Asymmetrical Information

This is a revelation: that people with a "bit of gumption and stick-to-it-ive-ness" are more likely to survive adversity than those who don't have any? I've always thought that middle-class "screw-ups" are more likely to fall further because of their support systems that allow them to deny reality longer than their poor analogues, other things being equal. But, of course, those who insist on how oppressed the poor are forget why these people are poor in the first place.

So what’s the author’s point – that we should be less willing to condemn a poorer degenerate merely because a middle-class degenerate might have been able to get away with his behavior longer without going to prison?

Seriously there are good arguments as to why the War on Some Drugs is bad public policy. Arguing that it is “unfair” that some people suffer more from their voluntary bad decisions than others isn’t one of them.

No, the revelation is that a certain amount of "gumption and stick-to-it-iveness" is necessary but not sufficient; a lot of people need the resources to be able to take some time and get their act together, and it's this safety net that lets many "middle class screw-ups" recover while their poor analogues do not.

I'm not sure I understand the conclusion of the excerpt (didn't "read the whole thing"). If I had my druthers, I would definitely reorient our drug abuse policies from prosecution toward treatment, if that is what the author is advocating. I'm not sure that the prosecutorial aspects of our "war on drugs" hasn't hurt the middle class, though. Plenty of middle class people have suffered the ridiculous consequences of excessive punishment for what should be minor civil offenses. Lives -- middle class lives -- are ruined to uphold a principle. So I'm not sure that the war on drugs doesn't also hurt middle-class drug users.

While it would be hard to argue that the middle-class doesn't generally have a much sturdier familial safety-net than the poor, I don't buy the assertion that most middle-class screw-ups bootstrap their way back to sobriety, success, and respectability by dint of their discipline, brains, and ambition. Why do you think these folks screwed-up in the first place? I don't know anything about Reihan Salam, except that he's obviously a bright young professional who chooses to spend his free time productively (i.e. blogging), but I think he's probably projecting his own personal qualities and habits onto his entire socio-economic class. C'mon, Reihan, wasn't there at least one kid in your dorm who flunked out freshman year, because he spent all day smoking pot and playing video games? How much of "an inner reserve, of intestinal fortitude and of inner 'will to power'-esque overdrive energy" (!) did that young scion of bourgeois values possess? And what's he doing now?

Anyway, I wish that he had elaborated on "the unconscionable stinginess of a social policy oriented primarily towards social control".

I think what the author is trying to communicate is that 'middle class' addicts have strong peer pressure to get their act together. This is true of many poor addicts (sometimes more so because poor families cannot afford to indulge an addicts disease very long while a rich family often can).

There's a very famous study of herion use among Vietnam vets. It followed many vets who used herion a lot in Vietnam, within a short time of returning home many of them either stopped completly or cut back significantly. Why? Not because they couldn't get it in the US or because the gov't put them in rehab or treatment but because their peer group changed. There was no longer as much time to indulge in use when you had to worry about a job, bills, and non-using friends.

All of which is true and important to keep in mind. At the same time, the poor suffer an equal problem as well disproportionately being the victims of other poor people who screw up and turn to lives of crimes. (Directly, and also indirectly.)

I think that this post kind of misses the most important point. Drug dealing and drug use have much different effects in a poor urban environment than in a suburban or rural environment.

I experienced this 30 years ago when I was one of the first whites to dare to live in Ft. Greene Park in Brooklyn. Drug dealing and use took place right out on the street and in the open. This was terrifying and dirty and it gave a very strong impression that the convicts were in charge of the prison. The life of the entire community was degraded by this. Public spaces quickly become littered with drug and alcohol trash, and people become afraid to use them. Drug users and dealers ruled the streets and bullied anybody who passed by.

Drug dealing and use takes place in a suburban or rural setting, usually, inside somebody's home and out of sight. The social effects are much diminished. In fact, they are seldom seen.

Rudy Giuliani seemed to understand these issues implicitly in his community policing campaign. He came down hard on public drug dealing and use, and much to everybody's surprise, crime rates in every category fell in NYC.

While it might stick in the craw that the poor suffer more from these ills than the middle class, this is not because of some arbitrary injustice. And serious policing of drug use in urban areas, with the application of rigorous penalties, works.

So, theoretically, the inequality may offend you, but in reality the majority of the poor benefit from the unequal application of the law. Which choice would you make?

The point is that we need to change our social order so that it is less about control.

Why do I have to wear my seatbelt? Isn't it my decision? I can read the accident statistics as well as the next person.

Why do gun controllers want my guns? None have ever been used in a crime and there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. Gun control does extend government control.

Why can an 18 year old die for his country, but can't take a drink in a bar? Oh it has to do with driving? Make the driving penalties extreme, but if they are not driving...

There are places in this country where the government will tell you what kind (and how many) trees to plant in your front yard.

Hate speech laws curtail free speech. Hate crimes laws are basically thought crimes. (The action - assault - was already illegal, penalties change based on what you think, not what you do.)

