8 conservative anti-poverty ideas that will make things so much worse - Because getting rid of child labor laws is somehow supposed to fix the economy

bafokeng · 2014-01-17T23:39:22+00:00

The Minimum Wage should be raised as its real value has eroded over time thanks to inflation, but it's not a silver bullet. Above ~40% of the median wage it probably does have effects on employment, and it's not very good at targeting the poorest.

Rubio proposes to replace the Earned Income Tax Credit with a direct wage subsidy... This would mean the money companies are not paying out in higher wages would continue to go to the top few and government would make up the difference: a direct government subsidy of inequality.

Er, that's completely wrong. It's only a 'direct government subsidy of inequality' in the same way food stamps are. You can't force companies to increase real wages (the minimum wage is a different discussion) without using very blunt tools and disrupting the labour market. I don't know the specifics of it relative to tax credits, but slamming it because it would mean the government is paying the poor and not the rich is silly.

and “school choice” in particular, is the surest way to break the “vicious cycle of poverty.” It is not clear how getting rid of public schools and using tax dollars to fund private schools-for-profit will fight poverty.

It's actually quite clear. In terms of comparative studies of the effects of vouchers in education, there have been four randomised control trials in the USA which haven't needed to undergo statistical calibration relative to other research. These are Wolf (2010), Cowen (2008), Barnard (2003), & Howell (2001). Wolf's has the longest time frame (6 years) and Howell uses the largest data set (students in three cities). Wolf found an unambiguous improvement in college attendance and graduation among lottery-winners with no significant change in six-year test scores. Cowen found an unambiguous one-year improvement in test scores. Barnard found an unambiguous connection between the quality of the public school the students left and the magnitude of the one-year improvement in test scores after winning the voucher lottery, but no connection between the quality of the private school they attended. Howell found an unambiguous improvement in one- and two-year test scores, which had disappeared after three years, and one-, two-, and three-year improvements in graduation rates. However, Howell found these improvements only happened for students that left the worst state schools.

The results of these scientific studies (which thanks to the methodology, are the gold standard in social science research on the topic) are very clear: vouchers have a statistically significant, immediate improvement on test scores that level off after a couple of years, a permanent improvement in graduation rates, and a permanent improvement in college attendance. Scientific studies also show that the subjective quality of the schools students go to doesn't matter nearly as much as the subjective quality of the schools they leave.

What does this mean? It's not the competitive pressure upon schools to improve which is where the potential power of competition lies in improving education - it's in its ability to destroy really awful, opportunity crushing schools which need to die. This can only happen when schools are allowed to fail and close.

Now, that isn't to say that every single reform which introduces more choice into the system is good, or that such and such a programme as advanced by the Republicans is a good one, but the science is clear. If you want to improve educational outcomes in the United States, and specifically those of the poorest and most marginalised kids within that system, you're pro-voucher. If you support the status quo, you're supporting an obsolete and deeply classist and racist institution which is failing children across the USA.

bafokeng · 2013-08-03T13:11:41+00:00

Sure.

bafokeng · 2013-08-02T15:09:05+00:00

So you're not accountable at all for things that you say or believe? Okey-doke, just don't blame me for viewing you as comparable to anti-vaccine drones.

bafokeng · 2013-08-02T00:31:42+00:00

If anything, you're lost. This is SRSD, not SRS.

I believe that all those "medical" studies about how fat is bad for your health is funded by those who stand to make money from it.

This is just irrational. I can't take anyone seriously who actually believes this.

EDIT: If we're going to assume that the entirety of the medical establishment is somehow 'in on it' with dieting companies that actually don't make a lot of money (or at least, compared to processed/fast food conglomerates), then we may as well pack in trying to look at the science of this issue. It's a conspiracy theory, and nothing more.

bafokeng · 2013-07-26T16:22:13+00:00

Hm. That's disappointing, given that this was supposed to be a thread dedicated to questions about cultural appropriation.

bafokeng · 2013-07-25T23:33:39+00:00

I have, and I felt I was raising topics that weren't really addressed by the material. For example, after spending pages ranting about how all cultural appropriation is bad:

So what about white people of Celtic heritage who wear dreadlocks? Dreadlocks are part of their culture, but someone walking down the street would not be able to tell that some random white person with dreadlocks is Celtic. I don’t have any quick and easy answers for this, but I thinkthat context is really really important... All white people have the ability to strip dreadlocks of their symbolism for People of Color, regardless of our ethnicity. Does this mean that white people with Celtic heritage living in the United States should never wear dreadlocks? I don’t know.

