Hacker News Reader

Comment by roc | Hacker News Reader

> "It starts you out as a single parent with no savings and evidently no family members who will help you out...without any acknowledgement of the fact that broken homes, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, a lack of a high school diploma, and a failure to save are the major causes of poverty."

Some people find it useful to walk a mile in the shoes of those affected by the policies they support. Whether you might ever choose or have to wear those shoes personally is rather beside the point.

A dialogue tree that allowed the player to navigate life choices at an intellectual remove from real human life would simply reinforce our societal tendency to dodge the question of "what do we do with the struggling" by asserting that "I know better than them."

edit: effect/affect

View on HN

> Some people find it useful to walk a mile in the shoes of those affected by the policies they support.

Exactly which policies cause folks to get divorced (ie, get married young), have kids at a young age, and quit high school?

Apart, of course, from the policies intended to reduce the effects of those decisions....

Yes, there absolutely are policies that encourage people to climb to a perch from which it is incredibly easy to fall: social pressure against out-of-wedlock births; ineffective sexual education; social stigma against and a lack of services providing female reproductive health in general, contraceptives, emergency contraceptives and abortion; the structure of our health system disincentivizing preventative medical care in general; bankruptcy 'reform'; predatory lending practices; social stigma against the trades; corporate abuse of the safety net to depress wages; college grants and their unregulated effect on tuition; the college loan system in general; regressive taxation; child tax credits; safety net rewards based on family size; the jarring transition between qualifying for social safety net programs and not qualifying; military rewards based on family size; subsidized sprawl and a lack of public transportation; zero-tolerance laws and policies; substandard school districts; etc.

> ineffective sexual education;

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've actually had significant interaction with young unwed mothers.

Almost every one of them got pregnant intentionally. Yes, many will tell you a story at first, and "I couldn't afford it" does let them save face, which is pretty much all they've got left. But, after a while, it comes out that they knew exactly what they were doing.

So, why did they want to get pregnant?

A minor reason is that being a parent gets you some immediate respect.

However, the big reason is one of the saddest things I've ever heard.

"A baby has to love me."

> regressive taxation

The US doesn't have a regressive tax system. In fact, much of the volatility in tax revenues, which is killing CA, comes from being too progressive. (FWIW, EU countries tend to have a much flatter tax system.)

"progressive" = fraction of income going to taxes increases with income. (Marginal rates are almost irrelevant, revenue is the only thing that matters.)

Are you taking into account payroll taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc., when deciding that the US's tax system is not regressive?

Yes, the US tax system is more progressive even including all of that. However, it is true that we spend less on social programs that benefit poor people.

Yes, but ssi is different - it is basically forced savings with a twist, not taxes.

The twist is that the less you contribute, the higher your return.

In what way is it different from any other tax? A percentage of your earnings goes into it, you have no control over what happens after that point, sounds like any other tax.

> In what way is it different from any other tax?

What other taxes are paid back to you later, in rough approximation to the amount that you paid?

That correlation is really weak, though, so I don't think it matters. In any case, why should it make a difference what happens to the money after you pay it? The nature of a tax is in how it gets collected, not what the government does with the money afterwards.

> That correlation is really weak, though, so I don't think it matters.

The payback is entirely a function of the contribution stream (amounts and time).

> In any case, why should it make a difference what happens to the money after you pay it?

Because money collected for specific services rendered isn't much like money collected for general public services.

For example, many cities do garbage collection. While that money is collected by govt, it isn't much like property or sales tax.

Suppose that I'm looking to live in one of two cities. One has govt garbage collection and will charge me $100/month and the other has a private franchise providing garbage collection, again for $100/month. Would you really claim that the first city has higher taxes?

> The payback is entirely a function of the contribution stream (amounts and time).

SS isn't just the basic retirement stuff. Other payments are available which vary based on disability, personal resources, and location and status of residence.

Even the basic retirement stuff depends greatly on how long you live. If you die just as you retire, your inheritors don't get any of your SS benefits.

> Suppose that I'm looking to live in one of two cities. One has govt garbage collection and will charge me $100/month and the other has a private franchise providing garbage collection, again for $100/month. Would you really claim that the first city has higher taxes?

