The Minimum Income Allocation..Income Base For Just "Being"..

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I thought this was very interesting as the premise is, you are the "equivalent of 13 points lower in IQ" due to poverty decision making..




[h=3]Your Brain on Poverty: Why Poor People Seem to Make Bad Decisions[/h] Business Nov 22 2013, 2:39 PM ET 305
Shoppers at a food pantry. (Reuters)In August, Science published a landmark study concluding that poverty, itself, hurts our ability to make decisions about school, finances, and life, imposing a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points.

It was widely seen as a counter-argument to claims that poor people are "to blame" for bad decisions and a rebuke to policies that withhold money from the poorest families unless they behave in a certain way. After all, if being poor leads to bad decision-making (as opposed to the other way around), then giving cash should alleviate the cognitive burdens of poverty, all on its own.

Sometimes, science doesn't stick without a proper anecdote, and "Why I Make Terrible Decisions," a comment published on Gawker's Kinja platform by a person in poverty, is a devastating illustration of the Science study. I've bolded what I found the most moving, insightful portions, but it's a moving and insightful testimony all the way through.

I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don’t pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It’s not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn’t that I blow five bucks at Wendy’s. It’s that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to. There’s a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there’s money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.
Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It’s why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It’s more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that’s all you get. You’re probably not compatible with them for anything long-term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don’t plan long-term because if we do we’ll just get our hearts broken. It’s best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.

When neuroscientists Joseph W. Kable and Joseph T. McGuire studied time, uncertainty and decision-making, they found that virtues like patience and self-control weren't as simple previous studies suggested. In the ubiquitous Marshmallow study, for example, kids who ate the treat quickly were deemed impatient and kids who waited had self-control and, on the whole, went on to lead more productive lives, the study found.
But rational self-control in the real world, Kable says, isn't so black-and-white. Perhaps you have enough patience to wait an hour for a train, or to lose one pound each week with exercise and dieting. That sounds responsible. But what happens if the train isn't there in 90 minutes? If you never lose weight and you're making yourself miserable with your diet? Maybe you should give up! "In this situation, giving up can be a natural — indeed, a rational — response to a time frame that wasn’t properly framed to begin with," Maria Konnikova summed it up for the Times.

As Andrew Golis points out, this might suggest something even deeper than the idea that poverty's stress interferes with our ability to make good decisions. The inescapability of poverty weighs so heavily on the author that s/he abandons long-term planning entirely, because the short term needs are so great and the long-term gains so implausible. The train is just not coming. What if the psychology of poverty, which can appear so irrational to those not in poverty, is actually "the most rational response to a world of chaos and unpredictable outcomes," he wrote.

None of this is an argument against poorer families trying to save or plan for the long-term. It's an argument for context. As Eldar Shafir, the author of the Science study, told The Atlantic Cities' Emily Badger: “All the data shows it isn't about poor people, it’s about people who happen to be in poverty. All the data suggests it is not the person, it's the context they’re inhabiting.”



http://www.theatlantic.com/derek-thompson/
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
I saw that the other day. Switzerland just recently put forward the idea of a "minimum income" of $2800 a month or there abouts. And people wonder why the nordic countries have the best healthcare outcomes, the happiest populations, live longer, and have been relatively far less affected by the recession compared to us.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I saw that the other day. Switzerland just recently put forward the idea of a "minimum income" of $2800 a month or there abouts. And people wonder why the nordic countries have the best healthcare outcomes, the happiest populations, live longer, and have been relatively far less affected by the recession compared to us.
Switzerland proposed a law where no company could pay the CEO or other person more than 12 times the lowest wage in the company. It was voted down by over 2/3rds of the population. I guess they are not into total socialism either...
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I saw that the other day. Switzerland just recently put forward the idea of a "minimum income" of $2800 a month or there abouts. And people wonder why the nordic countries have the best healthcare outcomes, the happiest populations, live longer, and have been relatively far less affected by the recession compared to us.
i think i understood it to be that we are experimenting with this somehow..right now..wonder how i can get in on the trials:lol:
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I thought this was very interesting as the premise is, you are the "equivalent of 13 points lower in IQ" due to poverty decision making..