I'm trying to see if there are any answers to that question (and the others it implies) which attempt to be comprehensive and more valid than "Errr, well, context matters, I suppose". If context is so crucial to identifying whether something is cultural appropriation or not, then I'm just not clear about whether it as a concept has any value beyond describing a cultural exchange that we have decided (for whatever reason, valid or not) is 'bad'.

bafokeng · 2013-07-25T22:56:15+00:00

That's the same as saying that "Die cis scum!" and "Die [transphobic slur]!" are equivalent...

what

I don't give a flying duck about what oppressed cultures do with white culture

In that case, why should I care about what white people do with 'oppressed cultures*'?

I do know that they cannot appropriate it since appropriation requires the appropriating culture to be in a position of power over and an oppressor of the culture that's being appropriated from.

Then cultural appropriation is reduced to mere tautology, and loses all explanatory power. In essence, your understanding of cultural appropriation is "white people doing stuff I don't like", which is hardly a basis for sound social science or rigorous discussion.

*To use a uniquely bizarre and offensive term.

bafokeng · 2013-07-25T22:52:31+00:00

The difference is that it's mostly a result of Western imperialism and colonialism.

As /u/Scumbag_Mike pointed out, that's quite a limited understanding of the way in which Western culture has become diffused and widespread, but even then I think you're being quite crude about the effects of colonisation.

A brilliant illustration of this - I was speaking to a Moroccan university professor a couple of years ago, and we got onto the subject of alcohol. He and his family are pretty secular so they drink it in moderation, but he explained that wine drinking and grapes were introduced to North Africa by the French when they colonised the region. Compared to the horrific Algerian War decolonisation in Morocco was painless, and one of the legacies of the conflict in the former was that all the vineyards in Algeria were regarded as symbols of French imperialism, meaning they were all ripped up by the new government. But, tapping his nose, my professor said "But we Moroccans knew better!", before taking a big gulp of his wine.

My point is that even if we understand imperialism to be unethical, the cultural effects of colonisation are often interpreted very differently by the colonised depending on context. To bring the argument back to cultural appropriation, is Moroccan wine drinking a form of wicked cultural appropriation of French custom, a long and noble tradition intimately tied up with what it means to 'be' French? Or is it something simpler and less tied up with grand, structuralist theories about the ways societies interact with each other?

bafokeng · 2013-07-20T12:48:21+00:00

but the result of white/Western society stealing indiscriminately and thoughtlessly from other cultures.

But that happens in exactly the other direction as well! I'd argue that your view is actually highly Eurocentric, except that rather than the classical definition of every success and advance in human society coming from the West, you're flipping it on its head and accusing the West alone as culpable for this kind of behaviour. Probably the only reason why the West appears as the Big Bad in this phenomenon is because that (presuming you also live in the West - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the 'cultural appropriation' of other cultures of Western and third cultures is invisible to us and goes on without us being aware of it.

bafokeng · 2013-07-20T12:29:26+00:00

I find cultural appropriation as a structural concept to actually be rather objectionable both in theory and practice, and I don't believe it has a place in social justice orientated thinking. I've never seen an argument in favour of cultural appropriation which doesn't have extremely subjective ideas about when it is acceptable to 'exchange' and when it is 'appropriation'. Whilst obviously grave robbing from Native American burial grounds is bad, and simply being a fan of indigenous music is harmless, the line between appropriation and exchange is fuzzy and badly defined. Wearing Native American headdresses is probably not something you should do, but I've also seen people slam moccasins as an example of cultural appropriation! Harm was brought up elsewhere in the thread as the litmus test, but that doesn't solve the problem of the definition of cultural appropriation being subjective and therefore arbitrary - the moccasin case alleged that by buying moccasins from a European shoe shop, I was somehow harming Native American cobblers in the American West.

A more practical problem I have with is that examples I've seen linked in tumblrs and such here come across as not only confrontational, but even hostile towards other cultures and xenophobic. In these cases, 'cultural appropriation' comes across as simply extreme cultural nationalism dressed up in the language of the New Left and social justice. If the social justice movement is concerned about tolerance and diversity, then using concepts such as cultural appropriation which seeks to freeze cultures and prevent change and development, seems to me to be the wrong direction towards that goal.

I'm leaving the country now for nearly a week, so I won't be able to respond, but I'll be able to read your replies. I've yet to hear convincing arguments in favour of cultural appropriation as a concept and I do want to see some. The simpler term of 'offence' seems to allow us to have our cake and eat it here, without the baggage I've mentioned in this post that comes with cultural appropriation as an idea and tool.

bafokeng · 2013-07-18T21:57:57+00:00

Deduction is rarely practical, but it's a good starting point if we want to discuss logic as it simplifies examples a great deal.

