

What your first-grade life says about the rest of it - mr_tyzic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/29/what-your-1st-grade-life-says-about-the-rest-of-it

======
MoonHarvest
This is by far the best article I've read about this study. Thank you for
sharing.

What most interested me was this quote about white children. "These children
did not inherit college expectations. But they inherited job networks." I can
verify this phenomenon using anecdotal evidence, where poor white children are
expected to learn their parents' (generally their father's) crafts but not
expected to learn anything beyond that.

While my own college-educated parents passed down their respect and
appreciation for learning to me, I saw some of my childhood friends' parents
pass down their mistrust and apathy towards learning to my friends. I was not
surprised when I came back from college one spring break and learned that one
of my old friends (white, poor, no college, terrible home life) was currently
on the lam for killing a teenager over a drug deal. I was shocked by the fact
that I wasn't at all surprised.

What bothers me more is how I can't relate to how hard life must be for this
old friend, and especially how hard it is for primarily black children who
inherit little but discrimination, through anything but anecdotes. I think
this is more "friend guilt" than "white guilt." No one wants to see people
they care for, or once cared for, victimized by systems beyond their control.

Therefore, based again on my own anecdotal evidence, I'm glad this study
continues to receive attention.

~~~
delinka
"...inherit little but discrimination..."

And also mistrust and apathy towards learning. Our societal problems transcend
race because we have cultural problems at the lower end of income. Those
cultural problems are self-perpetuating regardless of one's genetic make-up.

When you're poor, it's easy to be resentful of those who aren't; it's easy to
pass resentment and mistrust on to your children; it's easy to just do
whatever might make life a little less miserable at the moment (instead of
thinking of long term consequences.) And any of us are susceptible to behaving
this way if we become poor.

For those of us fortunate enough to leave that all behind and become
successful, it's easy for us to forget how hard life once was and how to
relate to those who are less fortunate.

~~~
smtddr
_> >When you're poor, it's easy to be resentful of those who aren't; it's easy
to pass resentment and mistrust on to your children_

To clarify, there can be legit reasons for that resentfulness they hold. I'd
argue the current construct of society definitely gives the appearance _(or
just out-right, _is the fact_)_ of well-to-do people benefiting from the poor.
The War on Drugs is at least one of those systems.

~~~
yummyfajitas
How does taxing the wealthy to pay for the war on drugs allow the well-to-do
to benefit from the poor? This idea makes little sense. It may hurt the rich
less, but it hardly benefits them.

"For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to
exploit them." \- Paul Krugman

~~~
harry8
How do you think the existence of the very poor who don't work affects the
poor who do? Useful dimensions to consider are wage expectations, bargaining
power with employers, the rational fear of being fired or branded a
troublemaker and its consequences and so on...

It probably doesn't benefit "the rich" but it sure benefits those specific
businesses relying on cheap labour with an interest in driving its cost down.

It also benefits those getting very rich indeed from the illegal drug trade,
like JFK's Father did when alcohol was an illegal drug (which is what
bootlegging is after all, drug running/pushing where the illegal drug was
alcohol). Such people care little for the social consequences of gaining their
wealth.

The illegal drug trade also entrenches corruption in politics and legal
system. Such corruption and the acceptance of it does not work in favour of
those without resources. Those with resources and flexible morals it does
benefit.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_How do you think the existence of the very poor who don 't work affects the
poor who do?_

Reduced supply raises prices. If more of the poor were in the labor force,
employers would more easily find replacement workers.

