The Ferguson Thread: Part II

[LosBlancos]

Let's all quit our jobs so we can stop being exploited by these evil corporations. We might not have money for our family, for vacation, or have the fulfillment of getting up and going to work everyday but at least we won't be "exploited".

I have a friend that's a salesman. His annual salary is usually between about 1% of the revenue he brings in for business. Does he feel exploited? No, he's paid handsomely. What would be the point in hiring someone that would either lose your organization money or just make you break even? You obviously only hire workers if they will make you money, some will invariably not make you money. It's the risk you take as a businessman, an entrepreneur. Workers have the benefit of guaranteed salary/pay, while many small business owners even massive corporations can go belly up if they don't cut inefficiencies. Your knowledge of the business world is very lacking to say the least.

 

[L2R]

you really are illiterate, aren't you?

i have posted nothing of employee exploitation. nothing at all. i could have, but i didn't. you just saw the word "exploitation" and assumed it meant of workers. market forces are opportunities to make money. exploiting them is what makes businesses work. there's nothing actually wrong with that. i didn't even use the word as a pejorative.

this has nothing to do with industrial relations (which is the industry i work in, so don't even get me started, boy).

 

[LosBlancos]

market forces are opportunities to make money. exploiting them is what makes businesses work. there's nothing actually wrong with that. i didn't even use the word as a pejorative..

Yes because exploitation in and of itself isn't perjorative in the slightest? Right?

I'm sure many companies mention "exploitation" in their annual reports then.

 

[L2R]

Yes because exploitation in and of itself isn't perjorative in the slightest? Right?

I'm sure many companies mention "exploitation" in their annual reports then.

exploitation/ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
2.the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.



foolishness. incessant foolishness.
i hope you realise you're wasting your time here. that is unless of course, you like making a fool of yourself. and if that's the case, i suggest trying to make it funny at least.

 

[ebola?]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a dialogue on those responses

I would like to, but it seems a bit rare that you provide responses to specific points of mine that address the issues I bring up (without instead replying to a mischaracterization of my views or veering into non sequitur). That's why I keep harping on the straw man thing. . .
...

Here is a graph of birth rates for each continent

Right, though I believe I've addressed these data before (I'm certain you've posted this graph before). In short, these cross-national data reflect mainly where each region's population stands along a course of transition from 'third-world' to 'first' (ie, in industrializing and then a developing post-industrial, 'service' sector (largely composed of symbolic-analytical occupations in its skilled sector), in developing economies similar to those of global Northern countries). Namely, in more agrarian conditions, it is rational to produce large families, due to high mortality rates, low overall life expectancy, and the need for additional able bodies working the farm (or to provide for families as migrant laborers). It's also typical for culturally embedded religious doctrine to sanctify and in turn promote this need for high birth-rates, even in cases where this need fell away many decades (or even a few centuries) ago. This accounts for a certain degree of lag in the effect of economic development on birth-rate.

Empirically, this is most obviously clear when we look to the prior high birth-rates of W. Europe, the US, but in particular E. Asia (Korea is a great example, now having the lowest birth-rate in the developed world).

So I'm hoping that it's clear now why these data you've presented are irrelevant to the discussion of demographic disparities in birth rate (let alone rate of teenage pregnancy) within the US.

If European birth rates went up to African levels it would be likely result in a strain on resources, congestion on existing infrastructure whether it be health care or benefits services, and much less disposable income as children are very expensive to care for.

The thing is, this did happen in W. Europe. Birth-rates of Britons in the 17th to 19th C. were increasing dramatically, enough so to stimulate Malthus's work (he pretty much spurred this whole notion of population growth becoming problematic in our popular consciousness). Britain didn't collapse but rather birth rates fell in accordance with economic development over the course of a couple centuries. We saw this in the US, we've seen this in E. Asia, and we'll see it again in Africa (one can hope).

Many would rather just blame Africa's situation on European colonialism, and not look beyond that.

