posted
I had a conversation recently with a person who deals constantly with drug and alcohol abusers who have run afoul of the law. She had a rather hard-to-accept, yet hard to actually refute, view of some of the people she runs across. That is that they are essentially obsolete -- that there is no place for them in modern society, and thus they are condemned to poverty, marginalization, and (probably) early death.
It's not all drug abusers, nor is it all poor people. But there are some, she says, who fall into the category of obsolete human by virtue of their low level of education (4th grade reading level is the average among defendants in US courts), their lack of social skills and their lack of basic life/coping skills.
She made the case that such people might have done just fine 100 years ago. There were plenty of slots for them to guarantee survival, albeit not to actually thrive or "excel" in any modern sense of the word. But they would not necessarily have to live or die based on the charity of others.
Now, however, those slots are rapidly disappearing. It's not even like they could do menial labor in most of the US because, frankly, there isn't enough solo work (keeping them out of the way of other humans) and there's a minimum level of functioning required for most people who live in our society (you've got to be able to handle money sufficiently to at least keep a roof over your head).
I was appalled by the thought of it, but I also couldn't effectively rebut the arguments she made. It also got me thinking that the trend is such that, if she's right, we're going to be making more and more people obsolete.
I remember hearing predictions about human obsolesence due to increased mechanization (robots doing people's jobs). But this is different. This is taking more like drawing a line along a continuum of human functionality and saying "anyone below this line is out of luck."
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is, I think, why poverty has such a strong component of heredity. It isn't just that there isn't money to inherit, but that the life skills may not be be there to be passed on.
Of course, "poor" != "without life skills." But this is key: by the time most kids in our culture are in a position to start questioning the way the world is presented to them (this is what you do to get by, here is what your life must be like), they are developmentally in a stage where making such changes on your own is quite hard. It doesn't mean that none of them can, but that it may well be very hard for most. That's pretty sad.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is why work-based rehabilitation programs are the most effective.
One of the Texts That Changed My Life is, unfortunately, not translated into English yet. It is called Fraternité, by Abbé Pierre. Abbé Pierre founded the Emmaus Society, a program that helps homeless people by giving them food and shelter and a job - not a "job," but a task; a responsibility in the society. People who have little to contribute to society in the traditional sense of the word are still given a reason to exist.
To me, any suggestion that a usefulhuman being is one who is contributing monetarily is incredibly depressing.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
System change that enables individual change. You can't have one without the other, but they don't just reduce down to the same thing.
It's still very hard. If you have never been tied to clocktime, then that can be a really hard habit to make. But if there is a tangible reason for it, all the better.
---
Annie, could you translate it? (I remember you mentioning it before.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Annie, could you translate it? (I remember you mentioning it before.)
That is one of my lifegoals. I translated chapter 1, I believe... when I get my laptop back I'll let you know.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a group near my old school that did that, Annie. Whatever people could contribute, they were asked to. Some people fixed up old bikes to then be given to others who might need a way to get to a job. Others helped cook meals in the associated shelter. It's a circular organisation, in all the best ways.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have public schools. They're SUPPOSED to be teaching children how to function in society including the skills they need to get and keep a job. Further, they're SUPPOSED to be making sure the kids know that if they DON'T learn, they will always be poor. I'm pretty sure that 2nd message isn't being taught very well.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: We have public schools. They're SUPPOSED to be teaching children how to function in society including the skills they need to get and keep a job. Further, they're SUPPOSED to be making sure the kids know that if they DON'T learn, they will always be poor. I'm pretty sure that 2nd message isn't being taught very well.
Public schools can't do all of that on their own. If the message isn't reinforced at home, or in the people they see around them, it takes an extraordinary child/student to be able to apply it.
Not to say that schools and dedicated teachers can't make a profound difference -- but the burden is not all on the teacher.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This phenomenon is relatively recent (post WW2). Prior to that the majority of people in the US would spend their lives in the same place, selecting people from a relatively small selection that essentially boiled down to random mating. However in more recent times people are much more likely to marry to their own intelligence level because of the increased number attending college, especially the vastly increased number of women attending college. This is leading to a stratification of intelligence.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, they're SUPPOSED to be making sure the kids know that if they DON'T learn, they will always be poor. I'm pretty sure that 2nd message isn't being taught very well.
But that message has been lost. Now it's "If you don't learn, but you try very hard, you're still great, and don't let anyone tell you different". Self-esteem has replaced excellence (and even competency) more and more in our educational system.
Telling a child he will always be poor if he doesn't learn would negatively impact their self-esteem, so that message is hidden.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is leading to a stratification of intelligence.
