Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[beta_condition]

Can you explain to me how either political position can exist without reference to identity politics?

Suggesting reforms based on nothing but a person race and gender regardless of their position in society is what I'm getting at, the new more radical left which is emerging is quite concerning. I'd didn't say the left or right don't have roots inside identity politics but it's not the sole purpose.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Yes but in most western democracies they really are two parties of the right.

well, it's all relative i guess and in certain countries (like the US) I think you're correct. but there'd be a fair few EU examples from the 20th century id argue bucked that trend.

however, im not sure how that necessarily relates to the post i originally quoted, unless you're using "left" as a catch-all term for commie dictatorships. this wouldn't really be a fair point, given you've just appropriated all moderate governments onto the right- leaving nothing but the extremists. ie you're skewing the left-right spectrum until only the crazies are considered "left".

 

[Long Live HFC]

I might have misread your post in question, apologises if I did, but it came across as very "LOL SJW MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"

My only wish is that we talk about politics as an evidenced based medium, which has largely been absent from my perspective from the English speaking world for three decades

apologies if that's how it read, it certainly wasn't my intent. i just wanted to disagree with the assessment/assertions made in the original post of this (now-merged) thread. the devolution of political discussion into barracking as if reality was a footy game, does a lot of harm in my opinion.

 

[Big_Luch]

You're putting the cart before the horse though.

You think (all else being equal) if given a choice between being a single mother on welfare as opposed to being gainfully employed for 5 times the money and freedom, people willingly choose the former?

Of the people that do choose to wait longer for childbirth, they're generally from wealthier and more stable backgrounds. People who tend to have kids earlier are from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds.

I bet you'll see a lot more single teenage mothers in Frankston or Mirabooka than in Toorak or Cottesloe.

To some level welfare contributes to the 'Welfare trap'. Once you're on welfare it can be a bit of a tar pit to get free from. But to say [welfare] creates [poverty] is a massive stretch. Of the (many) causes of poverty and social disadvantage, welfare is right down the bottom of the list.

What changed for those numbers to appear though? The poster mentioned single parent families grew from one point in time to another. The argument is that welfare was the driver as it gave people another option which they could take, thus creating a cultural shift to be more acceptable to raise children this way.

 

[Fryman]

You're putting the cart before the horse though.

You think (all else being equal) if given a choice between being a single mother on welfare as opposed to being gainfully employed for 5 times the money and freedom, people willingly choose the former?

Of the people that do choose to wait longer for childbirth, they're generally from wealthier and more stable backgrounds. People who tend to have kids earlier are from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds.

I bet you'll see a lot more single teenage mothers in Frankston or Mirabooka than in Toorak or Cottesloe.

To some level welfare contributes to the 'Welfare trap'. Once you're on welfare it can be a bit of a tar pit to get free from. But to say [welfare] creates [poverty] is a massive stretch. Of the (many) causes of poverty and social disadvantage, welfare is right down the bottom of the list.

Your going to have to provide some evidence for your vague generalities.

 

[David Schwarz]

apologies if that's how it read, it certainly wasn't my intent. i just wanted to disagree with the assessment/assertions made in the original post of this (now-merged) thread. the devolution of political discussion into barracking as if reality was a footy game, does a lot of harm in my opinion.

Don't worry, I've been a bit riled about the Grenfell Fire, have had a tendancy to fly off the handle a bit. My bad

 

[Malifice]

What changed for those numbers to appear though? The poster mentioned single parent families grew from one point in time to another. The argument is that welfare was the driver as it gave people another option which they could take, thus creating a cultural shift to be more acceptable to raise children this way.

The trend in single-parent families has increased steadily with the trend in shorter marriages and people in non marriage relationships.

Society has changed.

 

[Gough]

Unless you're black, then somehow it's all the fault of the welfare state.

 

[Big_Luch]

The trend in single-parent families has increased steadily with the trend in shorter marriages and people in non marriage relationships.

Society has changed.

Not sure that explains the jump from the 60s to now. It is a contributing factor as you agreed with, we just disagree to what level.

 

[beta_condition]

apologies if that's how it read, it certainly wasn't my intent. i just wanted to disagree with the assessment/assertions made in the original post of this (now-merged) thread. the devolution of political discussion into barracking as if reality was a footy game, does a lot of harm in my opinion.

Become a theater performance, the louder the more valued your opinion and claims are.

 

[Malifice]

Not sure that explains the jump from the 60s to now. It is a contributing factor as you agreed with, we just disagree to what level.

I think you're underestimating the social changes from the 60's to now.

Check this out for a comparison of divorce rates in the UK, and note the massive changes in the 60's.

In 1959 the UK had 29k divorces (and had been pretty stable at around the 30k mark). A mere decade later at the start of the 70's it jumped up to 100k+ per year. Divorce rates tripled in the space of a single decade.