Again, you'll need to avoid mischaracterizing others' arguments if you're to stimulate meaningful discussion that treats your points sufficiently charitably. Insofar as we fail to do this, we'll produce the same pathologies we've seen with this conversation so far.
...
But anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that colonialism is the sole factor at play here. Escher and L2R have already cited a few of these (I consider poor access to birth control of high importance generally, and then the effect of traditionalist culture on gender roles to prove key in select cases). However, I would say that many ills we often think of as not arising specifically out of colonialism actually depend thoroughly (but not fully) on the legacy of colonialism. This is clearly the case with the political instability and frequency of authoritarian governments in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the top 20 countries with the lowest birth rates are:

19. Bulgaria, which has 9.3 births per 1,000 people and a per capita GDP of $7,200 per year

16. Serbia with 9.19 births per 1,000 people and a per capita GDP of $5,900

11. Bosnia and Herzegovina with 8.9 births per 1,000 people and a per capita GDP of $4,655

All these countries would be considered impoverished, yet they maintain low-birth rates, how do you explain this?

There are always exceptions to every statistical trend, and you've found a few (out of hundreds of countries). I'm not informed enough to comment usefully on specific cases here, but in the case of former Yugoslavia, the recent history of civil war, ethnic cleansing (genocide, really), etc. likely really put a damper on birth rates.

Has throwing money at a problem ever helped?

Numerous times. Keynesian economic stimuli (at least according types of fiscal policy) have quite a good track record, and yes, helped carry the US's economy from the brink of complete systemic collapse multiple times.

If you look at America's huge liberal cities you would large sums of money spent on welfare, public school system, health care, ect and yet there continues to be high instances of teenage pregnancy. By the government dishing out welfare, they have effectively taken away the need for personal responsibility, people don't worry about getting pregnant at a young age, they know the government will send them a larger cheque every month, provide them with formula and diapers, and health care for their children.

Frankly, the US has really dropped the ball on providing such services (in comparison to welfare provision typical of Western countries), especially when viewed in light of the disproportionately high levels of poverty our particularly high levels of socio-economic inequality impose on select populations (often on a neighborhood level).

["throwing money at the problem"] hasn't been shown to rectify the problem.

That our aggregate GDP is so high further bolsters my characterization of inequality in the US, and when taken with several aforementioned points, suggests specifically that throwing money at the problem often helps a great deal.

I resent having to add this disclaimer (again), but no, I am not claiming that structural inequalities fully determine the destiny of specific individuals. Again, statistical arguments are partial causal stories, each with various exceptions (due to the influence of various factors and individual responses to these factors).

Yes, I suppose every person with a job is horribly exploited. I'm sure the migrants coming from Mexico accustomed to earning $10 a day performing backbreaking labour feel exploited as well when they come here and earn 10 times that in a day.

Hahahah...Mexico has been a G20 country for a good number of years now, so your characterization of how immigrants experience migration is profoundly hyperbolic.

But regardless, if someone tries to move from one exploitative situation to another milder condition of exploitation, I think it's still fair to consider the situation "exploitative". However, I feel like we'll need come upon some explicit, mutually shared definition of exploitation to go further, and I think you won't like mine (though my preferred definition is typical for sociological perspectives).

you really are illiterate, aren't you?

Warranted or not, provoked or not, this type of comment is unproductive.

ebola

 

[LosBlancos]

exploitation/ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
2.the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.



foolishness. incessant foolishness.
i hope you realise you're wasting your time here. that is unless of course, you like making a fool of yourself. and if that's the case, i suggest trying to make it funny at least.

Forgive me for thinking that you were meant it's first definition, most people generally would view the word exploitation negatively (as per the first and most commonly used definition).

-LosBlancos

 

[L2R]

Warranted or not, provoked or not, this type of comment is unproductive.

ebola

noted with thanks.

Forgive me for thinking that you were meant it's first definition, most people generally would view the word exploitation negatively (as per the first and most commonly used definition).

-LosBlancos

forgiveness may be more justified after the first or second attempt to point out the clear and obvious contexts. the fact that a dictionary definition was required to solicit that "apology" renders it somewhat insincere.

i beg to differ with your assertion about most people. Most people can read sentences beyond the one word.

 

[LosBlancos]

However, I would say that many ills we often think of as not arising specifically out of colonialism actually depend thoroughly (but not fully) on the legacy of colonialism. This is clearly the case with the political instability and frequency of authoritarian governments in sub-Saharan Africa.