Your Brain on Poverty: Why Poor People Seem to Make Bad Decisions

Business Nov 22 2013, 2:39 PM ET 305
Shoppers at a food pantry. (Reuters)In August, Science published a landmark study concluding that poverty, itself, hurts our ability to make decisions about school, finances, and life, imposing a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points.

It was widely seen as a counter-argument to claims that poor people are "to blame" for bad decisions and a rebuke to policies that withhold money from the poorest families unless they behave in a certain way. After all, if being poor leads to bad decision-making (as opposed to the other way around), then giving cash should alleviate the cognitive burdens of poverty, all on its own.

Sometimes, science doesn't stick without a proper anecdote, and "Why I Make Terrible Decisions," a comment published on Gawker's Kinja platform by a person in poverty, is a devastating illustration of the Science study. I've bolded what I found the most moving, insightful portions, but it's a moving and insightful testimony all the way through.
I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don’t pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It’s not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn’t that I blow five bucks at Wendy’s. It’s that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. It is not worth it to me to live a bleak life devoid of small pleasures so that one day I can make a single large purchase. I will never have large pleasures to hold on to. There’s a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there’s money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.
Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It’s why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It’s more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that’s all you get. You’re probably not compatible with them for anything long-term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don’t plan long-term because if we do we’ll just get our hearts broken. It’s best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.

When neuroscientists Joseph W. Kable and Joseph T. McGuire studied time, uncertainty and decision-making, they found that virtues like patience and self-control weren't as simple previous studies suggested. In the ubiquitous Marshmallow study, for example, kids who ate the treat quickly were deemed impatient and kids who waited had self-control and, on the whole, went on to lead more productive lives, the study found.
But rational self-control in the real world, Kable says, isn't so black-and-white. Perhaps you have enough patience to wait an hour for a train, or to lose one pound each week with exercise and dieting. That sounds responsible. But what happens if the train isn't there in 90 minutes? If you never lose weight and you're making yourself miserable with your diet? Maybe you should give up! "In this situation, giving up can be a natural — indeed, a rational — response to a time frame that wasn’t properly framed to begin with," Maria Konnikova summed it up for the Times.

As Andrew Golis points out, this might suggest something even deeper than the idea that poverty's stress interferes with our ability to make good decisions. The inescapability of poverty weighs so heavily on the author that s/he abandons long-term planning entirely, because the short term needs are so great and the long-term gains so implausible. The train is just not coming. What if the psychology of poverty, which can appear so irrational to those not in poverty, is actually "the most rational response to a world of chaos and unpredictable outcomes," he wrote.

None of this is an argument against poorer families trying to save or plan for the long-term. It's an argument for context. As Eldar Shafir, the author of the Science study, told The Atlantic Cities' Emily Badger: “All the data shows it isn't about poor people, it’s about people who happen to be in poverty. All the data suggests it is not the person, it's the context they’re inhabiting.”



http://www.theatlantic.com/derek-thompson/
this is the heart of the failed "Socio-Economic Status" excuse. poverty = despair, despair = more poverty, more poverty = crime, crime = more poverty

when this is the message, all you do is inform the poor person that it's not their fault, somebody else got lucky, and that luck was STOLEN from you in-utero, so everyone who has more than you is a pre-natal thief.

it's the same nonsense that creates Cargo Cults, sure some people are BORN RICH, but many people born into desperate poverty have climbed the ladder of success, and made out pretty good for themselves, even if you dont count those who rode the entertainment/sports escalator.

hte lefty "SES" excuse has been systematically reinforcing bad decisions, and inculcating a sense of entitlement for nearly 70 years, in ALL of society's urban poor, (not just the Black Community so save the RACISM chant for somebody who gives a shit bucky) because helpless hopeless and despairing people are EASIER TO CONTROL.

even the romans knew this, which is why the plebs rarely climbed out of the slums to enter the Cursus Honorum, despite their well proven ability to do so.

downtroddenm peasants who see themselves as helpless hopeless and worthless are easily bribed with bread and circuses, and thats what we have now, through foodstamps welfare and TV.
 

