Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Both states have similar population sizes, but there are differences in income, poverty, education, etc.



I am very curious as to both the political and social differences and why there as such huge differences between demographics.



Here are some helpful sites and data:



Census data with current data on population statistics for:

Oklahoma: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html
OK. Population (2008 estimate): 3,642,361


Connecticut: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09000.html
CT. Population (2008 estimate): 3,501,252



School statistics on educational achievements and expenditures for various measures:

Oklahoma: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/ok
OK. Per Pupil Expenditure: $6,941
OK. Proficiency:
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/OKprof.jpg

Connecticut: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/CT
CT. Per Pupil Expenditure: $13,072
CT. Proficiency:
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/CTprof.jpg




Annual total tax burden, per capita:

Oklahoma: $1823.70

Connecticut: $2941.21

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita



Per capita income for:

Oklahoma: $24,787.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=OK

Connecticut: $41,930.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=CT






1. Why are there differences like this?

2. Why does a smaller state make more money?

3. Why are there differences in education?




I am genuinely curious and slightly confused as to why differences exist. I would like everyone to really focus, at all times, on the socio-political reasons for these differences. I am quite certain that I can learn quite a bit from others here, just be reading their thoughts on this.


Also, are there not similarities? Why do they exist?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Both states have similar population sizes, but there are differences in income, poverty, education, etc.



I am very curious as to both the political and social differences and why there as such huge differences between demographics.



Here are some helpful sites and data:



Census data with current data on population statistics for:

Oklahoma: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html
OK. Population (2008 estimate): 3,642,361


Connecticut: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09000.html
CT. Population (2008 estimate): 3,501,252



School statistics on educational achievements and expenditures for various measures:

Oklahoma: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/ok
OK. Per Pupil Expenditure: $6,941
OK. Proficiency:
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/OKprof.jpg

Connecticut: http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/CT
CT. Per Pupil Expenditure: $13,072
CT. Proficiency:
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/CTprof.jpg




Annual total tax burden, per capita:

Oklahoma: $1823.70

Connecticut: $2941.21

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita



Per capita income for:

Oklahoma: $24,787.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=OK

Connecticut: $41,930.00
http://www.areaconnect.com/state.htm?s=CT






1. Why are there differences like this?

2. Why does a smaller state make more money?

3. Why are there differences in education?




I am genuinely curious and slightly confused as to why differences exist. I would like everyone to really focus, at all times, on the socio-political reasons for these differences. I am quite certain that I can learn quite a bit from others here, just be reading their thoughts on this.


Also, are there not similarities? Why do they exist?

I'll probably throw some more together after I finishing drinking this strawberry slushy, but it's well known that there are a lot of forgotten states until federal election time. The Northwest and Midwest contain the most forgotten states. Not much of an urban market in these areas which is one reason for the large discrepancies.

Originally posted by chithappens
I'll probably throw some more together after I finishing drinking this strawberry slushy, but it's well known that there are a lot of forgotten states until federal election time. The Northwest and Midwest contain the most forgotten states. Not much of an urban market in these areas which is one reason for the large discrepancies.

This may seem weird, but you were one of the top people in my mind, for a thread like this.


I GREATLY look forward to your insight into this topic.

You are an educator, which would make your opinion of professional level.

The Sooners would kick the Huskies' ass up and down the gridiron from now until the end of our lives.

I hope that's the explanation you were looking for.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may seem weird, but you were one of the top people in my mind, for a thread like this.


I GREATLY look forward to your insight into this topic.

You are an educator, which would make your opinion of professional level.

Well I'll stick to something specific to my state, Tennessee.

In 2005, Tennessee was ranked #49 of the 50 states in the U.S regarding education. This was my freshman year in college and I actually had no clue what to attribute this to at the time (I also was not interested in being an educator back then so it didn't matter much to me). One day the next year, I walked into the Education building for information concerning the major and they were celebrating reach #48...

Last year I had my first real interactions with students inside the classroom as a teacher assistant. I also tutored twice a week at a middle school and high school. The kids were far behind what they should be. It is hard to actually discuss this sort of thing in detail without it seeming damning for the near future. A lot of things just did not connect with them. Over time, I could see improvements but by that time, the semester was over so it's like it never happened. (Maybe we can get into individuals later, but I'm trying to stay on topic.)

