I don’t think it is getting in the way…but I understand what you mean.
My original point was not that there aren’t many in the ghetto making poor choices. I have to consent that there is. All of the points on that by you and other posters in this thread are well taken.
Of course. The question is not poverty. The question is accountability. Someone may be poor through no fault of his own. But when someone who is poor makes choices that are practically guaranteed to perpetuate that poverty, it’s fair to hold them accountable for it, especially in a society which sometimes takes away money from people who have made good choices (and as a result have money) and hands it to those who have made poor choices (and as a result have no money).
Garbage. Cause and effect are not magic pixies. An adult of ordinary reasoning capability can or should understand basic facts and reason to basic conclusions. This isn’t asking people to learn calculus by osmosis – it’s asking people to grasp the fact that if you’re living on any kind of government assistance or subsidy, or if you desire to increase your overall standard of living, spending thousands of dollars on tricked-out cars is not the answer.
Try this simple thought experiment. Picture asking any of the car owners we’re disccusing whether they believe their investment was a wise use of money. I am convinced that the vast majority would acknowledge that it wasn’t. Honestly – don’t you agree?
That puts the lie to your idea right there – most people in this circumstance KNOW that their choice is unwise. They do it anyway.
Two reasons: one relates to the presence of any kind of government sudsidy, as I mentioned above with respect to section 8 housing. I believe that if someone is taking money from the government based on their lack of resources, I have every right to judge their acqusition of expensive cars. In fact, because many programs (but not all) limit eligibility under those circumstances, I’d say that the public agrees with me – the “penalty” for making those choices can be exclusion from the program if discovered.
The second is that as a general principle, I impute to almost every person in impoverished circumstances a desire to change those circumstances. I suppose we can imagine someone simply not wanting to get out of poverty, but I think that’s a silly choice, And because foolish expenditures are calculated to keep you in poverty, I feel comfortable in judging them as… well… foolish choices.
As a general principle, I’m not a fan of any bailouts and subsidies offered by our government. There are some that don’t quite qualify as “subsidies,” because a tax cut is not a subsidy – it’s a reduction of what you’re taking away – and because it’s done to promote the economy in a specific area. I’m thinking primarily here of the tax deduction afforded to home interest payments. A “bailout” or “subsidy” involves giving money to the target he didn’t have before. I generally oppose those, and judge them harshly – just as I judge the extravagant car owner harshly.
And by the way – I believe I make a pretty good salary these days. What do I drive? An eleven-year-old car. And I’ll keep driving it until the repair costs rise to the point that buying a new car is indicated. Because, although I could pay cash for a new car tomorrow, there’s absolutely no reason to do so.
This is basically what I was going to say, stated more clearly. If you want to assert either that the unwise choices those people make are valid, or that poor urban areas are just as good as any other, fine. But a “valid” value-system or neighborhood should be self-sustaining (not in the closed-economy way, but simply not requiring free inputs from outside socieities). If you require outsiders to give free money to sustain that “valid” lifestyle, than you can’t expect them not make judgments about that community.
Put another way, if you’re asking for help, that implies that something’s wrong. Now, this does not necessarily mean morally wrong; certainly there are industrious and frugal people who are on down on their luck. At the same time, the mentality that says “Give me money, no questions asked,” is not going to get a lot of sympathy.
Please forgive me…I seem to have lost track of this conversation, but, is there anyone here that has stated that people who are getting free money shouldn’t expect the outsiders that are giving them that free money to make judgements?
Has anyone at all even suggested that an attitude of “give me money, no questions asked” is ok?
I am starting to get the odd feeling that people are using this topic to start getting certain things off of their chest that they often want to say.
I haven’t even brought up those in my neighborhood who actually are on welfare, but even among them, I don’t know any with the attitude “give me money, no questions asked” cause, oh yes, there is gonna be plenty of questions asked.
How did this become a conversation of those on welfare? Is it not obvious to people outside of the ghetto that most of the people in the ghetto are not on welfare?
It does not bother me. What bothers me is when certain journalists/ideologues bemoan discrepancies in rentals vs. home ownership, quality of life in certain neighborhoods, lagging rate of wealth-building, and want to blame it on racism or discriminatory housing or lending practices.
Those things exist, I’m sure, but damn, if someone has wheels that cost more than I paid for my car, and a car stereo that cost more than my home stereo, they don’t get to complain that I have a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood. I have driven a crap car for 10 years to be able to afford this house. And it bothers me especially because I do want to see more wealth equality in the USA, but the people who would benefit most from it seem to have their priorities at cross purposes.
