Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You need to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is desirable, the latter is not only undesirbale, it is impossible as far as humanity is concerned.Only identical robots could be assured of an equality of outcome. Yep, equality of opportunity is what I was referring to. Eg decent schools even in rundown areas. Equality of outcome is as you say probably not realistic, but in the most extreme cases of poverty (which you might choose to call absolute, though that is of course a relative term) I would argue that the state should intervene more than they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Okay, that's good we agree. Sorry I was a little grumpy... I'd put some effort into my earlier posts and didn't like it that you hadn't taken the time to read them. Ha ha sorry. I'm off on holiday at lunchtime and am trying to get some work done before I go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 This reads like a rationale for social control.Oh, hang on, it is a rationale for social control. What you do with the objective evidence is the determining factor in whether or not you are an advocate of social control. The evidence, however, is the evidence Live with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Clearly not, if you think that's what I'm saying. Well now I'm confused, because you told the other guy that his logic left him with the burden of deciding what was the absolute level of poverty. You now seem to be accepting a similar duty to define the correct level of inequality. You must have cracked this. Could you share it with the forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Some of you don't seem to grasp the concepts fully. IIRC relative poverty is defined as an income of 20% or less of the median wage. Imagine 10 people. 4 earn 100k. 6 earn 10k. Median salary =10k No relative poverty, there are some rich and some poor. if 1 of those 6 earns 1k the median remains 10k, but now we have 1 chap in relative poverty. Equally if 2 of the 6 lower earners got a good pay rise and joined the ranks of 100k earners, the median salary would be 100k, leaving 4 of 10 people in relative poverty. To put this in perspective we currently define the median salary at 25k. 20% of that would be £5k. Which in this day and age is a pretty miserable amount of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) +1 to Frank.We have Yvette Cooper describing poverty in terms of internet access today. More telling people that they are deprived and have no chance, more disempowering of individuals to improve their lives, more state control, more soma. It makes me sick. I think both relative and absolute poverty are relevant measures. Absolute povety is obvious. People starving isn't a good thing. Relative poverty is about distribution of earnings in the population. The problem is that the fixed costs of living rise to some significant portion of what the average person can afford, through rents (in the general sense) and regressive taxes. If the distribution around average earnings is broad then there will be a large portion of those at the lower end of the spectrum who are really struggling within the society because of these fixed costs, and another large portion of the population with relatively large disposable incomes. This latter group can leverage this disposable income to disenfranchise the relatively poor even further (and cause economic and social mayhem...just look at what London salaries have done to the south west and, to a lesser extent, much of the rest of the country.) With a tight distribution around mean earnings, this doesn't happen to the same extent. So, although I don't see why everyone should need access to the internet, the fact that a significant portion of the population can not afford what is deemed to be a normal -part of life for many in this society is indicative of underlying distributional problems. It may sound like I am arguing for a socialist solution - I am not - just pointing out the dynamics and that much of the regulation (or lack thereof) over the past decade has just exacerbated the possibility of those with disposable income leveraging the rest of society into catastrophe. Edited June 12, 2009 by D'oh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You must have cracked this. Could you share it with the forum? I wish I had. These are difficult issues; we all know that. So why would you choose to use sarcastic arguments against someone who is just putting forward their informed opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Oops accidental posting Edited June 12, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Yep, equality of opportunity is what I was referring to. Eg decent schools even in rundown areas. Equality of outcome is as you say probably not realistic, but in the most extreme cases of poverty (which you might choose to call absolute, though that is of course a relative term) I would argue that the state should intervene more than they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Absolutely agree. I was just pointing out that the concept of relative poverty does have merit in some contexts, logically if nothing else because otherwise you end up debating what counts as poverty forever rather than dealing with it.Smith And several people are quite rightly pointing out that it has absolutely no relevance in advanced, economically complexified societies. Gordon Brown is perhaps the apotheosis of the creed that believes fighting 'relative poverty' is a moral obligation. After 12 years, isn't everything going swimmingly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 What you do with the objective evidence is the determining factor in whether or not you are an advocate of social control.The evidence, however, is the evidence Live with it Is "live with it" something you think lends a weight of closure to a statement? The fact is that people are rational, they just get misled by idiots and scoundrels. Live with or without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 And several people are quite rightly pointing out that it has absolutely no relevance in advanced, economically complexified societies. Gordon Brown is perhaps the apotheosis of the creed that believes fighting 'relative poverty' is a moral obligation. After 12 years, isn't everything going swimmingly? Yes, but as well as the moral obligation you have also to implement policies and programmes which work, and not to engage yourself in directly opposed policies which favour your mates in big business. That is why the Labour government has failed, not because of their supposed morals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) You need to distinguish between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The former is desirable, the latter is not only undesirbale, it is impossible as far as humanity is concerned.Only identical robots could be assured of an equality of outcome. The problem is that because of initial differences in resource distribution there is not equality of opportunity. The grammar school/university bursary system that existed a couple of decades ago was pro-equality of opportunity (though clearly far from perfect). What happens now, is further from it. What's really strange is that those who argue for equality of opportunity often argue against grammar schools, as if the economics of catchment areas for good schools and the private school option is somehow fairer. Edited June 12, 2009 by D'oh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I wish I had. These are difficult issues; we all know that. So why would you choose to use sarcastic arguments against someone who is just putting forward their informed opinion? