Comment by MoonHarvest | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MoonHarvest | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is by far the best article I've read about this study. Thank you for sharing.

What most interested me was this quote about white children. "These children did not inherit college expectations. But they inherited job networks." I can verify this phenomenon using anecdotal evidence, where poor white children are expected to learn their parents' (generally their father's) crafts but not expected to learn anything beyond that.

While my own college-educated parents passed down their respect and appreciation for learning to me, I saw some of my childhood friends' parents pass down their mistrust and apathy towards learning to my friends. I was not surprised when I came back from college one spring break and learned that one of my old friends (white, poor, no college, terrible home life) was currently on the lam for killing a teenager over a drug deal. I was shocked by the fact that I wasn't at all surprised.

What bothers me more is how I can't relate to how hard life must be for this old friend, and especially how hard it is for primarily black children who inherit little but discrimination, through anything but anecdotes. I think this is more "friend guilt" than "white guilt." No one wants to see people they care for, or once cared for, victimized by systems beyond their control.

Therefore, based again on my own anecdotal evidence, I'm glad this study continues to receive attention.

"...inherit little but discrimination..."

And also mistrust and apathy towards learning. Our societal problems transcend race because we have cultural problems at the lower end of income. Those cultural problems are self-perpetuating regardless of one's genetic make-up.

When you're poor, it's easy to be resentful of those who aren't; it's easy to pass resentment and mistrust on to your children; it's easy to just do whatever might make life a little less miserable at the moment (instead of thinking of long term consequences.) And any of us are susceptible to behaving this way if we become poor.

For those of us fortunate enough to leave that all behind and become successful, it's easy for us to forget how hard life once was and how to relate to those who are less fortunate.

> And any of us are susceptible to behaving this way if we become poor.

Any of us would behave the same way if we were born and raised poor. But becoming poor is different. It doesn't strip away all the culture and education your family already possesses.

This happens all the time for immigrants. Plenty of families come to the US with almost zero assets. But the ones who have the benefit of education and a culture of aspiration don't stay poor, and their children vastly outperform the intergenerational poor.

>>When you're poor, it's easy to be resentful of those who aren't; it's easy to pass resentment and mistrust on to your children

To clarify, there can be legit reasons for that resentfulness they hold. I'd argue the current construct of society definitely gives the appearance(or just out-right, _is the fact_) of well-to-do people benefiting from the poor. The War on Drugs is at least one of those systems.

How does taxing the wealthy to pay for the war on drugs allow the well-to-do to benefit from the poor? This idea makes little sense. It may hurt the rich less, but it hardly benefits them.

"For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to exploit them." - Paul Krugman

How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the poor who do? Useful dimensions to consider are wage expectations, bargaining power with employers, the rational fear of being fired or branded a troublemaker and its consequences and so on...

It probably doesn't benefit "the rich" but it sure benefits those specific businesses relying on cheap labour with an interest in driving its cost down.

It also benefits those getting very rich indeed from the illegal drug trade, like JFK's Father did when alcohol was an illegal drug (which is what bootlegging is after all, drug running/pushing where the illegal drug was alcohol). Such people care little for the social consequences of gaining their wealth.

The illegal drug trade also entrenches corruption in politics and legal system. Such corruption and the acceptance of it does not work in favour of those without resources. Those with resources and flexible morals it does benefit.

How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the poor who do?

Reduced supply raises prices. If more of the poor were in the labor force, employers would more easily find replacement workers.

I suppose you (and the other two commenters) are right that the war on drugs benefits a small number of wealthy people at the expense of the rest of them. But overall it's a negative sum game - bad for the rich and poor alike.

The unemployment of the unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) is a clear sign of the oversupply of unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) labour at the going price and this pushes the price down. If you have few skills and are poor how do you "get into the labor force?" Drop your price directly to below the minimum wage as is so very common? (Think of the illegal immigrant stereotypes here.) Gain less by spending more on search, more on travel to more remote work or give part of your wage to an employment gatekeeper or something else that competes your economic gain downward? The person who is in the labor force with similar skills - it sure doesn't boost their bargaining power.

With respect, I'm sure you have that price pressure exactly backwards.