If you can afford a nice car, great. But the opportunity cost of owning a car that costs $50k+ is going to Europe, or having years and years and years worth of Christmas trees with presents under them or even leaving poverty. There probably aren’t a lot of people on this board who couldn’t change the quality of their life with $50k if given the opportunity. There are probably a lot of people who if they were given $50k would buy a nice car and a trip to Rome and not change their life.
[hijack rant]
We have gotten so entitled to our “luxuries” that we think everyone needs a nice car, a flat screen TV, a cell phone, a Starbucks latte, a yearly vacation - and that cuts across all classes. I hang on a budget board and it amazes me - these are mostly middle class white people - ‘they are about to foreclose on my home, and I can’t cut my budget.’ Then they post their budget. Can’t give up Friday night pizza, its the kid’s one treat. Can’t give up Netflix - we stopped going to movies a while ago. Can’t give up cable, my husband needs to see the games. Can’t give up my morning latte, how would I get going each morning. Can’t not fly across the country to see Grandma this year - its family - and we HAVE to bring gifts. (And don’t get me started on ‘the bank is going to kick us out, but we can’t stop tithing because God gives back.’
[/hijack rant]
I just have to say that the idea that anyone is “entitled” to luxuries kind of befuddles me. Isn’t the point of luxuries that they’re unnecessary and no one deserves them? I don’t deserve to have a neat car or even to get Wendy’s on the way home instead of cooking dinner. If I can pay for them, fine, but I have to keep in mind that $20 on dinner today is $20 less tomorrow on something that might be more important. No one deserves luxuries. They’re not a right. (Heck, half the time they’re bad for you.)
I have to disagree with this. Yes you do deserve luxuries. Yes you do. Not a ton of them, not all the time, not the most decadent luxuries in the world…but yes, if you are a smart, morally upright, hardworking, taxpaying, best intention having, law abiding citizen, you do deserve to experience instances of a condition of abundance or great ease and comfort…something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary…
You do deserve that. In my opinion.
If you choose not to take any luxuries at all, then I won’t look down on you or anything.
In the eyes of most of the world, all of us live in luxury. We have hot and cold running water, a way to preserve food, heat in the winter, an uncrowded place to sleep, some measure of privacy, books to read, enough to eat, flush toilets, ways to communicate around the world, electricity.
It’s a matter of perspective.
I didn’t feel like spending 5 bucks for the article (luxury good?) but here’s the abstract:
Agreed. Please let’s not start, “we have so much as it is in this country…” please let us not do this when the discussion is the most poor of our society…
Those in parts of the world that don’t have running water, heat in winter, books to read…they take luxuries too from their own perspective.
If you watch some of the documentaries that I have, you will see that even some so-called primative tribes that are really wondering how they will eat through the season still make time for feasts and celebrations.
A fancy new car is not a luxury to a multi-millionaire in the way that it is to poor man…but a millionaire may indulge in a yacht. Of course it is perspective.
I think it is sad there are some people in some places that truly never can have any luxuries at all. Because they really do deserve some.
Deserve, or entitled?
People can want whatever they want. And they can buy whatever they can afford - though it would benefit more people to understand the concept of opportunity cost. And we can claim that we ‘deserve’ something. But we are entitled to very little - more, in my opinion, philosophically than we are entitled to legally. We are entitled to be treated with respect. We should be entitled (in my opinion) to not starve homeless in the streets and some level of medical care - but we aren’t and I’m a little left on that point. We are entitled to an education for our kids through high school.
Deserve is a lesser more emotional concept. I may be a wonderful person with a beautiful neck who deserves a $200,000 Cartier necklace (and I am), but that doesn’t mean I can have one. Deserve means to be worthy of. Entitled means have a right to.
Because all human beings have worth, its hard to say that someone isn’t worthy of driving a nice car while someone else is. A human being’s worth is not equal to his financial net worth. I have a hard time with the word “deserve” around material possessions for that reason. You are either entitled to the car by right of possession (literally, you have title to it legally) or you don’t. From there we get into the whole “what was the opportunity cost of driving that car.”
I could go out tomorrow and purchase that $200,000 Cartier necklace. I “deserve” it. I’d have to drain the kid’s college funds and cash in a bunch of stock, but I could do it in cash. At that point, I’m entitled to it. But what I’d be giving up for that necklace - my kid’s college, a much nicer retirement, a cushion for when one of us is out of work - isn’t worth the necklace.
Why would we discount the perspective of third world poor while simultaneously comparing the poverty stricken first world ghetto to the first world upper middle class? I live in a pretty nice neighborhood and no one around her drives really nice cars - its the neighborhood up the street where the homes cost another $200k where the BMWs and Escalade’s live.