A lot of what goes on with education goes back to funding. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) hurt a whole lot more than it helped. Long story short, schools that perform well on standardized tests either keep the funding they already had or receive more; meanwhile, poor performing schools receive less funding AND then the state government basically takes over the decisions for the school (by the way, all the funds for a school district come from one pool so even if everyone did well then everyone loses so there it not much incentive to improve poor performing schools since all schools will cut the money short by doing well).

Sum it up this way: You perform poorly then you get less (and dated) material, more restrictions, yet receive unqualified teachers because no one wants to go there. The cycle continues.

Tennessee is a conservative, majority white state so it's not a case of something like racism or liberal spending. Every year here, taxes go up and somehow we get deeper and deeper in debt (Tennessee has been in the lower 40s for deficit spending this entire decade). My tuition at the University of Tennessee has gone up $1500 since I have been there, yet they keep building new shit all the time while firing faculty, cutting language programs, allowing scholarships and grants to expire, etc.

So quickly, the main concern for education is money, period. The states with the least amount of debt have better education. It's nearly true across the board.

I'm basically done with this slushy now, but I'll let someone else pick up on the income stuff.

Tim McVeigh

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Why are there differences like this?

I have no idea.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Why does a smaller state make more money?

Because it's older, closer to the coast and is producing better educated people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Why are there differences in education?

Well the total amount collected in taxes is higher but goes to the infrastructure of the same number of people. Assuming a basic level of financial competence they're probably attracting better teachers and using better equipment. From my experience the social pressure for academic sucess is also abnormally high in the North East.

Location is a big thing.

Connecticut is right next door to one of the biggest financial hubs in the world. With that, the cost to live there will be driven up attracting people with more money who can pay higher taxes thus bringing in more money for the state.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I have no idea.



Because it's older, closer to the coast and is producing better educated people.



Well the total amount collected in taxes is higher but goes to the infrastructure of the same number of people. Assuming a basic level of financial competence they're probably attracting better teachers and using better equipment. From my experience the social pressure for academic sucess is also abnormally high in the North East.

1. I think you gave an answer to this in your #3.

2. So, money made is correlated to quality of education....right? (Yes. we know this is factually correct.) I will run some numbers, just for shits and giggles, to see if there are even more correlations like this that are easier to see.

3. The total amount of taxes collected is in a nice ratio to per capita income, in both states.


Here are the ratios that I came up with:


Income ratio to Per person taxes collected:

OK: 13.59 ($24,787.00/$1823.70)

CT: 14.26 ($41,930.00/$2941.21)


Ratios are similar. They are close enough that a difference does not need to be correlated. Income seems to be in a nice ratio to taxes collected.


In fact, just running so more numbers, going by income tax alone, CT raises 10,297,917,394.92 in income taxes in a year.

OK raises 6,642,573,755.70 in Income taxes a year.

Let's compare this number to the amount spent per person on education.



So, we know that more taxes, per person are collected, more money per person is spent. But what is the ratio?


Let's do OK divided by CT income taxes: 64.5%


What about taxes per person ratio? 62%

What about money spent per person on education ratio: 53.1


What about income per capita ratio? 59.1%



What we do know is more money is spent, per person, on education...and it seems to follow income.

Is this an accurate conclusion, at least OK compared to CT?



But, income is directly tied to education...





So is it an endless cycle or does a state have to make a shit ton of other things suffer for 2 decades in the hopes of raising income?



Wouldn't that also require a shift in the social perception of education? Sure, everyone, even bums, will tell you the value of an education and that one should get one, but why are there differences on what the people actually do about it? Can that be changed? How do we do it?

If we do Oklahoma City compared to Bridgeport, as far as standard of living goes, we get that it's 42% more expensive to live there:

http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=55000&city1=54055000&city2=50908000


But, do people from CT make 42% more money?

THEY DO NOT!

They make much more. They make almost 70% more money.

In ratio to income, they spend more money on their education, though.

CT people make, per person, 3.02 times as much money as is spent per person, annually.

OK people make, person, 3.57 times as much money as is spent per person annually.

So, even relative to income, CT people are spending more on education.