I don't think this is provable. I personally suspect that stratification and permanent-underclass situations in our society are based way more on economics and culture than intelligence. The importance of intelligence variation between individual humans to their status in life is less significant, I suspect, than we smart people would like to believe.
posted
I'd have to agree with Puppy there... working in a respected high-tech field I have to say that a lot of people here are honestly not that intelligent, however we do all have similar incomes and social status, so their children are likely to grow into the same social/economic strata. That being said, I do think the intelligence argument is somewhat true, just not as overriding as the other factors).
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was, I don't think the people are obsolete, I think their teachers (and parents, I agree) have failed to give them the proper message.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, I don't think the people are obsolete either, however there may be a point where little can be done to turn someone back into a productive member of society.
Emmaus and the like are great, but they rely on the charity of others still. the number of jobs upon which someone can support themselves if they posess no trade skills and a 4th grade reading level is miniscule for the most part. While contributing by fixing broken bikes for the rest of the Emmaus house or cooking for them may be useful, without further training/expertise in those areas these people would almost certainly not be able to make enough to survive by doing that outside the shelter of a charitable organization like that.
Years ago there would have been much more call for large numbers of unskilled workers to work the fields, perform simple construction tasks etc... but now with advanced farm equipment, and construction requiring lots of permits/certifications etc... (in addition to other similar fields) the job market for unskilled labor is rapidly disappearing.
I don't think anyone is arguing that these people are worth less than any other human being, but there is room to argue that materially in this society there is little place for them to survive.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot possibly get genetic stratification effects on something as subtle as intelligence in a mere two generations.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have never been tied to clocktime, then that can be a really hard habit to make.
This is a huge problem for a lot of first-time offenders placed on probation. Many have never had to really meet a particular schedule in their entire lives. Suddenly, failing to follow the clock means possible jail time - it's a big leap to take. Lots of people on probation lost jobs because they made it in "most days" - and presented that in court as if everybody should realize why that's acceptable. Most attorneys and judges don't seem to get how big a change it is to be at X place at Y time 100% of the time.
Successful probation should be geared toward teaching the life skills that are necessary to support oneself in society (and drug rehab if, as is too often the case, necessary). Unfortunately, much of that relies on the person finding and keeping a job, which can be very, very hard.
The maddest I ever saw a judge was when a women came in for robbing the till at a fast food shop that made a point of hiring people on probation, because she might well have ruined one of the most successful parts of the probation program.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a very large problem with idea that any particular human being might be "obsolete."
I have a bigger problem with the idea that there are plenty of manual labor jobs and those people should just take them and all will be well -- problem solved.
Aside from the basic issues of poor life-management skills and substance abuse barring a great many of them from actually being employable in any sort of immediate way (i.e., before they just starved to death instead), there are some fairly obvious questions about how one goes about finding work in the casual-hire market for unskilled labor. It's not like many of these folks have a network of employed (or employable) friends with whom to share contacts. It's also not as if there are people recruiting for workers underneath overpasses or at the Methadone clinics. Even prison-to-work reintegration programs aren't exactly bursting at the seams with jobs, so the ones who are coming out of prison aren't really getting a line on gainful employment as part of their "severance package."
I'm not saying that these folks deserve a lot of help.
What I am saying is that it's a lot more efficient use of taxpayer dollars to help them anyway.
I hesitate to mention this because I don't have a link, but there's a statistic that's being tossed around the justice/treatment area based on empirical studies -- For ever dollar we spend on treatment for substance abuse, we save SEVEN dollars. If that is true now, even with our treatment programs being so scatter-shot and truncated, it's kind of stupid NOT to make sure there are adequate numbers of spaces in treatment programs. It means we can reduce the numbers of jail cells, and the numbers of police officers, probation officers, and court rooms.
For some reason, we've become fixated on the idea that personal responsibility is so important that we should just waste money on stuff that doesn't work (like incarceration without treatment, boot camps, etc.)
I'm all for making a point, but, really, expecting a different result from doing the same thing, over and over, is pretty ridiculous. Our punitive model is an absolute failure based on every metric I've seen. But we keep doing it that way.
And really...blaming the schools. That's just as silly as building more prison space. There's more going on here than someone who didn't hear a message from a teacher somewhere along the way in their education.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nateetan: This phenomenon is relatively recent (post WW2). Prior to that the majority of people in the US would spend their lives in the same place, selecting people from a relatively small selection that essentially boiled down to random mating. However in more recent times people are much more likely to marry to their own intelligence level because of the increased number attending college, especially the vastly increased number of women attending college. This is leading to a stratification of intelligence.
I agree, but there is another component to this as well. My family is a prime example of this....
