Autism and poverty

[Shevek]

The fundamental resources in the world are time, energy, and materials. Of these, time is absolutely limited for every one of us. If I give you any of those but do not get something back in return, I may die. If I get something that is inadequate or not useful, I may still die.

I gain status by putting the time, energy and material of other people under my control. Status makes for reproductive success. Reproduction itself is trading time and energy for the material aspect of support.

That fundamental instinct is the basis for all the economies that have ever existed. The instinct persists even though few people in western countries will die if they lose out on a transaction. They are merely a bit less affluent. Doesn't matter. The instinct is extremely difficult for most to overcome. Even billionaires.

No, Especially billionaires. People who do reposessions say that a rich person will go into a major crisis over losing a non-essential luxury, while poor people are just sad to see their furniture and TV go. Before we learned to live in large groups and keep a year's supply of grain on hand, people were in no danger of getting too much sugar, salt, fat, or wealth, so we never developed any inhibitions around them. The greediest people seized control of the treasury, and have run things ever since. Homeless people share when they get a windfall, and winning a lottery is a disaster for most people, but the psychopaths can hoard and watch others starve. When her travel companions were reduced to cannibalism to survive the winter, Tamsen Donner barely lost weight.

Money is just a proxy for the relative value of something in a person's opinion. That proxy allows trade to go beyond barter.

The value of a thing varies widely from one person to another. It is completely subjective. If I value an item highly I won't trade it unless I can get equal or better value back. But I can trade something of low value to someone who places a high value on it. They can give me something they value little that I value more. The value of both items increases at the point of transition. We both come out ahead. That is capitalism in a nutshell. Anything else is applique.

Again, I must disagree. That is trade in a nutshell. Capitalism works well in the textbook example of the the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker each producing a surplus of their specialty to trade with the others, while competing with other suppliers. In practice, random chance will put one of them ahead, and that can easily turn into a positive feedback loop, with the baker buying out his competition and just giving them jobs. The logical result is for one person to own everything, and we can see that wealth is now extremely concentrated, and competition rare.
I know of people with ten times less than myself, and of others with ten times more, and their daily concerns are so different to mine that they may as well be another species. The range actually goes beyond a hundred times. The rich cannot help having to make decisions that kill other people, and so they lose all sense of humanity, and become parasites, thinking themselves more evolved, and us like domestic animals.

 

[Au Naturel]

No, Especially billionaires. People who do reposessions say that a rich person will go into a major crisis over losing a non-essential luxury, while poor people are just sad to see their furniture and TV go. Before we learned to live in large groups and keep a year's supply of grain on hand, people were in no danger of getting too much sugar, salt, fat, or wealth, so we never developed any inhibitions around them. The greediest people seized control of the treasury, and have run things ever since. Homeless people share when they get a windfall, and winning a lottery is a disaster for most people, but the psychopaths can hoard and watch others starve. When her travel companions were reduced to cannibalism to survive the winter, Tamsen Donner barely lost weight.

Again, I must disagree. That is trade in a nutshell. Capitalism works well in the textbook example of the the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker each producing a surplus of their specialty to trade with the others, while competing with other suppliers. In practice, random chance will put one of them ahead, and that can easily turn into a positive feedback loop, with the baker buying out his competition and just giving them jobs. The logical result is for one person to own everything, and we can see that wealth is now extremely concentrated, and competition rare.
I know of people with ten times less than myself, and of others with ten times more, and their daily concerns are so different to mine that they may as well be another species. The range actually goes beyond a hundred times. The rich cannot help having to make decisions that kill other people, and so they lose all sense of humanity, and become parasites, thinking themselves more evolved, and us like domestic animals.

The behaviors we engage in are driven by instincts that are older than the species itself. Those instincts do not adapt well to civilization, let alone modern society. They were developed in a time when every day was a life-and-death struggle and famine is always right around the corner.

Greed and empathy are both instincts. You don't learn them. They are not distributed equally to everyone. What you have may be modified by your environment, but that's not their source. Both of them exist because people who had them survived better than people who didn't. You can see greedy chimpanzees. You can see empathic chimpanzees. At different times and in different circumstances, it can be the same chimp.

Greed exists independently from wealth. Street gangs murdering each other over turf - as well as uninvolved innocents - are being greedy. The petty criminal who mugs you is being greedy. The looters that destroy a business and steal its inventory are greedy.

Greed is baked into human existence. It can be a force for good. What you call "greed" brought us almost everything we use to improve our lives today. Pharmaceuticals and electricity and radio and computers and the internet and solar energy all could possibly have existed in a curious researcher's experiment, but without someone seeing an opportunity to make money off it, it goes nowhere. Without greed, a lot of us would be dead.

Unconstrained greed has negative impacts on a lot of people. That is why capitalism is regulated. Some countries regulate it more than others. The most successful capitalist countries are those that do the best (not the most) regulation.

 

[Shevek]

The behaviors we engage in are driven by instincts that are older than the species itself. Those instincts do not adapt well to civilization, let alone modern society. They were developed in a time when every day was a life-and-death struggle and famine is always right around the corner.

