Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Years later you figure out what it means.........

Page 4 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Dec 2011, 12:58 am

SyphonFilter wrote:
J87 wrote:
It wasn't until I started high school that I realized people actually believed in God. Before then I would go to church every other week but I just thought it was another cultural thing like the easter bunny. I never once thought they actually believed he existed. I also just found out a few years ago that nail bombs aren't actually made of fingernails.
This is what I thought church was as a little kid.


I actually was religious for a time, but the lack of concrete action on the part of this so-called "God" got me out of it. I took the bible way too literally (not the way "literal word of god" types do).

I also find it extremely puzzling that people make "God" responsible for so many things. It makes it impossible to discuss some topics with some religious people on a rational basis - for example, climate change and evolution. While I can logically explain that God's existence is irrelevant to these things (that is, based on observation, they happened, whether there is a God or not), to make any headway with - for example - my mother, I would have to emotionally discredit his alleged responsibility for everything, which is not remotely possible. So, I cannot discuss certain subjects with my mother, because her dogmatic adherence to her version of Christianity is too consistently watertight against science, objectivity, and logic.

The idea that people do that, that by being religious they decide "God" or whatever entity is behind everything, is pretty alien and incomprehensible to me.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Dec 2011, 12:59 am

SyphonFilter wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
And Idiocracy is a comedy, it is not an incisive or insightful commentary on society. At best, it's classist and racist drivel that feeds into most people's preconceived notions of personal superiority.
If what happens in Idiocracy were to happen in real life, we'd kill all plant life with Gatorade.


8O :D



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

11 Dec 2011, 1:50 am

Verdandi wrote:
swbluto wrote:
I think the "evolutionary pressure" on intelligence is higher in non-welfare countries/states. It's places like America where the highly educated tend to have fewer children and the government effectively subsidizes the stupid(er)'s progeny where the trend is reversed. However, I still believe that females ARE selecting for something at all social levels and whatever set of traits that may happen to be, it's presumably 'bettering' the human race SOMEHOW. Maybe it's confidence and creativity that's being more directly selected for in America?


Being on welfare doesn't mean being stupid, and America is far from "subsidizing" people through welfare. It's actually more like mandatory poverty, which makes it difficult for people to become self-sufficient, because they can't afford to lose things like a place to live, money with which to buy food and clothes, etc.

Further, education level does not reflect intelligence. Rather, it reflects opportunity. If you can get into Harvard, it's most likely because one or both of your parents also got into Harvard or another Ivy League school, not because you are actually meritoriously more deserving than those who cannot afford to attend and do not have access to family money.

People who have to survive on welfare have to spend a lot more time and energy on survival than people making $100,000+ a year.

Here's some debunking of welfare myths:

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/Exclu ... 0b106725db

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1302

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26743067/Pove ... yths-Facts

http://www.amazon.com/MYTH-WELFARE-QUEE ... 0684840065


It doesn't matter if the welfare=stupid link doesn't apply to everyone. The only thing that matters is if there is a trend, as would be expressed by a positive correlation. And, yes, there's a positive correlation between intelligence and income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen ... ent#Income

In the case of Harvard graduates having children who then get into Harvard, it's pretty self-explanatory: Intelligent, hard-working parents tend to have intelligent, hard-working children and there's nothing magical about inherited traits. In the same way, impoverished, lazy parents tend to have impoverished, lazy children.

However, opportunity also matters as you say. There's a bunch of factors associated with socioeconomic status including social and communication abilities, which is one area many autistics are affected by.



Last edited by swbluto on 11 Dec 2011, 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

11 Dec 2011, 1:59 am

SyphonFilter wrote:
J87 wrote:
It wasn't until I started high school that I realized people actually believed in God. Before then I would go to church every other week but I just thought it was another cultural thing like the easter bunny. I never once thought they actually believed he existed. I also just found out a few years ago that nail bombs aren't actually made of fingernails.
This is what I thought church was as a little kid.