Massive changes happened in the late 50's and 60's. Women having careers, being allowed to go to bars, and having control of their own fertility via contraception etc are all very recent phenomena that all happened more or less in the 1960's. At and prior to this time women were largely being taught home economics and deportment (cooking, cleaning and being ladylike) in schools. The expectation was they would marry and thats it. Possibly hold a part time job until they fell pregnant, after which they would leave work and be mothers and housewives for the rest of their days.

The days of (get married at 16-18, and stay with that person forever) only really ended midway through the last century. Nowadays a persons life is more likely to be a string of shorter 2-5 year relationships (some of which may be marriages).

Surely that is going to have a bigger impact on single parenting rates than 'welfare'.

 

[Malifice]

Unless you're black, then somehow it's all the fault of the welfare state.

I do think welfare contributes to the phenomenon on some small level, as having that support available arguably leads to more young girls electing to have children. Single parenting welfare for a 16 year old girl looks much better than Newstart allowance (of course, these girls are too young to see the bigger picture of what raising a child actually entails, and the impact it has on your life).

I do family law, and while the availability of welfare support is certainly a factor in some young girls electing to have a child, it's not the reason why many (or the vast majority) of single mothers exist. Many young single mothers I encounter have children to a dickhead criminal boyfriend who does a runner or gets locked up, or is simply a player, and whom promptly leaves her with the kid(s).

If you want to stop young girls from being single mothers, teach young girls not to bang dickhead criminal bad boys and players. Of course once you figure out how to stop girls being attracted to dickhead bad-boys, let me know so I can stop acting like one.

That said I do hold the view that if welfare was removed entirely, the rates of young single mothers would slightly drop. Of course, for the single mothers that are still around or come into existence after the slight drop (and it is going to happen regardless of welfare or other reasons), they would be ****ed.

Welfare does more good than harm, but it's not free from criticism and objective assesments.

Heck, I support welfare, but if we assess it blindly we run the risk of entrenching problems and missing the areas it could be better.

 

[Gough]

I do think welfare contributes to the phenomenon on some small level, as having that support available arguably leads to more young girls electing to have children. Single parenting welfare for a 16 year old girl looks much better than Newstart allowance (of course, these girls are too young to see the bigger picture of what raising a child actually entails, and the impact it has on your life).

I do family law, and while the availability of welfare support is certainly a factor in some young girls electing to have a child, it's not the reason why many (or the vast majority) of single mothers exist. Many young single mothers I encounter have children to a dickhead criminal boyfriend who does a runner or gets locked up, or is simply a player, and whom promptly leaves her with the kid(s).

If you want to stop young girls from being single mothers, teach young girls not to bang dickhead criminal bad boys and players. Of course once you figure out how to stop girls being attracted to dickhead bad-boys, let me know so I can stop acting like one.

That said I do hold the view that if welfare was removed entirely, the rates of young single mothers would slightly drop. Of course, for the single mothers that are still around or come into existence after the slight drop (and it is going to happen regardless of welfare or other reasons), they would be ******.

Welfare does more good than harm, but it's not free from criticism and objective assesments.

Heck, I support welfare, but if we assess it blindly we run the risk of entrenching problems and missing the areas it could be better.

But rarely is this welfare quarantined, or made conditional on onerous work for the dole schemes. We have reached very unfortunate point in this country where your access to welfare, and how you receive it can be dependent on the colour of your skin for many people.

 

[WeetBixKid]

But rarely is this welfare quarantined, or made conditional on onerous work for the dole schemes.

We have reached very unfortunate point in this country where your access to welfare, and how you receive it can be dependent on the colour of your skin for many people.

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to somehow connect these two together.

 

[Malifice]

But rarely is this welfare quarantined, or made conditional on onerous work for the dole schemes. We have reached very unfortunate point in this country where your access to welfare, and how you receive it can be dependent on the colour of your skin for many people.

Its a concern that I share but possibly or different reasons.

I work in a Community Legal Centre in Perth. Many of my clients are migrant families and Aboriginal (Noongar) peeps. I do see a problem with entrenched dependence on social welfare (of course, new migrant families and Aboriginal people have higher rates of social disadvantage to begin with). Im not saying we should do away with welfare (it does infinitely more good than harm), only that there are welfare 'traps' where one can get tarpitted into a level of welfare dependence.

I saw the same thing in the UK where the British welfare State (implemeted to protect the Working Class) has in effect created a whole class of people who I refer to as the 'Non-Working class'. Council homes for life, paid for via Housing Benefit, and never worked a day in their lives (like their parents and grandparents before them). medusala knows what I'm talking about here.

It can foster a 'what can the government do for me' mentality, rather than foster a 'what can I do for myself' mentality.

