Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No; I made the point before (more than once) that Vance was writing from his own cultural experience and not attempting to craft a universal truth. If anything, the parallels work to disprove Vance's notion that the poverty experienced by his culture directly resulted in their swing to the right.
And neither did I say that it wasn't political commentary; it's political commentary that misses the mark, in my opinion, because it fails to take into consideration the ways society has failed that part of the country. The jobs went away with nothing in return but schools with no books and maybe a few minimum wage jobs here and there. His focus is concentrated more on the ever-present cultural villain of similar narratives who's living high on steaks and lobster on food stamps rather than on more omnipotent forces.
I also didn't state that you tried to PROMISE me that poor blacks voted for Trump in droves -- the point I was making was there's more at play than the picture Vance paints of the reasons his culture went Trump. Vance claims that the poverty was at the root of it, but other subcultures that have experienced similar poverty didn't make that sharp turn to the right.
Although this is the subject for another discussion, but I'm not sure to what extent Vance gets that his admission to Yale Law probably had everything to do with where he came from. It probably shouldn't matter to him - the end result is that he got out -- but he's railed against affirmation action in other writings. Kind of ironic that his escape came at the hands of the largesse of an elite liberal law school.
ETA Vance does a good job of examining personal history and makes some compelling cultural statements; I just happen to not be on board with his stance that hillbilly culture itself is largely to blame for its own quandary in light of the outsourcing of jobs that took place (although falling for a con about those jobs coming back is certainly something they'll eventually have to reckon with). I would definitely recommend the book; it's good; but I'd caution against buying into it as some sort of overall last word on anything but one man's personal experience.
I'm not going to take this entire post point by point because it would involve a lot of me repeating myself, but I will say this - I don't believe that in the book Vance says anything about Trump at all in the book.
I've seen and lived the culture of the very poor, and witnessed first hand many of the very same happenings and attitudes that Vance describes, so I do personally believe that in many cases the poor are their own worst enemy. I also understand the feeling of perceived helplessness that he describes. That's why I work with an organization that educates poor women in "white collar" office skills - along with education about work ethic and taking personal responsibility. We have a 50 percent success rate after one year from graduation (50 percent are working in better jobs than they had when they enrolled the year before). I see women turn their lives around in one semester, so I know it can be done. But I also know it takes a lot of introspection and a commitment to change the direction of one's course.
Of course people can turn their lives around. But I'm betting your organization gets government money and tax exempt status, something Vance has come out against in some of his writings. He's all about the non-reinforced bootstrap. Just curious; why does your organization only have a 50-percent success rate? You'd think that merely by virtue of enrolling, most of them would already be halfway there.
The whole parallel experience thing seems rather more of a 'no brainer' than an object of fascination for me, btw.
Quote:
I'm not going to take this entire post point by point because it would involve a lot of me repeating myself, but I will say this - I don't believe that in the book Vance says anything about Trump at all in the book.
I was speaking to the direction the demographic turned as portrayed by Vance. No, Vance never once mentioned Trump by name -- the book was, after all, written before the election. It would have been just as applicable to someone like Cruz. The point is is that they went hard right.
Another interesting review from a lesser-known publication (I'm sure you'll be reaching for your salt shaker). But the man is a Professor of Appalachian studies.
Of course people can turn their lives around. But I'm betting your organization gets government money and tax exempt status, something Vance has come out against in some of his writings. He's all about the non-reinforced bootstrap. Just curious; why does your organization only have a 50-percent success rate? You'd think that merely by virtue of enrolling, most of them would already be halfway there.
My organization gets no government grants or funds. It may have tax exempt status, I'm not sure about that. It's not "my" organization per se.
Not sure if you're aware of the stats, but working with very low income people, a 50 percent success rate a year out is considerably higher than government programs targeting the same group. So yeah, we're proud of that. It's very challenging to turn one's life around - most people (in any income bracket) don't tend to be all that successful at it. How many people stick to their simplest New Year's Resolutions, for instance?
In a 2011 study, the Government Accountability Office found that there are 47 different and overlapping programs costing taxpayers $18 billion a year...The GAO report concluded that "little is known about the effectiveness of employment and training programs we identified."17 Only 5 of the 47 programs the GAO examined had done detailed impact studies. The GAO found that "the five impact studies generally found that the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts."