The link between 'religious comprehension' (Like, understanding the existence of "god") and "Theory of Mind", as is impaired in many people with autism (Not everyone), is really interesting.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Dec 2011, 2:21 am

swbluto wrote:
It doesn't matter if the welfare=stupid link doesn't apply to everyone. The only thing that matters is if there is a trend, as would be expressed by a positive correlation. And, yes, there's a positive correlation between intelligence and income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen ... ent#Income


Yes, because environment impacts IQ scores. If you lack the same opportunities, the same access to cognitive stimulation, and the same access to general knowledge, you're not going to score as high as someone who receives the best schooling available.

Quote:
In the case of Harvard graduates having children who then get into Harvard, it's pretty self-explanatory: Intelligent, hard-working parents tend to have intelligent, hard-working children and there's nothing magical about inherited traits. In the same way, impoverished, lazy parents tend to have impoverished, lazy children.


There's so much more to these things, and who you know or are related to matters a lot more than what you can do. Not that the latter is meaningless, but without connections (family or professional), your chances of getting into those places is significantly lower, and there is a greater likelihood of going to a community college, or a vocational school, than there is of going to an expensive university.

The picture of poor people as lazy is largely one of public relations and prejudice, not a rational observation supported by hard data.

Quote:
However, opportunity also matters as you say. There's a bunch of factors associated with socioeconomic status including social and communication abilities, which is one area many autistics are affected by.


True, but if you want an example of an autistic person's opportunities when raised in an upper class household, with access to the best schools an education? Temple Grandin. Opportunity was pretty influential in her case, and most autistic people simply don't have access to the same kind of resources.

People in the higher economic brackets are not primarily there because of merit, no matter how much people want to believe it. Generally speaking, poorer people work a lot harder than the most in the upper and middle classes, and are paid significantly less. I have known a lot of poor and working class people in my life, but I have known very very few poor or working class people whom I would classify as "lazy."



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

11 Dec 2011, 2:39 am

Verdandi wrote:
swbluto wrote:
It doesn't matter if the welfare=stupid link doesn't apply to everyone. The only thing that matters is if there is a trend, as would be expressed by a positive correlation. And, yes, there's a positive correlation between intelligence and income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen ... ent#Income


Yes, because environment impacts IQ scores. If you lack the same opportunities, the same access to cognitive stimulation, and the same access to general knowledge, you're not going to score as high as someone who receives the best schooling available.


That is true for children BUT the effect wanes in adulthood as "Studies have found the heritability of IQ in twins to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults".



Quote:
Quote:
In the case of Harvard graduates having children who then get into Harvard, it's pretty self-explanatory: Intelligent, hard-working parents tend to have intelligent, hard-working children and there's nothing magical about inherited traits. In the same way, impoverished, lazy parents tend to have impoverished, lazy children.


There's so much more to these things, and who you know or are related to matters a lot more than what you can do. Not that the latter is meaningless, but without connections (family or professional), your chances of getting into those places is significantly lower, and there is a greater likelihood of going to a community college, or a vocational school, than there is of going to an expensive university.


Frankly, that is utter bull. My parents have associate degrees at most and they were mostly impoverished while I was growing up (They're fairly wealthy now...) but I was lucky enough to be born with a high enough IQ which allowed me to excel in appropriately difficult classes and earn the appropriate scores to get into an Ivy League university. And, conversely, someone naturally born stupid to a rich, well connected family is not going to get into Harvard with ease. Meritocracy is much more alive than you realize.


Quote:
The picture of poor people as lazy is largely one of public relations and prejudice, not a rational observation supported by hard data.


Some stereotypes are based on reality...



Quote:
People in the higher economic brackets are not primarily there because of merit, no matter how much people want to believe it. Generally speaking, poorer people work a lot harder than the most in the upper and middle classes, and are paid significantly less. I have known a lot of poor and working class people in my life, but I have known very very few poor or working class people whom I would classify as "lazy."


