The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index The Perseus Books Group Message Boards
Book discussion forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

I find it hard to recommend this book
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Who Really Cares? by Arthur Brooks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TekDragon



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:56 am    Post subject: I find it hard to recommend this book Reply with quote

I attempted to use the argument that conservatives donate more than liberals and used this book as a source (I got the link off DrudgeReport).

I was rebuffed by the simple question "Where did he get his statistics from". Well, to answer that question I came to this website and found, sure enough, a topic on Statistics.

Unfortunately nothing about the source of the statistics was provided. As far as anyone knows, the "statistics" are either from unprofessional sources or completely made up.

I was forced to concede the point that I have no proof that conservatives donate more and that this book has as much chance of being pure fantasy as it does being real.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dividingbyzero



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean to say that you, who have not read this book, cannot recommend this book because a brief blurb on the statistics contained within does not provide you with all the information that you would find when you actually do read the book?

Makes perfect sense to me!

It's important to not explore anyone's assertions unless the evidence can be presented on one side of an 8 by 10 inch glossy with circles and arrows and pie charts.

[edited to correct for typos]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Knight whu says ne



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:17 pm    Post subject: Re: I find it hard to reccomend this book Reply with quote

TekDragon wrote:
I attempted to use the argument that conservatives donate more than liberals and used this book as a source (I got the link off DrudgeReport).

I was rebuffed by the simple question "Where did he get his statistics from". Well, to answer that question I came to this website and found, sure enough, a topic on Statistics.

Unfortunately nothing about the source of the statistics was provided. As far as anyone knows, the "statistics" are either from unprofessional sources or completely made up.

I was forced to concede the point that I have no proof that conservatives donate more and that this book has as much chance of being pure fantasy as it does being real.


Using the fact that the source of the statistics are not included in the web site is a strawman arguement for not recommending the book, especially since you can neither prove nor disprove the findings. Is the real reason you wouldn't recommend the book because you don't agree with Dr. Brooks conclusion? Are you afraid to have your biasd beliefs revealed as incorrect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Assistant Village Idiot



Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Posts: 1
Location: New Hampshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:55 am    Post subject: Recommendation Reply with quote

Agree with 2 & 3 versus 1. Why did you expect the website to be footnoted with discussion of methodology? Don't blame the author for your lack of initiative.
_________________
After 20 years "postliberal" sums it up best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jeffca19



Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm    Post subject: Who really DOES care? Reply with quote

What first attracted my attention to this book was the national press release for this book, where it stated "religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals...". While comparing liberal giving to conservative giving may be an interesting comparison, the quoted statistic using religious vs. secular struck me as an unfair comparison. In an October 2003 article by Arthur Brooks in the Policy Review, he states that religious liberals give and volunteer at rates comparable to religious conservatives. Now that is an apples to apples comparison but it would tend to take a lot of the "excitement" from the book promotion. Does the book compare secular conservatives to religious liberals? Probably not.

I also wonder why the press release didn't contain the findings found on Mr. Brooks' own web page showing that the "working poor" give more to charity than either the middle and upper class. That statistic wouldn't excite his conservative audience either, I guess. And while Mr. Brooks tries to come off as a neutral observer "shocked" by the results of his studies, all the other articles he has written on the internet shows he has no love for the liberals (one article entitled "The Fertility Gap" predicts the demise of the liberal party because they were having 41% fewer babies than the conservatives!).

I question the need for this book: if you are giving your money and time to those in need out of true unselfish compassion, why do you need to pump yourself up by compare yourself to others? If you have a need to compare and judge and belittle others, I really question that you are that compassionate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thenrich



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:40 am    Post subject: what jeffca19 sayed Reply with quote

what jeffca19 sayed


Policy Review October 2003

he says
Quote:

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so.


and

Quote:

While differences in charitable behavior are not particularly apparent between left and right per se, my findings dosuggest that, if secularists play an increasing role in the direction of the Democratic Party, indifference (or even hostility) to private charity willprobably rise within that party.


I complete reading of the article
will suggest that if we expect a scholor to back up his ideas with evidance he probably fails.

one more

Quote:

While it appears inseparable from religion, charitable activity does not inherently privilege a particular political ideology.


I understand why conservatives are afraid of progress but simply saying that in the 60's there was an increase in liberalism (here and in europe) and a decrease in faith (likewise) doesn't connect the two. If Christianity and liberalism (or progressism if you must call it that) are were antithetical no one would have listened to Martin Luther King. [/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agis1



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Location: Manhattan, KS

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Using Internal Revenue Service data on the percentage of household income given away in each state, we can see that the red states are more charitable than the blue states.


as far as where he gets his stats...i'd say from the IRS. i would assume that this is from accumulated tax returns. i don't know for sure, but that is my assumption. imo, this book creates a lot of relationships between policial/religious affiliation and charitable giving. how you want to perceive these relationships is up to you but i recommend that you take a step back and assess it fairly instead of one-sided.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CityLiberal



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 pm    Post subject: Lying with statistics? Reply with quote

According to CNN cost of living calculator:

Salary in New York (Manhattan) NY: $100,000
Comparable salary in Marshall County AL: $43,046.48

If you move from New York (Manhattan) NY to Marshall County AL...