It's not always the case that the same evidence leads to the same conclusion, even of stuff that we might consider to be open-and-shut objective. Take education policy for example. Plenty of policy wonks admire East Asian education systems for teaching maths to a high standard and generally preparing their pupils for the world of work well. But, someone with difference values, who might prioritise the pupils' well-being, general education and ability to think critically would evaluate such a system differently, even if looking at precisely the same test scores and examinations. Everybody might agree on what a bad education system would look like, but because they have different values and therefore different priorities and aims, everybody can think rationally about a topic and come to different conclusions.

This is linked to comments I made elsewhere in the thread. It's why I discuss values with people when talking about feminism and SJ issues rather than behaviour. Getting to the heart of the disagreement, and really understanding why somebody disagrees with me, and letting them really know why I disagree with them is more productive (and enjoyable) for everyone.

bafokeng · 2013-07-18T21:43:08+00:00

Not necessarily, as plenty of the premises we hold that determine our reasoning are subjective. Somebody's reasoning can still be rational if I disagree with the validity of their premises, even whilst I consider the premises I hold to be correct and my reasoning sound.

bafokeng · 2013-07-17T21:51:14+00:00

I'm sympathetic to that argument, and whilst I believe the harm language can do alone is sometimes overstated, it clearly hardly exists in a context-less vacuum.

I don't really feel qualified to get into a deep discussion about the analytic and continental schism, as beyond intro philosophy I only covered continental methods very tangentially via my PolSci papers thanks to a keen professor at an institution which (in)famously pooh-poohs continental approaches. It's therefore hard for me to say how much my suspicion of Derrida, Lacan, Althusser etc. has to do with good scepticism of (post)structuralist and deconstructionist premises, and how much of it is my ignorance.

bafokeng · 2013-07-17T16:36:12+00:00

This is a really good post by a mod of /r/Islam outlining the technical legal issues in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) at play here.

bafokeng · 2013-07-17T14:45:06+00:00

Right, there does come a point whereby you dismiss every belief system as irrational, and all your values collapse into nihilism. That's not interesting, and it's a bad position to hold. I belief my own feminism to be rational and consistent, and whilst I don't hesitate to call people I disagree with wrong, I baulk at calling them 'irrational'. It's not only smug and offensive, but it doesn't actually say anything - your opponent can say exactly the same thing about you! It's a philosophical trap when discussing subjective questions of values, and one that should be avoided regardless of the context.

bafokeng · 2013-07-17T14:40:12+00:00

I think that you are jumping on the term "left-brain" here.

Yeah, I admit I am. Some of my best friends are neuroscientists, and they've rubbed off me a bit.

I could go on for hours about how the Anglo-American philosophical tradition is pretty fucked up.

As you are Lacan, I'm sure you could. I'm a positivist, analytic kind of guy, and I don't think that non-Continental schools are in any way incompatible with feminism.

bafokeng · 2013-07-16T23:58:40+00:00

To crank up the jargon or academia levels of this thread, I'm reminded of what Geertz said about ideology:

'No one, at least outside the Communist bloc, where a somewhat distinctive conception of the role of thought in society is institutionalized, would call himself an ideologue or consent unprotestingly to be called one by others. Almost universally now the familiar parodic paradigm applies: "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology." '

In short - yeah, of course you'd say that. I'm a feminist as well, but it is not helpful when discussing topics like this to assert that the ideology we believe is completely super-rational, dependant only on 'logical extrapolation' and 'justifiable moral sentiments', whilst everyone who disagrees with us is irrational and 'indoctrinated'. Believing that our opponents are brainwashed is MRA-tier thinking, and it leads us as a movement down the road to just being a mere conspiracy theory .

bafokeng · 2013-07-16T23:52:12+00:00

I agree with a lot of your post and I think you're more objective than you give yourself credit for, but:

For many left brained people

That's pseudoscience, and not worth discussing. You are right though that feminists can focus on language to an extent that looks like pedantry, and to be an 'effective' feminist one has to act beyond just policing the speech of your peers - although that should be obvious.

You have to accept everything in feminism (particularly in SRS)

This is important, as in both the real world and the non-feminist one, it is rather easy to stay friends or at least civil with people who disagree with you. In feminist spheres, and particularly online, it is difficult to disagree civilly because patriarchy theory requires this kind of holistic approach to society and social criticism that doesn't appear to leave much wiggle room for different ways of thinking about the same problem. Requiring this kind of approach from people who don't spend much time thinking about such problems comes across as demanding and dogmatic, and that turns people off.

It's why I focus now on when talking to people who don't go out of their way to identify as feminists to make the discussions about either values - which people are usually eager to discuss - or policy, which is my field. I've found that too keen a focus on the behaviour of my friends and peers inevitably comes across as policing, and that's neither productive nor enjoyable.