There's physical laziness and there's mental laziness. Poorer people tend to be more mentally lazy (Not necessarily a fault of their own; one could be quite 'lazy' in calculus primarily because it's really hard, whereas another person could be quite a bit less mentally lazy because it is so easy.) while not necessarily lacking physical laziness, whereas the upper class tend to have less mental laziness, because they're either more motivated or better thinkers or both. Since most upperclass jobs are not physical, physical laziness is irrelevant to their earning of a livelihood though many also tend to not be physically lazy.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Dec 2011, 3:06 am

swbluto wrote:
That is true for children BUT the effect wanes in adulthood as "Studies have found the heritability of IQ in twins to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults".


I haven't seen this, but I'll take your word for it.

The real problem I have with your argument is the suggestion that having a higher measured IQ means one is more worthy of survival, and that people with lower IQs having children is somehow problematic or bad. Your earlier statement was skirting around eugenics (and might have gone all the way in - I'm not going to look right now to see).

Quote:
Frankly, that is utter bull. My parents have associate degrees at most and they were mostly impoverished while I was growing up (They're fairly wealthy now...) but I was lucky enough to be born with a high enough IQ which allowed me to excel in appropriately difficult classes and earn the appropriate scores to get into an Ivy League university. And, conversely, someone naturally born stupid to a rich, well connected family is not going to get into Harvard with ease. Meritocracy is much more alive than you realize.


Dude: George. W. Bush. He graduated from Yale and Harvard. Would you care to refudiate* his apparent intelligence?

Did you get into that university? How'd you pay for it? How much debt are you in now?

Quote:
Some stereotypes are based on reality...


This is a weak argument. Stereotypes are very frequently based on prejudice and bias, and tend to be fairly self-serving for many who promote them.

Quote:
There's physical laziness and there's mental laziness. Poorer people tend to be more mentally lazy (Not necessarily a fault of their own; one could be quite 'lazy' in calculus primarily because it's really hard, whereas another person could be quite a bit less mentally lazy because it is so easy.) while not necessarily lacking physical laziness, whereas the upper class tend to have less mental laziness, because they're either more motivated or better thinkers or both. Since most upperclass jobs are not physical, physical laziness is irrelevant to their earning of a livelihood though many also tend to not be physically lazy.


Your definition of laziness due to calculus being really hard isn't actually laziness. It's like saying people with ADHD are lazy, when their brains actually make it very difficult to do much without some kind of external support. When you have to work twice as hard as others and not even get the same results, you'll probably find you're being mischaracterized as lazy left and right, despite the fact that you might yourself be constantly exhausted.

And the upper class is not composed of better thinkers, but they do have access to better metaphorical "levers," such as money. They don't need to do nearly as much mental work to get significant results as any particular single mother on welfare must do.

We do not live in a meritocracy. We live in a democracy with heavy plutocratic influences who would much prefer that we have an actual plutocracy with a thin facade of democracy. They're not there because they're smarter. No one gets that kind of money because of personal merit and intelligence. They get it because they're standing on other people's shoulders and backs (metaphorically). Or they were the first to market with an idea that took off... and are standing on other people's shoulders and backs.

* I realize that's Palin's malapropism.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,280
Location: Pacific Northwest

11 Dec 2011, 3:15 am

Why would it be bad for the economy to "over heat?" What can happen if it did?



swbluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: In the Andes, counting the stars and wondering if one of them is home to another civilization

11 Dec 2011, 4:03 am

Verdandi wrote:
swbluto wrote:
That is true for children BUT the effect wanes in adulthood as "Studies have found the heritability of IQ in twins to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults".


I haven't seen this, but I'll take your word for it.

The real problem I have with your argument is the suggestion that having a higher measured IQ means one is more worthy of survival, and that people with lower IQs having children is somehow problematic or bad. Your earlier statement was skirting around eugenics (and might have gone all the way in - I'm not going to look right now to see).

