|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:04 pm Post subject: Santorum's 2-point poverty solution |
 |
|
Rick Santorum is telling Iowans it's easy to avoid poverty
| Quote: |
First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before having kids. That's it.
"If you do those two things, you will be successful economically," he was quoted as saying by the Huffington Post. "What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more." |
Yesterday, on Morning Joe, Rick was asked 'Is there any evidence for that?'
| Quote: |
Santorum has a point, according to a 2009 study by the Brookings Institution. The study found that Americans who finished high school, acquired a full-time job and waited until age 21 to get married before having children were much less likely to end up in poverty.
In fact, "young adults who did all three had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: Santorum's 2-point poverty solution |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Rick Santorum is telling Iowans it's easy to avoid poverty
| Quote: |
First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before having kids. That's it.
"If you do those two things, you will be successful economically," he was quoted as saying by the Huffington Post. "What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more." |
Yesterday, on Morning Joe, Rick was asked 'Is there any evidence for that?'
| Quote: |
Santorum has a point, according to a 2009 study by the Brookings Institution. The study found that Americans who finished high school, acquired a full-time job and waited until age 21 to get married before having children were much less likely to end up in poverty.
In fact, "young adults who did all three had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class." |
|
It's obvious that if you graduate high school, you will be less likely to end up in poverty. It's even more obvious that if you have a full-time job, you will be less likely to end up in poverty. Then he just throws in another criteria without testing it independently and assumes that it contributes to the results. Don't you think people who graduate high school and have a full-time job are likely to live above the poverty level regardless of whether they have children in or out of wedlock? I'd like to see some statistics on that, Santorum.
I honestly do not understand how anyone can take him seriously. Not only is he kind of an idiot, he doesn't even project any kind of authority or charisma. He always sounds like he is trying to defend himself in an argument he is losing badly, even when he's just stating his positions and not arguing with anyone. He is not confident when he speaks, and he comes across as someone who is in way over his head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Santorum's 2-point poverty solution |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Rick Santorum is telling Iowans it's easy to avoid poverty
| Quote: |
First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before having kids. That's it.
"If you do those two things, you will be successful economically," he was quoted as saying by the Huffington Post. "What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more." |
Yesterday, on Morning Joe, Rick was asked 'Is there any evidence for that?'
| Quote: |
Santorum has a point, according to a 2009 study by the Brookings Institution. The study found that Americans who finished high school, acquired a full-time job and waited until age 21 to get married before having children were much less likely to end up in poverty.
In fact, "young adults who did all three had a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of winding up in the middle class (defined as earning roughly $50,000 or more). By contrast, young adults who violated all three norms had a 76 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 7 percent chance of winding up in the middle class." |
|
It's obvious that if you graduate high school, you will be less likely to end up in poverty. It's even more obvious that if you have a full-time job, you will be less likely to end up in poverty. Then he just throws in another criteria without testing it independently and assumes that it contributes to the results. Don't you think people who graduate high school and have a full-time job are likely to live above the poverty level regardless of whether they have children in or out of wedlock? I'd like to see some statistics on that, Santorum.
I honestly do not understand how anyone can take him seriously. Not only is he kind of an idiot, he doesn't even project any kind of authority or charisma. He always sounds like he is trying to defend himself in an argument he is losing badly, even when he's just stating his positions and not arguing with anyone. He is not confident when he speaks, and he comes across as someone who is in way over his head. |
I think Rick nailed it with this talking point. He had the Brooking Institution study at his back.
The problem for Rick, no doubt, becomes the implications of the study. If people shouldn't have kids out of wedlock, then doesn't abortion have a positive role to play? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Santorum's 2-point poverty solution |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I think Rick nailed it with this talking point. He had the Brooking Institution study at his back.
The problem for Rick, no doubt, becomes the implications of the study. If people shouldn't have kids out of wedlock, then doesn't abortion have a positive role to play? |
I don't think he nailed anything. I could do a study to find the poverty level of people who graduated high school, got a full-time job and eat Cheerios for breakfast, and we'd find that that group is less likely to be in poverty. Not because Cheerios have anything to do with it, but because everyone in that group graduated high school and has a job, whereas everyone who either didn't graduate or doesn't have a job is in the other group. When you qualify the getting married thing with also graduating high school and having a job, of course you will see lower poverty rates. The poverty rate is correlated with high school graduation and employment, not marriage. I don't know the details of the study, but it doesn't sound like it really gives evidence for anything.
Of course abortion has a role to play, and you could say the same thing about sex education. That's why the religious right thinks everyone should abstain from sex entirely until they are married. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What Santorum is spinning as some new groundbreaking idea is as old as time.
1. Be educated. Really? He thinks this is news? There is a constant trend line, the more educated you are, the more income you tend to make. Even now, in the worst economic climate in two generations, the highest of unemployed are the lowest educated. People with BAs make more than HS graduates. People with graduate degrees do even better. And for people with professionals degrees (MD/JD) unemployed is almost non-existent. Underemployment is still an issue for everyone, but I think most people would choose to work for less than not work for anything.
