# Pitting the Washington Post for glorifying ignorance and stupidity **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 24, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371 "2014-10-24T17:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/281 "2014-10-28T20:43:29Z")
> [@Fallen](#): > > Shodan, I’m not sure if you’ve laid out precisely what in your mind qualifies as “poor”. See [here](http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines) for a working definition. > [@](#): > > I also don’t see how being married avoids or brings one _out of poverty_. Then you are not very clear on the data. Marriage is correlated with higher earnings in men - this is common knowledge. ([Cite](http://www.columbia.edu/~yc2444/Why%20Do%20Married%20Men%20Earn%20More%20than%20Unmarried%20Men.pdf).) Marriage reduces female poverty ([cite)](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty). > [@](#): > > I don’t see how “any job” equates to a lack of poverty regardless of how many years one has the job. Because earnings tend to rise with tenure, and with a reliable job history and experience. Again, I don’t need to bother with a cite. > [@](#): > > For one, whereas it used to be that many minimum wage jobs were primarily for non-adults who didn’t need to rely on those jobs to support themselves, I trust we can agree that’s no longer the case. No, we can’t agree, because it is still the case. ([Cite](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/).) > [@](#): > > It’s probably best if you don’t (like most humans do) use percentages pulled out of their posterior (“better than 90% chance of not being poor”). I didn’t pull anything out of my ass. You don’t know what you are talking about (to the extent that you are talking about anything in particular). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/282 "2014-10-28T20:47:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I think you were trying to suggest more than you’re letting on. “Poor” means something different in this society than it does in China, just it connotes a different standard of living from being poor in 1914. This same phenomenon is true of many labels you choose not to put scare quotes on. > > But if you really weren’t suggesting that the difference in poverty over the centuries has any relevance to whether we should be concerned about it now, then I misunderstood you and the point is a tangent. It was a tangent. That’s why it was in parentheses. > [@](#): > > And that’s fair enough. So let me be more absolute. I don’t think a prohibition on high-interest consumer loans would have any impact along the dimension you describe–i.e., by shielding the poor from bad consequences of bad decisions and thereby encouraging such bad decisions. It might be a good or bad idea for other reasons, but I don’t think this theory about making sure people have the opportunity to harm themselves with bad decisions so that they make fewer bad decisions has any relevance to this particular policy choice. OK, we disagree about this point. > [@](#): > > I am skeptical that one’s capacity for sacrifice and deferred gratification responds to incentives that way. Is there any evidence that people who experience more harm from their bad decisions become better at deferred gratification? I think there is a lot of research that has been done on that since the days of the marshmallow experiments, and I don’t know much about what it says, but I’ll be surprised if it is consistent with your model. I don’t know. But I should note that it’s not just about people themselves experiencing harm, but also what people observe from seeing other people who have chosen to live their lives one way versus the other. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/283 "2014-10-28T21:49:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then you are not very clear on the data. Marriage is correlated with higher earnings in men - this is common knowledge. Sure, there’s a correlation, but that doesn’t equate to causation. Being married doesn’t bring one _out_ of poverty, necessarily. It could simply be (which is what I believe, and reflects my personal experience) that men with more money are more likely to marry. Regardless, as a liberal, I do share the more libertarian concerns in this thread, and it’s hard for me not to get a bit upset about the idiotic and reckless spending in the WP article. Hell, my family makes reasonable money, and our most expensive piece of furniture is a second-hand sectional at $400. At some point, I think people do need to be allowed to make stupid decisions, and it’s a bit paternalistic and condescending to treat them like idiot children. If they are informed of the consequences clearly, they should be allowed to make their own decisions, as stupid or not as they are. That said, I do agree to some sort of “sanity check” in regards to the interest rates charged. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/284 "2014-10-28T21:56:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Marriage is correlated with higher earnings in men - this is common knowledge. BMW ownership is correlated with higher earnings in men as well, but I wouldn’t conclude that poor people should buy Beemers to improve their income. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/285 "2014-10-29T02:20:56Z")
So, let me get this straight. The article states that this family would pay about $4,000 for the sofa over 2 years if they paid a weekly rental fee. At 52 weeks/year , that’s about $40/week. OMG, we cannot allow people to pay that! But, if these two adults smoke 1 pack a day, each, and if we assume cigarettes sell for about $4/pack, then they will be paying $56/week on smokes. And that’s OK. What am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/286 "2014-10-29T04:05:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, let me get this straight. The article states that this family would pay about $4,000 for the sofa over 2 years if they paid a weekly rental fee. At 52 weeks/year , that’s about $40/week. OMG, we cannot allow people to pay that! > > But, if these two adults smoke 1 pack a day, each, and if we assume cigarettes sell for about $4/pack, then they will be paying $56/week on smokes. And that’s OK. > > What am I missing? You aren’t missing anything unless you live in the bleeding heart psycho-world. She likes to smoke, wanted a couch and doesn’t want to work so someone should give it to her because she is so fundamentally deficient in key character tarits that it qualifies as a charity case in some people’s minds. She got screwed over by ‘predators’ because she probably isn’t really functionally illiterate but can play