Agreed that we are mostly driven by instincts operating in the old parts of the brain that don't use language. We then rationalize the results, although we are seldom rational and logical, free of chemical bias. However, life in nature is mostly boring, not fighting. Just watch this water hole

and you will see various species taking turns, sometimes reluctantly. Also some sparring, but mostly just feints. The ability to cooperate is usually more important than the ability to win a lethal fight. Various disasters could produce a famine, but between those, hunger was rare for species like ours with few offspring.

Greed and empathy are both instincts. You don't learn them. They are not distributed equally to everyone. What you have may be modified by your environment, but that's not their source. Both of them exist because people who had them survived better than people who didn't. You can see greedy chimpanzees. You can see empathic chimpanzees. At different times and in different circumstances, it can be the same chimp.

Aye, I've never heard of a hunter who will kill any species - there's always at least one they identify with.

Greed exists independently from wealth. Street gangs murdering each other over turf - as well as uninvolved innocents - are being greedy. The petty criminal who mugs you is being greedy. The looters that destroy a business and steal its inventory are greedy.

Good point, but I think that there is a lot more charity between the poor than the rich.

Greed is baked into human existence. It can be a force for good. What you call "greed" brought us almost everything we use to improve our lives today. Pharmaceuticals and electricity and radio and computers and the internet and solar energy all could possibly have existed in a curious researcher's experiment, but without someone seeing an opportunity to make money off it, it goes nowhere. Without greed, a lot of us would be dead.

Greed has done a lot to shape our history, but other paths to progress would probably have filled the void if there were openings. There are examples of businesses starting just by popular demand for copies of something someone has made. The actual inventors in electricity, etc, were mostly driven by the challenge, not the reward. Tesla died broke. However, guided by greed, the drug companies are raising prices to maximize profit even though they could easily afford to save more lives.

Unconstrained greed has negative impacts on a lot of people. That is why capitalism is regulated. Some countries regulate it more than others. The most successful capitalist countries are those that do the best (not the most) regulation.

I suspect that the UFOs are treating us like we treat an uncontacted Amazon tribe, and wondering if our civilization can survive. We have gotten through dozens of "bottlenecks" that could have ended life on Earth, or our own line of descent, but unrestrained greed may kill us soon. It may be necessary for a species to learn to regulate greed when agriculture gives it scope, revealing the danger, and before developing technology to increase the trouble it can cause.
I would propose an absolute limit on the range of private wealth at one order of magnitude. Nobody needs more, and nobody deserves less. The range of talent is greater, but talent works for self-expressin, and is inhibited by large financial risk. Crowd funding has replaced the only social utility of Millionaires.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Of course we need a medium of exchange. At various times, black markets have used cans of sardines or other standard, compact goods instead of gold coins. Even with an electronic matching service, it would just be too tedious for everyone to barter directly. My point is that currently, we are slaving away to rent money that others create out of thin air. Money can also be created without debt being incurred as it is issued.

Wealth-creating tactics frequently leverage debt strategies to make more wealth.

Don't ask me how it works--I just remember doing a triple-take on that unit in my accounting classes.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Good point, but I think that there is a lot more charity between the poor than the rich.

So, I was wondering what the point of this thread was until I read this. Does altruism exist--or does it not exist? So far, every situation I have thought of defies the definition of altruism as there always seems to be some selfish motive lurking in the background.

About the rest of the thread, & the OP, it's difficult coming to any conclusion from such broad-ranging discrepancies between differing economic systems and valuations. (As has been mentioned.)

But I can add one thing here most cannot. I know what it is like to live in extreme poverty (around 50% of the Federal poverty rate for the day). Not sure what it would amount to in today's money, but I grew up in a family of three on less than $20 a day--or less than $7 per person.

Like @Shevek has observed, we often freely gave out of our wealth (eggs, milk, butter) in trade for our neighbor's wealth (cheese, bread, sugar) so that we could have the necessary ingredients to prepare a meal. Pretty basic stuff.

My mom, a highly educated person, suffered a traumatic brain injury and could no longer work, much less "work the system" -- as neighbors so often accused her of doing. Her permanent loss of short-term memory prevented her from doing anything so crafty and conniving. We were at the mercy of the community's generosity which, in that day, included people stopping by with bags of clothing their children had outgrown. I was forever being dressed in hand-me-downs several sizes too small because I stood head and shoulders above my same-age peers. Not helpful, but at least I had clothes.

Charity is the act of giving without expecting anything in return. But society does expect something in return. I was very much aware of this as a child. I have always wanted to give back to the community that had so freely given to me and my family. Maybe it's why I have (thus far) made a career out of governmental work.

About poverty and autism, I don't see what sort of correlation the OP is seeking for. One does not cause the other. Certainly, it makes sense that an autistic person in a wealthier country would have more access to mental health support, but it doesn't make sense that any cause-of-effect causation relationship exists. And maybe that's not what's being asked--I did just skim over it before reading most of the subsequent dialogue that followed. Although, it's highly unlikely that the participants of this thread could represent the OP's lowest income levels, as the expense of internet access would seem to preclude that possibility. So the OP's well-intended survey is skewed from the get-go.