Yes, as long as the $100/month is not optional. Gas taxes go to build highways that the driver uses, is that then not a tax? Tons of taxes are earmarked for specific purposes.

"climb to a perch from which it is incredibly easy to fall"

This is a succinct way to put it, and a good list. Can you say more about "social pressure against out-of-wedlock births"? You see this as another thing that encourages unsustainable lifestyles?

It encourages people to get married when perhaps they do not wish to do so, thus increasing divorce.

> It encourages people to get married when perhaps they do not wish to do so, thus increasing divorce.

There's divorce, and then there's divorce.

No kids, not much of a problem. Economically, they're better off together, but ....

Unwed parents are a disaster for both society and the kid(s). It's pretty much a guarantee of long-term poverty.

Having kids is almost always a choice, a choice that has huge consequences.

It's great that you're providing a stable home, however that's the exception for unwed parents. Typically, the father wanders off and provides no support. None of the mother's options at that point are as good as a stable marriage/long-term relationship with the kid's father.

That's how the statistics work out. We can argue about why that happens, but it's absurd to suggest that it doesn't.

Parents' choices, and having kids is almost always a choice, have consequences.

> Unwed parents are a disaster for both society and the kid(s). It's pretty much a guarantee of long-term poverty.

on what basis?

My partner and I had our 3 children out of wedlock. Who are you to say that unwed parents is a lock-in to food stamps and crime?

Next you'll be blaming unwed parents for the break down of the fabric of society.

You are way out of line.

If you are living exclusively together long term you are effectively married even if you don't have a paper saying so.

Some states call it common law marriage, but even if they don't you are still effectively married.

Marriage is not a piece of paper, marriage is a family structure.

Relatively few people who have three children out of wedlock are "Smalltalk hackers". Just sayin'.

Problem is that not all those are "decisions" people make. Many of those are not decisions but arise out of life circumstances.

However many times people do chose to do the "fun" thing and instead of strive for a good job take the easy way out. That easy way is short-sighted.

Unfortunately we are seeing life from the walls of the castle, staring at the peasents saying "shame on you for not being royalty". However over the years I've grown to think that maybe 60%+ of the cause of people being poor is their fault. I see my friend partying every fucking night. She has no money. I have plenty of money yet cannot party because I have responsibilities. Yet when shit hits the fan, I have a buffer while she goes into a "shit my life is going nowhere" regression.

Sure her circumstances did not allow her to get the same living environment as I did, she is not a mathematically-inclined person, but she went to college, got a worthless degree after 4 yrs, and now complains how she has no money. She barely works, when she does its not for long periods of time, and is older than I am.

So yea, my sympathy has been declining. Shoulda finished high school. Shoulda gone to a community college and studied your ass off. Shoulda worn a rubber till you were ready. Now it's too late, and you are standing there with your arms in the air begging for help.

> Problem is that not all those are "decisions" people make. Many of those are not decisions but arise out of life circumstances.

Almost all pregnancy is the result of a decision to have sex. Yes, contraceptives fail sometimes, but that doesn't explain teen pregnancy rates. And, in the US at least, contraceptives are free, and have been for decades. Yes, even in rural/backwoods US.

> but she went to college, got a worthless degree after 4 yrs, and now complains how she has no money.

I think that schools should be on the hook for student loans. Yes, including non-profit and state schools.

And no, grants shouldn't be increased. 4 years of effort should have some lifetime economic benefit.

I'd venture to guess that the choices you mention did not always carry the sort of consequences they do today.

You're right, policy decisions don't cause more people to have kids at a young age. They do however, have an effect on joblessness [1], just to name one facet of the economic environment that now exists in the US.

[1] http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&...

You're right, policy decisions don't cause more people to have kids at a young age.

'Abstinence only' sex education causes more people to have kids at a young age, because it prevents more people from learning what options there are available. Add into that the issue that young people have always been difficult to stop fucking each other throughout history, and combine with the highly sexualised modern society, and 'Abstinence only' sex education is, frankly, evil.

Then you're a mile away and you've got their shoes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com