Originally posted by Bicnarok
Never been to the states so haven´t got clue where these states are, just wondering why you chose these two particular states for comparison.


Population size is similar. There is also a large income difference and education spending difference.


I am trying to see if income differences also translate roughly to the same difference in performance in schools. If the numbers are close...this would be amazing. I know Maryland had an almost direct correlation of 4% improvement per like...$1000 spent per person, or something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If we do Oklahoma City compared to Bridgeport, as far as standard of living goes, we get that it's 42% more expensive to live there:

http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=55000&city1=54055000&city2=50908000


But, do people from CT make 42% more money?

THEY DO NOT!

They make much more. They make almost 70% more money.

In ratio to income, they spend more money on their education, though.

CT people make, per person, 3.02 times as much money as is spent per person, annually.

OK people make, person, 3.57 times as much money as is spent per person annually.

So, even relative to income, CT people are spending more on education.








Population size is similar. There is also a large income difference and education spending difference.


I am trying to see if income differences also translate roughly to the same difference in performance in schools. If the numbers are close...this would be amazing. I know Maryland had an almost direct correlation of 4% improvement per like...$1000 spent per person, or something.

Bridgeport is an absolute shithole. I would be incredibly surprised if people in Bridgeport made 70% more then those in Oklahoma City (in relation to the standard of living costs of course..).

Originally posted by KidRock
Bridgeport is an absolute shithole. I would be incredibly surprised if people in Bridgeport made 70% more then those in Oklahoma City (in relation to the standard of living costs of course..).

Is that where you live?


And, you'd probably get the gamut in income in Bridgeport. There's some who make millions and those who make nothing.


It just so happens that the average income is almost double what it is on OKC...while cost of living is only 42% more, meaning, it SHOULD be easier, on average, for a person to live there, than it is here. (But we know that everyone, pretty much, lives beyond their means.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that where you live?


And, you'd probably get the gamut in income in Bridgeport. There's some who make millions and those who make nothing.


It just so happens that the average income is almost double what it is on OKC...while cost of living is only 42% more, meaning, it SHOULD be easier, on average, for a person to live there, than it is here. (But we know that everyone, pretty much, lives beyond their means.)

People on average make more here because of the jobs people have up here. So many millionaires, CEO's, bankers ect. live up in Connecticut that it must drive the average income through the roof. While on the other hand I would bet Oklahoma has more jobs for working class people then CT does.

And no I don't live in Bridgeport, thank god.

Originally posted by KidRock
People on average make more here because of the jobs people have up here. So many millionaires, CEO's, bankers ect. live up in Connecticut that it must drive the average income through the roof. While on the other hand I would bet Oklahoma has more jobs for working class people then CT does.

And no I don't live in Bridgeport, thank god.

Did you go to public school or private school?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is this an accurate conclusion, at least OK compared to CT?

But, income is directly tied to education...

So is it an endless cycle or does a state have to make a shit ton of other things suffer for 2 decades in the hopes of raising income?

Wouldn't that also require a shift in the social perception of education? Sure, everyone, even bums, will tell you the value of an education and that one should get one, but why are there differences on what the people actually do about it? Can that be changed? How do we do it?

Well one of the key reasons people don't get higher education is poverty. If you're born poor your family needs you to support yourself as soon as possible, that means almost no chance at college and likely little or no highschool.

So yes, it is a vicious cycle. The only way to escape it is to be born extraordinary (this can never help many people) or to get some level of outside help. Outside help is hard to get in America because too many people have the mentality that if your poor and uneducated you deserve whatever you get.

Basically to fight lack of education you must fight poverty. And to fight poverty you must fight the popular consciousness about poor people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well one of the key reasons people don't get higher education is poverty. If you're born poor your family needs you to support yourself as soon as possible, that means almost no chance at college and likely little or no highschool.

So yes, it is a vicious cycle. The only way to escape it is to be born extraordinary (this can never help many people) or to get some level of outside help. Outside help is hard to get in America because too many people have the mentality that if your poor and uneducated you deserve whatever you get.

Basically to fight lack of education you must fight poverty. And to fight poverty you must fight the popular consciousness about poor people.

I feel what you're saying.