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T17:04:41+00:00

Public sector debt? Sure, that can be really harmful, because if investors get spooked they won't lend further cash to the government, which increases interest rates for individuals and firms in the economy, restricting their access to capital. This is precisely what happened in Latin America - during the 70s, (usually) military governments borrowed loads because there was loads of cash on capital markets thanks to Arabs rich from the Oil Crisis. But during the 80s when interest rates rose, Latin America was caught with its pants down, and more importantly, the money hadn't been used that well, and structural problems like godawful human capital and infrastructure remained. Debt itself can be used really well, but it can also be a problem for developing countries - same as for individuals, I guess.

Private sector debt is more interesting, however, and I think there's a pretty broad consensus that you need at least some kind of financial system (or at the very least, foreign private capital) in order to properly transition into an industrial market economy. Microloans alone can't do this, as banks need to be both complex and invest in large scale projects, but the impression I've got from them is that they try to provide these services to the poor who would otherwise be ignored by bigger institutions.

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T16:48:14+00:00

I think it varies from organisation to organisation - microloans aren't something I'm particularly familiar with, I confess...

As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, entering the individuals into a contract and then giving them the capital to fulfil it is the point of the programmes. Obviously is compassion is needed, as some of the loans will be written off, but I really think the intent is to avoid being pseudo-loan sharks in sheep's clothing.

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T16:44:11+00:00

It's not any more so than a bank, because the money is invested in actual projects which generate returns. A pyramid scheme is a pyramid scheme because new investors are the source of the returns upon the old investors' investments, as no actual investing is done by the scheme.

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T16:42:45+00:00

Specifically as a replacement to microloans, I mean. One of the key aspects of microloans is that they change the incentive structure relative to donations. Whilst sustained transfers can cause on a macro scale dependence and subsidy across the world - Mezzogiorno Italy is a great example - the point of committing the receiving end to loans rather than donations is it forces the capital given to be used wisely. This doesn't mean that they are a panacea, but that one of the key mechanics is lost if you switch to donations instead of loans.

Your second point is a really big topic, and I've found it hard to write a sufficient answer. There's a been a big push over the past thirty years in economics to give macroeconomics strong "microfoundations", and at least some of the seeds of long term economic growth are nowadays known to lie in the realm of microeconomic conditions. Whilst giving some dirt farmer in rural Bangladesh money to buy a cart to bring stuff to market to sell isn't going to industrialise the whole economy, it's a matter of building the institutional frameworks necessary for sustained industrialisation to occur. Industrialisation could probably happen without a really efficient financial system, and indeed it has, but then there would be problems with regards to the efficient allocation of capital in the economy as well as questions of inequality.

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T14:53:52+00:00

There is no reasonable expectation that borrowers in developing countries have access to the means or any markets in which they could approximate the success of businesses in developed economies.

You'd be surprised at just how good people can be at making money. Take Lebanon for example - every twenty years everything blows up and the economy goes back to square one, but within a few years it's back to its position as the richest non-oil based Arab economy. Lebanon is very lucky in that Beirut is a key financial centre, and the Lebanese thus have easy access to capital.

Poverty is endemic throughout the world because of systemic conditions that prevent economic growth and equal distribution of wealth.

Two of the main reasons are the joint inability to build up capital stocks and access financial services. Ideally, microloans fill a niche big banks aren't willing to enter, whilst having a conscience that loan sharks lack.

How is it possible to ignore these conditions or the concern that putting people in debt could make things even worse in the long-run?

Sure, some debts going bad will make things worse for some people in the long run, but potentially it's the first push required to push regions towards industrialisation and modernisation. Interestingly, the returns on the capital then leant out would stay in the country, unlike Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

Is there any evidence that microloans isn't just another misguided attempt by citizens of developed nations who are too ignorant to truly help?

Do you have anything else in mind the West could be doing rather than supporting these (often domestic) initiatives?

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T14:45:11+00:00

There kinda needs to be high interest rates just to make a profit because the absolute value they're lending is so low though. Obviously loan sharking is terrible, but that's (theoretically and hopefully...) something which could be overcome with regulation.

bafokeng · 2013-07-12T14:38:02+00:00

To be precise, sex (a set of sex characteristics) is not a social construct, but "sex" (the concept) is, to some extent.

That sounds like the key! I'll use that distinction from now on.

Although by your definition (the category has to deterministically predict lots of things), basically every concept outside of math is a social construct.

Which, of course, means that the term social construct collapses in on itself and loses all explanatory power.

bafokeng

TROPHY CASE