the part if she thinks it will benefit her more and especially if it will get her in the news. I really and truly don’t hate all poor people. However, I truly do absolutely hate urban and suburban people (usually white liberals) that assume that they know the trials and tribulations that the trashiest among us go through because they don’t know what they are talking about. I grew up with the true poor, working, criminal and otherwise and still associate with them probably more than you do. People like this family have made a business out of squeezing ever little bit of unearned benefits to themselves out of others. They are shocked when their actions come up to bite them because that isn’t usually the case. Like the repeated delinquent, they love to call foul when they are finally caught but it is never their own fault. To all of you bleeding hearts out there, why don’t you ever associate with these types of people socially if you care for them so deeply? I do and I don’t even like many of them. When is the last time you saw a liberal political candidate actually engage with true poor people in a sustained and genuine way. They generally don’t because they care in the same way that you do - very little in real ways. The myth of the noble savage poor person is both condescending and patronizing except for recent immigrants. They know exactly what they are doing and know how to game systems much better than you could ever hope to. For people like this, that is their profession and it isn’t harmless because they are taking money away both from people that rightfully earned it or money that could be used for a much better cause than buying couches for an unemployed person. The end-game to all of this is to lock all of society down as hard as a Kindergarten classroom so that the dumbest and most deficient cannot hurt themselves. I don’t think that is reasonable alternative and represents a cartoonish view of the world that I do not share nor should any truly educated adult. True freedom includes both the liberty to live your life as you please without infringing on others freedom but also the right to fail spectacularly and even die from your own decisions. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/287 "2014-10-29T04:39:12Z")
I bet you’re tons of fun at parties. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/288 "2014-10-29T04:42:38Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I bet you’re tons of fun at parties. I bet he brings his own beer to the party. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/289 "2014-10-29T04:52:49Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > I bet he brings his own beer to the party. You better bet your ass that I do. There is nothing worse than a beer mooch but I bring some for other people too. It can get wild but I always apologize the next day because I was raised with manners. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/290 "2014-10-29T05:02:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ultimately support for eliminating these types of businesses is an example of arrogance. _‘We know what’s better for you than you do, so we will not let you make these choices’._ Combine that with _‘We don’t approve of your business so we will shut you down’._ That is what bugs me, people assume other people in very different circumstances under different pressures are just stupid, instead of rational thinking beings making the best choice available. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/291 "2014-10-29T10:53:32Z")
> [@grude](#): > > That is what bugs me, people assume other people in very different circumstances under different pressures are just stupid, instead of rational thinking beings making the best choice available. I’ve never figured out why so many free market enthusiasts believe he poor are uniquely irrational, and somehow don’t respond to incentives like everybody else. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/292 "2014-10-29T10:55:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, let me get this straight. The article states that this family would pay about $4,000 for the sofa over 2 years if they paid a weekly rental fee. At 52 weeks/year , that’s about $40/week. OMG, we cannot allow people to pay that! > > But, if these two adults smoke 1 pack a day, each, and if we assume cigarettes sell for about $4/pack, then they will be paying $56/week on smokes. And that’s OK. > > What am I missing? It’s not okay. Goodness, why don’t we discourage smoking in this society (oh wait, we do.) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/293 "2014-10-29T12:28:11Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > You better bet your ass that I do. There is nothing worse than a beer mooch but I bring some for other people too. It can get wild but I always apologize the next day because I was raised with manners. And your dad beat those manners into you with a belt, right? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/294 "2014-10-29T12:39:41Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > You aren’t missing anything unless you live in the bleeding heart psycho-world. She likes to smoke, wanted a couch and doesn’t want to work so someone should give it to her… How is buying a sofa at three times the going rate “wanting someone to give it to her?” It seems to me like she’d be happy to get a sofa at the going rate. I know you have a trashy aunt or something that really gets your goat, but it’s not about sticking it to her. It’s not really about the virtues and vices of the poor at all. I do kind of get pissed off when people heap scorn against people with low IQs, but that’s tangential. We regulate lending. This company uses spurious reasoning to dodge that regulation. Why should they have an advantage over the companies that play by the rules? ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/295 "2014-10-29T13:10:09Z")
