Private Practice: A Word of Caution

[erg923]

Ok. I think its time to be done here. You haven't been talking about social work for the past half dozen posts, at least. You are talking about socialism. If that has been your agenda all along (which is suspect it has been), then you are entitled to that view and to express it. One of the many great parts about living in a free country, I might add. Another part of free country is that people are free to accumulate as much wealth as the can... AND spend it however they like. Thats what freedom is. That's not a decision other people get to make for you. Charity is a choice, and ideally comes from a place of viewing others in need as equals, not as helpless individuals worthy of your pity because they couldn't possibly do it on their own. How condescending and insulting that is. Newsflash, some people simply have to work harder than other due to natural occurring inequities. This is all part of the sacrifice of freedom. And I wouldn't have it any other way. So, Triken, dont get all drama queeny when most Americans don't agree with your views and express a not undue amount hostility regarding a socioeconomic governing system that had trampled on the human rights of others for the past century, and which the United States Armed Forces has scarified many a brave man fighting.

You have heard from your fellow students, as well as colleagues more experienced that yourself that work intimately with your profession. No one shares your puritanical view of social work or your socialist views of the world. Multiple posters have pointed out that your views do nothing to further your profession's relevance, standing, or role in the current markets. Listen to the feedback. That's a hallmark of good graduate student. Hubris and pretension is not. You should expect this approach/attitude to smacked down by your future supervisors. It is not amenable to the interpersonal and interprofessional collaborations that are necessary to do actual social work.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Triken]

Exactly. My views do nothing to further my profession's role in the current markets.

You just summed up the entire point of this thread much better than I could have. Kudos. Cya.

 

[erg923]

Exactly. My views do nothing to further my profession's role in the current markets.

You just summed up the entire point of this thread much better than I could have. Kudos. Cya.

If you want your profession to be relegated to that of a volunteer rather than a paying profession/vocation, that's your choice. A seemingly idiotic one if you desire to ever have/support a family, but whatever. If that is indeed your career goal, I would suggest becoming a religious order priest instead, as I can't imagine your social work colleagues appreciate your efforts to take away their livelihood, and at least priests have unlimited access to high quality wine and free housing.

 

[Mad Jack]

Feel free to move to whatever socialist or communist utopia you like. In America, you are free to earn as much wealth as you like. Most of the richest men and women in the world are not the products of multigenerational wealth, but rather builders of their own empires that have employed tens or even hundreds of thousands of employees, substantially improving the lives of those people directly, and improving the lives if possibly millions more via their ripples in the economy. Who are you to say all of that wealth is unjust? They've often done great good in the world and the lives of others, more than any amount of free handouts ever could.

There are some shady backroom deals, but the solution to getting rid of those is less regulation, not more. We could end all corporate taxes tomorrow if we also ended all corporate subsidies and we'd come out ahead thanks to the trillions of dollars of added activity that would occur in the economy (without accounting for this we merely break even). I think there should be certain regulations, such as environmental ones and the like, but many regulations only exist to entrench certain power players and regulatory agencies into their current standing within the marketplace.

Only in communism is limiting the potential of those with talent and intelligence to enrich those that are lacking in either or both considered virtuous. This isn't a communist country, go sell your misguided intellectual garbage elsewhere.

 

[Triken]

Professional social workers pretty much unanimously agree that there are economic structural forces that function to oppress the poor, and that they should be confronted where possible.

Neither of you seem to share this understanding.

You keep lecturing me about how I am hurting my profession and I should just shut up. Yet the majority of everything you have said runs counter to the generally accepted spirit of social work. If you think most social workers view "socialism" as a dirty word, you don't know jack.

 

[erg923]

You keep lecturing me about how I am hurting my profession and I should just shut up. Yet the majority of everything you have said runs counter to the generally accepted spirit of social work. If you think most social workers view "socialism" as a dirty word, you don't know jack.

Well, you certainly aren't helping your profession, no, as I imagine most social workers like to actually promote their profession, not brand it as mere glorified volunteerism. Doesn't really help the earning potential of an already underpaid profession either. And, yes, painting your colleagues as socialists probably doesn't go over very well with them, particularly social workers serving this country's military forces.

Yet the majority of everything you have said runs counter to the generally accepted spirit of social work.

Multiple posters who are more educated and more experienced than you, both in the profession itself and in working with/for the people and institutions that you desire to (but obviously never have), have pointed out time and time again that your puritanical view of social work is flawed. A little humility is in order here.

 

[erg923]

If you think most social workers view "socialism" as a dirty word, you don't know jack.