It's just that...I have a hard time believing that one is damned, for the most part, to their economic stratum. Why DO they have to be damned? If there were a sociological change among the people, putting an emphasis on education, wouldn't that improve the average condition of those who are poor?

Of course, I am aware that it is a two-prong endeavor. The opportunities have to be there, in addition to the change in perception on education.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did you go to public school or private school?

Public, and now a public university too.

Originally posted by KidRock
Public, and now a public university too.

I know it's all perception, but do you feel that you received a better education than most of your age peers from Oklahoma? Other than myself, do you know anyone else from OK? Chances are, if you do know someone else, they are ...to put it nicely...probably not as educated as you are. Do you agree?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel what you're saying.


It's just that...I have a hard time believing that one is damned, for the most part, to their economic stratum.

You're not. Moving down is quite easy. It's going up that's hard.

In business you have to spend some money in order to make money (ideally piles of it). Even if you want to rob a bank you'll need to get a mask, probably a gun off the black market.

If you start off with enough money to choose between "food" and "higher education" you have no (real) choice but to pick food. If you cut back on food in order to get an education you'll be so hungry that actual learning would be impossible anyway. If you take the slow path your skills are liable to be outdated by the time your done.

The further down the economic ladder you are the harder it is to rise to the next level. A motivated middle class person can become wealthy with enough hard work. A destitute person is simply lacking in options, the rungs on the metaphorical ladder are just too far apart to reach the next one.


Obviously not everybody is controlled by this, some people really are extraordinary. The fallacy is in thinking that because some people have heartwarming rags to riches stories that everyone is capable of it. In fact half those stories about people pulling themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps are heavily embelished (as should be obvious by the amount of sense "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" makes).


So basically you're not damned by your family's wealth but it's far, far, far easier to succeed if you start off rich than if you start off poor.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know it's all perception, but do you feel that you received a better education than most of your age peers from Oklahoma? Other than myself, do you know anyone else from OK? Chances are, if you do know someone else, they are ...to put it nicely...probably not as educated as you are. Do you agree?

I have never been to Oklahoma and I don't know anyone from there...but yeah, I would say I did receive a better education. I wouldn't say I am smarter or more intelligent then the average kid my age in Oklahoma, but I do think because of the higher property taxes here our schools are better funded and I was just taught better then you guys were.

The schools around here are really not that bad, they seem well staffed with teachers and have good technology (lots of computers, all that).

I would say schools in the nicer part of Oklahoma though must be better then the ones in Bridgeport CT.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're not. Moving down is quite easy. It's going up that's hard.


Touche.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In business you have to spend some money in order to make money (ideally piles of it). Even if you want to rob a bank you'll need to get a mask, probably a gun off the black market.

Indeed. You'll have to at least have clothes or else you might get arrested in transit for indecent exposure.

You also have to be somewhat intelligent to beat "the system" in order to actually make use of the money.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you start off with enough money to choose between "food" and "higher education" you have no (real) choice but to pick food. If you cut back on food in order to get an education you'll be so hungry that actual learning would be impossible anyway. If you take the slow path your skills are liable to be outdated by the time your done.

But, that choice is not there.


I don't want to reveal too much about my finances, but I am middle class.

I am on full scholarship.

AND, I get grant money from the federal government each semester JUST for attending school.


I get paid to go to school! If I made $10,000 less a year, I would get more grant money than it required to pay for school, so being poor actually works to one's benefit when going to school. Dead serious.

I am by no means, poor, yet I still get money to go to school.


On top of that, kids get free lunches if they are too poor. Going to school not only feeds your kids, but gives them an education. It's just..........not all schools are equal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The further down the economic ladder you are the harder it is to rise to the next level.

But, I don't understand why.


It should only be a social hardship. The opportunity and money is there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A motivated middle class person can become wealthy with enough hard work. A destitute person is simply lacking in options, the rungs on the metaphorical ladder are just too far apart to reach the next one.

But the literally aren't. The ladder you speak of is a sociological one. If people really wanted to turn their conditions around and save money, they'd send their kids to school, go to school full time, and work full time. They would actually increase their income if they went to school and sent their children to public school.

At least, this is what a poor single parent family could do.