My personal view is we need to have more baked in incentives in welfare. For example, If you're on Newstart for 12 months or more, you automatically gain access to Austudy (at a higher rate of allowance than Newstart.. say 20 percent more $$$ per week) if you commence training or education. Systems like this create an incentive for people to get training and education to get them back into the workforce.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and the carrot is better than the stick and all that.

Instead of punitive measures to police welfare (sign in X times per week or lose the dole) we should be focussing on incentivising people to get off the dole with rewards.

Also, I dont mind the concept of work for the dole, but I would rather it be implemented in a less degrading manner. I was on Newstart for a few months when I first got back to Oz and was looking for work, and it took a few months to find a job. While i never had to do it, I wasnt a huge fan of picking up litter on the side of the road as a 40 year old Lawyer. I'd do it if I had to of course, but I'm getting nothing out of it relevant to me gaining future employment (in fact it's time I could better spend attending job interviews and looking for work), and its pretty degrading.

My other issue with work for the dole is that the system itself costs more money to implement than not having it, and that money should really be going elsewhere. It is (in effect) a punitive system that costs the Crown money to implement (a further strain on the welfare system for no net benefit). If it was implemented differently, the money we spend on work for the dole could be used to instead help people get back to actual work, and the system could save more money than it costs.

 

[Gough]

Its a concern that I share but possibly or different reasons.

I work in a Community Legal Centre in Perth. Many of my clients are migrant families and Aboriginal (Noongar) peeps. I do see a problem with entrenched dependence on social welfare (of course, new migrant families and Aboriginal people have higher rates of social disadvantage to begin with). Im not saying we should do away with welfare (it does infinitely more good than harm), only that there are welfare 'traps' where one can get tarpitted into a level of welfare dependence.

I saw the same thing in the UK where the British welfare State (implemeted to protect the Working Class) has in effect created a whole class of people who I refer to as the 'Non-Working class'. Council homes for life, paid for via Housing Benefit, and never worked a day in their lives (like their parents and grandparents before them). medusala knows what I'm talking about here.

It can foster a 'what can the government do for me' mentality, rather than foster a 'what can I do for myself' mentality.

My personal view is we need to have more baked in incentives in welfare. For example, If you're on Newstart for 12 months or more, you automatically gain access to Austudy (at a higher rate of allowance than Newstart.. say 20 percent more $$$ per week) if you commence training or education. Systems like this create an incentive for people to get training and education to get them back into the workforce.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and the carrot is better than the stick and all that.

Instead of punitive measures to police welfare (sign in X times per week or lose the dole) we should be focussing on incentivising people to get off the dole with rewards.

Also, I dont mind the concept of work for the dole, but I would rather it be implemented in a less degrading manner. I was on Newstart for a few months when I first got back to Oz and was looking for work, and it took a few months to find a job. While i never had to do it, I wasnt a huge fan of picking up litter on the side of the road as a 40 year old Lawyer. I'd do it if I had to of course, but I'm getting nothing out of it relevant to me gaining future employment (in fact it's time I could better spend attending job interviews and looking for work), and its pretty degrading.

My other issue with work for the dole is that the system itself costs more money to implement than not having it, and that money should really be going elsewhere. It is (in effect) a punitive system that costs the Crown money to implement (a further strain on the welfare system for no net benefit). If it was implemented differently, the money we spend on work for the dole could be used to instead help people get back to actual work, and the system could save more money than it costs.

I was talking more about what appears to me to be a two tiered approach to the dole whereby Indigenous people in communities are subject to various experiments involving income quarantining, as well as the already established income quarantining that was brought in during the intervention. None of which is applied to certain areas other areas of the country with similar sorts of social problems.

 

[Fryman]

Welfare does more good than harm, but it's not free from criticism and objective assesments.
.

The argument was not about the pros and cons of welfare. Someone made the argument that conservative policy has done more harm to the family unit than anyone.

Welfare incentivising single motherhood is a factor. And from your other post it seems like modern feminism has also played a massive role in the huge rise in single mothers.

There is a mountain of research that shows the massive disadvantages children of single mothers face. They do worse in school, more likely to be criminals, more likely to be single parents themselves, more likely to use drugs, higher chance of living in poverty.

I don't think there is any conservative belief that has ever encouraged single parenthood.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The single greatest factor causing family breakdown is the neo-liberal economy.

 

[beta_condition]

It can foster a 'what can the government do for me' mentality, rather than foster a 'what can I do for myself' mentality.

That's the biggest problem I see, programs like work for the dole are just dead end money pit that are just covering issues with a bandage, rather than tackling the real issue and don't even get me started on the bloody awful training programs they hand out, my father who can't read and write, barely can spell his own name was enrolled into a computer operating program, half arsed ideas that's wasting some serious amount of resources and I hate to imagine how wide spread this is.