Quote:
The most thorough assessment of federal job training programs was a $25 million National JTPA study in 1994, which was commissioned by the Department of Labor. It tracked 20,000 people over a four-year period who used various training services, and compared them to control groups who did not.23 The study found that for most participants, federal programs had no significant benefits. Some subgroups showed modest benefits, such as adult women, but for young people the study found no benefits from the programs. (Labor experts James Heckman and Jeffrey Smith note: "For youth, the record of government training programs for the disadvantaged is almost uniformly negative."24) All in all, the National JTPA study found that the modest benefits of the program were outweighed by the program's costs.
In December, 2008, the Labor Department released an independent assessment of displaced worker programs funded by the Clinton-era Workforce Investment Act. The analysts followed thousands of workers who underwent retraining, starting between 2003 and 2005. It found that “it appears possible that ultimate gains from participation are small or nonexistent.”
So yeah - considering the program I work for is not funded at all by state or federal government, I'm pretty proud of that 50 percent success rate - no, I'm proud of the WOMEN who participate and succeed via the program. Their better jobs and new found skills serve their families and communities very well. I'm very, very proud of my former students and am looking forward to meeting the new batch in a few weeks!
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 01-01-2017 at 06:57 PM..
That's nice, Kathryn. Where does the organization get its funding? All donations? You don't know if it's tax exempt? I'm business person and not a social worker, so I simply consider a 50-percent success rate horrifyingly below par, and I'm not convinced that a comparison to federally run programs presents an accurate picture -- these federally run things are usually required as a condition of benefits of some sort; I imagine many put only minimal effort into them. I would argue that the money is better spent in making public schools decent enough in these hard-hit regions that remedial programs for adults aren't widely necessary as well as increased efforts to stabilize family situations and provide proper healthcare and nutrition.
Anyway, my point remains that as one of the Ivy League's token white trash, Vance himself benefited greatly from the kind of affirmative action he claims isn't necessary. I'm glad that he was able to do so, but I wish he'd be honest and own that. He wouldn't have had a prayer of getting into Yale Law if he'd been middle or upper middle class.
That's nice, Kathryn. Where does the organization get its funding? All donations? You don't know if it's tax exempt? I'm business person and not a social worker, so I simply consider a 50-percent success rate horrifyingly below par, and I'm not convinced that a comparison to federally run programs presents an accurate picture -- these federally run things are usually required as a condition of benefits of some sort; I imagine many put only minimal effort into them. I would argue that the money is better spent in making public schools decent enough in these hard-hit regions that remedial programs for adults aren't widely necessary as well as increased efforts to stabilize family situations and provide proper healthcare and nutrition.
Anyway, my point remains that as one of the Ivy League's token white trash, Vance himself benefited greatly from the kind of affirmative action he claims isn't necessary. I'm glad that he was able to do so, but I wish he'd be honest and own that. He wouldn't have had a prayer of getting into Yale Law if he'd been middle or upper middle class.
The organization is funded totally via charitable contributions so I assume it's tax exempt but I don't know for sure, not being a CPA or serving on the board or in any financial capacity (I'm teach a job skills class).
Coming from the land of business, I also initially considered a fifty percent success rate to be low, till I researched the success rates of other programs, both public and private, which work with low income adults to help them become upwardly mobile job wise. What I found was that actually, in that field, a 50 percent success rate is excellent. It's very difficult to escape the cycle of poverty. Keep in mind that for many of our students, English is a second language, and many of them do not even have a high school diploma.
I doubt seriously that the generous donors to this particular charity would feel nearly as generous if they were asked to give their donations to the local public schools. Our outreach program is geared toward women, many of whom never even went to schools in the United States, or graduated from one.
Our classes, by the way, include classes on nutrition, health care, legal services, family dynamics, and even financial planning. It's a great program and very well respected. Our graduates are easy to place in local jobs because of their reputation upon completing a course which is pretty demanding.
By the way, many of them don't plan on getting a better job, or even working after graduation and this does not disqualify them from taking the classes - they take the courses because these courses include life skills as well as computer skills and they know that these skills will enrich their families even if they do not seek a better job themselves - the fifty percent job placement rate includes these women, so the success rate is actually higher for those women who do want to pursue better career options.
Do you really know why or how Vance got into Yale? I don't recall much discussion about that in the book. What's your source?