Stonerman Enoch

Well-Known Member
I saw that the other day. Switzerland just recently put forward the idea of a "minimum income" of $2800 a month or there abouts. And people wonder why the nordic countries have the best healthcare outcomes, the happiest populations, live longer, and have been relatively far less affected by the recession compared to us.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Greenland are Nordic Countries. Switzerland is located right above Italy and is not a Nordic country but I suppose your point still stands. Plus the CEO wage gap bill was a good Idea on Switzerland's part, especially when you look at how things are orchestrated in the US compared to other countries.
ceo-wage-gap.jpg
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
Switzerland proposed a law where no company could pay the CEO or other person more than 12 times the lowest wage in the company. It was voted down by over 2/3rds of the population. I guess they are not into total socialism either...
Social democracy, not socialism. Switzerland also has popular far right parties, but economically they're pretty liberal.

this is the heart of the failed "Socio-Economic Status" excuse. poverty = despair, despair = more poverty, more poverty = crime, crime = more poverty

when this is the message, all you do is inform the poor person that it's not their fault, somebody else got lucky, and that luck was STOLEN from you in-utero, so everyone who has more than you is a pre-natal thief.

it's the same nonsense that creates Cargo Cults, sure some people are BORN RICH, but many people born into desperate poverty have climbed the ladder of success, and made out pretty good for themselves, even if you dont count those who rode the entertainment/sports escalator.

hte lefty "SES" excuse has been systematically reinforcing bad decisions, and inculcating a sense of entitlement for nearly 70 years, in ALL of society's urban poor, (not just the Black Community so save the RACISM chant for somebody who gives a shit bucky) because helpless hopeless and despairing people are EASIER TO CONTROL.

even the romans knew this, which is why the plebs rarely climbed out of the slums to enter the Cursus Honorum, despite their well proven ability to do so.

downtroddenm peasants who see themselves as helpless hopeless and worthless are easily bribed with bread and circuses, and thats what we have now, through foodstamps welfare and TV.
You didn't like sociology much did you?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Social democracy, not socialism. Switzerland also has popular far right parties, but economically they're pretty liberal.



You didn't like sociology much did you?
sociology is just foolishness and self-deception masquerading as science

humans are animals, and aminals, when not driven by instinct fear or hunger will take any opportunity to lay about in the sun.

humans, like any animal will repeat behaviour which has proven successful, including begging for handouts at your picnic table, rooting through the trash for scraps or climbing into your kitchen to make a nest in your pantry.

this is why you are commanded to NOT feed the bears, as they will become dependent on this easy food supply, and may become dangerous when the food is not forthcoming.

if you feed a stray dog it WILL follow you home whether you like it or not.

we are however encouraged to feed stray humans, and then the liberal acts surprised when these strays expect more handouts, despite their constant crapping on your floor, chewing on your shoes, snarling and snapping at anyone who gets to close, and digging up your garden.

our urban underclass (regardless of the colour of their pelts) all exhibit similar behaviours to feral animals, yet sociologists try and explain this behaviour in human terms rather than the simple, easily understood behaviour of animals.

humans, like chimps dolphins, monkeys, and elephants must LEARN their social behaviour from their parents and the social group, and without this training they are unsuited to the society in which they live. the left and their sociologist mushbrains have been systematically robbing the urban youth of their social instruction, letting them turn feral, and then blaming SOCIETY for the behaviour of the anti-social creatures they created.

Desmond Morris' morning duece is worth more than all the sociologist in the world combined.