And yes, I do know Jack. He is a successful entrepreneur who is strong in morals and faith. He heads several service committees at our parish. In accordance with the Gospels, he gives money, and more importantly time, to individuals on the fringes of society. He is doing social justice. He is not a communist.

 

[Mad Jack]

Just out of curiosity, what changes to the system would you like to see OP? Please, be as specific as possible.

 

[Triken]

Its hard to predict specific changes. Socialism is the basic idea. We have to find some way to make sure that all americans are guarenteed the basic living needs.

You see, I need you to answer two questions:
1. If it were possible to make this gaurentee, even if it meant some people giving up luxaries, but everything else staying the same, would you want it?
2. Why is the above impossible, assuming that everyone in America believed in this same goal?

 

[erg923]

Its hard to predict specific changes. Socialism is the basic idea. We have to find some way to make sure that all americans are guarenteed the basic living needs.

You see, I need you to answer two questions:
1. If it were possible to make this gaurentee, even if it meant some people giving up luxaries, but everything else staying the same, would you want it?
2. Why is the above impossible, assuming that everyone in America believed in this same goal?

This is already done to a reasonable extent. Its called taxes. Taxes fund social welfare/safety-net programs (eg., SSI, medicaid, SSDI, Food stamps, free cellphones). Most reasonable people support a social safety-net of some sort. People (universally, for the most part) will NOT support a governing authority restricting their earning potential or wealth accumulation so that it can be "distrubuted" to others. Thats what socialsim is. And it has not really gone smoothly....anywhere.

You are unlikley to find many Americans, yes even social workers, who support a socioeconmic system with such poor track record of success, no matter how much you want to.

 

[erg923]

We have to find some way to make sure that all americans are guarenteed the basic living needs.

You are advocating the legislation of a moral belief. In principle, its no different than banning a marriage because it doesnt fit ones own idea of marriage.

Again, this is your moral belief. Personally, I dont want that to be guaranteed unless one is disabled in some way, because it provides no incentive for work or success, which is a necessary componet in the advancement of society. Please read the relevant psychological science literature on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

You are responsbile for your living needs. I will help you. Get it?

 

[erg923]

.

 

[smalltownpsych]

This is the legislation of a moral belief. In principle, its no different than banning a marriage because it doesnt fit ones own idea of marriage.

Again, this is your moral belief. Personally, I dont want that to be guaranteed unless one is diabled in some way, because it provides no incentive for work or success, which is a necessary componet in the advancement of society. Please read the relevant psychological science literature on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

You are responsbile for your living needs. I will help you. Get it?

It is like the parents that I have worked with who think their children should never experience pain or discomfort or failure. It makes the children feel anxious and weak. I tell parents that a good rule of thumb is that you should not be doing something for them that they could do for themselves. I'm thinking that applies to social programs, as well.

 

[erg923]

It is like the parents that I have worked with who think their children should never experience pain or discomfort or failure. It makes the children feel anxious and weak. I tell parents that a good rule of thumb is that you should not be doing something for them that they could do for themselves. I'm thinking that applies to social programs, as well.

Good analogy. I obviously never want to see my son in pain. But pain, ultimately, makes you stronger. Its how we learn. You dont keep the training wheels on their bike forever, right?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Good analogy. I obviously never want to see my son in pain. But pain, ultimately, makes you stronger. Its how we learn. You dont keep the training wheels on their bike forever, right?

It depends…is it an ObamaBike?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Its hard to predict specific changes. Socialism is the basic idea. We have to find some way to make sure that all americans are guarenteed the basic living needs.

You see, I need you to answer two questions:
1. If it were possible to make this gaurentee, even if it meant some people giving up luxaries, but everything else staying the same, would you want it?
2. Why is the above impossible, assuming that everyone in America believed in this same goal?

I wanted to comment that I appreciate your wanting to advocate for improving society. I see too many social workers who are jaded and frustrated within the system and become part of the problem. I don't know why that is, but I have a number of hypotheses and I would bet that a lot felt as did you at one time. Based on my own observations, I would agree with your premise that the field of social work has problems and may have even lost it's way. However, I doubt if harking back to the glory days is a solution. I doubt that socialism is an answer either. Maybe your job as a student of social work is to learn as much as you can from a variety of sources and then begin coming up with new solutions.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It depends…is it an ObamaBike?

Free bikes for everyone to go with their free healthcare! Maybe I should get free everything and move to a state where pot is legal and do nothing productive with my life.

***alright, I got to get back to scoring this WISC so I can get paid!***

 

[deleted480308]

Its hard to predict specific changes. Socialism is the basic idea. We have to find some way to make sure that all americans are guarenteed the basic living needs.