You don't have to be a CPA to understand how to figure out if an organization has 501 status. It's blatantly visible on websites, stationary, etc. If you're getting "generous donations" for operating costs, it's likely a 501, btw. Most people don't like making donations that they can't write off. Yes, I'm quite sure your patrons would rather not spend anything for public schools, but my point was that for places like the Rust Belt and Appalachia, the way out needs to start with public schools instead of waiting until they grow up into nonfunctioning adults and giving them computer classes.
Yale has had an affirmative action policy in place for decades as I believe it should). It actively recruits a small amount of low income students; there was nothing spectacular enough about Vance to make him stand out from the usual 30K applicants for 2K openings. Yale depends on extracurriculars and community involvement probably as much as actual academic grades; Vance had nothing. Of course he didn't discuss it in the book; he breezes over both schools, but he does rant against affirmative action for whites in one of his essays in The National Review.
Jones talks about schools with no textbooks, substandard science equipment, fellow students with no food and minimal clothing; Vance knows these things too but keeps repeating his mantra that government isn't the answer. He claims that the question of why no one else from his high school made it to the Ivy League haunted him for years; it should be obvious. The only hope that place has is to put some money into its public schools, but it's doubtful that'll happen. A few will get out via their own bootstraps, like Vance, but there's no easy answer, and perhaps no answer at all, for the majority of them.
You don't have to be a CPA to understand how to figure out if an organization has 501 status. It's blatantly visible on websites, stationary, etc. If you're getting "generous donations" for operating costs, it's likely a 501, btw. Most people don't like making donations that they can't write off. Yes, I'm quite sure your patrons would rather not spend anything for public schools, but my point was that for places like the Rust Belt and Appalachia, the way out needs to start with public schools instead of waiting until they grow up into nonfunctioning adults and giving them computer classes.
Wow, way to twist a very good organization into something a bit tawdry. Even though I've given you a pretty comprehensive snapshot of the program (life skills, nutrition classes, financial planning classes, job skills, AND computer classes), you can't help yourself - you gotta make some snarky comments. I just hope you're doing something constructive to help the poor in your community on a regular basis. No need to fill me in on the details.
People need help at many stages in their lives, including adulthood. So please spare me the lecture negating the generous donations from people interested in helping impoverished women and their families. "yes, I'm quite sure your patrons would rather not spend anything for public schools..." Please. As far as I know, none of them are behind on their property taxes which are a pretty big chunk around here.
I'm looking forward to teaching the class again. It's very rewarding to make a positive difference in the lives of women who are personally motivated to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty they have been in, and anyone who can be so dismissive of such a good and needed program doesn't hold my attention. Sorry.
Of course I'm doing something constructive to "help the poor" in my community -- it's called offering jobs. My employees don't make minimum wage, either, and those who want to step up and take on more responsibility and learn new skills are encouraged and compensated accordingly. Don't worry about the details -- I had no intention of filling you in on them because I don't seem to feel the same need as you to make this discussion all about me (speaking of twisting).
I'm sure the organization you work for does some good and I did not say otherwise. I'm not interested in continuing this conversation, either, because you seem to want to make it about your experiences rather than the book.
Oh, and one last thing -- you don't even know enough about the organization that you say you teach a class for to be able to say if it's a 501 or not, and that's just basic. Why should I believe anything else you say about it if you don't even know the first thing? And you're just winging it with weird claims that the contributors aren't behind in their property taxes. You don't even know if you're a 501, yet you claim intimate knowledge of funding matters. For all you know, the organization does receive some form of government funding -- probably does.
As far as snark, lady, you started in with your little grains of salt and your OF COURSES as soon I joined this discussion because you wanted it to be all about you, your little experiences and your no-brainer parallels to other "subcultures" that you found so fascinating. That's probably how it goes in the class you claim you teach -- these poor Mexican women are undoubtedly subject to long boring diatribes about your life.
and all those Hillbillies should pay attention to the National Post right? Maybe it hasn't dawned on you, Mr Vance or others that not all voters in those supposedly Hillbilly states are uneducated. In fact the ones that are and received their welfare checks didn't even bother to vote. How about all the illegal voting in Los Angeles and the number on welfare? I love when people have the answers but don't know what the Hell they are talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