Eh, if you look at some of the wealthiest countries of Africa: Equatorial Guinea (Spain), Libya (Italy), and South African (strong Dutch influence) you might see there are some positive effects of colonialism. Many of these countries had significant infrastructure and industry built up by their respective European colonizers. It seems many of the poorer countries in the continent had not nearly as much European influence as the aforementioned countries. The two countries in Africa which were considered never colonized include Ethiopia (with $1,000 GDP per capita, on the low scale even by African standards) and Liberia (technically a colony for freed American slaves for brief time but not colonized in the traditional sense) with only $500 GDP per capita.

There are always exceptions to every statistical trend, and you've found a few (out of hundreds of countries). I'm not informed enough to comment usefully on specific cases here, but in the case of former Yugoslavia, the recent history of civil war, ethnic cleansing (genocide, really), etc. likely really put a damper on birth rates.

I thought there had been civil war across Africa as well for last few decades, it hasn't seemed to slow down their birth rate. My hypothesis was that high birth rates are inextricably linked with low standard of living, and not vice-versa. While there are poor countries as I pointed out with low-birth rates, it doesn't seem there are many rich countries with high levels of birth today as we see in Africa (with some around 5 live births per woman).

Frankly, the US has really dropped the ball on providing such services (in comparison to welfare provision typical of Western countries), especially when viewed in light of the disproportionately high levels of poverty our particularly high levels of socio-economic inequality impose on select populations (often on a neighborhood level).

Saying that "high levels of poverty" are "imposed on selected populations"? Do we pick subgroups of the American population out of a hat and bestow upon them impoverished conditions? I think my conclusion that teenage birth and out of wedlock rates account for high rates of poverty in certain demographics, as well as rates of not completing high school.

As a country we've spent huge amounts of money trying to rectify these problems. Do you know which school district spent the most per pupil? It's Newark Public Schools of New Jersey with an average of $24,000 per pupil (24% higher than national average), you would think throwing all that money at the schools we'd see better results there than the rest of the nation however it seems that school district is still well behind. The district has very poor graduation rates and testing, despite all the money spent.

That our aggregate GDP is so high further bolsters my characterization of inequality in the US, and when taken with several aforementioned points, suggests specifically that throwing money at the problem often helps a great deal.

That's why were seeing an emerging middle class in Detroit, right? Or maybe other perpetual bastions of liberalism like Chicago or NYC. Seems like the poor there are really making strives from decades of Democrat control, and billions spent every year on social programs.

Hahahah...Mexico has been a G20 country for a good number of years now, so your characterization of how immigrants experience migration is profoundly hyperbolic.

So your denying that the standard of living in America is much higher than Mexico? The flow seems to be coming from Mexico to America rather than vice-versa. G20 doesn't mean much besides a large economy, not a high standard of living. India, China, Russia are all members as well.

But regardless, if someone tries to move from one exploitative situation to another milder condition of exploitation, I think it's still fair to consider the situation "exploitative". However, I feel like we'll need come upon some explicit, mutually shared definition of exploitation to go further, and I think you won't like mine (though my preferred definition is typical for sociological perspectives).
ebola

Question: I'm genuinely curious, which country would you say is there no exploitation?

Which definition of exploitation are we using here? Is it the action of treating someone unfairly to benefit from their work or "the action of using or benefiting from resources"?

 

[ebola?]

Eh, if you look at some of the wealthiest countries of Africa: Equatorial Guinea (Spain), Libya (Italy), and South African (strong Dutch influence) you might see there are some positive effects of colonialism. Many of these countries had significant infrastructure and industry built up by their respective European colonizers.

You're right in that extra-imperial factors matter, and particularly so when making comparison between African countries, due to how widespreadly the continent was colonized. However, you made the mistake of looking at aggregated wealth, which can give you a misleading picture of a nation's conditions. Eg, in equatorial guinea, the vast majority of the fruits of agricultural production went to colonial elites, and starvation, disease, etc. were severe problems for the populace (as vigorous export of cocoa continued). Exacerbating this problem, migrant laborers picked up the slack of resulting labor shortages, further hindering retention of wealth by local natives. South Africa was a (very roughly) analogous can of worms, with relatively rich privileged whites enjoying the vast, vast majority of the spoils of resource extraction, apartheid enforcing this exploitative inequality geographically. Sadly, the current situation is nearly as unequal, and yes, in a similarly racialized way--a large proportion are just as poor as they were living in the Bantustans. As for Libya, the oil-rich North African country is a case highly distinct from sub-Saharan Africa (but still bearing the mark of colonialism).