Quote:
Frankly, that is utter bull. My parents have associate degrees at most and they were mostly impoverished while I was growing up (They're fairly wealthy now...) but I was lucky enough to be born with a high enough IQ which allowed me to excel in appropriately difficult classes and earn the appropriate scores to get into an Ivy League university. And, conversely, someone naturally born stupid to a rich, well connected family is not going to get into Harvard with ease. Meritocracy is much more alive than you realize.


Dude: George. W. Bush. He graduated from Yale and Harvard. Would you care to refudiate* his apparent intelligence?

Did you get into that university? How'd you pay for it? How much debt are you in now?

Quote:
Some stereotypes are based on reality...


This is a weak argument. Stereotypes are very frequently based on prejudice and bias, and tend to be fairly self-serving for many who promote them.

Quote:
There's physical laziness and there's mental laziness. Poorer people tend to be more mentally lazy (Not necessarily a fault of their own; one could be quite 'lazy' in calculus primarily because it's really hard, whereas another person could be quite a bit less mentally lazy because it is so easy.) while not necessarily lacking physical laziness, whereas the upper class tend to have less mental laziness, because they're either more motivated or better thinkers or both. Since most upperclass jobs are not physical, physical laziness is irrelevant to their earning of a livelihood though many also tend to not be physically lazy.


Your definition of laziness due to calculus being really hard isn't actually laziness. It's like saying people with ADHD are lazy, when their brains actually make it very difficult to do much without some kind of external support. When you have to work twice as hard as others and not even get the same results, you'll probably find you're being mischaracterized as lazy left and right, despite the fact that you might yourself be constantly exhausted.

And the upper class is not composed of better thinkers, but they do have access to better metaphorical "levers," such as money. They don't need to do nearly as much mental work to get significant results as any particular single mother on welfare must do.

We do not live in a meritocracy. We live in a democracy with heavy plutocratic influences who would much prefer that we have an actual plutocracy with a thin facade of democracy. They're not there because they're smarter. No one gets that kind of money because of personal merit and intelligence. They get it because they're standing on other people's shoulders and backs (metaphorically). Or they were the first to market with an idea that took off... and are standing on other people's shoulders and backs.

* I realize that's Palin's malapropism.


The president's son is obviously a special case and it's pretty reasonable to assume that legacy may have had more sway in his case. However, the bulk of people within higher tier education don't have a particularly prestigious background, so it's more meritocratic in general.

Anyway, my implication was ... THAT particular stereotype is based on reality. Poorer people tend to work less hours and tend to be less productive workers, so they are lazier on average or, at the very least, appear to be.

Also, obviously, people don't care about "how hard it is for you", they only care about what's apparent to them. If you're unproductive with mental tasks, you're mentally 'lazy' though we can call it being less productive if you prefer.

Also, when we speak of mental work, it's not fair to compare the amount of actual work completed on the basis on "how hard it feels like they worked". Upperclass work typically involves more complexity, comprehension and specialized skill than a typical "welfare mother" who's applying for food stamps and trying to wrangle as much money out of the American people as possible, so it's more fair to compare productivity on the basis of complexity and output than "how hard it feels". If we do that, then I think you'll find a good association between that and income.



SteelMaiden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,722
Location: London

11 Dec 2011, 4:30 am

NT woman in clothes store comes up to me and says "do I look good in this dress?" Now honestly she looked awful, so I replied "no". She then walked off in a huff, muttering about "teenagers these days".

That was about 10 years ago. It was only this year when I realised that quite a lot of NT women like to be told they're good looking in their clothes even if they're not, and take offence if told the truth.


_________________
I am a partially verbal classic autistic. I am a pharmacology student with full time support.


LadySera
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 418

11 Dec 2011, 6:52 am

dogslife wrote:
When I heard people refer to "beer gardens," I imagined outdoor ares with lots of foliage and troughs of beer running through it (or at the very least, an actual garden seating area with beer served). Imagine my surprise (and disappointment!) when I found out that simply meant someplace that just serves beer.


I also thought that there would be foliage. It was disappointing, xd.

This is sort of similar. I hate the misleading terms used to sell things. Like used car dealers get really offended if you don't say pre-owned.