I suppose you (and the other two commenters) are right that the war on drugs
benefits a small number of wealthy people at the expense of the rest of them.
But overall it's a negative sum game - bad for the rich and poor alike.

~~~
harry8
The unemployment of the unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) is a clear sign of the
_oversupply_ of unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) labour at the going price and
this pushes the price _down_. If you have few skills and are poor how do you
"get into the labor force?" Drop your price directly to below the minimum wage
as is so very common? (Think of the illegal immigrant stereotypes here.) Gain
less by spending more on search, more on travel to more remote work or give
part of your wage to an employment gatekeeper or something else that competes
your economic gain downward? The person who is in the labor force with similar
skills - it sure doesn't boost their bargaining power.

With respect, I'm sure you have that price pressure exactly backwards.

The war on drugs is an absolutely unmitigated disaster on a global scale from
start to finish. The sooner it is ended the better. Those with vested
interests in the current normal practice of the political system will perceive
any change to how things are done in Washington or wherever as a threat. Scare
campaigns seem to get you elected, opposing them seems to ensure you won't get
elected. Running on a "stop this utter insanity making us weak and vulnerable"
campaign of ending the war on drugs will likely get an almighty scare campaign
run against them (think of the children!) Many vested interests eg lobbyists
will support that campaign to keep the political status quo as stable as
possible. (Some individuals will always do what they actually think is right,
even when it is against their interests). I hope to see that scare campaign
fail one day. Maybe some cracks are showing?

Past a certain level of wealth more money has no meaning at all, Soros, Koch,
Gates, Buffet and a large number more people have more money than they can
ever spend. More power and influence does have meaning to them, be it
altruistic or ego driven or whatever.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The unemployment of the unskilled ( &/or semi-skilled) is a clear sign of the
oversupply of unskilled (&/or semi-skilled) labour at the going price and this
pushes the price down...how do you "get into the labor force?"_

The labor force is people who are working or seeking work (the BLS can give
you a precise definition). Most of the poor do not fall into this category
(see another reply of mine in this thread for data).

Everything you describe is what _would happen_ if the poor were willing to
compete on price for work. The fact that they are not doing so is what pushes
wages up.

~~~
harry8
Are you really suggesting _nobody_ who is poor is looking for work? That
_nobody_ who has been so unsuccessful that they have stopped looking won't
take it given the opportunity eg employment growth. Ok then, nothing more to
discuss.

------
canadev
I really enjoyed this article (in a sad sort of way). I read an article in the
NYT that was sort of similar about a month ago (just looked it up:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-
kr...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-is-a-
hard-life-inherited.html?ref=opinion)).

Now, I really don't know a whole lot about these subjects, but it strikes me
that a basic income system would serve society as whole very well here.

In fact, I've always had a theory that the best way to do things would be what
I call a "relaxed meritocracy." Basically: everyone has access to housing,
food, medical care, and education at a decent standard -- the bare minimums
for life, plus a little bit on top so that it's not horrible. (Like living at
a dorm room in university.) Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and
the freedom to experiment with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody
is ever well-and-truly left behind.

Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea?

~~~
jcalvinowens
> Can someone please poke holes in why this would be a bad idea?

I think it's a great idea, but for the sake of argument:

One of the more convincing arguments I've heard against a basic income system
is that it would end up driving up housing costs: since everybody now has $N
money for existing, rents would increase by almost $N.

I would argue that such a unilateral increase belies the nature of a free
market: if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those
who are asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area,
I'm less convinced that would necessarily be true...

Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it work
you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for
anybody who wants it. But of course, that would come with its own host of
problems...

> Then, capitalism on top. Incentive to do well, and the freedom to experiment
> with stuff that may just crash-and-burn. And nobody is ever well-and-truly
> left behind.

To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the
idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase
themselves out as you make more money; they serve to _discourage_ people from
working.

Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if
you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money
you're already getting.

~~~
tbrownaw
_if housing became overpriced, others would show up and undercut those who are
asking too much. However, having recently relocated to the bay area, I 'm less
convinced that would necessarily be true..._

I keep hearing that the bay area is that way because of stupid zoning rules
(artificially limited supply) that can't be fixed given screwed up local
politics.

 _Some would say that a UBI is a "half measure", and that to really make it
work you have to go all the way and provide free government-owned housing for
anybody who wants it._

Nah, just make sure it's enough to cover minimal health insurance (and then
stop using tax incentives to tie that to employment!!) and living within
public-transit distance of an average middle-of-the-pack university. No sense
in paying extra to some people just because they'd prefer to live in a place
with bad zoning laws.

 _To me, this is the really big part of this that a lot of people against the
idea of basic income miss: almost all of our current assistance programs phase
themselves out as you make more money; they serve to discourage people from
working.

Providing the benefit to everybody makes the whole thing much more fair: if
you want more money, go make more money, and you don't lose any of the money
you're already getting._

Yep. Plus, appearance matters.

(a) Your BI goes down by 1/3 the amount of your other income, and once it's
gone income taxes kick in at 33% of whatever you make beyond 3x BI.

(b) Your BI never goes away, but you're taxed 33% of income starting at dollar
one.

