Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Up In Smoke | Drown Your Sorrows Tomorrow »

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Investor Class or Lottery Class?

posted by on June 11 at 12:06 PM

David Brooks has an interesting column today in which he talks about “the deterioration of financial mores” in America and breaks our culture down into two groups:

On the one hand, there is what the report calls the investor class. It has tax-deferred savings plans, as well as an army of financial advisers. On the other hand, there is the lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)’s or financial planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents.

Which makes me wonder, as part of my continuing wonder about who all you Slog people are: Which group are you in?

I mean, I read A. Birch Steen religiously, so I know that he firmly believes that anyone who reads what The Stranger produces is either a welfare queen, a mooching couch surfer, or an incompetent crook of some sort. But perhaps he doesn’t really know our online audience? Or perhaps he knows you better than you know yourselves? (As I’m sure he would contend.)

In any case, enlighten me.

Are you in the investor class or the lottery class?

RSS icon Comments

1

God, there's nothing more annoying than a new David Brooks article trying to provide a folksy taxonomy of Americans.

Here's an alternative set of labels: 'rich' people and 'poor' people. Can I have NYT column?

Posted by Gabriel | June 11, 2008 12:19 PM
2

I'd like to think of myself as part of a third class that seeks cheap thrills and tries to get by on less. The Freegan class?

Posted by jonglix | June 11, 2008 12:21 PM
3

I'm investor class, but a few weeks ago I found $5 outside my apartment and decided to buy Lotto or Scratch tickets with it.

For two weeks I couldn't bring myself to do it. I was too embarassed to even approach the machine.

...but this most recent weekend, after a long night of drinking, I lost all inhibition. I bought 5 $1 Scratch tickets at Benson's Grocery at 2AM in front of a friend, who commented, "Now I KNOW you're drunk." I won $1. He wouldn't wait to let me turn it in. I still have it. Now I'm too embarassed to redeem it.

Posted by Stela Von Rainier Der Pisner Urquell IV | June 11, 2008 12:21 PM
4

@1:

Depends. Are you rich or poor?

Posted by COMTE | June 11, 2008 12:23 PM
5

What @1 said.

Brooks is a fount of false dichotomies, oversimplifications, and unsubstantiated common sense about how inevitable and natural economic inequality is.

Posted by Trevor | June 11, 2008 12:27 PM
6

The investor class also has "plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents."

Posted by Lou | June 11, 2008 12:33 PM
7

I love scratcher tickets. The misses and I actually buy these for entertainment. It's good cheap fun, and provides a nice break from an intense NES session. Or, you can get drunk in the park and scratch up a storm on a nice day.

These class categories couldn't make less sense. What percent of American's have "an army of investors"? A 401k doesn't mean people aren't living check to check and hoping for a freak payout, either.

Matter of fact, toiling in relative low wages, hoping and working toward that big payout is what a lot of high-paying professions are based on (sales, banking, law, etc.).

Are Lotto tickets fundamentally a different type of investment than stocks, or are they just a riskier investment?

Posted by Dougsf | June 11, 2008 12:36 PM
8

It would be better to describe this as "the deferred gratification class" and the "get something for nothing class" Just cause you're poor doesn't meant you can't save money, and just cause your rich doesn't mean you don't suck satan's cock at the slots in Vegas.

Posted by Westside forever | June 11, 2008 12:46 PM
9

The investment game is fun! I've won a few hands of that. The lotto game just feels random. It's not like winning the lotto is brag-worthy.

Posted by Percy Smythe-Gibbons | June 11, 2008 12:50 PM
10

If you think this kind of poll is anything but a joke, you're lottery class.

Posted by elenchos | June 11, 2008 12:53 PM
11

I'm definitely in the couch surfer class. I have rich parents, so I graduated college debt-free, but now, a few years later, I don't have any established credit, live paycheck to paycheck, but have never bought a lotto ticket in my life.

Posted by Notecarder | June 11, 2008 1:01 PM
12

I'm definitely in the couch surfer class. I have rich parents, so I graduated college debt-free, but now, a few years later, I don't have any established credit, live paycheck to paycheck, and have never bought a lotto ticket in my life.

Posted by Notecarder | June 11, 2008 1:02 PM
13

Investor class but you all knew this.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 1:12 PM
14

@12 you are in the lazy class.

