SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-much-less-do-I-have-than-others dept.
Since social scientists and economists began measuring poverty, the definition has never strayed far from a discussion of income.
New research from Georgia Tech economist Shatakshee Dhongde shows there are multiple components of poverty that more accurately describes a household's economic condition. Dhongde looks at "deprivation" more than simply low income, and her work finds that almost 15 percent of Americans are deprived in multiple dimensions.
"This study approaches poverty in a new way," said Dhongde, who recently published "Multi-Dimensional Deprivation in the U.S." in the journal Social Indicators Research.
"We tried to identify what is missing in the literature on poverty, and measure deprivation in six dimensions: health, education, standard of living, security, social connections, and housing quality. When you look at deprivation in these dimensions, you have a better picture of what is really going on with households, especially in developed countries like the United States."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:50PM
Yes, because there are no structural effects like the lack of access to effective birth control or women being forced to temporarily rely on men for income and being pressured into having their children (either by the men or as a way to attempt to ensure the man stays). That's clearly 100% the poor person's fault.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:02PM
lack of access to effective birth control
I didn't realize abstinence was so difficult to procure. i mean if it good enough for men complaining about child support, it should be good enough for women, no?
women being forced
These are strong, independent wimmenz you sexist pig!
as a way to attempt to ensure the man stays
Coercion and blackmail are fine when women do it, but thinking you are entitled to sex just because you are supporting a girl is exploitation.
That's clearly 100% the poor person's fault
Yes, people are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:14PM
> I didn't realize abstinence was so difficult to procure.
Apparently you do not live on the planet earth.
The idea that the single most primal driving force of our species can simply be shut-off by normal people, much less people with major stresses, is beyond unrealistic its alien.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:34PM
You're right! I live on an alternate reality earth where birth rates are plummeting not due to our space age, comprehensive birth control, but more and more men are realizing the legal pitfalls of having relations and the sheer unseemliness of most women; they'd rather go without.
Hell, some places are having to import fureeners just to have a stable population.
Imagine that! Social conditions and women have become so toxic as to subvert the single most primal driving force of our species.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:52PM
Gay Lesbians have never been happier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:33PM
What about those lesbians who are not gay?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @03:48AM
This is why they have the highest rates of domestic abuse, and in general have higher rates of drug dependence and suicide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @12:16AM
Stop snivelling, ya little pansie! It may be "the single most primal driving force", but it can be controlled. That little willy that lives in your pants can be tamed. In fact, controlling "Willy" is one of the hallmarks of being an adult. So, grow up already! And, yes, I do live on planet Earth.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by julian on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:22PM
Do you want to be self-righteousness and smug or do you want to put aside ideology and actually solve the problem?
Telling poor people to just stop fucking and making babies might make you feel good and superior but it's not going to work. It has never worked. It never will work.
So what else you got? If you don't have a plan then stand aside and let more thoughtful, dispassionate, people engineer a solution. Double the number of Planned Parenthood clinics would be a good start. And if you're a budget/deficit/debt hawk then this will save money; ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. Babies born into and raised in poverty have enormously expensive ripple effects that even you can probably appreciate
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:41PM
How about we pay them to be sterilized. If someone shows both an ineptitude in supporting their children while continuing to have more it sounds pretty much like child abuse to me.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:53PM
How about we just fund organizations like Planned Parenthood and make it easy for poor people to get birth control measures, one of which could be sterilization? Isn't that the same as paying someone to be sterilized? Or does it offend your free market principles too much?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:37PM
False. PP makes it's money on abortions, not on birth control. Woman wants the pill and condoms for a year, PP makes no profit. If they don't supply her pills and condoms, they can get almost a thousand dollars off of her in a few months. Maybe twice a year.
Besides, few of us find it palatable that PP sells body organs, brains included, to universities. They murder the little tyke, disassemble him/her, and sell the parts. That's just so fuckign REPULSIVE.
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/16/indiana-university-defends-paying-200-for-brains-of-aborted-babies-for-research/ [lifenews.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday November 21 2016, @12:28AM
If you don't agree with PP, find another non-profit that offers birth control and fund it.
Your post is a weak attempt at deflection, in order to attempt to confuse the accurate criticism of your repugnant views.
You are the classic victim-blamer. That's all.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @04:18AM
Why must I fund it? Why must it be a non-profit? For profit corporations aren't any better at fleecing the sheep than a non-profit. There are doctors and clinics scattered all over this nation. My county has a public health clinic, that is almost entirely funded by the state. Everything that PP offers is available at the clinic except abortion, PLUS, they are happy to treat children, men, elderly - pretty much anyone. Even I can walk into the clinic tomorrow morning, and talk to them about my petty little problems. I may have to wait awhile, because they are the busiest health care facility in the county, but they will be happy to see me!
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday November 21 2016, @04:48AM
Because there is a net benefit to society. This is such a basic concept. Taxes should be collected to benefit society.
Why should I fund a military? Why do we fund schools?