Somehow, (b) seems to sound better even tho they work out the same.

------
gshubert17
Mortality [0] among Americans from ages 6 to 28 was about 1.1% in 2010. Take
the sum of male and female living at age 28, divided by the sum of those
living at age 6. That's about 99%. The change in the number of survivors is
the mortality rate.

That would be about 9 individuals in the sample size of 790. During the period
of the study mortality would have been a little higher, since life expectancy
has increased about 6 years since the early 1980s.

But the study counted 26 deaths (that they knew about). Being poor's a killer.

[0]
[http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html](http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html)

------
wudf
Check out the Up Series if you find this interesting. Video interviews with
English kids from age 7 to 56. "Give me a child until he is seven and I will
give you the man"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series)

------
jbuzbee
From my own experience, expectations have a whole lot to do with where your
life goes. In my house, there was never any question that my siblings and I
would go to college as certainly as we went from 1st to 2nd grade. There was
never any discussion otherwise. And now that I have kids, the same is true.
College is the next step after High School as certainly as High School is the
next step after Middle School.

Looking back to my High School days, I see friends that didn't grow up with
these family expectations and see that their life-path has been more difficult
than mine. I recall difficult times in my own college days when I pondered
dropping out to take a blue-collar job, but I knew what my family expectations
were. I continued on when others with different expectations would have quit
and ended up with the menial job I considered taking myself. I'm not sure how
the schools can raise expectations of these kids when they have some many
negative role-models around. It's a tough problem.

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
I'll completely disagree college should be necessary. It is this kind of
thinking that leads people who have plenty of job skills but no college
education to feel like a failure in life.

From what I've seen personally, there are a real lot of factors that keep the
poor poor. Probably too many to count. College education in and of itself
isn't remotely enough. There's also "life skills" (for lack of a better word)
that are not emphasized.

I grew up poor and I now work in an office with people who grew up middle
class. I sometimes find it difficult to relate to them.

------
fuzzywalrus
Pretty small sample size (most due to it being limited to Baltimore) but a
nice read. None of the results are surprising, children from poor families
remain disadvantaged throughout school and thus the cycle of poverty
continues... :/

The most revelatory statement was the inherited job networks that that the
disadvantaged white males had over the other children.

------
JoeAltmaier
I'm confused. Who's to say the 1st-grade experience was critical? Did it
change by high school? Maybe its the high-school years that are critical, and
in these children circumstances were unchanged.

Just sayin, without varying something there's no pinning a date on it. "Fix
this by 1st grade or its too late" is what it sounds like.

------
lazyant
"These people are just lazy, they have color TVs in their houses. In America
anyone can make it if you work hard". Literally what a friend-of-a-friend told
me about why she was voting Republican, seems to be a recurring cliche but as
an European my jaw dropped. (She was a white girl with rich parents btw).

------
mrborgen
I suspect todays kids will be even more victims of their upbringings, and that
this trend simply is instoppable. Scary. Even here in Norway, where equality
is the highest deed, the classes are increasingly moving away from each
other..

------
ilamont
For anyone who is interested in further reading on the impact of drugs on
Baltimore neighborhoods and the people who live there, I urge you to check out
_The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood_ (1). One of the
readers on Goodreads summed it up quite well:

 _Books don 't get much more powerful or moving than this.

The premise is simple--Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon (who's lately been
earning acclaim as the driving force behind HBO's "The Wire" which takes place
in the same area)and Ed Burns spent a year living on or around one of the
busiest drug markets in Baltimore and reports what he learned. In doing so, he
tells the stories of the people who inhabit this world: street pushers, kids
trying (although often not that hard) to stay straight and the parents who
worry about them, when they're not too busy trying to score their next fix.
The stories are harrowing--from people who spend their days cashing in scrap
metal for cash to get hooked up, to families sharing one small bedroom in a
shooting gallery. Pretty much everybody is hoping for a change in fortunes,
but the book offers few happy endings. In spite of this, its a fascinating
glimpse of a world where most of Simon's readers will never go.

The narrative is occasionally broken up by Simon and Burns' musings about the
war on drugs. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, its hard to
disagree with Simon's belief that the war has failed, at least in his little
corner of the world. There's a particularly powerful passage near the end
where Simon flat out shatters the Horatio Alger myths that many middle-class
suburbanites cling to, particularly the idea that should they find themselves
in that situation, they'd simply apply a little Puritan gumption and work
their way out their unfortunate circumstances. In the end, he doesn't offer
any solutions and precious little hope.