"Why do I have to wear my seatbelt? Isn't it my decision?"

No, it's not your decision. Because the rest of us are unwilling to allow you to fully suffer the consequences of your folly -- we'll cover your medical costs if you have no insurance and feed your family should you be unable to provide for them -- we are going to require you to behave responsibly. It wouldn't be fair or right for you to impose such costs on the rest of society, would it?

Since we are only requiring you to do what you should want to do on your own, we are not depriving you of liberty in any real sense. Instead, we are making you free in a much better way. We will remove from you the burden of providing your own financial security. You will be free from such worries. What's the loss of the ability to make a few little decisions for you self -- decisions you weren't making well anyway -- against all that? You are much better off without such concerns. Drink the Kool-Aid and enjoy you true freedom!

That is an exercise in irony, is it not, Mr. Walser?

I believe less ironic future generations will have difficulty understanding our writing.

Stable, functioning families benefit society and individuals.

Obvious point, but it seems like an aspect of the story that isn't getting a lot of discussion.

I believe less ironic future generations will have difficulty understanding our writing.

Most likely. In the meantime, us ironic types who are NOT foaming libertarians are going to tell you to wear your bloody seatbelt, and save the pouting for an actual infringment of rights.

Salam should find out more about jail. A lot of poorer druggies got clean because of jail, because there they couldn't get drugs or alcohol. I know they are notorious for drugs, but the truth is most jails stop them and inmates are forced to clean and sober.

The biggest difference between being porr and not being poor? If you're poor, you don't get many second chances.

Reihan's observations about the difference between the response of middle-class and poor people to drugs confirms my sympathies with social conservatism. When the elites of the middle class espouse a life of self-gratification and excess, they rarely understand that this lifestyle can cause deep pain to a whole class of people below them. It might have been all right for flower children, who were mostly of middle class origin, to indulge in free love and drug use. Yet their example left terribly lasting consequences on the lower class in the form of out-of-wedlock births and addiction, both major contributors to poverty. The middle class had a safety net to pick themselves up from their daze, as most hippies did, but for the lower classes there was no room for error or chance for an easy redemption.

I do agree with Reihan that an inner drive due to social expectation exists to help middle class people to overcome their personal failings. The problem among the poor is that this sense of social expectations is non-existent.

With that in mind, the bourgeois ideal of behaving yourself as role model for your peers as well as for those in lower class should be part of everyone's social duty! What the poor cannot attain in money they can definitely obtain respectable behavior.

Alas, this attribute is no longer valued in the public eye. Celebrities seem to behave trashier than ever before. Even middle class kids seem to find their role models from the lower classes, such as athletes and pop stars...I better stop myself before I start sounding like an old crank man...and I'm under 30!

Different take, same conclusion. When I worked in the brokerage business in the early 80s at least 90% of the brokers were doing coke and a few were doing heroin too. But we were all middle class and it seemed that when it became obvious that addiction was either here or approaching, the guys stopped using. I think it has more to do with middle class upbringing than anything else because all of us were making a fucking ton of money; our sales meetings all mentioned that if a broker wasn't making more than the president he should get on the bus and kill himself. I think it has as more to do with values than anything. Did anyone go off the deep end? Yes one killed himself and one guy flat disappeared, we all figured he was dead. I still see many of them, all married with kids who are in college. Can't be more middle class than that.

"But, of course, those who insist on how oppressed the poor are forget why these people are poor in the first place."

Most people are poor because they were born into poor families (the first place). They remain poor due to a variety of factors, but substance abuse (legal and illegal) is the biggest contributor. I know. I grew up in a poor family, in a poor neighborhood. Of the hundred or so kids I knew growing up, the vast majority became alcoholics and/or drug addicts and ended up either dead, jailed, or diseased. Very few became successful.

Mnookin describes a rise and fall and rise again, and concludes that being middle class is unfair. The injustice in being poor is not the money that permits a prolonged adolescent layabout to slowly dissolve, it is attitude.

He's got it backwards. The middle class isn't so because it began as middle class (and thus one's fall is cushioned and reversible). The values that caused Mnookin to desire to persevere, that cultural imperative itself, is why the middle class is middle class.

The cliché “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” is common to many cultures because of the very behaviors described in the Slate article. Absent the values, the fall is permanent. The plight of the poor is answered by following the ways of the rich. Basically: behave differently. It is difficult, but it is doable, and accounts for more income mobility than any other factor.

Alcohol can increase unwanted side effects buy dog food of dizziness. Consult your doctor or pharmacist mens underwear for further information soma. If you miss a dose, web ringtones do not double the next dose. Instead, skip the free cat food missed dose and resume your usual dosing soma buy hosting online schedule. For maximum effects, appetite suppressants buy lingerie online should be used in conjunction with a diet and prom dresses exercise program. Store at room temperature away bras web

This was Myron Magnet's thesis in "The Dream and the Nightmare" no?

Comments are Closed.