2. Combine your income with someone else. Duh. Here's the thing, you don't have to combine that with someone of the opposite gender and be married to them. 2 gay dudes will live a much more comfortable and economically successful lifestyle than I, as a single hetero male, will. Same for lesbians. It gets even better when you factor in the homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples that don't have kids. They people live like millionaires. Kids are actually a drain on your finances and being married and having kids puts you at a better chance of falling into poverty than not having them and being single. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
| weso1 wrote: |
| And for people with professionals degrees (MD/JD) unemployed is almost non-existent. Underemployment is still an issue for everyone, but I think most people would choose to work for less than not work for anything. |
Recent JD graduate unemployment exceeds those of HS graduates. And, of course, JD have much higher debt loads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
| weso1 wrote: |
| And for people with professionals degrees (MD/JD) unemployed is almost non-existent. Underemployment is still an issue for everyone, but I think most people would choose to work for less than not work for anything. |
Recent JD graduate unemployment exceeds those of HS graduates. And, of course, JD have much higher debt loads. |
Even your link points out that number is misleading. Law schools pride themselves on the average GPA, LSAT scores, and the number of their graduates that find decent paying gigs 9-18 months after graduation. Only a fraction of recent JD grads land work before or as they finish school. Believe it or not, it still takes some job hunting.
And that's only for recent grads. Lawyers that have graduated in years past have a staggeringly low unemployment rate. The trend line I pointed out - More education, more money, less unemployment - is still true, even if it doesn't hold for a single outlier like graduates of certain degree within a certain time frame. Which is why we call it an outlier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Santorum's 2-point poverty solution |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I think Rick nailed it with this talking point. He had the Brooking Institution study at his back.
The problem for Rick, no doubt, becomes the implications of the study. If people shouldn't have kids out of wedlock, then doesn't abortion have a positive role to play? |
I don't think he nailed anything. I could do a study to find the poverty level of people who graduated high school, got a full-time job and eat Cheerios for breakfast, and we'd find that that group is less likely to be in poverty. Not because Cheerios have anything to do with it, but because everyone in that group graduated high school and has a job, whereas everyone who either didn't graduate or doesn't have a job is in the other group. When you qualify the getting married thing with also graduating high school and having a job, of course you will see lower poverty rates. The poverty rate is correlated with high school graduation and employment, not marriage. I don't know the details of the study, but it doesn't sound like it really gives evidence for anything. |
You're equating tax incentives for marriage and dependents, as well as the likely potential for dual income, with eating Cheerios in the morning. There are good, solid tax planning and long-term fiscal reasons to have children within wedlock and to marry after receiving a good education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
| weso1 wrote: |
| And for people with professionals degrees (MD/JD) unemployed is almost non-existent. Underemployment is still an issue for everyone, but I think most people would choose to work for less than not work for anything. |
Recent JD graduate unemployment exceeds those of HS graduates. And, of course, JD have much higher debt loads. |
Even your link points out that number is misleading. Law schools pride themselves on the average GPA, LSAT scores, and the number of their graduates that find decent paying gigs 9-18 months after graduation. Only a fraction of recent JD grads land work before or as they finish school. Believe it or not, it still takes some job hunting. |
Law schools can pride themselves on their distorted and fraudulent statistics all they want. Most JD grads wont land work until after they pass the bar exam (which can cost $3k in bar prep, and 4 months of living expenses, not to mention the $1k in bar dues). My point is, Santorum's statement was more accurate and better researched than yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
| weso1 wrote: |
| And for people with professionals degrees (MD/JD) unemployed is almost non-existent. Underemployment is still an issue for everyone, but I think most people would choose to work for less than not work for anything. |
Recent JD graduate unemployment exceeds those of HS graduates. And, of course, JD have much higher debt loads. |
Even your link points out that number is misleading. Law schools pride themselves on the average GPA, LSAT scores, and the number of their graduates that find decent paying gigs 9-18 months after graduation. Only a fraction of recent JD grads land work before or as they finish school. Believe it or not, it still takes some job hunting. |
Law schools can pride themselves on their distorted and fraudulent statistics all they want. Most JD grads wont land work until after they pass the bar exam (which can cost $3k in bar prep, and 4 months of living expenses, not to mention the $1k in bar dues). My point is, Santorum's statement was more accurate and better researched than yours. |
No it isn't. Santorum was making the case that in the long term, finishing high school will give you a better chance of staying out of poverty. I agreed. Then I added on to that, the more educated you are, you have even better chances of staying out of poverty.
You then tried to claim that lawyers have as high of unemployment rates as high school graduates. Which is false. Only those just finishing law school do. Within a year or two after graduation, those rates plummet, while the high school rates stay the same.