But why is it not done? Why are people not motivated like that? That's what I don't understand.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously not everybody is controlled by this, some people really are extraordinary. The fallacy is in thinking that because some people have heartwarming rags to riches stories that everyone is capable of it. In fact half those stories about people pulling themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps are heavily embelished (as should be obvious by the amount of sense "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" makes).


But there's more than enough wealth to go around, right?

I am not saying rob the rich to educate the poor, the government already does that. lol
I am saying, the poor just needs to take advantage of the opportunities.

Originally posted by KidRock
I have never been to Oklahoma and I don't know anyone from there...but yeah, I would say I did receive a better education. I wouldn't say I am smarter or more intelligent then the average kid my age in Oklahoma, but I do think because of the higher property taxes here our schools are better funded and I was just taught better then you guys were.

The schools around here are really not that bad, they seem well staffed with teachers and have good technology (lots of computers, all that).

I would say schools in the nicer part of Oklahoma though must be better then the ones in Bridgeport CT.


I find your assessment to be accurate. There's no way someone could not receive a better education when even your average schools have double the funding, per kid, than our schools.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It should only be a social hardship. The opportunity and money is there.

But the money isn't there. If I have ten dollars I have ten dollars, not one hundred. That strikes me as the sort of basic reasoning we have by two or three.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But the literally aren't. The ladder you speak of is a sociological one. If people really wanted to turn their conditions around and save money, they'd send their kids to school, go to school full time, and work full time. They would actually increase their income if they went to school and sent their children to public school.

At least, this is what a poor single parent family could do.

But it is economic. Full time work + full time schooling + raising a child would cause total burnout in most people. Where as a wealthy person can hire a sitter, make more money with less work and go to a better school.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But why is it not done? Why are people not motivated like that? That's what I don't understand.

Because it's infinitely easier to describe a course of action than actually follow it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But there's more than enough wealth to go around, right?

Sure there is. But the existence of the wealth doesn't mean it's helping anybody.

The sun gives more than enough energy for the whole planet, yet we still have energy problems because harnessing it is extremely difficult. The same problem applies to economic/social problems. Just because there are rich people doesn't mean that they're doing anything to help poor people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am saying, the poor just needs to take advantage of the opportunities.

The opportunities need to really be available. You basically get paid to go to school, but that's because you're extraordinary (most people have to pay lots of money to go to college). No how hard they try most people will never qualify for enough scholarships to get that.

Even if they could, and did, there aren't enough scholarships floating around for everyone.

That's also a good example of the mentality I was talking about. From your point of view poor people are poor because they did something bad, it's their fault. Except that they really don't have the same options that people with more money have. The world isn't fair like that. Rich people get better medicine, can go to better schools, can afford luxuries that make life far more comfortable. Those aren't the rewards of wealth, those are the things that help it along.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the money isn't there. If I have ten dollars I have ten dollars, not one hundred. That strikes me as the sort of basic reasoning we have by two or three.

But the money is there, waiting to be used by people who want to use it....who are poor enough.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it is economic. Full time work + full time schooling + raising a child would cause total burnout in most people. Where as a wealthy person can hire a sitter, make more money with less work and go to a better school.

But I'm doing just that. I go to school more than full time, and I work more than full time. I still spend lots of time with my family, to boot.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's infinitely easier to describe a course of action than actually follow it.

Hmm. I agree.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure there is. But the existence of the wealth doesn't mean it's helping anybody.

The sun gives more than enough energy for the whole planet, yet we still have energy problems because harnessing it is extremely difficult. The same problem applies to economic/social problems. Just because there are rich people doesn't mean that they're doing anything to help poor people.

I wasn't referring to the wealthy, rather I was referring to actual money available as grants.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The opportunities need to really be available. You basically get paid to go to school, but that's because you're extraordinary (most people have to pay lots of money to go to college). No how hard they try most people will never qualify for enough scholarships to get that.

But all of my school could be paid for IF I made 10k less than I do now, just in grants alone. I am sure there are single parent families out there making even less than that requirement with at least two children. They could get their education paid for and then some.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even if they could, and did, there aren't enough scholarships floating around for everyone.

I know...but there is plenty of grant money for people willing to put forth the effort.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's also a good example of the mentality I was talking about. From your point of view poor people are poor because they did something bad, it's their fault.