Deserve. I used that word in direct response to Dangermom, because that is the word she chose.
In what way did I discount them? I may not understand what discount means.
By discount, Dangerosa means that you don’t want to include them in this discussion, as in your comment:
I have to admit that we seem to be wandering around the map in this thread, but you are too. You said upthread that not everyone you’re talking about in your neighborhood is on welfare, though some probably are, and then here in this post you refer to the “most poor” of our society. The most poor would be a subset of your community, presumably. I have a hard time understanding how the “most poor” in an urban setting would NOT resort to public assistance, since they’d see others around them making use of it, and there ought to be no stigma attached. If you can shed some light on the possible contradiction, I’d be interested to hear it.
Also, I think it’s important to say just what “our society” is in the context of this discussion. If we are to limit it to the US, that’s okay. But then there is urban poverty vs rural poverty. Is this supposed to be limited to urban poverty? I think it will help clarify the perspectives behind certain statements and help avoid painting with too broad a brush.
Lastly… I’ve re-read some of your posts here, and what comes across to me is that you are trying very hard to focus on the positive. That’s not a bad thing, but it does come across as a little pollyanna-ish as far as human behavior goes. Again, that’s just my opinion.
I respect your opinion, but I have to crack up at the idea that I could be pollyanna-ish about ghetto life. Ha!
I will say this one more time, then I will leave it alone. Because I am even annoying myself with the beating a dead horse dance I am dancing.
I referred in my OP to the working poor. I was specifically making the point that not all people in the ghettoes are on welfare or drug dealers. Why would those that are on welfare even have to enter the equation for the purposes of the OP?
And I did address the poor of other countries! I very clearly made my point to counter hers. I meant by “lets not start” that I didn’t want anyone to cop out with the 'we have so much in this country!" attitude. The fact that we have it better in this country than others have it in other countries is irrellavent.
Well, I used the word “deserve” because you did, upthread. Your claim is that poor people deserve luxuries just as rich people do, and my claim is that no one deserves luxuries. We may buy them or not, as our finances and wants drive us, we may go into bankruptcy over stupid purchases on the shopping channel or save every possible penny.
But I really feel that this notion of “deserving” extra things is something that is way overdone in our society, and it’s driven by advertising and consumerism. Yes, of course every society has a harvest feast and so on, but we live in a society where there is constant pressure to consume and buy worthless or even harmful products “because you deserve it.” “Go on–you deserve it.” It’s a slogan used for everything from chocolate to diamonds.
As human beings, we have certain rights. We are entitled to those rights, and when they are taken away, it’s criminal. But that’s not at all the same thing as deserving material objects because we like them. I will freely admit to buying more luxuries than I need (chocolate comes to mind), as everyone does in this country, but overconsumption of needless goods is a big problem for us, and the less money we have, the more of a problem it is, financially speaking. (As far as emotional healthiness goes, consumerism is a serious problem among all income levels.)
I think the confusion is about what “deserve” really means. Some people use it to mean “to be entitled to something according to one’s station in life” while others use it to mean "to be entitled to something according to the work they have applied toward it.
In the latter context, if I make enough money to afford either a BMW or a house, then I deserve one or the other, but not both. I haven’t worked for both.
In the former context, everyone deserves everything. Race or class should be no prohibition of what status symbols you can possess. There’s no reason a white CEO of a big company deserves anything that lower-income people don’t deserve.
The problem is that some people put great importance on material possessions and feel that there are “rules” regarding material acquisition. For example, the assumption is that you have to get the house first, then the car, then the big-screen TV. In this way, we can quickly judge someone’s class by looking at their possessions. Someone who owns a BMW (for example) therefore gets upset when someone of a putatively lower class breaks the “rules” by putting all their money into a BMW. Now the guy with the nice house on the golf course drives the same class of car as the guy in the ghetto, and it drives him bonkers, because he spent all that money specifically for the appearance of being in an exclusive class.
People rarely are conscious of why this upsets them. They can’t admit to themselves that they bought the car to be a member of an exclusive class, and that this strategy failed. They can’t simply admit that buying a nice car is something that is actually in reach of most people, or that the appearance of status has no bearing on character. Instead they must invent some narrative that puts the other person back in his place, that he must be a drug dealer, etc. This is called the status treadmill and it has happened with a number of products… eventually the brand gets diluted and the “high status” people will not buy them anymore. Curiously this has not happened much with cars except maybe with the Cadillac, probably because cars are the most persistent and metaphorically appropriate symbol of class mobility.
In the U.K. most of the drug dealers seem to be white,home grown Brits.