Posted by inkweary | June 11, 2008 1:14 PM
15

I have an IRA, though right now it's like throwing buckets of water into a lake being drained.

Posted by Greg | June 11, 2008 1:16 PM
16

greg, look at QID and QLD. they are both ultra short ETFs for the NASDAQ composite. While it may take more attention than it's worth to you, you can do very well by investing in these ETFs when the market is going south. If not just DCA and let it be done with.

Inkweary, well played.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 1:21 PM
17

For some reason I kept reading the headline as "pottery class" since this has been posted.

Posted by Abby | June 11, 2008 1:28 PM
18

Investor class - but I lust after women in the Lottery class ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 11, 2008 1:29 PM
19

Brooks is a boob, but he has a point. Being in the "investor class" is a matter of behavior, not wealth. It's not rich vs. poor, it's smart vs. dumb; you can invest if you're poor, and should. If you gave everyone in the lottery class a million dollars, 95% of them would be broke again within three years, tops.

Posted by Fnarf | June 11, 2008 1:39 PM
20

I'm neither.

But then again, I'm not American.

I am a regular reader of Slog and The Stranger online.

Posted by DLF | June 11, 2008 1:43 PM
21

Probably obvious by now, but I'm investor class. Though my horoscope told me to buy a lottery ticket one day so I did. I won $5. Wasn't exactly the big payout I'd hoped for.

I'm not sure my financial advisors would like to be referred to as an army, though, more like a strategic strike force...

Posted by PopTart | June 11, 2008 1:49 PM
22

Actually, I've won more from lotteries and raffles than I've spent on them, Fnarf. Even the Publisher's Clearing House one.

That's how they suck you in ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 11, 2008 1:50 PM
23

I always knew slog was full of rich motherfuckers.
fnarf you jackass, you're saying that all the rich people who invest are "smart" just because they are mimicking the behavior they have observed every day of their lives since birth? Oh, that's rich.
Broke ass people come from a place where nobody they know invests. They (we) have no friends who invest, our parents don't invest, and if we even know how to invest it's because we exerted a lot of effort to figure it out. It is all you "by the bootstrap" jerks who are really the stupid ones.

Posted by ams | June 11, 2008 1:56 PM
24

@15,

If you made sound investments and aren't trying to play the market (something that no one aside from an investment banker should attempt), you should be fine. If anything, now's the best time to put money into your IRA, while the market is down and stocks are cheap.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM
25

Is there a neither? I'm too poor to afford "an army of financial advisers", but I have a 401K (or the start of one) and no credit card debt.

Of corse by the time my 401K matures I'll probably be able to afford about one pound of rice with it...

Posted by SDizzle | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM
26

#23 - Information is free. I learned every bit of what I know on my own, or from people I've met as an adult. It took me years, and I've made mistakes, but I'm pretty damn comfortable (which is very different from being "rich"), and it's 100% because of choices I've made, not because of my background or a culture that's been assigned to me.


Posted by Dougsf | June 11, 2008 2:12 PM
27

ams, poor people are stupid if they only look to their poor peer group for ideas of how to make decisions.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 2:12 PM
28

I stopped reading the post at "David Brooks".

Posted by laterite | June 11, 2008 2:16 PM
29

@27. I don't think that it's stupid to look to your peer group for ideas. I think it is exceptional if you manage to look outside of it and implement new ideas in your life. It is even more impressive to bring those ideas back to your community.
All I'm saying is you can't give rich people (by which I mean, honestly, middle class) credit for following the paths laid out for them, and condemn the poor for following the paths laid our for them. It is just inconsistent.

Posted by ams | June 11, 2008 2:21 PM
30

I consider investments and financial advisers a "stupid tax." Do you think Jesus will hug you more in heaven if you leave a bunch of money in mutual funds? He doesn't, he hugs everyone equally.

Posted by lottery class | June 11, 2008 2:21 PM
31

@29,

Just don't bother. Major waste of time trying to explain to entitled middle class/rich people what it's like to be anything they're not.

It's funny how BA is turning into the Will in Seattle of the stock market, as evidenced @16.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 2:26 PM
32

AMS, I don't think rich people are by definition "smart" but it is absolutely undeniable that saving for retirement is the only smart thing to do. And I agree that poor people usually have an array of inferior choices laid out for them financially, but I do NOT agree that it is impossible to do the smart thing anyways. You HAVE to, or you will never escape. Recognizing the obvious and only path to financial security is not the same thing as condemning the poor. I WANT the poor to learn to save and improve themselves, and support every effort to help them learn to do so.