Poor people are poor, not because they did something bad, but because they didn't do something right...a rightness that is neither good or bad. "Shit happens."




And, for me, it's harder to NOT work hard. I would go insane if I didn't have enough things to do. If I'm not at work, fixing something, I'm studying or in class. If I'm not studying, I'm playing a game. If I'm not playing a game, I'm playing with my kids. If not the kids...the wife. naughty If not the wife, I'm here on KMC. If not on KMC or any of the above, I'm sleeping or looking in through your window while fapping. uh...scratch that last part.

I was told by a professor today that finding someone who is motivated such as myself, is really hard. She said it is almost weird for someone to want to learn something in a course, they are there, primarily, for the degree.


So, I am looking at the world through "everyone else is lazy" googles. Fer realz.


Look at us...we both have time to shoot the shit on the boards. What are the poor people doing after they got off of work? Taking care of their kids? HAH!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that they really don't have the same options that people with more money have.

This is true, but there are still plenty of options. Excellent ones, at that.

I agree. If my parents were rich, I would be approaching residency, right about now.

Okay, let me put it this way.

It seems to me that you're basically assuming everyone knows what you do and is as smart as you are. This simply isn't true. People are different, homo economicus is a complete objectivist myth.

I've breezed through classes that have other people pulling their hair out (because like you I enjoy them). The key difference there is personality, you can't reduce the world to economics and what people "should" do in a situation because you don't know how they think to begin with. People think differently, they have different skills, different schema, different knowledge.

Everything you know about economics, everything you've learned about how to escape poverty comes from the education you received and the culture you grew up in. The problem is that the culture and the education in poor communities is different.

Basically your ideal system is YOUR ideal system. It doesn't actually apply to anyone else. Not that you shouldn't make your own judgements, you should, the important thing is to recognize that people are not all the same if they were there would never be any problems in the world.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, let me put it this way.

It seems to me that you're basically assuming everyone knows what you do and is as smart as you are. This simply isn't true. People are different, homo economicus is a complete objectivist myth.

1. Indeed. I like what David Ricardo had to "say".

2. How is it a myth? I'm confused. I would submit that, in America, the exception is the person not seeking out wealth, not the rule.

3. Not only do I think man, first and foremost, tries to increase his "wealth", he also gives to others, not directly out of altruism, but for more selfish desires: the desire to feel better and increase one's perception of self; subconscious recognition in that eventually, the altruism is rewarded, even if the reward is praise from fellow man; some sort of faith-based reward. Very rarely, imo, does man do things out of pure altruistic nature.


I really have a hard time seeing how it isn't true. Sure, it isn't purely "homo economicus", but just about every human being's actions contain some sort of iteration of homo economicus...even if amalgamated. I would say I subscribe more to rational choice theory than homo economicus...but each containing a degree of bounded rationality.


It's more like rational choice theory running around in a bounded rationality with two scoops of homo economicus. Yes, I am serious. I don't understand why we have to bind ourselves to just one economic theory.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've breezed through classes that have other people pulling their hair out (because like you I enjoy them). The key difference there is personality, you can't reduce the world to economics and what people "should" do in a situation because you don't know how they think to begin with. People think differently, they have different skills, different schema, different knowledge.

I'd rather focus on what works and what people should do to make it work...and I'd like to "hear" more about you successes in school. Please, do not hold back, even if you feel embarrassed or like a braggart. I love learning about other's hard work and accomplishments.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Everything you know about economics, everything you've learned about how to escape poverty comes from the education you received and the culture you grew up in. The problem is that the culture and the education in poor communities is different.

No, it all came from observing poor people, crime, misery, and my mother telling me to not fool around in school and do the best I could. The "lectures" about doing good in school, did not come from my teachers until the 8th grade when they gave the ol' "highschool is extremely important" lecture.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Basically your ideal system is YOUR ideal system. It doesn't actually apply to anyone else. Not that you shouldn't make your own judgements, you should, the important thing is to recognize that people are not all the same if they were there would never be any problems in the world.

Indeed. I don't disagree with this.

dadudemon:

Do you really not understand how there are less opportunities to someone born into a poor family in an underdeveloped neighborhood versus someone born into an affluent family in a well developed neighborhood?