And mine wasn't researched well enough for you? Just look at your own link. There, proves my point. Geezus Kuros, there are times when you just talk out of you arse without any comprehension of what it is you are saying.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
| weso1 wrote: |
| And for people with professionals degrees (MD/JD) unemployed is almost non-existent. Underemployment is still an issue for everyone, but I think most people would choose to work for less than not work for anything. |
Recent JD graduate unemployment exceeds those of HS graduates. And, of course, JD have much higher debt loads. |
Even your link points out that number is misleading. Law schools pride themselves on the average GPA, LSAT scores, and the number of their graduates that find decent paying gigs 9-18 months after graduation. Only a fraction of recent JD grads land work before or as they finish school. Believe it or not, it still takes some job hunting. |
Law schools can pride themselves on their distorted and fraudulent statistics all they want. Most JD grads wont land work until after they pass the bar exam (which can cost $3k in bar prep, and 4 months of living expenses, not to mention the $1k in bar dues). My point is, Santorum's statement was more accurate and better researched than yours. |
No it isn't. Santorum was making the case that in the long term, finishing high school will give you a better chance of staying out of poverty. I agreed. Then I added on to that, the more educated you are, you have even better chances of staying out of poverty.
You then tried to claim that lawyers have as high of unemployment rates as high school graduates. Which is false. Only those just finishing law school do. Within a year or two after graduation, those rates plummet, while the high school rates stay the same.
|
Even the part you quoted shows I made no claims about lawyers in general. I claimed that "recent graduate JD unemployment exceeds that of HS graduates." We won't know if recent graduate JD unemployment figures will plummet within a year or two after graduation for about another year or so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
|
I dispute his facts. He claims that if everyone got a high school education and got married before having children, poverty would be no more.
| Quote: |
| "What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more." |
Absolute nonsense. Furthermore, the Brookings study looked at 3 factors not 2, that would greatly reduce the probability of poverty. Santorum makes no mention of getting a full time job. In addition, the Brookings conditions stipulate waiting until age 21 before getting married and having children--not merely getting married before having children. It's not the same thing. The Brookings study simply does not support Santorums contention. Even under the Brookings more stringent requirements, it makes no claim that poverty would be no more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Santorum doesn't spin it at groundbreaking, really. But nobody disputes that he has his facts straight.
|
I dispute his facts. He claims that if everyone got a high school education and got married before having children, poverty would be no more.
| Quote: |
| "What does that mean to a society if everybody did that? What that would mean is that poverty would be no more." |
Absolute nonsense. Furthermore, the Brookings study looked at 3 factors not 2, that would greatly reduce the probability of poverty. Santorum makes no mention of getting a full time job. In addition, the Brookings conditions stipulate waiting until age 21 before getting married and having children--not merely getting married before having children. It's not the same thing. The Brookings study simply does not support Santorums contention. Even under the Brookings more stringent requirements, it makes no claim that poverty would be no more. |
Of those who meet the 3 requirements set out by the Brookings Institution, only 2% live in poverty. You're right, Santorum unjustifiably moves from 2% to 0%, and should mention the 3rd requirement.
The rest of your post is just nitpicking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Of those who meet the 3 requirements set out by the Brookings Institution, only 2% live in poverty. You're right, Santorum unjustifiably moves from 2% to 0%, and should mention the 3rd requirement.
The rest of your post is just nitpicking. |
If Santorum wants to argue that graduating from high school and getting married before having children are good things that would reduce the probability of poverty, OK. But that's not what he said. He is simply wrong. The Brookings study simply does not support what he claims. Their 3 conditions are far more stringent than Santorum's. Under Santorum's much looser conditions, I suspect the probability of poverty would be nowhere near the 2% of the Brookings study. There is no study that I am aware of that would support his contention. I dispute his having his facts straight. He is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Of those who meet the 3 requirements set out by the Brookings Institution, only 2% live in poverty. You're right, Santorum unjustifiably moves from 2% to 0%, and should mention the 3rd requirement.
The rest of your post is just nitpicking. |
If Santorum wants to argue that graduating from high school and getting married before having children are good things that would reduce the probability of poverty, OK. But that's not what he said. He is simply wrong. The Brookings study simply does not support what he claims. Their 3 conditions are far more stringent than Santorum's. Under Santorum's much looser conditions, I suspect the probability of poverty would be nowhere near the 2% of the Brookings study. There is no study that I am aware of that would support his contention. I dispute his having his facts straight. He is wrong. |
I agree with jaykimf. In addition to what has already been pointed out, the biggest flaw is the age old fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. If a person drops out of high school, it is often because of an underlying problem which may be completely unrelated to high school. Making them finish high school will not always remove the underlying problem which might cause poverty more than lack of education in itself.
Of course politicians have a slightly different view of true and false, but from a scientific view point, it is very clear that he lacks backup for his statements in addition to the fact that it's completely implausible. South Korea should fit his ideal pretty well, since it has the highest rate of high school graduations and it also seems to me that most people get married before they have children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