Groceries will cost: 28.77% less
Housing will cost: 78.669% less
Utilities will cost: 41.379% less
Transportation will cost: 20.983% less
Healthcare will cost: 39.198% less

Nearly 50% of all liberals live in (more expensive) urban areas, while nearly 50% of all conservatives live in the (less expensive) south. So what I want to know is, did the writer compare apples to apples? Are his income groups set up to account for cost of living? When calculating percentage of income given to charity does he use income after taxes and cost of living? If he does, then he needs to compare New York liberals who make $100,000 with Alabama conservatives who make closer to $40,000. I think we'll see a much different picture. Otherwise, he is just lying with statistics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agis1



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Location: Manhattan, KS

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 3:36 pm    Post subject: stats Reply with quote

saying that libs/cons are split 50/50 in urban/rural areas...(sorry for all of the "/")...assuming those stats are true, which i don't, then it would be safe to say that income is evenly distributed across the political spectrum. so the samples gathered for the charitable giving would be considered a true sample of the population, meaning you can use the stats given.

you are trying to show that it is not a politically driven connection, by saying that there are equal numbers of libs/cons in every area, but polls show otherwise. (hence the term red/blue state).

also, there are obviously more people living on the coasts than the midwest. the people on the coasts(blue states) are earning more money than the red states as you have just mentioned. you make an interesting economical point, however, i briefly looked up average state income and the lowest ten states for income were those states that had the highest charitable giving. also, looking at the richest counties in the usa, CA, NY, and CO(three states that had below average donations) have at least 5 counties each.
i just don't understand how all of the big cities; la, nyc, san fran, pretty much all of california, denver, etc...could have all of this money and not give it to charity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CityLiberal



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

agis1,
You missed my point completely.

The point is if you just look at income, people who live in cities seem richer than people who live in rural areas. However, the cost of living in a city is also higher. So at the end of the day, all those 'rich' city dwellers have a lot less money to give away than it seems. Rents are higher, food costs more, taxes are higher, etc.

So what is left over to give away is much less than if they were making the same salary and living in a rural or suburban area.

Since the cities are more liberal, that skews the liberal charity number. Unless the author accounted for that, then his 'data' is just phoney.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agis1



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 3
Location: Manhattan, KS

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i understand your point. what i was saying was that the ten poorest states, including alabama from your example, are at the bottom of the barrel. using your data, the 100K from NY is comparable to 43K in AL, which is still 7K above the average income in AL. i understand that your saying cost of living is higher in urban areas, however wages go up as well. i live in the midwest, as you can see, and we're not all eating cavier and drinking champagne b/c of our lower cost of living b/c our wages are also lower. there is a correlation, believe it or not.

now using your point that 43K is what the urban dwellers would need to survive, and rural dwellers are making less than that but still giving to charities, how much would the rural dweller give living in an urban area w/ a comparable income?

finally, in your first post you said that libs are split 50/50 in urban/rural areas, and then in your last post you say the cities are mostly liberal, which is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Barb



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've never worked for an academician who didn't footnote ad nauseum. I'd suggest you check the references in the book for info.
Barb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CityLiberal



Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

agis1,
Actually, I did not say it was 50/50 urban/rural. I said 50% urban. Between the three types: urban, suburban, and rural, my understanding is that liberals are only in the neighborhood of 20% to 25% rural.

But again, my point is simply that you cannot simply compare giving by income, because cost of living varies widely in the US, and will skew the numbers in favor of rural dwellers.

He needs to run the numbers according to:
Discretionary Income - This is equal to total income minus taxes and the cost of the fixed expenses of life (such as rent/mortgage, food, car payments, insurance, etc.). It is income that can be saved or spent on goods and services wanted, not needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anonymous
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:14 am    Post subject: The Numbers Tell All Reply with quote

OK. The numbers cited here aren't all that accurate. Sorry, but CNN isn't the real arbiter of facts. But let's take CNNs values at face value (from CityLiberal's post above).

IF a salary in NYC of $100,000, is equal to a "comparable" salary in Marshall County AL of $43,046.48, THEN:

If you do move from New York (Manhattan) NY to Marshall County AL...

Your salary will be 56.95% LOWER. That means:

Groceries will COST YOU comparatively a LOT MORE.
Housing will cost NOTABLY LESS.
Utilities will COST YOU comparatively a LOT MORE
Transportation COST YOU comparatively a LOT MORE
Healthcare will COST YOU comparatively a LOT MORE

Simply put, the poor folks in Marshall County, AL have to pay a bigger chunk of their salary for Groceries, Utilities, Transportation and Healthcare than the nice folks in New York, NY. They get a break on housing, but wow, does that paycheck fly out the window in Marshall County.

So I wonder, just why do these folks give so much more than their counterparts in NYC? Values? Religion? Just good people?

Whatever the reason, the CNN math says that cash strapped Marshall County folks dig much deeper than those in Manhattan.

Is it Liberalism, or just the "I don't care about others" attitude of the big cities? As an ex New Yorker (who still drives to see games at the Stadium), I'd say the two go hand in hand. I have personally given more since leaving the big city, and my politics haven't changed. My New York friends seem to hold on to old city attitudes -- that it truly is government's job to deal with society's problems.

Happy New Year to all. And give generously before the tax year is up...
Back to top
robert



Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:02 pm    Post subject: Why the book's important Reply with quote

There are both political and personal concerns here. The personal, I take care of in my own actions. But isnít the thrust of the book (and Iím not complaining) that current liberalism is heavily allied with statism, and statism is dehumanizing?

Although a nit here or there might be rectified, the weight of the argument seems to hold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Who Really Cares? by Arthur Brooks All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP