Quite engenious, our socioeconomic engine, the same people who fund the avdvertising fund the special interest groups that protest; have bought the politicians, employ armies of lobbyists; and generally keep the whole process in such a swirl that no one truly looks at the money makers. In our capitalistic society capitalists are sacred cows and oddly enough are often nurtured and protected by big religion as examples of the righteous path to the American way.

Can we really talk about the ills of fashion in society knowledgebly if we never look at the flow of money? What distracts us?

I think it’s up to us to tell marketers to stop directing pervasive, insidious messages to kids that encourage them to pair up with corporations against authority figures. If they want to rebel, as every generation does, let it at least come from them — it’s not true “rebellion” if Abercrombie and Fitch, or McDonald’s, is encouraging it and then profiting from it. And who rebels at age 6? They don’t even know what they’re rebelling against! Let them stay children long enough to find out what they really stand for, and what’s out there, before they start being so image-conscious.

This issue bugs me a bit because I see mostly social conservatives on this bandwagon, and I think they ARE interested in having reduced roles for women in society and teaching little girls to be chaste and modest while little boys are excused. I am a secular liberal who wants more regulation of the corporations that prey on our children. I don’t think “modesty” has very much to do with it – I think it’s all about the money.

*sigh*

No, you probably wouldn’t. The idea that people are purely motivated by money is one that even U of Chicago economist are admitting is overblown.

Because not all poor decisions are created equal. You, in your obvious wisdom, and world understanding, might very well have all that it takes to make wise decisions. your situation is substantively different than the situation of an illiterate, pregnant, fourteen-year-old couple.
Because poor decisions are more often made in times and places of desperation, of poverty, of lack of eduction, of lack of information, of superstition.
Because some “poor decisions” (not seeing a Doctor when the problem first begins, not getting regular mammograms, not seeing a dentist for cleanings) are in fact the only decisions available.
Because some “poor decisions” are not their won, but are their parents’: bad nutrition, lack of education, lack of discipline, lack of time, lack of parental resource.
Because some “poor decisions” happen in an instant but their consequences last a lifetime.
Because your solution, a punitive one, doesn’t help prevent any of these “poor decisions.” At most, your solution will prevent a few middle-class white kids from slumming.

I’ve made some poor decisions, haven’t you? I’m lucky, though. I’ve had the resources to recover form the consequences.

A society that doesn’t understand the context around poor decision making is doomed to have it continue. The ghettos will continue. They will, in fact, grow. And eventually, the people in them are gonna come looking for you. Because they’re not substantively different from you. No slower. No dumber. They just have fewer choices. They also understand that their collective lack helps create wealth: they’re making a thousand a month so that the CEOs and the shareholders retire wealthy.

Have you not noted the lack of class mobility in the States? Did you believe it was because your genes were better? How rigorous is your thinking?

But sure, Monsieur, let them eat cake.

I like to work; my intrinsic motivator means I’ll always be doing something. The tax structure of the economy might well decide what I do – whether I work for pay somewhere, or do volunteer work. I could be incented to act in an intrinsically stupid way, if the external motivator were sufficiently powerful; give me a 100x salary match if I shovel shit back and forth between two piles, and by George I’ll probably shovel shit.

Expecting intrinsic motivations to prevent societal incentives from operating is akin to the old belief that blind people get more sensitive with their other abilities. Just because it would be nice if that were true, doesn’t make it true.

Screw the state, and the man-on-horseback it rode in on. You’d be better off appealing to the good of humanity.

Incentive structures affect human behavior. If you cushion life so that bad decisions lead to good outcomes, you remove the incentive to THINK. “Why bother about finishing school…my decision will never come back to bite me on the ass.”

Aren’t there enough morons out there without encouraging the creation of more?

Why on earth would we want to subsidize poor decisionmaking, however?

Because bad decision makers are potential tax payers, social security contributors, voters, et cetera. If you won’t take “for the good of humanity”, how about “for the good of the state”?

Awesome! I’ll put the French maid outfit, the broodingly handsome Albanian coachman, the handcuffs, and the digital camera in the mail first thing tomorrow.

(Feel free to wait until you’re not sick any more, of course. The whole face-of-agony thing just does not mesh well with the French maid theme.)