Yet, the people who live there are more than mindless junkies. They're human,
with hopes and dreams and stories to tell. Perhaps Simon's greatest
achievement is the way in which he employs his sharp eye and powers of
observation to paint a wholly three-dimensional and, given the circumstances,
refreshingly non-judgmental picture of a community in deep decline.

In the end, its an amazing powerful read, one that will leave readers deeply
affected and likely having shed at least a couple of tears along the way._ (2)

After reading the Washington Post article, I wondered about DeAndre
McCullough, one of the teens described in _The Corner_ who seemed like he had
a chance to get out despite some terrible family problems -- what had happened
to him? Sadly, DeAndre died at age 35. David Simon wrote a touching obituary
here (3)

1\.
[http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/23/reviews/971123.23mosle...](http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/23/reviews/971123.23moslet.html)

2\.
[https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/17690092?book_show_act...](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/17690092?book_show_action=true)

3\. [http://davidsimon.com/deandre-
mccullough-1977-2012/](http://davidsimon.com/deandre-mccullough-1977-2012/)

~~~
Bulkington
RE: Baltimore

Who knew there's a vibrant ubran culture devoted to riding wheelies on
motorcycles down major avenues, with crowds gathered on the sidewalk and all
waiting for the police chase to begin? I recommend the movie reviewed below.
Still not sure what it says about poverty and race in the US.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/movies/12-oclock-boys-
docu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/movies/12-oclock-boys-documents-
dirt-bike-riders-in-baltimore.html?_r=0)

~~~
thrownaway2424
Mostly it says poor people are bored stiff and will do stuff for fun just like
anybody else.

------
afafsd
This kind of shit is why I'm pro-abortion but anti-choice.

It's clear that the lower classes are doing a terrible job of raising their
own children, despite the best efforts of the rest of society to educate them,
they can't escape the terrible values and role models imparted to them by
their parents. And yet...

>Before they turned 18, 40 percent of the black girls from low-income homes
had given birth to their own babies

~~~
prawn
Perhaps if people didn't try to prevent sex education or access to free birth
control? Instead some are pushing abstinence like it will reliably happen.

~~~
afafsd
Obviously that would be part of the solution. But remember we're talking
Baltimore here, not Buttfuck, Mississippi.

Compulsory abortion is a contentious issue, but at the very least I think it
should be compulsory for anyone getting pregnant under the age of eighteen. If
we have the legal fiction that <18 year olds are too immature even to be able
to consent to sexual intercourse, I have no idea why we're okay with them
actually having children of their own.

In the old days we used to adopt them out, but adoption has its own drawbacks.
Now we as a society have become comfortable with the idea of abortion as not-
murder I see no reason not to use it in cases like this.

~~~
BadCookie
We are definitely NOT comfortable with the idea that abortion is not murder.
Maybe the people in your circle of friends are, but generally speaking (in the
U.S. at least) many people are far from comfortable with it. I tend to be
pretty liberal about most things (Legalize drugs? Sure! Gay marriage?
Absolutely!) and I am quite uncomfortable with abortion. Maybe it is necessary
in some cases, and I don't presume to know where the line should be drawn, but
if and when it must be done, I feel that it is a tragedy. I saw my son kicking
on the ultrasound screen when he was 12 weeks old, and I cringe any time
somebody makes a statement with the unspoken assumption that my son did not
"exist" prior to birth ... a ridiculous notion if ever there was one.

At the same time, I know how hard a baby can be. I am nearly 30 and having a
child has been almost devastatingly difficult. So on one hand, I agree with
you that < 18 year olds should not be having children. But to force a mother
to abort her baby? Do you have any idea what you are proposing?? To me, it is
beyond awful.

Maybe, instead, we should work to become a society where having a child at 17
doesn't cripple you for the rest of your life. That is the real problem, isn't
it?

Edited to add: Of course, sex education should be a large part of the
equation, as well as easy and preferably free access to birth control.

~~~
prawn
Exactly. At best, abortion is a fallback rather than a default. Surely you'd
like everything you can along the lines of sex education and birth control
(free condoms, free implants, etc) before you even get to abortion.

