From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,co.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:55:26 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Frank Crary writes:
>  
>>  Unions were formed out of this horrid
>>  sick society.
>
>Which is _also_ a "dog eat dog" institution, with workers organizing 
>themselves so that they could do some of the eating. It seems to have
>worked very well for factory workers.

The organized themselves so they could afford to eat.  The 
conditions of workers at the time under discussion  was horrendous, and
the unions were formed to enable them to get a fair share (the industrial
giants of the time accumulated the wealth they did at the rate they did
because such a small fraction went to the workers).  At the time, unions
were the best solution to bring something approaching fairness into the
system.  If you are arguing that TODAY unions have brought things around
to where they weild more power than is their due, I will agree with you.

[in reference to the start of social security]
>It was also at this time the begining of _permenant_ poverty in this
>country: Large numbers of people being born in poverty, living their
>entire lives in poverty, and raising childern who did the same.

If you are arguing that social security started this, you are sadly
mistaken.  The effect you describe had already begun, and social
security was enacted, at least in part, to combat this situation.
The causes of the permanent poverty you mention are manyfold, involving
the switch from an agrairian to industrial based society (which 
contributed to the great migration of primarily black workers from the
southern farms to the northern cities), the advance of technology in
the farming industry (further decreasing the need for labor in an already
diminishing arena), among many others.

>
>(By the way, do you have and references or facts to support the claim 
>that the large middle class was solely a post-war growth? You seem to
>industrial capacity was (which isn't really the case, see above) so
>I'm doubtfull of this claim about the middle class.)
>
The middle class was an outgrowth of the switch to an industrial based 
society/economy.  The division used to be primarily rural/urban.  As
industry became more prevalent, and the "blue-collar" worker became more
numerous, the modern middle class came to be formed.  This is a trend that
began after the Civil War, but picked up speed and really saw most of its
growth after WWII (the housing boom, demand for goods and services, etc
contributed to this growth, in large part).

>>  So I think it is VERY clear.  Poor people have the same needs,
>>  feelings, desires as us middle class and you rich.
>
>Sure, and two of those desires (to which the rich are _very_ subject
>as well as the poor) are laziness and a desire for comfort. If
>someone has a comfortable standard of living, he isn't (usually)
>inclined to work. Conversely, if he's unhappy about his standard
>of living, he has an incentive to do something about it. It seems
>to me self-evident that suffering causes people to act, and remove
>the casue of their suffering. (At least, this both makes logical 
>sense and matches my personal experiences.) If you eliminate all
>the bad things that go along with poverty, you also eliminate the
>strongest motive to escape poverty.

This is very scary.  I hear more and more younger folks, products of the
"Reagan Era", who take this attitude.  What you are saying is that poverty
is good for people, since it makes them succeed.  Those who don't are
just lazy.  This completely ignores the difficulty poor people find in
trying to improve their lot, job opportunities that are not available,
prejudice against them, etc..  It is easy to criticize someone collecting
welfare, saying that they are lazy.  Are you aware of the fact that the
jobs available to these people, almost universally minimum wage jobs, 
rarely pay enough to support a person? And carry no medical benefits?  So
many people stay on welfare because they wouldn't have enough to survive
if they took a job (since they would lose secondary welfare benefits, like
childcare and Medicare).  I submit that all people wish to better their
situation - show me one poor person (and I'm not talking about people with
psychological problems - many of the homeless are "mental" patients who
were thrown out of institutions during the Reagan years) who, offered
an opportunity to improve their lot through work, who would choose to
remain poor.   I believe such people are far in the minority.

>
>>  ...Most of them would work if there were
>>  jobs.  There aren't any.  The choice is simple.  Heartlessness
>>  or helpfulness.  I think your concept (that heartlessness may
>>  be a better way to "help" them) is so devoid of intellect OR
>>  emotion  that it clearly shows you for what you are.     
>
>Perhaps living in proximity to the Berkeley, CA homeless for five years
>has given me the wrong impression (I rather doubt that group is "typical"...)
>But I think most of the homeless (the real extreme of poverty) will
>work _only_ as much as they have to in order to survive. I'd 
>generalize this, to say people (everyone, not just poor people) tend
>to work _only_ as much as they have to, to obtain some standard of
>living which they consider tolerable. I don't find this conclusion
>deviod of intellect: It seems a very reasonable one to draw from
>my expreience. Is it "devoid of emotion"? Possibly, but at least by
>training, I consider that an advantage: 

Perhaps you are casting your own philosophy on other people?  As already
mentioned, you will find that a large proportion of the homeless have more
serious problems than poverty.  Given a homeless person who is of sound
mental state, would you consider hiring them if they came in for a job as
you see them on the street?  If the answer is no, then how do you propose
that they get that first leg up so they can improve their lot?  If we
are to rely on private donations for this, then I hope for the state of
the future that people like yourself are in the minority.  "Why should I
give any of my hard-earned money to help some bum who hasn't lifted a
finger to get a job in a year?  Let him work for his money like I do!"

And if you think being homeless is easy, take a day off and spend it watching
how one or two homeless people spend their day.  Trying to survive when you
have nothing is a lot more work than I think you realize.

>We ought to be considering the
>world as it exists and how it works; _not_ how the would "should" be,
>or what would make up happy _if_ it were true. Unpleasent, emotionally
>disturbing facts are still facts, and concepts based on emotion instead
>of fact don't solve very real problems. 

"Some see the tings that are, and ask why?  I see things that never
 were and ask why not?"
	- Robert Kennedy (paraphrased due to my poor memory)

I'm sure these words mean nothing to you, as they came from such a
"flaming liberal" as Bobby Kennedy.

Sadly,
Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Newsgroups: ba.politics