You see, I need you to answer two questions:
1. If it were possible to make this gaurentee, even if it meant some people giving up luxaries, but everything else staying the same, would you want it?
2. Why is the above impossible, assuming that everyone in America believed in this same goal?

1. no, government can only give away what it has taken from other people. The government should not be in the role of charity
2. it's impossible because americans don't all want that. socialism is most appealing to those who don't have anything and will benefit the most or those who have so much that they can't accurately imagine a life of mediocre assets. You are more than welcome, right now, to form an association of people and just split all your assets down the middle. The reason you don't do that, is because it's a crappy deal and those who are the producers of real wealth don't want to be involved.

 

[Mad Jack]

Its hard to predict specific changes. Socialism is the basic idea. We have to find some way to make sure that all americans are guarenteed the basic living needs.

You see, I need you to answer two questions:
1. If it were possible to make this gaurentee, even if it meant some people giving up luxaries, but everything else staying the same, would you want it?
2. Why is the above impossible, assuming that everyone in America believed in this same goal?

Everyone in America doesn't believe in this as an end goal. They never will, because it simply isn't the American way. As has been said elsewhere, if you guarantee everyone's basic needs are met, there is little incentive to go above and beyond, nor is there an incentive to work particularly hard. Travel to some formerly Soviet countries and experience the customer service (which is a remnant from the Cold War) there. Attitudes have not yet caught up with the times, and the Soviet mentality of the customer as an inconvenience is still quite prevalent.

Or spend some time working in a union hospital then switch to a non-union one. Unions are micro-scale socialism, and generally serve to disincentivize new workers from working hard, since their performance is secondary to their seniority, while your older, more experienced workers are free to basically laze about due to how hard it is to fire them. You end up with facilities that abuse their young employees, where the only ones who stick around tend to be the ones hoping to one day be the lazy kings at the top of the hill. This isn't how it works in most decent non-union hospitals. The older employees tend to be solid resource people that work as hard as everyone else, and have a strong knowledge base to boot. They work hard because they know that their salary increases are based on their performance rather than their seniority, and they know they can't just fly under the radar and do nothing without being fired. (This analogy applies to well-run institutions- poorly run ones can be fairly dysfunctional, but even the worst I have experienced are nowhere near as bad as union facilities.) Young workers put in hard work and time so that they can hopefully reach the top of the hierarchy sooner and get larger raises, an option that generally isn't available at union facilities because everything is based on seniority.

The point is, incentives are necessary and make society function properly. If there is no incentive to work harder or find a better job, people won't, our economy will stagnate, and the whole country will suffer. Low-paying employment is necessary from a few angles- businesses with cheap labor can make more profit which allows them to hire more employees and expand. If you increase wages too much, small businesses stagnate or die, and large businesses lose investors who park their cash in corporations that have lower overhead. So that leaves the only other option- leaving wages low but taxing the hell out of the wealthy. The trouble is, most truly wealthy people don't have large incomes, they have large portfolios. Passive income is difficult to tax, because if you do it wrong, you get no money and you substantially hurt domestic investment. Taxing income isn't an answer either, as the people who tend to pull in large incomes are not the truly wealthy, but those that are still on the path to wealth. Essentially you'd be entrenching the truly wealthy who already have assets and stymying the up-and-comers so that they would never reach true wealth themselves.

I guess I'm just kind of ranting to avoid studying anatomy, but the point is- no, we shouldn't guarantee a standard of living to everyone, because it would disincentivize work, and it is impossible because most people aren't on board with socialism, because this is America. If you want European style socialism and stagnation, move to Europe, we have enough here and don't want any more. Some people giving up the money they have earned through their hard work to those that do not work as hard and do not have as important (or often any) skills is not fair to those that worked hard and went to school to earn a decent living, and is completely against the American interpretation of capitalism.

 

[erg923]

Mad Jack, could you be talking about yet another important psychological principle that is relevant to economic systems/theory: reinforcement/contingency based learning?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Mad jack, could you be talking about yet another important psychological principle that is relevant to economic systems/theory: reinforcement/contingency based learning?

I just switched over to a production-based compensation package and I am definitely motivated to work harder. Like a pigeon pecking at a circle for food!

 

[erg923]

I just switched over to a production-based compensation package and I am definitely motivated to work harder. Like a pigeon pecking at a circle for food!

And we thought we'd never see a practical application of Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning.

"Drive theory is based on the principle that organisms are born with certain psychological needs and that a negative state of tension is created when these needs are not satisfied. When a need is satisfied, drive is reduced and the organism returns to a state of homeostasis and relaxation."

 

[smalltownpsych]

And we thought we'd never see a practical application of Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning.

"Drive theory is based on the principle that organisms are born with certain psychological needs and that a negative state of tension is created when these needs are not satisfied. When a need is satisfied, drive is reduced and the organism returns to a state of homeostasis and relaxation."