Many of these countries had significant infrastructure and industry built up by their respective European colonizers.

I never claimed that colonialism (and in turn imperialism) never did anything good. It's just that the historical injustices of the practice do much in explaining current socio-politico-economic injustices and ills (ie, explain causally how post-colonial imperialism emerged). So yes, we have grounds to condemn colonialism and imperialism while recognizing the positive changes colonization introduced (the latter often being quite meager)...the case is similar if one evaluates capitalism as a whole.

The two countries in Africa which were considered never colonized include Ethiopia (with $1,000 GDP per capita, on the low scale even by African standards) and Liberia (technically a colony for freed American slaves for brief time but not colonized in the traditional sense) with only $500 GDP per capita.

The Ethiopean case is somewhat special in that during the period when its neighbors were being colonized, you had heavy dependence on subsistence agriculture with severe exploitation by the aristocracy, with according pathologies in the productivity of these farmers (the specific factors varied a great deal, but many had to do with lack of motivation on the part of the farmers conditioned by the political system of the country). Moving forward, Ethiopia came to depend heavily on the export of crops and importation of various finished goods and resources, so its economy was highly sensitive to shocks in international markets. Couple this with the area's susceptibility to various severe climactic shocks (eg, drought), and you have a recipe for periodic famine impeding development.

Now Liberia is a great example of colonialism and its after-effects. The ex-slaves who immigrated ended up monopolizing positions of power and nearly reproducing the brutal exploitation and domination they experienced under their prior rulers.

I thought there had been civil war across Africa as well for last few decades, it hasn't seemed to slow down their birth rate. My hypothesis was that high birth rates are inextricably linked with low standard of living, and not vice-versa. While there are poor countries as I pointed out with low-birth rates, it doesn't seem there are many rich countries with high levels of birth today as we see in Africa (with some around 5 live births per woman).

Just for future reference, "linkage" is a symmetric relation. Do want to say that it's high birth-rates that cause poverty? I agree with the observed correlation, and I detailed a causal mechanism in a prior post (a couple, actually). You could attend to that, if you'd like. As for civil war, we'd need to look at a more fine-grained temporal and regional scale (ie, by year by country), not just establish that Africa has both high rates of civil war and rates of birth. Also, this effect of civil war is subject to other moderating factors, in particular degree of dependence on household subsistence farming.

Saying that "high levels of poverty" are "imposed on selected populations"? Do we pick subgroups of the American population out of a hat and bestow upon them impoverished conditions?

No. Dynamics of the wider social system accord economic disparities, unequal access to various social resources, uneven opportunities for socialization into cultural practices given high status, etc. to different demographic groups, people of various identities, residents of certain locales, members of certain social networks, etc. And it turn it accords advantages for others as the other side of this coin. Hell, this system even still functions to accord unequal situations via explicit racial biases of whites significantly often (conditioned by the history of this social system and its continued systemic injustice and accompanying cultural ideology).

I think my conclusion that teenage birth and out of wedlock rates account for high rates of poverty in certain demographics, as well as rates of not completing high school.

Oh, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the effect of teen childbirth on later success is nil. Rather, it's myopic to focus on teen pregnancy; rather, we must look to the dynamics of the wider social system, asking what conditions produce what types of behavior, via which mechanisms, and inducing what types of consequences (and individual responses to them).

Again, I'm talking about tendencies and trends, not iron-clad, fully reliable, direct causation. No social phenomenon is simple enough for such relations to be discernible to us. Still, leaving the conversation at, "Those others are simply inferior and irresponsible" fails to actually explain any of their situation causally. As an analogy, no biologist would explain a decline in a given species' population in terms of, "Just how that species is, failing to step up and meet its responsibilities." Rather, the organism and its biochemistry must be analyzed in terms of wider evolutionary and ecological contexts (depending on timescale). It is similar with people.
....
Enough for now; will continue.

ebola

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Let's all quit our jobs so we can stop being exploited by these evil corporations. We might not have money for our family, for vacation, or have the fulfillment of getting up and going to work everyday but at least we won't be "exploited".