People move a lot more now, and that means that there aren't the types of support networks that once were available to people two generations ago. Family used to be the fall back caretakers of children, and there was always SOMEONE around to give a helping hand if needed, at least for a lot of people. A lot more than these days.
I love my sister, and I have always been available for all family functions. I was single, and I made a conscious decision to be available to my family in that way, even though it meant missing some opportunities. Now that I am married, and am the sole breadwinner for us, I don't have the flexibility I had when I was younger.....and we not live in FL, over 1000 miles from both my parents (AZ and MI) and from my only sister (RI). I am going to the the Godfather for my sister's new baby....and I have never seen her, nor will I be able to make it in for the christening, all because of my work.
It isn't that I love her less, but business opportunities in MA were slim, so we moved. I don't regret any of it, but it is tough at times.
And now JenniK and I want children....and when we begin having them my parents and sister won't be around to lend a hand or provide support.
People relocate for work, retire in other states, and live their own lives, but there chances of living close to your family are greatly reduced these days for a significant portion of society.
So it is easier than ever to slip into poverty and dig a hole too big to get yourself out of.....and so begins the cycle.
(can you tell this is something I have been giving a lot of thought to lately? )
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Kwea said. Our cildcare situation fell through with less than a week's notice and Bob is going to be out of state for work all next week. My parents are coming for the week to help with John. It really brought home to me how fortunate we are to have family that can do that -- if we didn't we'd have to take turns taking days off until we could find a new childcare provider. And if we were living paycheck to paycheck at jobs that didn't include paid vacation that would have been a disaster.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not uncommon for companies to require 6 months or even a year on the job before you are entitled to actually take any of the vacation days accrued as a new employee. Sick days, I think, are typically available for use earlier, but usually not during any probationary period when first starting on a job.
And once you lose a job over something like illness (yours or that of a dependent -- doesn't matter), you start to look like less of a good candidate the next time around.
I knew a woman who lost her job in NYC because of excessive sick leave. Her five year old child had Type 1 diabetes and she didn't have anyone around to take care of him if he had a bad day. Her family was all in Georgia. She ended up homeless with a sick 6 year old. She went from account executive with a major publishing house (with lots of seniority by the way), to homeless inside of one year.
And she was a relatively well-educated and resourceful person in comparison to the folks I'm mostly thinking of in relation to possible "obsolesence." She made a couple of bad choices (especially from her employer's point of view -- I'm not sure if they'd be bad from the point of view of "responsible parenting.").
I think single parents are especially vulnerable in our society to the sudden loss of employment over child care or illness issues.
And, I imagine, finding alternate child care for a kid who needs injections or other medical attention is not exactly something you can do on short notice.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was exactly my point, although taken to an extreme. Obviously it sucks for her, but even less intense issues can really do a number on you, while in the past a good portion of people might have been able to have family help out occasionally.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, my friend Diana (who posts here intermittently) works as a guardian ad litem, and has similar stories. It can be really hard to change both habits and mindset.
Part of why I'm really glad both you and she have the jobs you do.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi everybody! I finally got back online recently.
quote:Originally posted by nateetan: This phenomenon is relatively recent (post WW2). Prior to that the majority of people in the US would spend their lives in the same place, selecting people from a relatively small selection that essentially boiled down to random mating. However in more recent times people are much more likely to marry to their own intelligence level because of the increased number attending college, especially the vastly increased number of women attending college. This is leading to a stratification of intelligence.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You cannot possibly get genetic stratification effects on something as subtle as intelligence in a mere two generations.
KoM, of course you can't get genetic partioning in a handful of generations. But nateetan mentioned mate selection, not genetics per se. I think you could get a feedback effect reinforcing differences between intelligence classes in a few decades due to the non-genetic components of intelligence: family issues, nutrition, schools, social class, etc.
The net effect of such negative feedback would be to re-erect class barriers that were partially broken down in the 20th century.
And welcome to Hatrack, nateetan! Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: We have public schools. They're SUPPOSED to be teaching children how to function in society including the skills they need to get and keep a job. Further, they're SUPPOSED to be making sure the kids know that if they DON'T learn, they will always be poor. I'm pretty sure that 2nd message isn't being taught very well.
Public schools can't do all of that on their own. If the message isn't reinforced at home, or in the people they see around them, it takes an extraordinary child/student to be able to apply it.
Not to say that schools and dedicated teachers can't make a profound difference -- but the burden is not all on the teacher.
THANK YOU!
Too often, the message that teachers give to students is not only unsupported at home, but outright contradicted. Also, many parents believe that it is the responsibility of the educational establishment to teach appropriate social behavior.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
would like to believe.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