Actually, I agree that it may not need to be non-profit. The important part is that this kind of healthcare is funded fully (and not partially funded, so that there are co-pays that will discourage the very people you want to use the services).
But Planned Parenthood has the infrastructure and the ethos to provide the services in a cost-efficient manner. It's there today, whereas trying to go private would involve lots of contracts, contract negotiations, overhead, etc..
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday November 21 2016, @06:00AM
So you'd have us back in the dark ages when dissecting a human body was forbidden and doctors killed more people than they helped?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @07:11AM
If you intended to make some kind of point - you failed. The dark ages and superstition has nothing to do with who funds the health care of irresponsible people. Unless you have somehow discovered that superstitious fools are most likely to make the stupid decisions which result in having poor health care? Why don't you try again?
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday November 21 2016, @10:09AM
So your whole point is that people who have kids and can't take care of them are stupid - but we shouldn't give them a chance to NOT have a child when they can't take care of it because that's WRONG. And oh no, the body of the unborn fetus is being used for SCIENCE! (how evil!!) It's obviously a liberal conspiracy to defraud you of your hard-earned SS and use it to pay for climate research and welfare for brown people!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 21 2016, @12:54PM
You're reading far to much into my posts. I have asked specifically why I must fund condoms, the pill, IUD's, tubal ligations, abortions, etc for poor people. Did you not suggest early on that I choose a non-profit, and fund it, to provide all of those things? My question is, why must I fund these things?
If I am to made responsible for the reproductive health of the poor masses, then maybe I should assume some authority over their reproductive rights? In effect, you are inviting me to become the authority over the poor's reproductive rights? Oh boy - EUGENICS IS GOOD!! WE GONNA GET RID OF THE HUMAN WEEDS NOW!!*
*Margarite Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a racist bitch who hated Negro weeds.
http://liveaction.org/research/margaret-sanger-quotes-history-and-biography [liveaction.org]
"And in 1939, Sanger went to work “cultivating the garden.” She initiated the Negro Project to weed out the unfit from the black population. In bringing birth control to the then largely poor (i.e. unfit) population of the South, with a few influential black ministers promoting the project as the solution to poverty, Sanger hoped to significantly reduce the black population. Martin Luther King, Sr., as the eldest son of nine children born into poverty in a family of sharecroppers, would have made the perfect target for “elimination.” But his birth had already taken place."
Thinking this shit over, no, I don't want to be a Mararite Sanger, thank you very much. Being the asshole that I am, I don't really like a lot of people. But some of the people I do like happen to be black. Others are Mexican. Yet others are American Indians. Just think - if Sanger had her way, all those fuckiing weeds would be gone, and there would be fewer people for me to like!
Just, no thank you.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Monday November 21 2016, @01:16AM
I agree with you, easy access to birth control for anyone who wants it is a great idea. I just think we should also offer a cash incentive for sterilization too, because if you already have 7 kids with multiple "dads" then anything that requires a basic level of competence is likely beyond them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @09:44PM
As parent post pointed out, illegitimacy is THE primary driving force behind most poverty. As your more thoughtful, dispassionate engineering has already exacerbated this problem, and none of your current suggestions address the root cause, you'll excuse me if I laugh in the face at your smug, self-righteous solutions.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 20 2016, @10:21PM
And where do the vast majority of illegitimate babies come from? Yep, that's right, minorities! And those in this discussion are giving "poor people" too much credit for their family planning decisions. They think the "urban poor" are having kids because they want to have a family, and doggone-it they are determined to beat the odds and raise good families in the face of adversity!
Nope. It goes more like this:
Now, as an imperfect person, I too am guilty of "fuck the consequences, I'll worry about them later." Like when I'm 3100 miles deep into my last oil change and I put the next one off for another hundred miles because I'm lazy, or procrastinate wiping the crumbs off my counter. But having a child is a serious responsibility, and some people see it as just another thing to worry about later, because they want that nut. And getting that nut is awesome, but sheesh! Come on! Let's be civilized here and think beyond getting our rocks off for a second.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday November 21 2016, @07:47PM
"Too many babies" isn't what causes poverty. I know of no families that large, but I know a lot of poor people. The problem is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. Take the US, for example. In 1970 a nickle would buy a candy bar. A dime would buy a pepsi. A quarter would buy a gallon of gas, pack of smokes, loaf of bread, or anything else that costs $2.50 (or more) today.
The minimum wage was $1.40. It should at least be $14. Those clerks in stores and fast food joints, even the wrinkled ones with gray hair? You're looking at the face of poverty. They're almost certainly eligible for food stamps and live paycheck to paycheck.
Poverty is caused by the rich.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @11:32PM
You really are a sexist pig. You have little idea that women like to fuck, and less idea that women want babies of their own. Just like men, women have these glands and hormones in their bodies that pretty much REQUIRE that they engage in sexual intercourse. The need - the need - she feels the need to feel a bone!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @12:26AM
I hate to break it to you, but she probably wasn't that into you. In fact, she most likely was just really, really bored and lonely and you were the only one available at the time. At least that's what she's been telling all her friends.