I didn't say anything about bootstraps, either. A lot of comfortably well-off people got that way solely through the efforts of their parents or their class connections, and that's unfair. But it's also true. Your average investor (who is not rich by any stretch) has a better chance of a secure future than someone with no understanding of how their money works, regardless of income.

Almost every big lottery winner (not just in the US) has pissed it all away in short order. Or look at sudden millionaires in pop culture -- MC Hammer made $100 million and was bankrupt not long after. How much money do you think Britney Spears is going to have when she's 70? She earns $700,000 a month, and spends $750,000. The average large-figure inheritor (say, half a mil or more) spends the entire pile within five years.

Posted by Fnarf | June 11, 2008 2:33 PM
33

@24 is correct, even if Fnarf has a point about lottery winners holding onto their winnings.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 11, 2008 2:46 PM
34

@32- you said that people who invest vs. people who don't is summed up by "smart vs. poor". That's what I disagreed with, and you haven't really addressed that in this post. It still reads like you believe that the poor who don't invest are dumb. And your "regardless of income" remark is telling, as well.

With the lottery stuff, yeah, I agree. That just reinforces to me, however, that one's financial choices are deeply rooted in their class of origin.

Posted by ams | June 11, 2008 2:51 PM
35

@19:

How does this explain shrub - stupid AND rich?

Posted by COMTE | June 11, 2008 2:55 PM
36

kesh, it's funny how you're becoming barnacle on all my posts here.

There is nothing WiS about pointing out investment vehicles or investing strategies to someone who feels their IRA is doing poorly.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 2:58 PM
37

and i misspoke earlier on QLD and QID. QID is an ultrashort of the NASDAQ, QLD is an ultra of the NASDAQ.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 3:01 PM
38

Today
Ezra Klein
, in commenting on the Brooks article, also mentions Charles Karelis book "Persistence of Poverty" to point out that it's not as simple for the poor to simply "act like the rich".

There are powerful institutional and psychological barriers for the poor to overcome. Recognizing this would go a lot further in helping us develop solutions that actually ameliorate the plight of the poor, as oppose to simply saying that it's hopeless or "their fault" for being poor.

If you bother to read the article, Brooks (who I am no fan of) makes it clear the "lottery class" aren't simply stupid, or weak-willed. They are in a financial position where wealth is so completely beyond them their only hope for climbing out is winning the lottery. Coming from Brooks this is quite the admission, as it cuts to the core of libertarian arguments about economic solutions for America (usually all about 401ks, IRAs, HSAs, etc. - that only benefit the investor class).

Posted by jcricket | June 11, 2008 3:15 PM
39

i've never heard a solution for improving the culture of poor decision making that didn't involve wealth transfers as some part of the solution.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 3:37 PM
40

BA,

Come back here in ten years and let us know if you actually managed to beat the S&P 500.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 3:53 PM
41

According to the Stranger's own reader profile information (http://www.thestranger.com/extras/pdf/sales/2007onesheets/reader_econ_att.pdf) the average household income of a Stranger reader is $77k, and 60% are homeowners. I'm guessing that correlates to a higher number of "Investment Class" readers, but I could be wrong...

Posted by meh | June 11, 2008 3:57 PM
42

the sad thing is kesh, I know you're actually going to be waiting for me to come back so you can deliver a devastating insult about my abilities as a trader.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 4:18 PM
43

@ 39 yes, decent living conditions and a decent education cost money. Consider it a tax on being smug.

Posted by LMSW | June 11, 2008 4:18 PM
44

@39, you're not looking very hard.

Financial literacy programs work. So does help with life skills, teaching people how to function in society so that they don't get dragged down by everything that comes along, and they get out of the bad old way. "Transfer of wealth" is such a simpleminded bogeyman to be afraid of. Not helping people ends up costing more than helping them in the long run.

Posted by Fnarf | June 11, 2008 4:19 PM
45

LMSW, the culture of bad decision making chooses not to attend school. how is improving education for people going to make a difference for those that exclude themselves from the educational system?


Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 4:22 PM
46

@45,

Care to prove that poor people do not attend school, whether they "choose" to or not? Because this country's literacy rate is at 99 percent, which seems to suggest that members of the "culture of bad decision making" do at least "choose" to attend primary school.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 4:33 PM
47

fnarf, can you see the predicament you put yourself in?

