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, 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.