It also might be helpful for a student of social work to learn more about social psychology in addition to theories of learning. Diffusion of responsibility and social loafing are a couple that spring to my mind as being somewhat applicable.

This discussion brings to my mind the question of the scientific foundations of social work. Is it from sociology, social psychology, or philosophy? I don't know that much about it and I think that the OPs teacher might have a point that many social workers are more focused on providing clinical services. In my experience, social workers thought of themselves as therapists only. I think it is analogous to the problem of having a psychologist being only a therapist. It is not helpful to our profession and I am thinking it hasn't helped the field of social work either.

 

[wesleysmith]

I think the reason you might have this opinion of social workers is your work setting. The SW students on here are interested in therapy, the SWs at your medical facility wanted to go into clinical social work (obviously) on some level, not a ton of policy and administration SWs to be found around you. My experience has been in the community setting where many of the LCSWs are in it for the "social work" and work as case managers as well as therapists. One of my professors is in private practice yet he still uses example after example from his practice of helping clients navigate the social welfare system or helping them get other needed services they wouldn't be able to on their own (e.g. call a local dentist that does not usually accept medicaid to see his client). Perhaps it just appears as though social work has moved away from its roots due to the fact that it has grown so much as a profession that the subgroups within social work are becoming more visible. The PPA workers are still alive and well, they just aren't the ones you'd be bumping elbows with at the hospital. Also, based on my experience while researching grad school, the LCSW has just become a popular mental health degree and as such is drawing many people who's primary interest is mental health. This sounds bad, but when the doctors, psychologists, "therapists", and general healthcare staff (not to mention the all mighty internet) are telling you if you want to do A then the best degree is B (B= MSW) then it's only logical that you should pursue that.

 

[erg923]

In my experience, social workers thought of themselves as therapists only. I think it is analogous to the problem of having a psychologist being only a therapist. It is not helpful to our profession and I am thinking it hasn't helped the field of social work either.

But is this actually happening? Psychotherapy inevitably involves alot of case managment. And if you are trained in that and passionate about it, a social worker whose primary job description is that of "psychotherapist" (such as those in my clinic), one can very readily do the social service element explicitly as well. But I still contend that arguing that a SW should only be some type of social agitator/protester is bad for the profession. Who hires and pays social agitators? Nonprofit organzations, maybe? Who else? Great way to marginalize your profession.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think the reason you might have this opinion of social workers is your work setting. The SW students on here are interested in therapy, the SWs at your medical facility wanted to go into clinical social work (obviously) on some level, not a ton of policy and administration SWs to be found around you. My experience has been in the community setting where many of the LCSWs are in it for the "social work" and work as case managers as well as therapists. One of my professors is in private practice yet he still uses example after example from his practice of helping clients navigate the social welfare system or helping them get other needed services they wouldn't be able to on their own (e.g. call a local dentist that does not usually accept medicaid to see his client). Perhaps it just appears as though social work has moved away from its roots due to the fact that it has grown so much as a profession that the subgroups within social work are becoming more visible. The PPA workers are still alive and well, they just aren't the ones you'd be bumping elbows with at the hospital. Also, based on my experience while researching grad school, the LCSW has just become a popular mental health degree and as such is drawing many people who's primary interest is mental health. This sounds bad, but when the doctors, psychologists, "therapists", and general healthcare staff (not to mention the all mighty internet) are telling you if you want to do A then the best degree is B (B= MSW) then it's only logical that you should pursue that.

I also worked at a community mental health center and everyone there was a "therapist" even the case managers. Meanwhile, clients weren't getting their case management needs met. This was just one setting but I have seen it before. I have also heard the resentment from some with social work degree at other facilities where the psychologists do therapy. Everybody in mental health wants to be the therapist, heck, I even run into this with the medical docs. It also seems that there is an inverse correlation between "desire to be therapist" and "actual training to be one". In other words, the social workers who actually had a level of expertise providing psychotherapy didn't seem to have as much of a problem with the different roles.

 

[smalltownpsych]

But is this actually happening? Psychotherapy inevitably involves alot of case managment. And if you are trained in that and passionate about it, a social worker whose primary job description is that of "psychotherapist" (such as those in my clinic), then one can very readily do the social service element explicitly as well. But I still content that arguing that a SW should only be some type of social agitator/protester is bad for the profession. Who hires and pays social agitators? Nonprofit organzations, maybe? Who else? Great way to marginalize your profession.

At the VA the social workers and psychologists are pretty clear about their roles and competence in different areas, at least at the one I was at. I think that is a strength of the VA system. In community mental health, I have seen some pretty shabby case management. Oh and paid protestors only get like 8 dollars an hour and it's tough to find full time work.

