public transport systems as we've already mentioned. (cos no matter how rich you are, you can't drive as a kid) edit: sorry kinda late. Check pet thread soon to see why I was delayed in posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) The point is that in your universal healthcare and public transit examples, you've not only come across as completely condescending to people who ride public transit or advocate universal healthcare, but also keep flipflopping on what this abstract thing called "the point" is to suit your own examples. Nobody is being condescending to the poor here. I understand that these things are important to the poor or the people who use them. What we're talking about is a base measure of an average standard of living. if you're averaging things out then skewing your numbers for 3.4% of people who are poor does not give you a good average measurement of the standard of living. Going back to my example again. The people in city A are clearly better off on average so it would be ridiculous to say that city B is superior. For the record, I don't know if it matters or not but I did use the light rail here to commute for a while until I changed jobs and it was no longer convenient. I did like it when it was convenient. I have nothing against using the rail stations. I still use them to go to sporting events myself. Additionally I have multiple times given money to buy friends new tires or a new car battery or whatever they needed to keep their car running because they were very short on money. Not having money does suck. I'm not trying to be insensitive to that. It's whether or not I'm sensitive to poor people is just completely irrelevant to discussing how you rate the standard of living on average in a country, state, city or whatever. Edited May 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 No one's saying that access to public transportation, food stamps, and government-subsidized healthcare are the determining factors of standard of living, but they are factors. Disposable income is another factor, as is job opportunities, or access to education. Just because one factor doesn't apply to everyone does not mean that it is not a factor at all. Ugh.... I didn't say it's not a factor at all. What I mean is who decides "affordable or free (misnomer) access to healthcare" and how do they balance that with the other factors. If you think socialized medicine is great you can crank the value of that way up and skew the "standard of living". How you balance those factors is what is of importance. Again, broadly saying access to public transportation improves everyone's life is simply not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Could you have missed the point more entirely? I had nothing to do with factoring in poor people. It has to do with factors like "public transportation" have no effect on the lives of a vast majority of people in many areas. Exactly! Besides, who says transportation has be to publicly run? A lot of people utilize taxis over buses for example. From a lifetime of being raised in a society where sharing is caring. Pull through it together n such. The whole "Well I'm fine so why should I care if others are struggling?" attitude is selfish and shitty and bound to change once fortunes do. Not wanting public transport around because if you need it then clearly you're very poor. Damn can't even afford to buy a car, what a waste of space eh? Do you guys not even pause to dwell upon what you're saying? Do you not feel a little bit cold and cruel? Do you not put yourself in other peoples shoes? Seriously, dude. Get over your fucking self with that moral superiority crap. I give to the Salvation Army, I've volunteered through church and I've done many things for people I know who are poor. I'm not part of the 1%. Fuck, I'm not even part of the 25%! I grew up through hard times as my dad became disabled with no insurance and there were times when the church food basket kept us fed. I know what it's like to have hard times but I also know that my parents never would dream of accepting welfare or food stamps. They worked three jobs each and scrimped and saved. To say I don't know what the poor go through is just plain ignorant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Seriously, the whole "you guys are cold and cruel" is such a liberal cop out and has nothing to do with actually discussing what is or isn't good about a universal healthcare system or how best to utilize public transportation. The moral high ground of "we care about the poor" is just a really weak defense for policies that are clearly inefficient and expensive. The point is that in your universal healthcare and public transit examples, you've not only come across as completely condescending to people who ride public transit or advocate universal healthcare, but also keep flipflopping on what this abstract thing called "the point" is to suit your own examples. The "point" has always been the same. The "point" is simply that the numbers can be skewed and are not always a good representation of the quality of life in a certain area. Why is that so hard to understand? Can you really not see how someone with an agenda can arrange the numbers to overvalue things like public transportation where they are unnecessary? Edited May 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 The moral high ground of "we care about the poor" is just a really weak defense for policies that are clearly inefficient and expensive. And the whole "I don't want my taxes raised" is a poor reason to not have systems in place for aid. Also you're the one that's constantly defending the obviously inefficient and expensive system. We've already covered multiple times how the system of "let the market forces decide" has decided that the price of US health care would be fantastic to be astronomically priced. p.s you've responded to Sporkwaffles twice now. As for the first response the "average" is a terrible metric to use given in various countries were you to average out between the destitute and the rich you'd end up with a pretty good middle ground. It's why they use the baseline instead, so having availability of affordable public services to give a better quality of life for those that are not well off. @Battra: So now I'm even more confused. Your own father was a victim of the current system and you're still a-okay with it and don't think it needs change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 I know what it's like to have hard times but I also know that my parents never would dream of accepting welfare or food stamps. A misplaced sense of pride? To say I don't know what the poor go through is just plain ignorant. I'm not sure anyone said this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) I repsonded to Sporkwaffles twice because it was such a popular comment (I can't figure out why) and I thought I'd expand on my reply. In response to the baseline argument, I can understand how some countries do have a large gap with a wealthy class and a very poor working class. I do think you need to factor that in somehow but at the same time just taking a baseline of how good the poor are doing doesn't give you an accurate picture of life. Going back to the start, this whole discussion of "standard of living" got kicked off by this statement. Take for example Sweden, a country that's pretty well known for having socialised services out the wazoo. Now if it was socialism that was the root of the ails in Greece then surely Sweden would be fucked atm? In fact they're doing pretty a-okay. And yet we have a very high standard of living, including the poor. Isn't that pretty telling? So, yeah, I guess if we're going to say that having a really good worst case