Maybe the intended link between the two could be clarified a bit?

 

[Crossbreed]

But I can add one thing here most cannot.

That's right. I forgot that you are an accountant. I should have waited to hear from you.
My bookkeeping is the byproduct of being a programmer. And I run my accounts like computer program. More in PM.

About poverty and autism, I don't see what sort of correlation the OP is seeking for.

It is pretty well-established by autism support agencies that autistics, even ASD1s, have disproportionate unemployment or under-employment unless we find a niche or it is a seller's-market economy, due to our being so socially awkward. I call it the "Dangerfield" Syndrome.

 

[GypsyMoth]

That's right. I forgot that you are an accountant. I should have waited to hear from you.
My bookkeeping is the byproduct of being a programmer. And I run my accounts like computer program. More in PM.

No; it's fine. Better to post than to wait. The cows have been known to come home before I circle back to some things--but I appreciate the thought!

It is pretty well-established by autism support agencies that autistics, even ASD1s, have disproportionate unemployment or under-employment unless we find a niche or it is a seller's-market economy, due to our being so socially awkward. I call it the "Dangerfield" Syndrome.

I got ridiculed in our last therapy session for "wanting to find validation and self-worth in pursuing a PhD." I mean, seriously? Why couldn't they just be happy for me that I have these goals, this desire to do something useful that would help people??? (I fit in very well in academia. Just about everyone I know in it has some degree of social awkwardness and my professors were amazingly accommodating and never breathed a word that I was anything except a good student ... even when it was painfully clear to me that I often derailed their class discussions and at least once ended up in one exceptionally poorly managed argument on my part. Give me a pen and paper and I can make a solid reply, but I don't do well with someone who can adeptly use the Socratic method against me in verbal debate. Crum. There goes my future law degree...)

So, how do we help autistics find their niche?

 

[Crossbreed]

So, how do we help autistics find their niche?

For many (not all), those are STEM fields, but most require degrees that some of us cannot afford.
(My military tech training was the equivalent of an Associate's degree in the marketplace. It doesn't mean much in a sea full of displaced Bachelor degrees, my patent at Motorola/Google not withstanding.)

Engineering, medical, accounting are all good candidates. Microsoft & JPL are both said to be a haven for Aspies (if you can get in).

 

[Storm Hess]

Going to a shop and get what we need for free... sounds nice but not realistic. Not on this planet. Someone always have to pay. It's in peoples nature to gather and take care of themselves. You work hard for what you have and you don't want to give that away for free. Because you worked for it, you earned it. Money is just something we use to get what we need to survive, so we try to gather money.

Why is not realistic? We created money...we made it real out of nothing. To evolve, we must destroy the chains of the past. Economic structure is a system of control of the masses for the sake of power. Look into the 4 largest corporations that run the world...you'll be surprised.

Here's an example: The Venus Project

You would have the option of work and where that would be applicable. When you have the option, your mind can freed to create, invent, imagine...on your own terms, not for some cancerous corporation that is bleeding your life away. You'd be able to go get a 3D printer to produce that idea, an AI to code the firmware, etc. It can be done.

Think outside of the box.

 

[Forest Cat]

Why is not realistic? We created money...we made it real out of nothing. To evolve, we must destroy the chains of the past. Economic structure is a system of control of the masses for the sake of power. Look into the 4 largest corporations that run the world...you'll be surprised.

Here's an example: The Venus Project

You would have the option of work and where that would be applicable. When you have the option, your mind can freed to create, invent, imagine...on your own terms, not for some cancerous corporation that is bleeding your life away. You'd be able to go get a 3D printer to produce that idea, an AI to code the firmware, etc. It can be done.

Think outside of the box.

Human nature. I just look at the world and what I see, our history, tells me that humans are not happy about changing everything, sharing and giving things away for free. We are hunters and gatherers, we hunt and gather and make sure we have what we need. The more we have, the safer we feel. It's just a nature thing, I'm not saying that what you are saying is bad or wrong, I just think it's unlikely it will happen because humans are humans. We fight and hunt and gather and we have habbits.

And people are different, we want different things. Getting people to agree on something and band together and making big changes is a little like herding cats.

 

[Crossbreed]

Why is not realistic? We created money...we made it real out of nothing. To evolve, we must destroy the chains of the past. Economic structure is a system of control of the masses for the sake of power. Look into the 4 largest corporations that run the world...you'll be surprised.

Here's an example: The Venus Project

You would have the option of work and where that would be applicable. When you have the option, your mind can freed to create, invent, imagine...on your own terms, not for some cancerous corporation that is bleeding your life away. You'd be able to go get a 3D printer to produce that idea, an AI to code the firmware, etc. It can be done.

Think outside of the box.

In order to get free stuff, someone has to create & deliver it first. Who do you propose that should be? Anyone that you nominate should have the same expectation of free stuff accorded to them, too.