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/the-human-animal-episode-02-the-hunting-ape-video_7b4085f29.html
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
sociology is just foolishness and self-deception masquerading as science

humans are animals, and aminals, when not driven by instinct fear or hunger will take any opportunity to lay about in the sun.

humans, like any animal will repeat behaviour which has proven successful, including begging for handouts at your picnic table, rooting through the trash for scraps or climbing into your kitchen to make a nest in your pantry.

this is why you are commanded to NOT feed the bears, as they will become dependent on this easy food supply, and may become dangerous when the food is not forthcoming.

if you feed a stray dog it WILL follow you home whether you like it or not.

we are however encouraged to feed stray humans, and then the liberal acts surprised when these strays expect more handouts, despite their constant crapping on your floor, chewing on your shoes, snarling and snapping at anyone who gets to close, and digging up your garden.

our urban underclass (regardless of the colour of their pelts) all exhibit similar behaviours to feral animals, yet sociologists try and explain this behaviour in human terms rather than the simple, easily understood behaviour of animals.

humans, like chimps dolphins, monkeys, and elephants must LEARN their social behaviour from their parents and the social group, and without this training they are unsuited to the society in which they live. the left and their sociologist mushbrains have been systematically robbing the urban youth of their social instruction, letting them turn feral, and then blaming SOCIETY for the behaviour of the anti-social creatures they created.

Desmond Morris' morning duece is worth more than all the sociologist in the world combined.

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/the-human-animal-episode-02-the-hunting-ape-video_7b4085f29.html
Ahhh so an area of science that uses the same scientific method and gathers it's information through various peer reviewed statistical data is bunk? I've taken a couple sociology classes and I have another one next semester, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Ahhh so an area of science that uses the same scientific method and gathers it's information through various peer reviewed statistical data is bunk? I've taken a couple sociology classes and I have another one next semester, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one.
of course it's bunk. it cannot reliably predict social interactions, not even in general, sociology fails miserably every time it's "peer reviewed theories" are implemented, and "peer review" is pointless if the "Peers" doing the "Reviewing" are all just as stupid as the "Peer" being "Reviewed"

sociology is as useless and unscientific as "Biblical Scholarship" or "Divinity Studies"

if sociology had dick to offer, why is the Black Community still in a shambles after 70 years of their generous help?
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
of course it's bunk. it cannot reliably predict social interactions, not even in general, sociology fails miserably every time it's "peer reviewed theories" are implemented, and "peer review" is pointless if the "Peers" doing the "Reviewing" are all just as stupid as the "Peer" being "Reviewed"

sociology is as useless and unscientific as "Biblical Scholarship" or "Divinity Studies"

if sociology had dick to offer, why is the Black Community still in a shambles after 70 years of their generous help?
Oh I don't know.. maybe because sociology has next to no pull in American politics? We don't pay any attention to it. It has no presence in our economic or social policies.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
this is the heart of the failed "Socio-Economic Status" excuse. poverty = despair, despair = more poverty, more poverty = crime, crime = more poverty

when this is the message, all you do is inform the poor person that it's not their fault, somebody else got lucky, and that luck was STOLEN from you in-utero, so everyone who has more than you is a pre-natal thief.

it's the same nonsense that creates Cargo Cults, sure some people are BORN RICH, but many people born into desperate poverty have climbed the ladder of success, and made out pretty good for themselves, even if you dont count those who rode the entertainment/sports escalator.

hte lefty "SES" excuse has been systematically reinforcing bad decisions, and inculcating a sense of entitlement for nearly 70 years, in ALL of society's urban poor, (not just the Black Community so save the RACISM chant for somebody who gives a shit bucky) because helpless hopeless and despairing people are EASIER TO CONTROL.

even the romans knew this, which is why the plebs rarely climbed out of the slums to enter the Cursus Honorum, despite their well proven ability to do so.

downtroddenm peasants who see themselves as helpless hopeless and worthless are easily bribed with bread and circuses, and thats what we have now, through foodstamps welfare and TV.
Nice post, except your forgot to mention the "welfare" of the parisitic class of government "workers" and the military industrial complex.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, back on topic...