1. you're putting the responsibility of taking these classes on the people who need them, but the people who need them aren't inclined to take such classes.
2. transfer of wealth isn't a boogeyman when so many people advocate this as a way for poor people to stop making poor decisions that lead to prolonged poverty. If we only had better schools, social services, etc etc. then poor people could rise up out of being poor.
and isn't what you're saying basically stating that a transfer of wealth is inconsequential in helping people rise out of their living situation? so i don't think it's completely outrageous to think that a transfer of wealth for little result would be something to advocate for.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 4:40 PM
48

kesh, you should know when you have a metric relevant to the discussion. literacy rates compared to other countries don't have a correlation with wealth distribution inside a nation.

there is a correlation between the achievement level school and income levels outside of school. poor people tend not to go to college. why is that?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 4:49 PM
49

@48,

You really have no idea how expensive college is or how underfunded government financial aid is. Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. And I wasn't talking about college. You claimed that poor people exclude themselves from education. If you meant higher education, you should have said higher education.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 5:05 PM
50

@48 - because they can't afford it.

Tomorrow I'll answer your question about why is the sky grey ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 11, 2008 5:06 PM
51

kesh, I do have an idea of how expensive college is. I go to college. And I pay for it without federal aid or parental handouts.

and the point stands. poor people exclude themselves from education that is relevant to improving their wealth situation beyond the status quo. are you really so thickheaded that you believe high school education alone prepares people for the world beyond that point? or that high school alone can lead to jobs that require skills that are sought after? i may have not been clear enough for you, but that is a poor excuse for you to try and invalidate a point by being stupid on purpose.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 5:16 PM
52

BA, "transfer of wealth" is like "clutch hitting"; it doesn't describe anything. It's the kind of thing people say when they don't have anything to say. If you think schools are a transfer of wealth, you're hopeless, and you have no idea how societies work. Maybe you should check out what countries that don't have public schools look like. Social welfare (not "welfare") pays enormous benefits and makes widespread wealth possible.

By the way, you don't pay for college; no one, not even a Harvard student, pays his or her full tab. If you're attending a state college, the taxpayers are carrying about 90% of your load. BECAUSE IT'S WORTH IT.

Posted by Fnarf | June 11, 2008 5:25 PM
53

fnarf, here's what I mean. increasing taxes to funnel money into institutions that have produced neglible returns on current levels of funding. the answer to social problems aren't solved by money. poor people aren't going to benefit from simply having more funded services

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 5:35 PM
54
I go to college. And I pay for it without federal aid or parental handouts.

And how? What is your exact history in how you either amassed enough wealth to pay for college yourself or how you acquired enough private loans? And how does it apply to anyone else? You have this uncanny ability to assume that, if you could do it, than anyone who fails to match up is deficient. So, let's hear it. How did you manage to do it and did you truly accomplish this without anyone else's or especially the government's help?

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 5:37 PM
55

fnarf, here's what I mean. increasing taxes to funnel money into institutions that have produced neglible returns on current levels of funding. the answer to social problems aren't solved by money. poor people aren't going to benefit from simply having more funded services

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 5:41 PM
56

I made good choices in hard times. I failed at some things and learned from it. poor people aren't deficient in anything but the ability to traverse bad circumstance with good choice.

what worked for me won't work for everyone but the process of evaluating what you want and doing what it takes to get it transcends my personal life.

the way you frame it kesh, people are fated into the life they live and some people are born to be victims or less well off.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 5:54 PM
57

also, I attend SCCC, pay for school with loans or money made from trading, and income tax returns.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 6:17 PM
58

@56,

You didn't answer my questions. I want specifics. Prove to me that nothing about your station in life is thanks to chance and help from others.

And, no, people aren't fated into the life they live. But it helps immensely when more opportunities are made available to them. The GI Bill helped a great deal to create a large middle class in this country. My father, a proclaimed self-made man who graduated the valedictorian of his college class and went on to Harvard Law, wouldn't have achieved shit without federal work-study programs.

You read a lot of Ayn Rand, don't you?