Not that a disagree with it just it needs to be managed better, with out motivation/incentive or a threat to their livelihood people just wont break out of the cycle. "Welp i'm being feed". The one area I'd like them to tackle harder is students transitioning from schooling into the work place, majority of kids seem to lack ambition or direction so even if they get into the work place right away it's often not long lived.

 

[Malifice]

I don't think there is any conservative belief that has ever encouraged single parenthood.

No, but conservative policies keep them there.

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? Remember the young black mother who was working two or three jobs for peanuts (and getting on a bus to travel 100 miles to work at a fudgery each day)? While she was away working for 5 bucks an hour, her young 6 year old boy found a handgun and shot a little girl at his school.

There are a dozen conservative political policy decisions that led/ contrubuted to both single parenthood, entrenched social disadvantage and to that little girls death.

If the USA had a better welfare system, increased minimum wage, and stronger gun laws (at a minimum) that tradgedy would likely not have happened. Mum would have been more likely to be at home (better welfare) looking after her kids, only had to work one job (and a job closer to home) on a higher wage, and the gun likely wouldnt have been in the home in the first place.

You point the finger at leftist/ liberal social policies entrenching poverty or social disadvantage? Explain to me how conservative/ right wing social policies help the poor and disadvantaged?

Look at Abbott and his 1st budget. It was directly aimed at punishing migrants, the unemployed, homeless and students.

 

[Fryman]

.

If the USA had a better welfare system, increased minimum wage, and stronger gun laws (at a minimum) that tradgedy would likely not have happened. Mum would have been more likely to be at home (better welfare) looking after her kids, only had to work one job (and a job closer to home) on a higher wage, and the gun likely wouldnt have been in the home in the first place.

Why do I even bother. Look at this unsubstantiated rubbish you spew.

You take a sample size of one, add in a large dollop of liberal wishful thinking and then think you're making some sort of rational argument.

 

[Malifice]

Why do I even bother. Look at this unsubstantiated rubbish you spew.

You take a sample size of one, add in a large dollop of liberal wishful thinking and then think you're making some sort of rational argument.

You're not posting anythign to back up your arguments. If you're here to debate, do better.

All the conservative claptrap you spout has zero substance. Most of it has in fact been thouroughly debunked.

Do you disagree with my postion that:

1) increased minimum wage,
2) better welfare in the USA, and
3) tighter gun control

Would have all contributed towards avoiding the tragedy with the single mother I posted that actually happened? Is your argument that if that woman had have been born in Norway (with stronger minimum wage, free education and health care, better welfare and tighter gun control) she wouldnt have had a better chance?

Or do you stick to your positon that removing welfare, scrapping minimum wage, and arming everyone (conservative social policies) help poor people and struggling families and single mothers?

Your entire position (welfare creates single mothers) is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this site. I dont disagree that welfare contributes to a very small degree (see my post above), but when your central argument is that welfare has created the surge in single mothers (a postion that has been routinely and regularly debunked as conservative trash as valid as 'more guns make us safe' or 'removal of minimum wage is good for the economy' or 'global warming is only a theory so its not actually happening') you're treading on skechy ice at best.

Do you know many single mothers? Ask them what contributed to them being single mothers. It usually boils down to 'dick-head boyfriends/ husbands'.

 

[beta_condition]

Do you disagree with my position that:


3) tighter gun control

I've never heard one convincing argument for not tightening the gun laws in America, even the smartest conservatives like Ben Shapiro spout utter nonsense on the subject, I don't agree with his view on minimum wage but least that's backed with a sensible argument but when it comes to gun control it's just constant verbal diarrhea.

 

[Fryman]

Your entire position (welfare creates single mothers) is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this site. I dont disagree that welfare contributes to a very small degree (see my post above)

It's the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard yet you agree to a small degree?

Do you disagree with my postion that:

1) increased minimum wage,
2) better welfare in the USA, and
3) tighter gun control

Would have all contributed towards avoiding the tragedy with the single mother I posted that actually happened? Is your argument that if that woman had have been born in Norway (with stronger minimum wage, free education and health care, better welfare and tighter gun control) she wouldnt have had a better chance?

Why on earth would I get into a debate about some women in a documentary I haven't even seen? You do realise how ridiculous that is right? It is so far removed from what my intial point was that's it's not even worth discussing.

Do you know many single mothers? Ask them what contributed to them being single mothers. It usually boils down to 'dick-head boyfriends/ husbands'.

Citation needed.

 

[Malifice]

It's the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard yet you agree to a small degree?

Contributes to in a small degree [does not =] causation.

In June 2012, there were 961 thousand one parent families, making up 15% of all families. About two-thirds of these one parent families (67%) had dependants living with them. There were 780 thousand single mother families in June 2012, making up the vast majority of one parent families (81%).

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/6224.0.55.001~Jun 2012~Chapter~one Parent Families

How many of those single parent families would you attribute to 'welfare'?