The war on drugs is an absolutely unmitigated disaster on a global scale from start to finish. The sooner it is ended the better. Those with vested interests in the current normal practice of the political system will perceive any change to how things are done in Washington or wherever as a threat. Scare campaigns seem to get you elected, opposing them seems to ensure you won't get elected. Running on a "stop this utter insanity making us weak and vulnerable" campaign of ending the war on drugs will likely get an almighty scare campaign run against them (think of the children!) Many vested interests eg lobbyists will support that campaign to keep the political status quo as stable as possible. (Some individuals will always do what they actually think is right, even when it is against their interests). I hope to see that scare campaign fail one day. Maybe some cracks are showing?

Past a certain level of wealth more money has no meaning at all, Soros, Koch, Gates, Buffet and a large number more people have more money than they can ever spend. More power and influence does have meaning to them, be it altruistic or ego driven or whatever.

The unemployment of the unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) is a clear sign of the oversupply of unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) labour at the going price and this pushes the price down...how do you "get into the labor force?"

The labor force is people who are working or seeking work (the BLS can give you a precise definition). Most of the poor do not fall into this category (see another reply of mine in this thread for data).

Everything you describe is what would happen if the poor were willing to compete on price for work. The fact that they are not doing so is what pushes wages up.

Are you really suggesting nobody who is poor is looking for work? That nobody who has been so unsuccessful that they have stopped looking won't take it given the opportunity eg employment growth. Ok then, nothing more to discuss.

The private prison complex (the "well-to-do") benefit from jailing the poor who don't work. That's how the ward on drugs allows the well-to-do to benefit from the poor. The poor can still be exploited even if they don't work, as you can see.

Drug warriors and arms dealers get paid well to put poor drug users in jail or coffins.

What about incredibly rich socialites who don't work and yet thrive off of their parents' money?

What about people in upper-middle-class office jobs who spend the vast majority of every day in their office browsing Reddit?

What about people who do work, but who go into their workplace with a terrible attitude and end up failing to provide the service customers pay for?

These are three types of people that you can also observe, if you look hard enough, and they are not always destitute. They also (arguably) don't work - just having a job or money in the bank doesn't mean you contribute your fair share to society. Granted these observations alone, which are just as hard to quantify as the Krugman quote above, it's hard to say that the war on drugs (or the war to put poor people into prison, whichever name you prefer) does not exploit lower-class people. If there are always people who don't work as much as others would like them to, there's nothing theoretically different about people born into different social strata.

So, the Krugman quote above is almost reprehensible, and I also don't believe it's backed by data. For instance, a full-time federal minimum wage worker makes $15,080 a year. This is enough to live above the poverty line if you only support yourself, but not even close to enough to support a spouse and even one child (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full...). How can you possibly say that people who try and support their families on a minimum wage salary are mostly lazy bums who don't work?

I would like to see how Krugman backs up his argument. Data is always welcome.

How can you possibly say that people who try and support their families on a minimum wage salary are mostly lazy bums who don't work?

That would indeed be a silly thing to say.

Data is always welcome.

Work habits: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2012.pdf

Disposable income: http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/taxes-and-cliffs...

Consumption: http://www.bls.gov/cex/22013/midyear/income.pdf

The legitimacy of the complaint isn't as pertinent as the effect of living with resentment.

> What most interested me was this quote about white children. "These children did not inherit college expectations. But they inherited job networks." I can verify this phenomenon using anecdotal evidence, where poor white children are expected to learn their parents' (generally their father's) crafts but not expected to learn anything beyond that.

What a coincidence that I was just re-watching the second season of "The Wire", which focuses on the white side of Baltimore, albeit the low-privileged stevedores. From a scene:

http://www.siliconvalleyfrogs.com/thewire/ep20.html

SOBOTKA: Your son... The oldest one, he goes to what school?

DIBIAGO: Jason's at Princeton.

SOBOTKA: Princeton. And after he graduates he's gonna do, what?

DIBIAGO: Whatever he wants.

SOBOTKA: Right, you sent him to Princeton to do whatever the fuck he wants. You know, back when we was kids, Danny Hay's father stole a case of cognac off a ship. 'Cept when he gets it home, it ain't cognac, it's Tang.

DIBIAGO: Tang?

SOBOTKA: Just invented. TV was saying it's what the astronauts drank on their way to the moon. You drink it, well...

DIBIAGO: You could be an astronaut too.

SOBOTKA: All summer long, that shit was all the hare kids drank, Tang with breakfast, Tang with lunch, Tang when they woke up scared in the middle of the night. What do you think they grew up to be? Stevedores. What the fuck you think? Something tells me Jason Dibiago will grow up and squeeze a buck the way his old man did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com