BTW: rational actor theory falls apart under empirical testing, as do essentially all economic theories.

Originally posted by inimalist
dadudemon:

Do you really not understand how there are less opportunities to someone born into a poor family in an underdeveloped neighborhood versus someone born into an affluent family in a well developed neighborhood?

I think what he's saying is that the opportunities that are available to the poor are sufficient for them to move their standing out of that strata. Which might be true, I don't know enough about grants and such that are available to people below the poverty line.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think what he's saying is that the opportunities that are available to the poor are sufficient for them to move their standing out of that strata. Which might be true, I don't know enough about grants and such that are available to people below the poverty line.

ah

Originally posted by inimalist
dadudemon:

Do you really not understand how there are less opportunities to someone born into a poor family in an underdeveloped neighborhood versus someone born into an affluent family in a well developed neighborhood?

Yes, I understand it. In fact, SC and I covered it already. I even provided my very anecdotal proof:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that they really don't have the same options that people with more money have. The world isn't fair like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is true, but there are still plenty of options. Excellent ones, at that.

I agree. If my parents were rich, I would be approaching residency, right about now.



Also, you have talked to me about this before, but I don't mind being educated more in depth by a better mind. Definitely go to town. I will read every word as if it were scripture.

Originally posted by inimalist
BTW: rational actor theory falls apart under empirical testing, as do essentially all economic theories.

Indeed. Well, some hold more credence on the empirical eye than others. I don't hold that they are, individually, correct, but that multiple ones are correct when working in various ways for each individual, as I indicated to SC.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I understand it. In fact, SC and I covered it already. I even provided my very anecdotal proof:

na, I was just tired and didn't read enough of what you had said

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, you have talked to me about this before, but I don't mind being educated more in depth by a better mind. Definitely go to town. I will read every word as if it were scripture.

can't even say I really disagree with your main point. There are, in some cases, some options for lower class people to move up the economic ladder. I would also agree that many people don't take those options.

Like, native people in Canada get free university education, yet I've only met, MAYBE, 6 who take that. A girl I used to chill with a lot got a degree in engineering from the University of Waterloo (considered to be among the best engineering schools in the world) without paying a cent, was constantly being handed thousands of dollars in grants and the like. The unfortunate truth is that scant few native children ever finish highschool, let alone take advantage of government university grants.

I think this might highlight where we differ. As much as I believe, as in my personal beliefs, in the power and responsibility of the individual, my education teaches me against that. Like, people are a product of their environment, and expectations of children, the culture of their home and society, essentially cause life long thought patterns and behaviours in people. You might use yourself as an example, but each post of yours is filled with how your family was different from what you perceive as being "poor" culture.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. Well, some hold more credence on the empirical eye than others. I don't hold that they are, individually, correct, but that multiple ones are correct when working in various ways for each individual, as I indicated to SC.

The heart of the issue is how people make decisions. All economic and most political theories hold that people will sit down, weigh options, think about their needs, and act.

Science, and decades of experimental study, have shown this is not the case for anyone, including you and me. I've listened to radio programs where people like Micheal Shermer, who tries to study economics based on certain evolutionary and behavioural principals, basically laughed his ass off at modern economic theory.

Hell, entire "special issues" of political journals are dedicated to "how can we make theory and research match", basically because all political policy is based on political theory, which doesn't pan out once researched. People are not rational actors. ****, cognitive dissonance ALONE should prove that.

lol, forgive my personal bias, but my thoughts are that psychology does a much better job of describing how people will behave in the market than does economics. Financial crisis much?

Originally posted by inimalist
can't even say I really disagree with your main point. There are, in some cases, some options for lower class people to move up the economic ladder. I would also agree that many people don't take those options.

One of my professors says that they don't do this because they are simply not aware that the option exists AND that they don't know an education is important.

I disagree. I think that they are unusually aware that the option exists, more so than other income demographics. In fact, they take advantage of them. (Welfare, for instance.)