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 6:28 PM
59

BA, I'm curious to see what your definition of an institution that has "produced neglible returns on current levels of funding" is. Are you talking public institutions only? What defines a "return" on something like, say, a public health agency, or a food stamp program? Or even the Salvation Army or Goodwill? Expecting a social program to operate under strictly financial terms is sort of missing the point, unless there's a way to genuinely correlate the dollars funded to said program to possible revenue generated as a result that social program, which is very hard to measure. You also say, "the answer to social problems aren't solved by money". Of course "money" in and of itself doesn't "solve" anything. I don't think anyone has argued that. But money does make the world go 'round, and a civilized society has a measure of obligation to ensure all of its citizens have the opportunity to contribute and advance. That includes funding of social programs, either through taxes or private giving. I think you ultimately recognize this to a degree; I doubt you're as completely dispassionate as some around here might think.

Posted by laterite | June 11, 2008 6:28 PM
60

@57,

I see. And what are you going to do when you have to start paying big boy tuition at a four-year college?

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 6:33 PM
61

Lottery Class here, I'm afraid, although I do have a pension plan (which is the only way to retire. Screw those 401k's.)

In my defense, I don't have any credit card debt, other than my yearly vacation expenses (which I pay off before I plan another vacation - it works surprisingly well) and I only buy lottery tickets when it gets to be a really, really high payoff - and I don't spend more than five bucks.

But I think it's fun to have that ticket, and daydream about the nice things you could do for people if you had that kind of money. I'd pay off the mortgage, buy houses for my sister and three of my friends, buy myself a private railcar, and go visit my friend Andrea. Her husband just filed for divorce after having an affair with a nurse.

And I'd give my mom a million dollars, just so she could say that she was a millionaire. Not that she needs it - she gets a nifty pension payment every month, on top of social security.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | June 11, 2008 7:04 PM
62

@61 I love the idea of a private rail car! It's so Wild Wild West.

Posted by PopTart | June 11, 2008 7:44 PM
63

kesh, when i go to a four year college then I will be taking out massive student loans and working part time, instead of working full time now and going to school part time. I've already made up my mind that I should refuse to take money from the government because there are people who genuinely need it more than me.

as for your earlier line of questioning about relying on others, yes, I've done that numerous times as has everyone. No man is an island and no one person can accomplish anything without other people. The line of distinction on it is pretty clear though;

I've never gotten help from people that didn't want to help me, nor did i ever refuse help if it was offered to me, even if in return for something later down the road. I was fortunate in some part to have well off parents that instilled basic skills that allowed me to survive pretty well despite repeated failures on my own part to do well.

I dropped out of high school at 16.
I worked off and on for 3 years. I went to a vocational college for a year on money my parents saved. I failed out of there and was almost homeless. I relied on a gf for a spot of time to house me. I lived off 500 dollars a month for 3 months doing things that most would consider humiliating. I've done a lot of things stupid, fucked up shit in my early 20s. And yet I pulled through it, not because the government helped me (lord knows there are people that needed it more than me) but because I couldn't live like a destitute person anymore. I made and continue to make sacrifices that many of my peers are unwilling to make.

I make 33k a year so I might not be poor by your standard. I have a very boring life that revolves around eating, sleeping, fucking, playing computer games, going to school, and I am not satisfied with how my life currently is (and who ever really is?). I have 10k in credit card debt and 3.5k in student loans. I could make even larger sacrifices no doubt like stopping my internet service, like never eating out, etc etc.

I make no claim that life is easy or that life is fair for everyone and it is especially uneasy for poor people because of environmental factors of being poor.

What I see as a problem, and I will get to this laterite, isn't that we have social programs, or grants for college, etc etc. it's that people want to spend more money on programs that haven't shown themselves to be effective in achieving the goals of the program or they think that spending money on one program will yield results that aren't related to deeper, systemic problems of the institution itself.

example: providing more financial aid to go to college for individuals of less material means isn't going to mean more individuals with less material means are going to go to college. we are talking about two distinct groups here; those that qualify to go to college and have financial hardship and those that don't qualify for college in the first place.

nor will that increase financial aid solve the problem of tuition prices increasing. subsidies for going to college do nothing to increase the amount of people that are able to go to college.

ayn rand is full of shit.

Laterite, I agree with you for the most part. The concept i was referring to was the idea that current programs in place would be better at fixing social problems if they only had more money. I disagree with this concept. Public schools, k-12 are a great example of where more money hasn't yielded better results or havent even been used to achieve better academic results. I also disagree with the concept of coercing people to pay more money for a social program that isn't effective in yielding the results it aims to achieve. The answer isn't to just move somewhere else, as many a shallow person here has suggested. I don't even think that you can fight or it's worth the fight to resist the coercion often times, but I think it is important to put the idea of accountability and results out there as being the primary focus of social programs.