 

[smalltownpsych]

...and I am pretty sure that a masters degree is not required.

 

[wesleysmith]

I also worked at a community mental health center and everyone there was a "therapist" even the case managers. Meanwhile, clients weren't getting their case management needs met. This was just one setting but I have seen it before. I have also heard the resentment from some with social work degree at other facilities where the psychologists do therapy. Everybody in mental health wants to be the therapist, heck, I even run into this with the medical docs. It also seems that there is an inverse correlation between "desire to be therapist" and "actual training to be one". In other words, the social workers who actually had a level of expertise providing psychotherapy didn't seem to have as much of a problem with the different roles.

Meh, I'm sure this varies greatly by location, everybody's different. I was just pointing out that social workers across the board have not abandoned what makes social work "social work". I am lucky to work at an organization that is very good (although possibly too hands on for some people's taste) at providing a multitude of case management services in addition to the substance abuse/mental health services.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Meh, I'm sure this varies greatly by location, everybody's different. I was just pointing out that social workers across the board have not abandoned what makes social work "social work". I am lucky to work at an organization that is very good (although possibly too hands on for some people's taste) at providing a multitude of case management services in addition to the substance abuse/mental health services.

The point I was trying to make was to support that it can be a problem when someone limits themselves to therapist only as a mindset. In psychology it has become a huge problem with the proliferation of professional school degrees. So the word of caution might be wise. I still agree that socialism is not the answer to any of the above. In fact, socialistic attitudes make the problem worse because if everyone wants to be a therapist the we should make it so they can.

 

[Goobernut]

The point I was trying to make was to support that it can be a problem when someone limits themselves to therapist only as a mindset. In psychology it has become a huge problem with the proliferation of professional school degrees. So the word of caution might be wise. I still agree that socialism is not the answer to any of the above. In fact, socialistic attitudes make the problem worse because if everyone wants to be a therapist the we should make it so they can.

As far as I understand socialism, the bolded is not technically true. Socialism is about making sure only those with the best aptitude and fit become therapists. The system wouldn't waste money (resources) on someone who is not "talented" enough to pull it off. For example, individuals are tested (in some countries) at 12, and (in more recent legislation) again at 16 to determine if they are bright enough to send on to college prep or if they should go to trade school. If you do not qualify at those times in your life to get into college prep, then you will never be a therapist.

 

[Triken]

When I brought up what I think to be a useful metaphor in articulating my position erg decided to lash out at me.

I am not suggesting we should limit people's freedom to earn money. You all are forcefully against the idea of the government imposing restrictions on the average working man. What I am saying is that the super rich are imposing restrictions on us. They are using the money they rightfully earned (albeit with a lot of luck) and then investing it solely for the purpose of making their cash pile grow while restricting the cash pile of others. They can do that. They have the power to prevent your dollar from earning what it would fetch otherwise, at least proportionally. That is called restriction. You hate it when the gov. does it but they are doing it to all of us. This isn't being overly dramatic, its being under dramatic. What I want is the government, or a less dysfunctional body, to prevent the top 1% from manipulating the economic system in such a way that restricts the rest of our freedom.

"But I still contend that arguing that a SW should only be some type of social agitator/protester is bad for the profession."

I cannot for the life of me understand why you keep insisting that I am arguing that we only do that. I have never once suggested that. I have suggested that we are approaching a point where we are at risk of not doing any of that. We're talking 80/20, or 90/10 splits here, depending on the measure. And its been getting more skewed, gradually, over time.

And yes, many social work students go into the field of social work because they want to become therapists and are told it is better to get an LCSW because it is a 2 year degree and there is no research involved. I need only ask a few incoming students why they are in our program and at least one of them is bound to give me this explanation.

Your argument about marginalizing our profession is the exact problem. Look, we're not going to settle this. But it is a fact that a great number of social workers in the past have taken the position that protecting our profession as a primary goal is potentially detrimental to our chances of effecting any real change for those who are poor. You may sometimes have to take risks if you want to truly help in certain ways. Sometimes helping people who have very little money means earning very little money, but that does not mean we shouldn't do it. If not social workers, then who? I understand your pragmatism and the argument that "well, if you lose your professionalism you won't be able to help anyone" view. I get it. I really, truly get it. I've gotten it my whole life, we all have. But who has been taught that if you are willing to risk some of your professional status, you might end up dramatically helping those who have none.