1000 years ago: Let's abolish serfdom! Sure, we'd no longer be exploited, but we would no longer would have food, protection of our lord, or the satisfaction of hard work!

 

[LosBlancos]

Just for future reference, "linkage" is a symmetric relation. Do want to say that it's high birth-rates that cause poverty? I agree with the observed correlation, and I detailed a causal mechanism in a prior post (a couple, actually).

Seem's pretty straightforward. All of this complex language aside. If I'm on $100,000 yearly salary I have more to spend, I have higher standard of living if I have one child, versus if I have to care for five children.

As for civil war, we'd need to look at a more fine-grained temporal and regional scale (ie, by year by country), not just establish that Africa has both high rates of civil war and rates of birth. Also, this effect of civil war is subject to other moderating factors, in particular degree of dependence on household subsistence farming.

Basically, largely disregard statistics. We need to look at everything on a case-by-case basis?

Hell, this system even still functions to accord unequal situations via explicit racial biases of whites significantly often (conditioned by the history of this social system and its continued systemic injustice and accompanying cultural ideology).

I have yet to see much statistics on this beside a study of 8,000 employers Escher's posted which showed Black people had less rate of call-backs. While you seem hesitant to show correlation=causation when I show the correlation of high teen birth rate or drop out rates and poverty, you seem to accept the studies that seem to prove "white privilege" without questioning the factors involved in them much. Just my $0.02.

Oh, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the effect of teen childbirth on later success is nil. Rather, it's myopic to focus on teen pregnancy; rather, we must look to the dynamics of the wider social system,

From a practical perspective it seems easier to hold off having kids for a while, ideally until one is financially stable rather than an overhaul of this entire "unjust" system. That's why I focused on that.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

While you seem hesitant to show correlation=causation when I show the correlation of high teen birth rate or drop out rates and poverty, you seem to accept the studies that seem to prove "white privilege" without questioning the factors involved in them much. Just my $0.02.

How are you having such a hard time with this? A carefully constructed study with only one independent variable and many trials will be more likely to indicate a causal relationship than real life.

 

[LosBlancos]

How are you having such a hard time with this? A carefully constructed study with only one independent variable and many trials will be more likely to indicate a causal relationship than real life.

Its a bit far fetched to take a study of 8,000 applications sent out and blacks having lower rates of responses and extrapolating that it shows systemic racism across the United States.

Also these kind of studies take a long time to perform I believe it was conducted at a university. Personally I know I've made up data before and on a study that requires sending out thousands of applications I wouldn't be surprised if someone cut corners to save time or produce result s that a far left university will like.

 

[ebola?]

As a country we've spent huge amounts of money trying to rectify these problems. Do you know which school district spent the most per pupil? It's Newark Public Schools of New Jersey with an average of $24,000 per pupil (24% higher than national average), you would think throwing all that money at the schools we'd see better results there than the rest of the nation however it seems that school district is still well behind. The district has very poor graduation rates and testing, despite all the money spent.

Like I said, compared to other nations in the global North, we haven't spent a great deal. I also wouldn't expect a mere quarter more spending on schools than the national average to have that dramatic an effect, particularly in that expensive of an area (the majority of any district's costs is labor). But primary and secondary education is only a small part of an effective program for welfare-provision (and Keynesian policy in general). Going to a decent primary / secondary school cannot erase the hardship of disparities in home life (including extracurricular enrichment), access to privileged social networks, cultivation of high-status mannerisms, explicit racial discrimination by individuals, etc. And when one compares aggregate fiscal outlay on welfare provision by country as a proportion of GDP, the US falls short of the vast majority of OECD nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP; also take into account our very high rate of military spending (4% of our GDP, nearly a third of our fiscal spending) and our social security program, which is quite limitedly redistributive and funded through a specialized channel).