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just listening to your arguments. You seem to be saying there is a duty to negate inequality when you believe inequality should remain, but at a controlled level but don't know what degree of inequality is right. I find this a strange position to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Relative poverty is a measure of inequality, not of what is widely understood as poverty (which is the lack of resources to meet the lowest quality of life deemed acceptable by whoever is making the judgement).By calling it poverty, rather than inequality, the government - and I'm afraid social researchers - are evading a debate on what the appropriate level of inequality in society is. Say that there is inequality in society... well, it is far from clear that something must be done. You have to make your case on why this is a bad thing. You have it @rse about face By calling it poverty rather than inequality, the government obfuscates the nature and causes of poverty by implying that poverty is caused simply by other people being rich. This nonsense leads to the conclusion tat we can relieve poverty by making everyone equally poor. Edited June 12, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just listening to your arguments.You seem to be saying there is a duty to negate inequality when you believe inequality should remain, but at a controlled level but don't know what degree of inequality is right. I find this a strange position to take. I don't know either. But I do know that currently we're heading in the wrong direction (greater inequality) so what we need to do is work on moving things in the right direction (less inequality). Once we're doing that we can worry about where we should stop. Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 You just disproved your own thesis. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Relative poverty is the ultimate tool in the hands of the controlling, neurotic, narcissistic, busybody, proselytizing, Fabian social engineer class. It's a meaningless term that truly makes me feel like we're living in an Orwellian nightmare. Apparently one of the defining characteristics of the impoverished class in the UK (1 in 5, apparently) is that they are obese. I would love to explain this to some of our fellow men in sub-Saharan Africa. Well said Sir. I feel sick every time I hear Hampstead liberals banging on about poverty. Seebohm Rowntree (I think) got it right in the nineteenth century when he worked out the absolute minimum income required for food, clothing and shelter. Other than that any talk of 'poverty' is relative, and it is used as an emotive mask (a favourite tactic of the left) to cover social engineering. The real problem in this country is not poverty, but squalor, and that is not greatly connected with material or financial poverty - it is caused by failed social policy and moral relativism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 How? Your argument invoked perfect rationality, which you imagined. If you imagined it, you've got it - therefore humans can be perfectly rational, This is like my favourite answer to problems - "Imagine what a genius would do, then do it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) The problem is that because of initial differences in resource distribution there is not equality of opportunity. The grammar school/university bursary system that existed a couple of decades ago was pro-equality of opportunity (though clearly far from perfect). What happens now, is further from it. What's really strange is that those who argue for equality of opportunity often argue against grammar schools, as if the economics of catchment areas for good schools and the private school option is somehow fairer. ++1 People pay for their schooling when they buy real estate. Nobody seems to question why the owners of real estate around schools should be paid privately for access to supposedly 'public' service Edited June 12, 2009 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't know either. But I do know that currently we're heading in the wrong direction (greater inequality) so what we need to do is work on moving things in the right direction (less inequality). Once we're doing that we can worry about where we should stop.Smith Why do "we" need to do anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 ++1People pay for their schooling when they buy real estate. Nobody seems to question why the owners of real estate around schools should be paid privately for access to supposedly 'public' service Sorry, this is rubbish. You are sat in front of the reason why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I don't know either. But I do know that currently we're heading in the wrong direction (greater inequality) so what we need to do is work on moving things in the right direction (less inequality). Once we're doing that we can worry about where we should stop.Smith What makes these the right and wrong direction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) Is "live with it" something you think lends a weight of closure to a statement?The fact is that people are rational, they just get misled by idiots and scoundrels. Live with or without it. I use the term "live with it" because there seems to be a significant number of people on here who would like to deny the (empirically evidenced) reality of human behaviour, presumably because it does not fit neatly into their moral/ideological world view. You state as a "fact" that people are rational. Care to back that up? I am more than happy to back any of my own assertions up. Even you must admit that a great number of humans act irrationally. Thus, your argument must rest on an argument that this seemingly irrational behaviour is based on a lack of knowledge rather than an intrinsic irrationality. I woukld argue it doesn't actually matter which is true. The reason being that either people are intrinsically irrational and so it doesn;t matte rhow much ionfiormation you throw at them. Or, their irrationality is, indeed, only based on ignorance, in which case, it is practically impossible to ensure that all humans are in reciept of the same informatiuon. unloess you are secetly an adviocate of massive social control.... Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I use the term "live with it" because there seems to be a significant number of people on here who would like to deny the (empirically evidenced) reality of human behaviour, presumably because it does not fit neatly into their moral/ideological world view.you state as a "fact" that people are rational. Care to back that up? I am more than happy to back any of my own assertions up. We're having a rational discussion. I am normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.