 

[smalltownpsych]

It seems to me that the politicians either work for the 1% or are the 1% I think that is referred to as plutocracy. I am not sure how social work acts to rebalance that. I think unions were a part of the solution at one time, but they have lost a lot of power overall and tend to have too much power in a few select industries or are too tied up with the political machine. To me, unions can be an important part of balancing power between the people the corporations and the government. Which doesn't work when they are part of that system or too closely aligned with one political party. Another problem is that the unions were tied to manufacturing and as our economy has shifted, that has changed the dynamic.

 

[erg923]

Socialism is the basic idea.

You wanna help? Pick up a ladle and form some relationships ("Be the light of Christ for someone," to borrow a phrase from my wife). Don't take (or restrict) from those who "have" because YOU think it's unnecessary or "luxury," or because you think they will indirectly restrict your success in some way (victim mentalities lead to self fulfilling prophecies. "Expectancy Effect," another relevant psychological principle). That is the socioeconomic philosophy you are advocating when you say things like: "Socialism is the basic idea" and "people giving up luxaries." Make no mistake about that.

Your attitude about social work passively accepting low wages is exactly why your profession is so underpaid. Moreover, and perhaps this will wake you up, it perpetuates an underlying prejudice about the poor! That is, "they are only helping the poor, therefore they DESERVE to earn less because the poor aren't as important as the middle class or wealthy." That attitude is what you are perpetuating/enabling, Tricken. Make no mistake about it.

Being underpaid leads to being undervalued. Undervalued leads to either: other people do your job or no one does your job. Take your pick, Tricken.

 

[erg923]

I also think its important to add a bit of balance when posters attempt to villanize the wealthy as a bunch amoral, selfish individuals with statments like the following:

They are using the money they rightfully earned (albeit with a lot of luck) and then investing it solely for the purpose of making their cash pile grow while restricting the cash pile of others.

Obviously sweeping generalizations there, as well as yet another example of Tricken not taking enough history classes. 1. No, socialism has not been a raging sucess anywhere. 2. Many of the titans of the industrial revolution fought hard to keep their wealth and monopolies, thats true, but they also gave alot of their fortunes away at a time of their choosing. Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Hughes come to mind off hand. Today, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come to mind. See 60 minutes piece below.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-giving-pledge-a-new-club-for-billionaires/

 

[Triken]

Yes, I think the creation of unions was a good example of the kind of intervention I am suggesting. And I agree that their effectiveness has fallen off over time, for the reason you suggest and others. I admit that I do not have the answers now, but I intend to search for them and would like to bring about some change, hopefully with the help of other social workers.

"Don't take (or restrict) from those who "have" because YOU think it's unnecessary or "luxury," or because you think they will indirectly restrict your success in some way (victim mentalities lead to self fulfilling prophecies. "Expectancy Effect," another relevant psychological principle)." [I do understand these theories, so you can stop throwing them out there like you know something I don't. I was in the top 98% on psych GRE which I realize is a joke of a test but I do get the theories. I have also published as PI in a journal with a high IF and I've given a paper presentation at an APA conference. A theory of mine made it into "the oxford handbook of research strategies in clinical psychology" with a citation. And after this I decided I wasn't impressed enough with psych theories to base my career around them. So I take what you say in regards to these principles with a healthy grain of salt.]

Again, you are showing your hand here because it is not some "indirect" restriction. Just because you can't see the effects doesn't mean they aren't happening in a major way. Go back to my analogy. The problem is not that they are all hitting home runs, its that they don't even have to because they've paid off the ump with the money they've won in the previous game. Yet you think that's fair because they "earned" that money.

I gave a good real life example when I talked about the oil company inventing a safer drill that cost $$$ and lobbying congress to make it illegal to drill without out, therefore intentionally putting smaller companies out of business. You seem to be under the impression that this is an anomaly or some kind of "indirect" restriction. It's not. Its become the status quo. I'm happy to give you more of these examples, there are hundreds if not thousands out there. But I suspect you'd rather maintain your idealism.

 

[erg923]

Yes, I think the creation of unions was a good example of the kind of intervention I am suggesting. And I agree that their effectiveness has fallen off over time, for the reason you suggest and others. I admit that I do not have the answers now, but I intend to search for them and would like to bring about some change, hopefully with the help of other social workers.

"Don't take (or restrict) from those who "have" because YOU think it's unnecessary or "luxury," or because you think they will indirectly restrict your success in some way (victim mentalities lead to self fulfilling prophecies. "Expectancy Effect," another relevant psychological principle)." [I do understand these theories, so you can stop throwing them out their in a smug way. I was in the top 98% on psych GRE which I realize is a joke of a test but I get the theories. I have also published as PI in a journal with a high IF and I've given a paper presentation at an APA conference. A "theory" of mine made it into "the oxford handbook of research strategies in clinical psychology" with a citation. And after this I decided I wasn't impressed enough with psychological theories to base my career around them. So I take what you say with a healthy grain of salt.]