That's why were seeing an emerging middle class in Detroit, right? Or maybe other perpetual bastions of liberalism like Chicago or NYC. Seems like the poor there are really making strives from decades of Democrat control, and billions spent every year on social programs.

State and municipal spending on social services is utterly trivial in comparison to federal spending (on account of how we allocate taxation among levels of government), and you've chosen metro areas with geographically segregated pockets of severe poverty (those pockets calling for more vigorous fiscal intervention). Also, Detroit's a poorly representative case, as it was hit most severely with the urban decay that tends to follow deindustrialization in prior industrial city-centers. And I'm not sure why you would equate widespread support of the democratic party with opulent provision of social services (particularly in the context of the above international comparison); these data don't demonstrate what you'd like them to.

So your denying that the standard of living in America is much higher than Mexico?

Nope. It's just not ten times higher, as you claimed, particularly when correcting for purchase power parity.

The flow seems to be coming from Mexico to America rather than vice-versa.

Right, but the contrast is small enough that immigration drops drastically when the US falls into recession.

G20 doesn't mean much besides a large economy, not a high standard of living. India, China, Russia are all members as well.

Right, the group includes some countries we would deem "developing"...I was just noting that the magnitude of your comparison was way off.

Question: I'm genuinely curious, which country would you say is there no exploitation?

As a left radical, I'd have to say "none", and that's the issue at hand. . .

Which definition of exploitation are we using here? Is it the action of treating someone unfairly to benefit from their work or "the action of using or benefiting from resources"?

Well, definitions vary, but I think yours is workable (actually, pretty damn close to the one I'd opt for). I would say that wage-labor is typically exploitative, as owners of capital retain the majority of the wealth created by their employees' labor, mainly by virtue of claims of property ownership (but also in part by creativity and risk-taking sometimes). Because I view the status-quo distribution of property as unfair, I view this laboring process as generally exploitative. I think we also need to distinguish exploitation from domination, the latter being the ability to command the activity of others, against their will and/or interests.

If I'm on $100,000 yearly salary I have more to spend, I have higher standard of living if I have one child, versus if I have to care for five children.

Correct. It's just that this dynamic is not what's most causally pertinent in the situations we've been discussing.

Basically, largely disregard statistics. We need to look at everything on a case-by-case basis?

No. I meant instead that it is necessary to choose an appropriate set of factors and cases for observation, aggregated at an appropriate level for the generalization one is trying to make. And then some cases will need be supplemented by alternate techniques, for example qualitative comparative-historical data.

While you seem hesitant to show correlation=causation when I show the correlation of high teen birth rate or drop out rates and poverty

I have agreed with the vast majority of correlations you have shown, but your causal explanations have proven weak and unsubstantiated. I would be happy to answer more specific critiques rather than non sequiturs and straw men.

From a practical perspective it seems easier to hold off having kids for a while, ideally until one is financially stable rather than an overhaul of this entire "unjust" system. That's why I focused on that.

Right, but then the benefit of overhauling severe systemic injustice would be immeasurably great for innumerable people (depending on how fucked you consider the status-quo). Also, I find questions of personal responsibility rather easily navigated and not particularly useful in analyzing social systems or constructing policy prescriptions, and thus rather boring.

Of course people shouldn't have kids they can't afford to. duh. But from there, in terms of policy, one could either engage in behavioral engineering or address the more fundamental causes of of poverty and its associated ills. I'm not particularly comfortable with the former.

Its a bit far fetched to take a study of 8,000 applications sent out and blacks having lower rates of responses and extrapolating that it shows systemic racism across the United States.

Do you understand the underlying statistical mechanics of how one generalizes from sample to population or infers either differences between groups or correlations between variables? This question is not rhetorical. . .

Personally I know I've made up data before and on a study that requires sending out thousands of applications

Okay...most research assistants aren't so abjectly unethical.

ebola

 

[L2R]

high birth rates cause poverty like steam causes heat.

 

[What 23]

Couldn't it be a factor in it?

 

[L2R]

not significantly.

 

[What 23]

I don't know...

 

[L2R]

clearly.

to say that people become poor after breeding more is assuming that there is a common and equal starting point, which in reality there isn't.

 

[What 23]

Hmm.