A similar instance was once when I was interviewing for a technical institute (of course I was nervous too) and when the guy asked me why I wanted to go there I said something like "so I can get a good job". And then he said "it's not a job" and I was confused for a second and then he did that whole "it's not a job, it's a career" spiel. And I was sarcastic about it back to him.

I feel like when I'm talking I have to get it out in any way possible. If I spend the time needed to phrase everything perfectly I'll never say anything, everything would pass me by. (also the social anxiety makes it difficult to speak at all). I've tried to explain this to my mother when she teases me. I said "you can't use semantics against me, I told you that's part of my problem".



VMSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,735
Location: the old country

11 Dec 2011, 8:33 am

Quote:
dogslife wrote:
When I heard people refer to "beer gardens," I imagined outdoor ares with lots of foliage and troughs of beer running through it (or at the very least, an actual garden seating area with beer served). Imagine my surprise (and disappointment!) when I found out that simply meant someplace that just serves beer.


this. just now. ruined it for me.

the meaning of thats so gay in primary school. i just thought people were really happy all the time at my new school. till i asked.

back in highschool i used to read before the start of class in the classroom or under the desk during class if i was desperate and the teacher would say "when you're ready" or "finish up now" so i would. occured to me last year she didnt mean finish your page or chapter or stop reading when you feel like it. oops.

once me and my dad were having an argument about whether or not i would marry and he's like "so you're not going to marry you're just going to have fun?" and i answered yes becasue who doesnt want their life to be full of fun? that isnt what he meant. he got really angry and i didnt understand why for a long time afterwards.


_________________
?Whatever happens and even if I get beaten up a second or a third time, I will remain in the union. It is my soul,... If you knew what was happening inside the company, you would understand why I think like this.?- Spinneys workers union leader, lebanon.


Aimless
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,187

11 Dec 2011, 9:19 am

The first time I heard the term oral sex I thought it meant "talking dirty".

There's a thing people say about being born and spending the rest of their lives trying to go back to the womb. I incorrectly assumed for years that referred to the sex drive for men. It wasn't until I was well into my 30's and responded to a guy saying that, that women desire sex too. The look of utter confusion on his face made me realize I had been wrong for many many years.


_________________
Detach ed


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Dec 2011, 9:47 am

swbluto wrote:
The president's son is obviously a special case and it's pretty reasonable to assume that legacy may have had more sway in his case. However, the bulk of people within higher tier education don't have a particularly prestigious background, so it's more meritocratic in general.


Which legacy? Not the presidential legacy, as he graduated Yale in 68 and Harvard in 75 and George H. W. Bush was president from 89-92.

Quote:
Anyway, my implication was ... THAT particular stereotype is based on reality. Poorer people tend to work less hours and tend to be less productive workers, so they are lazier on average or, at the very least, appear to be.


Actually, quite a few poorer people work multiple jobs in addition to taking care of their children. It's true that a lot of people are underemployed and can't find full time work or more work if they're stuck with part time, but that's not a matter of willingness or ability to work, but access to work. And "less productive" is BS.

Quote:
Also, obviously, people don't care about "how hard it is for you", they only care about what's apparent to them. If you're unproductive with mental tasks, you're mentally 'lazy' though we can call it being less productive if you prefer.


I do not care what other people think because other people are largely uninformed and come to erroneous conclusions on the basis of "fundamental attribution errors" (maybe you should look that up to understand what I'm talking about).

Quote:
Also, when we speak of mental work, it's not fair to compare the amount of actual work completed on the basis on "how hard it feels like they worked". Upperclass work typically involves more complexity, comprehension and specialized skill than a typical "welfare mother" who's applying for food stamps and trying to wrangle as much money out of the American people as possible, so it's more fair to compare productivity on the basis of complexity and output than "how hard it feels". If we do that, then I think you'll find a good association between that and income.


You should look up executive function, because I don't think you understood a word that I wrote about this, which was to explain why people who may be judged as lazy may not be lazy at all.

