Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (230822)	9/2/2013 10:06:43 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542149

"I always grimace when this happens, because for some reason they must ring up the food stamp items separately (including multiple separate transactions at times) and it holds the line up. " I hate this too. I wish my supermarket would make a "foodstamps accepted here" line so I could avoid it. My plan for welfare would have these people living in barracks and eating in a common cafeteria. Make being poor a LITTLE less comfortable. Don't give them a section 8 house and foodstamps. But, feed and house everyone that needs it and wants it. en.wikipedia.org

To: neolib who wrote (230822)	9/3/2013 9:38:19 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542149

When you have correlations has high as shown in some of the graphs being posted, it becomes a bit difficult to hand wave causality away. There is a very obvious link between single parenthood and lower household income vs two parent homes. The relationship has causality in it, not just correlation, and again, this is completely obvious. It is becoming increasing clear to me that John doesn't want to engage on the merits on this subject. His role is to denigrate any data to the contrary on the basis that it is professionally unfit (by social science standards)--yet he can't explain in clear manner how this is so.

To: neolib who wrote (230822)	9/3/2013 12:06:31 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542149

When you have correlations has high as shown in some of the graphs being posted, it becomes a bit difficult to hand wave causality away. There is a very obvious link between single parenthood Imputing causality is not quite that simple. In this particular case, one can posit that it could go either way--poverty causes single parenthood (which I'll leave as your negative, not mine), or single parenthood causes poverty. It's clear, however, that a high correlation doesn't carry a notion of direction of causality; nor necessarily of causality. Lots of thing happen together, regularly, without one "causing" the other, at least in the routine use of the word causality. Policy proposals, obviously, assume causal direction. If single parenthood causes poverty, as the Heritage foundation appears to believe, then the aim is to reduce single parenthood. And their choice is information. If the reverse is true, job programs, better welfare benefits, etc. are far more important. My own conviction is that education is the key social leverage here. It won't get rid of poverty but, if properly provided, it will help children borne into poverty escape from it.