And why would anyone who can speak, not think an education is important? (barring the retarded on those similar) You show me one person who says an education is NOT important, I'll show you 100,000 who do, from the same geographic. People have known for thousands of years how important it is to be educated.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, native people in Canada get free university education, yet I've only met, MAYBE, 6 who take that. A girl I used to chill with a lot got a degree in engineering from the University of Waterloo (considered to be among the best engineering schools in the world) without paying a cent, was constantly being handed thousands of dollars in grants and the like. The unfortunate truth is that scant few native children ever finish highschool, let alone take advantage of government university grants.

I think this might highlight where we differ. As much as I believe, as in my personal beliefs, in the power and responsibility of the individual, my education teaches me against that. Like, people are a product of their environment, and expectations of children, the culture of their home and society, essentially cause life long thought patterns and behaviours in people. You might use yourself as an example, but each post of yours is filled with how your family was different from what you perceive as being "poor" culture.

But where does the responsibility end for everyone else and the individuals become responsibilities begin?

Why should I pay for the retirement of someone I have never met, never will met, and do not benefit in anyway, on only have negative consequences for supporting? Does that seem fair? (I am referring to SS and Medicare.)

Why can I not invest completely in my own retirement, my way, instead of being forced to support others retirements, thereby, damming my ability to prepare for my own retirement? SS WILL fail. Medicare is on the fast track to failing.


On the same token, I am more than happy to invest my SS money into an education fund that is similar to SS. Isn't that odd?






Originally posted by inimalist
The heart of the issue is how people make decisions. All economic and most political theories hold that people will sit down, weigh options, think about their needs, and act.

Not all. Some are impulsive and cater to the ego, when almost every consequence is negative. That one has a theory, too, but it is more pyschological than economic.

Originally posted by inimalist
Science, and decades of experimental study, have shown this is not the case for anyone, including you and me. I've listened to radio programs where people like Micheal Shermer, who tries to study economics based on certain evolutionary and behavioural principals, basically laughed his ass off at modern economic theory.

They all fail because each has credence, but none are all encompassing.

Originally posted by inimalist
Hell, entire "special issues" of political journals are dedicated to "how can we make theory and research match", basically because all political policy is based on political theory, which doesn't pan out once researched. People are not rational actors. ****, cognitive dissonance ALONE should prove that.

lol, forgive my personal bias, but my thoughts are that psychology does a much better job of describing how people will behave in the market than does economics. Financial crisis much?

I was thinking more along the lines of cognitive evaluation theory. This would better explain why people dont' seek out an education unless they have some sort of external "social" reward from their esteemed peers. Meaning: Unless their family or friends consistently reinforce a behavior as favorable, the tangible rewards for those actions function more as control, to the individual, therefore losing the motivation.


However, I don't know enough about these to make an adequate assessment of why people do not try harder to get an education.





Oklahomans, while much poorer than Connecticutians, have more options than those in Connecticut, for post high-school education because they are far more likely to qualify for grants that will completely pay for their school. Whereas, Connecticutians, who make more, will not, on average, qualify nearly as much as Oklahomans, on financial assistance for college. Yet, Connecticutians are more likely to get a college education than Oklahomans. This is where cognitive evaluation theory comes in. At least, that's what I've been told.



But isn't that MORE of a function of culture than a function of uncontrolable behaviors that exist for the vast majority of humans?









Also, I have no idea if they call themselves "Connnecticutians." LOL

Originally posted by dadudemon


And why would anyone who can speak, not think an education is important? (barring the retarded on those similar) You show me one person who says an education is NOT important, I'll show you 100,000 who do, from the same geographic. People have known for thousands of years how important it is to be educated.



http://biasobject.blogspot.com/2008/08/first-bread-then-book.html

An old blog post of mine. You are putting to much into the will of individual people.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Oklahomans, while much poorer than Connecticutians, have more options than those in Connecticut, for post high-school education because they are far more likely to qualify for grants that will completely pay for their school. Whereas, Connecticutians, who make more, will not, on average, qualify nearly as much as Oklahomans, on financial assistance for college. Yet, Connecticutians are more likely to get a college education than Oklahomans. This is where cognitive evaluation theory comes in. At least, that's what I've been told.



It's already been brought up but food comes before a book and that's as complicated as it gets. You are forgetting that one would have to leave family behind and most of the time those are the sort of decisions that dictate how someone decides to live their life (it's more complex but that's why I included that blog post as an example in black American culture).