http://sociology.uwo.ca/cluster/en/PolicyBrief10.html
[HR][/HR]

Conclusion

We see a larger impact of a GAI on Dauphin than expected, because even though not all families qualified for a supplement, the impacts of the GAI extended beyond qualifying families. This is due to social interaction: changes in behaviour of those who receive the supplement influence those who do not, reinforcing the direct effects of the GAI. A good example of this effect is the influence of grade 11 students on their peers to continue education.
The most suggestive result of this study is the fall of hospitalization rates by 8.5 percent in Dauphin relative to the comparison group, specifically, a reduction in hospitalization rates for accidents, injuries, and mental health problems. Considering that in 2010, Canada spent $55 billion on hospital costs--8.5 percent of which is about $4.6 billion-- these potentially immense savings make a GAI worthy of policy consideration.
[HR][/HR]
What I found interesting is there were 5 experiments performed from 1968-80 in North America. But due to "higher divorce rates" (a suspect correlation in retrospect), it caused "interest to wane in the late 1970s" in the US.


 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, back on topic...

http://sociology.uwo.ca/cluster/en/PolicyBrief10.html
[HR][/HR]

Conclusion

We see a larger impact of a GAI on Dauphin than expected, because even though not all families qualified for a supplement, the impacts of the GAI extended beyond qualifying families. This is due to social interaction: changes in behaviour of those who receive the supplement influence those who do not, reinforcing the direct effects of the GAI. A good example of this effect is the influence of grade 11 students on their peers to continue education.
The most suggestive result of this study is the fall of hospitalization rates by 8.5 percent in Dauphin relative to the comparison group, specifically, a reduction in hospitalization rates for accidents, injuries, and mental health problems. Considering that in 2010, Canada spent $55 billion on hospital costs--8.5 percent of which is about $4.6 billion-- these potentially immense savings make a GAI worthy of policy consideration.
[HR][/HR]
What I found interesting is there were 5 experiments performed from 1968-80 in North America. But due to "higher divorce rates" (a suspect correlation in retrospect), it caused "interest to wane in the late 1970s" in the US.


i've been in both places..moneyed and poor..honestly, if i did not have an IQ of 117..i would have folded..it was getting to me mentally and important to have prescription coverage which i did not..i can see how easily one can go from being prosperous to being homeless.. much of it being lack of proper medication with no health.. people spiral out of control..being poor is hard work.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Oh I don't know.. maybe because sociology has next to no pull in American politics? We don't pay any attention to it. It has no presence in our economic or social policies.
the dept of health and human services, the census bureau, the national education administration, and the dept of the interior us sociology extensively.

it has become their go-to choice for all their decision making.

even the press fellates sociologists whenever they need an opinion on why conservatives are by their very nature stupider than leftists, or why moslems hate us, despite the moslem's own rhetoric which makes clear the real reason, "cuz we aint moslems!"
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Do not listen to this man!

"dont feed the bears" is a non-consensual use of government force which deprives us of our fundamental liberty to provide comestibles to hungry ursines!

thats why i dont listen to signs, portents are much more reliable.




Fight The Power!

Take Back Your Rights!

Occupy Ursine Digestive Tracts!

 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I saw that the other day. Switzerland just recently put forward the idea of a "minimum income" of $2800 a month or there abouts. And people wonder why the nordic countries have the best healthcare outcomes, the happiest populations, live longer, and have been relatively far less affected by the recession compared to us.
YEs thats it, the reason they haven't been as hard hit by the recession is because they give money to their populations.
Im sure it has nothing to do with natural resources or a sensible economic system not as of yet plagued by cronyism.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
"dont feed the bears" is a non-consensual use of government force which deprives us of our fundamental liberty to provide comestibles to hungry ursines!

thats why i dont listen to signs, portents are much more reliable.




Fight The Power!

Take Back Your Rights!

Occupy Ursine Digestive Tracts!

that's a high protein shit if i ever saw one:lol:
 
Top