scenario for your people is what you're aiming for then congrats, Sweden has the best worst case scenario for their citizens. Now if you're wishing to live in a place that actually lets you achieve above and beyond the worst case scenario Sweden is probably not my first choice. Edited May 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) To say I don't know what the poor go through is just plain ignorant. I'm not sure anyone said this. Do you not put yourself in other peoples shoes? Edited May 17, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Sporks comments has two "Likes". Still a bit off getting the magic star of "Popular". Also you're really gonna call it a "best worst case scenario"? So negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 I do want to live in a country where it is easy to come back from hardship like losing one's job or medical issues. If I have to pay for things like that with increased taxes then so be it. I have little interest in seeking fortune, I just want to live a life where I make do and have good friends. Not much of a career person. That said, I have read many articles in recent years suggesting class mobility in the US is much lower than it has been (and it's popularly made out to be.) I don't know how much truth there are to those statements, but I can image there is at least some truth in it. Most people from the US I know are students or people just out of college who are living with crippling student debt and no jobs in their chosen careers in sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Yeah, and I'm sure that Sweden may be great for people without ambition but personally I don't think that makes for a great country. Ambition and opportunity were two of the main ideals that made America great. Flushing them away to achieve a better "baseline" seems like a step backward IMO. I want to have a family, Raise kids. Send them to good schools. Makes sure they have the best medical care if they need it. I would like to travel some day. I'd like to have a little bit of land. It'd be nice one day to have a pool since Texas gets so hot. I work a standard 8-5 job 40 hour week with occasional overtime. I get my two weeks of vacation each year and all that. The great thing about America is that all of that is within my grasp even though my parents didn't give me any financial help at all. Opportunity is definitely there for people who just seize it and I think that's what makes America great. Class mobility is something that's probably pretty hard to measure. Aside from people with genuine physical and mental handicaps pretty much everyone can improve their financial situation in America through a bit of hard work. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_1_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20states_Self-Made_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheMightyEthan Posted May 17, 2012 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Yeah, and I'm sure that Sweden may be great for people without ambition *Edit* - Here's the issue I take with the "anyone can make it" attitude: Yes, anyone can do it, but not everyone can. The system simply would not work without people in shitty-ass, low-paying jobs, so I don't see what's so wrong with trying to increase their standard of living. Edited May 17, 2012 by TheMightyEthan 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 You know for someone being so disparaging or an entire nation you sure do talk big with your "ambitions" that read (apart from the pool) like a pretty standard laundry list of things to do in life. Apart from the pool, for pretty obvious reasons, you can attain all of that within Sweden & co. Given your opening sentence I kinda expected something a bit more ambitious than "get a job, have a family, raise em well, see the world." You know they're not exclusive to America right? I want to holiday on the moon. That's the kinda stuff I was expecting when you talk about having ambition and the means to achieve them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Reading you guys' arguments, it almost seems like it arises from a pretty dumb thing. I'm not calling any one of you guys ideals and beliefs wrong or right but... There is no way to present a standard of living data without skewing it to any one side of a linear plot or even a non-linear plot. People lives can be and are vastly different so its terrible to present it as high or low, which is linear in nature. However, its the easiest way to present data since it is simple to understand. High and low? Easy but skewed. So it make it non-skewed, context should be provided. It is up to the provider of the data to give context or for the viewers to seek it out if not provided. Going with Yant's examples: Example A: City A has an average income of one million dollars, everyone owns houses and their own cars and their own health insurance and they pay for everything themselves. There is no public transport, healthcare or food stamps available. Example B: City B has an average income of $1, nobody has any money but they all have access to public transport, state provided healthcare and access to food stamps and such. We got context of whatever standard of living data we have. With this context, I can pretty much pull out City A from my analysis. I should also make a note of why I did as well which would be: City A is wealthy enough and well off that I can ignore them. City B on the other hand is on the other side of the spectrum. It seems pretty damn good but its poor as hell. Since it is poor as hell, I should take a closer look at this city. So yeah. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. What you got, where you got it and how you got it. Data without context is useless data. Now you guys can now continue at going at each other. How I fit in the current debate... having options is great. Rarely does life not give you options. If not provided with some, make some. Society is just that, a society. Its just not me and my family. So I'll help out society but don't expect me to bend the knee. Don't overreach and overstay. I'll help other people stand but they got to do their own walking. If they are just pleased with just standing, fine by me. They just got to remember to not come to me if they want to walk. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 One of my lifelong dreams is to see the Earth from space. (Not mocking, that's actually true.) I'm not sure whether that's going to be feasible within my lifetime or not. Ideally I would like to set foot on another celestial body (Moon would work, Mars would be better), but I'm reasonably sure that won't be feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Two chicks. At the same time. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Two chicks. At the same time. Get out of here, Hot Heart. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 You people have no ambition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ - It is rare for them to just spit out a number (i.e US = 0.910 HDI/0.7771 IHDI) without letting you have access to the backup data. In fact it's the "one city has $1 the other has $1million" kinda stuff that leads to such a drop for the Inequality rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Two chicks. At the same time. two in the same calendar year would be a a more realistic impossible dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Two in the same calendar year is impossible? TFG and are the same person!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Two in the same calendar year is impossible? TFG and are the same person!!!!! I could probably pull two of those at the same time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.