GrumpyCatFace wrote:More likely that poverty determines behavior, than the reverse.... But don't let me stop your signalling - that plumage is magnificent.
What about this message made you so bitter?GrumpyCatFace wrote:More likely that poverty determines behavior, than the reverse.... But don't let me stop your signalling - that plumage is magnificent.
Well shoot, I don't have to tell you the sob stories - we all know them. Kids don't typically escape poverty - it's the exceptions that make the news and fame because it's so unusual. Now, pointing at them later in life and saying "See?? They act like poor people, and they're poor!" just seems the epitome of twittery.C-Mag wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:More likely that poverty determines behavior, than the reverse.... But don't let me stop your signalling - that plumage is magnificent.
It's not my fault
You know what, shit happens. It may not be all your fault, but it's all your responsibility.
Not the message - I'm all for personal responsibility. I'm against the implication that "poor people did it to themselves". That's a very Dickensian point of view, and worse than useless in policy-making, or hack philosophy.DBTrek wrote:What about this message made you so bitter?GrumpyCatFace wrote:More likely that poverty determines behavior, than the reverse.... But don't let me stop your signalling - that plumage is magnificent.
Examine your reaction and ask yourself why the idea of a strong nuclear family causes you to not only attack the message, but the messenger.
I'd be interested in hearing what kind of reasons your introspection reveals, because I don't relate to your negativity surrounding family at all.
Plus, I noticed you dismissed the entire premise with nothing more than your gut feeling.
Do you have actual data that refutes the premise?
DB is throwing stats and studies at you, what do you have to refute that other than a general pitty party ?GrumpyCatFace wrote:Well shoot, I don't have to tell you the sob stories - we all know them. Kids don't typically escape poverty - it's the exceptions that make the news and fame because it's so unusual. Now, pointing at them later in life and saying "See?? They act like poor people, and they're poor!" just seems the epitome of twittery.C-Mag wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:More likely that poverty determines behavior, than the reverse.... But don't let me stop your signalling - that plumage is magnificent.
It's not my fault
You know what, shit happens. It may not be all your fault, but it's all your responsibility.
Say wha?GrumpyCatFace wrote:There is no evidence presented showing causality, only correlation - as is typical in hack economic articles. I feel no need to dignify it with a detailed data-driven retort.
There's a citation about the study from the Jeff Bezos owned, highly anti-Trump, Washington Post.The evidence is in “The Millennial Success Sequence” published by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies and written by Wendy Wang of the IFS and W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia and AEI.
The success sequence, previously suggested in research by, among others, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, is this: First get at least a high school diploma, then get a job, then get married, and only then have children.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e34765328f
Again, there is no causality - only correlation.C-Mag wrote:DB is throwing stats and studies at you, what do you have to refute that other than a general pitty party ?GrumpyCatFace wrote:Well shoot, I don't have to tell you the sob stories - we all know them. Kids don't typically escape poverty - it's the exceptions that make the news and fame because it's so unusual. Now, pointing at them later in life and saying "See?? They act like poor people, and they're poor!" just seems the epitome of twittery.C-Mag wrote:
It's not my fault
You know what, shit happens. It may not be all your fault, but it's all your responsibility.
I don't doubt the results of the study - but the interpretation is ridiculous.DBTrek wrote:Say wha?GrumpyCatFace wrote:There is no evidence presented showing causality, only correlation - as is typical in hack economic articles. I feel no need to dignify it with a detailed data-driven retort.
There's a citation about the study from the Jeff Bezos owned, highly anti-Trump, Washington Post.The evidence is in “The Millennial Success Sequence” published by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies and written by Wendy Wang of the IFS and W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia and AEI.
The success sequence, previously suggested in research by, among others, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, is this: First get at least a high school diploma, then get a job, then get married, and only then have children.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e34765328f
What is your issue with the data?
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