She can get a sofa at the going rate. The going rate is $250 at Big Lots. But she doesn’t want the two hundred and fifty dollar sofa at Big Lots. Oh no. She wants the $1,500 sofa. The one she’s too stupid to realize she can’t afford. Go ahead and protect her from her potentially stupid choices if you like. But let’s not pretend it’s the $1,500 sofa or nothing at all. Jeez. I have a $700 sectional from Big Lots. It’s ugly but it’s comfortable and when my girls spill stuff on it, I don’t have to worry it’s going to be permanently stained. I threw a pretty throw on it and some pillows and it’s reasonably attractive. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/296 "2014-10-29T13:23:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > BMW ownership is correlated with higher earnings in men as well, but I wouldn’t conclude that poor people should buy Beemers to improve their income. Higher earnings come before BMW ownership for the most part. With marriage it is vice versa. In case this was serious and not the usual. [QUOTE=even sven] I’ve never figured out why so many free market enthusiasts believe he poor are uniquely irrational, and somehow don’t respond to incentives like everybody else. [/QUOTE] Why isn’t this woman responding to the incentives of the market by not paying three times as much as she has to? That sounds irrational to me. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/297 "2014-10-29T13:47:16Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I grew up with the true poor, working, criminal and otherwise and still associate with them probably more than you do. People like this family have made a business out of squeezing ever little bit of unearned benefits to themselves out of others. They are shocked when their actions come up to bite them because that isn’t usually the case. Like the repeated delinquent, they love to call foul when they are finally caught but it is never their own fault. > > To all of you bleeding hearts out there, why don’t you ever associate with these types of people socially if you care for them so deeply? I agree with this post. IME many or most of the liberals who have such strongly held views about the causes and nature of poverty and poor people have very little actual experience with the people or the lifestyle. My guess is that it’s due to the nature of class self-segregation in the US. A lot of people have romantic views about the struggles and problems of people in urban ghettos, but very few of these people are interested in living in an urban ghetto themselves. No, they want to make a nice life for themselves in the suburbs and feel good about their own moral righeousness by voting for a candidate who promises to take money from Fat Cat Rich Guys and Big Business and give it to these people. (They may know a some people from such backgrounds but those are generally a select few who have made it to college and/or a middle class life.) The result of this is that these people have very little exposure the actual lifestyles that they’re opining about. In such circumstances, ignorance can flourish, and it does. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/298 "2014-10-29T13:53:20Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I’ve never figured out why so many free market enthusiasts believe he poor are uniquely irrational, and somehow don’t respond to incentives like everybody else. OK. So all we need to do, then, is to “discourage” using rent-to-own. That’s fine w/ me. Why don’t we tax it like we do with tobacco, and then the poor will really be screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/299 "2014-10-29T13:56:04Z")
There are a lot more poor liberals than poor conservatives, which makes that whole argument pretty stupid. If not knowing what poverty is really like is what causes liberals to believe this way, then you would expect there to be fewer liberals who have lived in poverty, not more. And the argument gets even stupider when it asserts that if liberals don’t want to live in poor neighborhoods they must not really care about the people there. I mean, c’mon. Take two seconds to reflect on that line of argument. You can just as easily tell a story about cognitive dissonance and psychological rewards about libertarians and conservatives. It goes like this: Conservatives like to believe that poor people are bad people because that way conservatives can be prideful about their own success and nullify any sense of social obligation to the poor that you might feel, allowing you to advocate for things like slashing social spending. The truth is probably that both sides reach their views partly out of psychological self-interest (and ordinary self-interest!), just like every other ideological opinion. But observing that to be true doesn’t really get us anywhere. It’s just a juvenile taunt. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371/300 "2014-10-29T14:11:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > There are a lot more poor liberals than poor conservatives, which makes that whole argument pretty stupid. If not knowing what poverty is really like is what causes liberals to believe this way, then you would expect there to be fewer liberals who have lived in poverty, not more. Self interest is also a major influence on political ideology. (I’m also not sure your statement is true about people who “have lived” in poverty.) > [@](#): > > And the argument gets even stupider when it asserts that if liberals don’t want to live in poor neighborhoods they must not really care about the people there. I mean, c’mon. Take two seconds to reflect on that line of argument. Just to be clear, this is not an argument I’ve made. > [@](#): > > You can just as easily tell a story about cognitive dissonance and psychological rewards about libertarians and conservatives. It goes like this: Conservatives like to believe that poor people are bad people because that way conservatives can be prideful about their own success and nullify any sense of social obligation to the poor that you might feel, allowing you to advocate for things like slashing social spending. You could make this argument and there’s probably some truth to it as well. (Although it should be noted that studies have consistently shown that conservatives tend to give a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do.) > [@](#): > > The truth is probably that both sides reach their views partly out of psychological self-interest (and ordinary self-interest!), just like every other ideological opinion. But observing that to be true doesn’t really get us anywhere. It’s just a juvenile taunt. Depends on how it’s said. IMO, in a discussion of the dynamics of poverty it’s worth noting the extent to which one side (or the other) is forming their beliefs based on ideology and psychological inclinations without the benefit of actual experience. The taunting part is the “you don’t really care about the poor people” part, and that’s less helpfull. It should be noted in this regard that about 99.9% of that type of taunting comes from liberals directed at conservatives. I hope you will be as eager to shoot this down when you encounter it as you were in this case when it’s the reverse. (Although it would be hard to be truly consistent, as you would have time for nothing else.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-the-washington-post-for-glorifying-ignorance-and-stupidity/702371.md?page=16)