Again, you are showing your hand here because it is not some "indirect" restriction. Just because you can't see the effects doesn't mean they aren't happening in a major way. Go back to my analogy. The problem is not that they are all hitting home runs, its that they don't even have to because they've paid off the ump with the money they've won in the previous game. Yet you think that's fair because they "earned" that money.

I gave a good real life example when I talked about the oil company inventing a safer drill that cost $$$ and lobbying congress to make it illegal to drill without out, therefore intentionally putting smaller companies out of business. You seem to be under the impression that this is an anomaly or some kind of "indirect" restriction. It's not. Its become the status quo. I'm happy to give you more of these examples, there are hundreds if not thousands out there.

I'm confused. Are you under the impression the socialism erradicates corruption?

 

[smalltownpsych]

As far as I understand socialism, the bolded is not technically true. Socialism is about making sure only those with the best aptitude and fit become therapists. The system wouldn't waste money (resources) on someone who is not "talented" enough to pull it off. For example, individuals are tested (in some countries) at 12, and (in more recent legislation) again at 16 to determine if they are bright enough to send on to college prep or if they should go to trade school. If you do not qualify at those times in your life to get into college prep, then you will never be a therapist.

That's even better. In that scenario, then I can start giving psychological tests with questionable predictive validity to people to determine who does what. We wouldn't want anyone to try to do something more than what the tests show they can now do we? What a Brave New World.

 

[Triken]

We need to stop having the same tired arguments we have heard debated our entire lives.

The example of the union was a good example. It was a new idea. It wasn't something that had failed in the past and been debated over and over. It was a response to a problem that had not been seen before.

That is the kind of thing I am suggesting. And with the economy shifting in dramatic ways, new interventions that had never been thought of, or were not possible, will become possible. But we have to get our priorities straight or we may miss the boat. If we can't all agree that the rich have too much power currently, we could be heading for troubled waters. I am certain that 99% of social workers would agree with me on this, but is becoming unclear to me whether we would do anything about it.

 

[erg923]

We need to stop having the same tired arguments we have heard debated our entire lives.

The example of the union was a good example. It was a new idea. It wasn't something that had failed in the past and been debated over and over. It was a response to a problem that had not been seen before.

That is the kind of thing I am suggesting. And with the economy shifting in dramatic ways, new interventions that had never been thought of, or were not possible, will become available. But we have to get our priorities straight or we won't be able to shift them. If we don't all agree that the rich have too much money and the poor have too little, we could be heading fir trouble. I am certain that 99% of social workers would agree that this is so, but it is unclear to me whether erg and others here think the same.

Do you think socialism erradicates corruption. Yes or no? Please explain your answer citing historical examples.

 

[erg923]

If we don't all agree that the rich have too much money and the poor have too little, we could be heading for trouble. I am certain that 99% of social workers would agree with me on this, but it is unclear to me whether erg and others of you think the same.

I belive the poor have too little. And I do believe that, from my own personal moral perspective, some wealthy individuals do not share enough. I do NOT believe I (or a government) have the authority to force them to share. That is not a free society.

 

[smalltownpsych]

We need to stop having the same tired arguments we have heard debated our entire lives.

The example of the union was a good example. It was a new idea. It wasn't something that had failed in the past and been debated over and over. It was a response to a problem that had not been seen before.

That is the kind of thing I am suggesting. And with the economy shifting in dramatic ways, new interventions that had never been thought of, or were not possible, will become possible. But we have to get our priorities straight or we may miss the boat. If we can't all agree that the rich have too much power currently, we could be heading for troubled waters. I am certain that 99% of social workers would agree with me on this, but it is unclear to me whether erg and others of you think the same.

I don't know if the rich have too much money is really the problem or that the poor have too little. I have worked with a lot of people in poverty and there are many more factors at work besides money. Also, money is connected to influence but I think that power and corruption is more of the issue. "Tax the rich feed the poor till there are no more poor" probably won't work for a lot of reasons. First of all, the people who collect the tax from the rich will take most of it themselves because the power to tax is the power to take and power corrupts. I like what you said about new ideas, but in order to do that you need to move past socialism since it is an old idea that would only work if people weren't in charge. An idea that was a founding principle of our system that has worked pretty well is the concept of balance of power. Just because the balance has shifted recently doesn't mean that we go to a solution that has not really been shown to work. It could also be argued that we are still more balanced than in the 1870s for instance so maybe it really is still working.