I'm going to say something here, though: You've explored the possibility that you have ADHD, autism, and/or prodromal schizophrenia. Executive dysfunction is common with all three of these things, and one of the effects of executive dysfunction is that many things are harder and takes more energy to achieve than it does for other people. It is not unusual for someone who has conditions like these to, upon encountering the idea, find it easy to relate to rather than ... whatever it is you're doing here. If you really can't grasp this concept as relatable or valid, you should seriously consider what that means relative to your neurology.

Anyway, I linked you multiple sources that debunk the idea of the "typical welfare mother" you presented in this post, and either you didn't read them or you found the facts inconvenient to your beliefs. There's not much more we can discuss productively at this point, since your perspective on these things is practically alien to my own.

Here's some reading about America and how it is not really a meritocracy: http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

Here's something else relevant to your arguments in this thread:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/ ... d-fallacy/

Oh, and a video!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF1YRE8ff1g[/youtube]

The relevant part starts at 50 seconds:

Quote:
But the crisis is avoidable and nobody has any patience with this because they see this as a moral failing. You could have chosen to get ready, but you didn't. It is phrased as a form of laziness: This layabout, ne'er-do-well, carefree, careless attitude that you could change if you wanted to. But we know it as the executive failure it really is. This disorder precludes you from organizing across time.



Last edited by Verdandi on 11 Dec 2011, 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

11 Dec 2011, 9:57 am

Sorry bout the idiocracy link, verdandi...i suffer from pop culture free association... whenever anyone says anything, it reminds me of a song or movie.

The welfare article links reminded me of something more on topic ...

I know a lot of people who can't get decent jobs because of the way welfare cuts off when you reach a certain income level. I used to be in restaurant management, and I would frequently have employees that couldn't work more than 20 or 26 hours a week. they were dependent on state health care benefits for the poor for things like mental health medication.

My worker M. for example, she was bipolar and couldn't hold a job at all without her medication. If she worked more than 26 hours a week, her income would bring her over the cutoff level, and she would lose her meds and subsequently lose her job. Our business was too small to be able to offer healthcare, and even if she worked 40 hours a week, she couldn't afford the doctor's visits and medication on her own.

She was my best worker, but could only work part time from the healthcare trap. Sucked. The only way she cold get out of it and become self supportive was if she could find a job that paid at least $15/hr, instead of the $9 we were able to give.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Dec 2011, 10:04 am

Burnbridge wrote:
Sorry bout the idiocracy link, verdandi...i suffer from pop culture free association... whenever anyone says anything, it reminds me of a song or movie.


It's nothing to apologize for: The movie by itself is an entertaining comedy. When people start treating it like it's a documentary or lamenting that society is letting unfit people survive, that's what's annoying and frustrating. I don't even think people get what "fit" and "unfit" means, as these are not moral categories, but a reflection of what any particular environment can sustain and support. In a society like this, a lot of people are fit to survive because society itself helps us survive.

Quote:
The welfare article links reminded me of something more on topic ...

I know a lot of people who can't get decent jobs because of the way welfare cuts off when you reach a certain income level. I used to be in restaurant management, and I would frequently have employees that couldn't work more than 20 or 26 hours a week. they were dependent on state health care benefits for the poor for things like mental health medication.

My worker M. for example, she was bipolar and couldn't hold a job at all without her medication. If she worked more than 26 hours a week, her income would bring her over the cutoff level, and she would lose her meds and subsequently lose her job. Our business was too small to be able to offer healthcare, and even if she worked 40 hours a week, she couldn't afford the doctor's visits and medication on her own.

She was my best worker, but could only work part time from the healthcare trap. Sucked. The only way she cold get out of it and become self supportive was if she could find a job that paid at least $15/hr, instead of the $9 we were able to give.


Yes, exactly. As I said earlier in the thread, it's mandatory poverty. You're left with Hobson's choice: Don't work at all and keep your benefits, or work and end up in a worse position than you were in while unemployed. That is, there is no choice.