I'd rather there be no social program than a social program that mostly fails to deliver on the goal it tries to attain. or a social program that would work if we only contributed more money to it.

I'm sick and tired with people telling me that poor people are just victims of everything but the sum of the choices and values they have. it's a total cop out on figuring out what poor people can do in their lives to not be as poor. it also ignores class mobility which does exist and which we can see among various demographics of people.

do poor people remain poor by their choosing? to some extent yes. they choose not to undertake means that can improve their wealth or choose actions that sabotage that improvement. Are the choices a poor person has a result of circumstance and previous choice? yes. does this mean that we should only focus on improving the circumstance of poor people?

this entire thread is based on the mentality that poor folk and rich folk seem to have independent of actual material wealth and how it influences their decision making. I totally believe that there is some merit to this and some examples of where simply having wealth doesnt change the makeup of your personality.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 8:10 PM
64

@53 Gee and I thought the GI bill was a raging success.

Posted by LMSW | June 11, 2008 8:16 PM
65
does this mean that we should only focus on improving the circumstance of poor people?

No, but doing nothing is unacceptable. Class mobility is not good in this country. It could be better. It should be better. And there are many things that must be done to make it more possible. You frequently seem to take the position that there's nothing that should be done and that is what I object to. Additionally, your falling back on "income redistribution" does not help your argument; it has never helped your argument. It just makes you look like a heartless asshole.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 8:21 PM
66

kesh, class mobility being better is a really stupid objective to have based on how you divide up classes and what you consider mobility. do you really think you can only have upward mobility? and who does downward mobility affect?

LMSW, soldiers contributed their capital and received something in return. It was mutually beneficial. I'd like to see how you compare the GI bill to government programs that you think can be improved. simply citing the GI bill as being reason enough to trust the government to implement or increase funding social programs totally different in scope, objective, and cultural value, is unconvincing. Association by isolated success doesn't cut it.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 8:39 PM
67

and the problem, kesh, is that we live under the illusion that we are doing something simply by having a program established regardless of outcomes.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 8:51 PM
68

@67,

I don't see why we have to have specific outcomes. For one thing, those outcomes are often hard to quantify. I have often seen the argument that welfare alleviated African American poverty. It could be true, but probably isn't due to the fact that the civil rights movement really took off at the same time that the Great Society was instituted.

What I want to see is increased opportunity, such as, for example, huge increased in need-based scholarships, so as to shut up the people who don't want to do the hard lifting of actually earning a degree. If a poor person complains about not getting a fair shake, you can point out all the very real, very quantifiable opportunities available to him or her; rather than pointing to a minimum wage job and crushing student debt.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2008 9:12 PM
69

kesh, action without goals serves no purpose.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 11, 2008 9:46 PM
70

re effects of college attainment see

http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/reports/soe_566Trostel.pdf

BA their are many examples of the success of college aid programs. the GI bill is not isolated.

similarly many social programs are quite successful. However, they cannot remediate structural problems entirely for everyone.Just because a program or its participants are not 100% successful does not make it not worth having.

As a social worker, I have worked with adolescents in the south Bronx who would have liked to go to college but simply couldn't overcome the structural and financial barriers. So they joined the military, because it was the only way they could imagine getting an education and getting out. some choice.

Posted by LMSW | June 12, 2008 7:40 AM
71

There is a false dichotomy here. Dividing the population into those who can go to school but don't have the money and those who don't want to go to school, does not acknowledge the role of psychology. Many people grow up with college as an unattainable ideal. So they protect themselves by giving up. Financial and structural issues get in the way of even conceiving of getting there. In the here and now only by working to help these people, as imperfectly as we can, will these people improve their lives.

programs rarely "fail" completely. That's not how this type of outcome is measured. For instance, suppose a program enables 16 year old mothers to finish high school and start going to college by providing daycare for their baby, and financial aid. Some mothers will still drop out of high school, some will finish high school, some will go onto college and some will finish college. Is the mother who only finishes high school a failure. Without this program, she could not imagine college as a possibility. Maybe with this program she might go back to school later. Maybe with more money she might have enrolled in college.

Posted by LMSW | June 12, 2008 8:24 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.