 

[smalltownpsych]

If our system is working, and by that I am referring to the principle of balance of powers (include state vs fed in this too), then the question becomes, "How do we best keep it moving forward?" These arguments about distribution of power have been going on since the first constitutional congress.

 

[Triken]

"An idea that was a founding principle of our system that has worked pretty well is the concept of balance of power. Just because the balance has shifted recently doesn't mean that we go to a solution that has not really been shown to work."

I disagree. Mainly because I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the shift. [And btw, I am not advocating socialism, I am suggesting the underlying principle of greater equality is a good one, especially in these times.]

Tell me, if there is a balance of power, who is checking the power of the ultra rich? As has been pointed out, the government basically functions to protect the interests of the top 1%. So who is it that is making sure they are not abusing their incredible amount of power?

 

[smalltownpsych]

I referred to the 1870s for a reason. I know that recently the power has shifted and am concerned about the dynamics of a plutocracy. I think it is helpful to get a bit more historical perspective. There was a trend like that in the 20s I believe but then the whole thing crashed. Some laws were passed to control some of the financial players, Glass-Steagel was one that comes to mind. It was repealed in the early 90s and this could be one thing to look at too. BTW government regulation of corporations is not socialism, it is a necessity.

 

[Harmos]

Amazing, I'm impressed by your idealism and vision, Triken, and despite quite a few people on this thread, hell-bent on sitting you down on this boat (that is the status quo), you seem determined to rock this boat and stand up for the poor and the powerless! Bravo!

 

[deleted480308]

"An idea that was a founding principle of our system that has worked pretty well is the concept of balance of power. Just because the balance has shifted recently doesn't mean that we go to a solution that has not really been shown to work."

I disagree. Mainly because I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the shift. [And btw, I am not advocating socialism, I am suggesting the underlying principle of greater equality is a good one, especially in these times.]

Tell me, if there is a balance of power, who is checking the power of the ultra rich? As has been pointed out, the government basically functions to protect the interests of the top 1%. So who is it that is making sure they are not abusing their incredible amount of power?

You act like those charts say something bad

 

[wesleysmith]

Amazing, I'm impressed by your idealism and vision, Triken, and despite quite a few people on this thread, hell-bent on sitting you down on this boat (that is the status quo), you seem determined to rock this boat and stand up for the poor and the powerless! Bravo!

Please elaborate. The status quo you speak of could be anything; his ideology of helping poor people is not anything anyone has tried to dissuade. His narrow view of social work and sloppy method (i.e., socialism) of executing his ideology has been the subject of debate.

 

[erg923]

Amazing, I'm impressed by your idealism and vision, Triken, and despite quite a few people on this thread, hell-bent on sitting you down on this boat (that is the status quo), you seem determined to rock this boat and stand up for the poor and the powerless! Bravo!

This is either an extremely myopic view of the issue or demonstrates poor reading comprehension on your part. Viewing them as "powerless" IS the problem. And it what this whole thread has been about.

All of us have advocated helping other human beings. Only one poster suggested socialist policy or a socialist government was the way to do that.

 

[Triken]

"This is either an extremely myopic view of the issue or demonstrates poor reading comprehension on your part. Viewing them as "powerless" IS the problem. And it what this whole thread has been about."

No. Changing the way we view people living in poverty is not going to put food on their table. But it's a convenient way for you to not have to do anything about it, and that is what he means by status quo.

"All of us have advocated helping other human beings. Only one poster suggested socialist policy or a socialist government was the way to do that."

How about instead of repeatedly calling me a socialist, you address one of the many specific points I made that you have managed to completely ignore.

Here's a simplistic, idiotic analogy:

In the stupid TV show survivor, when a tribe wins a competition they get food. The food then gives them more energy and they are more likely to win the next challenge. Often they do.

Is that fair? Maybe yes and maybe no. But the point of the analogy is that its not that one team won because they were more fit or able than the other team, its that they won primarily because they won the previous challenge. This is what happens in our economy. So the other team gets shut out and has no chance of winning. It makes the game less fun to watch, and less fun to participate in. It sucks for the other team who, because they (or their parents) weren't lucky/skillful enough to win the first round, are now ****ed.

To push the analogy further. Let's say the winning tribe gets a choice. Either more food, or letters from home. Both have equal weight for them, except that they know the food will give them an advantage in the next round, so they choose that.

It's that decision that I am against. It just seems anti... life? anti... freedom? anti... fairness? anti... equality??

Why not take the letters and go into the next challenge on equal footing?

The best is that we all have amnesia and forget that they took the food, and praise them repeatedly and get angry when someone suggests something isn't fair, or that we should help the losing team. (because that's blaming the victim, right erg? because we should just change how we view them, right erg? They have the strength to win! They just have to try harder! right erg?)