# Confronting the ''Culture of the Poor'' Ideology **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578 "2013-04-01T22:34:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/21 "2013-04-02T10:57:59Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I have a sister who works as a manager for a big shipping company. Most of her employees are working-class folk. High school educated, many with minor criminal backgrounds, many quite familiar with welfare programs. > > We got to talking about her work one day. One thing she said that struck me was that everyone is generally hard working, but that some of her employees have inherited behaviors that make sense given their context, but are so anti-middle class that it’s not funny.. . . > > So yeah, in terms of rising out of poverty, it is a bad choice to choose family drama over work. But if you’re already poor, siding with family will always seem like the wisest choice. Family is your insurance policy when you can’t afford a real one. I see this with my students. Having family/community as your insurance policy is incredibly comforting and important, but it’s also a crab-bucket kind of thing as well: yes, if your tire blows out, everyone will band together and chip in and find you a used tire, and that’s great, but if you get a $2 raise and a bump to keyholder at your job, your extra income is just going to help other people’s emergencies. And from one point of view, you’d be a jerk to do otherwise: they helped you. But it means that there’s precious little incentive for ambition, and no one can build up the reserves to get to the point that a tire blowing out isn’t a Big Deal. Which brings me to: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From a certain POV, your way of life is better but your friend’s is . . . well . . . healthier. A deeply internalized social/psychological pressure to constantly be striving and improving – isn’t that a kind of sickness?! How can anyone live happily that way?! > > I remember when East Germany collapsed, media reported that the people were bewildered because up that point, in a Stalinist-Communist society, “their lives had been on autopilot.” Well, yes and no. Only the basic-economic aspects of their lives were on autopilot (i.e., state-managed); leaving them free to live without **worrying** about those aspects from day to day. There really is something to be said for that, even if constant expansion of the economy is not one of the things to be said for it. But what people trade for that pressure to strive and improve is, instead, a constant low-level stress about how close they are to disaster. It’s _awful_ to be riding around town on four bald tires and no idea how you will cope when one eventually goes. It’s terrible to go through life with a bad tooth you can’t get fixed. It’s a terrible grinding weight to know that if anything happens that suddenly demands $20–a lost library book, a higher than expected utility bill, anything–you are screwed. In poverty, you get so used to this stress that you don’t realize it’s not universal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not stress. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/22 "2013-04-02T11:48:31Z")
> [@panaccione](#): > > So you’re saying that we should ensure that people receive enough cash, either through a negative tax or a simple handout, in order to alleviate poverty? > > I think all that will manage is to keep people comfortable. While that’s not a bad option, as I’m opposed to kicking people out on the streets, I’m sceptical. It’s nice to give people the freedom to make their own choices. I’m sure many would make the right ones, but a lot of others would not. > > In fact, it could turn out to be a disincentive for those who are happy managing to just get by. That will piss of a lot of people who are having their tax dollars squandered, and the system will most likely fail due to it’s ineffectiveness. > > There needs to be structure. For example, it’s clear that education is integral to the foundation of our society. I believe that every person is born with an inherent passion to learn. The smarter we become, the better the world becomes. > > The difference here is that my view takes away much of the liberty that your people would receive. However, I still prefer my option because I don’t think picking the right programs is all that complicated. It would most likely be a trial and error process, but that’s just the way it is. No one is going to be satisfied with every decision that’s made, but I still prefer this system to the alternative. > > It’s an objective fact that we all need things like food, shelter, healthcare, and a variety of other services. Social programs can form the foundation of our society. Take care of that, and you can free up the market for more creative endeavours since it will not be such a risk anymore. > > So, I think that the poverty we see is more of a product of our environment. However, the paradox lies in the fact that peoples individual choices make up our environment. My whole point is that just because we’re giving someone an income subsidy I don’t see why it’s anyone’s concern what they do with it. I’m a conservative, pro-market guy. However I think a decent portion of our government programs could realistically be replaced with a negative income tax, with the government basically being a middle man taking money from the wealthiest and giving it to people below some income threshold (the lower their income, the more they get.) This is one of those things no one would ever expect to see actually implemented, because society has “bought in” to the current bureaucratic model too much such that any reforms too radical would never happen. But the way I see it, the difference between a middle class person who becomes rich and a poor person who never becomes rich is luck and the financial safety net to not become destitute from a few bad decisions. If we give people an income subsidy they have the same opportunity to get lucky as anyone else. If you take away all people born into rich families or people born into borderline rich families (and that right away is more rich people than you might imagine, it’s the rare doctor / lawyer born to welfare parents) the people who become wealthy are supremely lucky. Many of them will tell you that, Warren Buffet has said many times that he lives in a society that dramatically values his ability to value stocks over other tasks and that’s a significant part of the reason he’s so wealthy, but he also notes that luck played a big hand in his making it big as well. I don’t think we’ll magically make people better decision makers by giving them an income subsidy, but that’s not the point. The middle class don’t make great decisions either, most people make poor decisions and have bad luck. The role of government should be to alleviate the situation of the poor, and not try to fix behavior in them that we haven’t fixed in higher income people either. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/23 "2013-04-02T15:48:05Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > But for every loser spending his SSDI payment on hookers and blow and then complaining he can’t afford the $2 Medicare copay for his heart medicine, there are a dozen who are paying their bills, giving their grandkids a couple of bucks in their birthday card, and offering me fruit from their Meals on Wheels delivery to take home to my little girl because they’re generous and lovely people. > > I’m unwilling to punish the stupid and evil by hurting the merely unfortunate. But I thought what the OP was saying was that this is a false dichotomy: there’s another possibility besides “stupid and evil” or “merely unfortunate.” Generous and lovely people can still make stupid, self-sabotaging choices, sometimes because they don’t know any better or are behaving in ways that are considered normal within their (disfunctional) culture. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/24 "2013-04-02T16:07:25Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > But I thought what the OP was saying was that this is a false dichotomy: there’s another possibility besides “stupid and evil” or “merely unfortunate.” Generous and lovely people can still make stupid, self-sabotaging choices, sometimes because they don’t know any better or are behaving in ways that are considered normal within their (disfunctional) culture. Sometimes because they are behaving in ways that have proven rational and beneficial, perhaps in a past time or place. What good does scraping every penny together, or living on potatoes to save for the future do when tomorrow President X could announce all bank accounts over 10grand are going to be nationalized to pay for the new coke and hooker palace? What if political instability could wipe out your property? Would things like this happening to people you know, or your parents change your rational assessments? How many horror stories would change your risk assessment. I think you need about two or three generations with almost perfect stability, that were rewarded for saving, before people start taking it for granted. Or not everyone has the same life experience or examples to draw on. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/25 "2013-04-02T16:13:05Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Getting the middle class to worry about the irresponsible behavior of poor people is a way to deflect attention from the irresponsible behavior of rich people. It is easier to make middle class people resent poor people, they see more of them and can more easily wrap their head around the issue of welfare fraud. Trying to get someone angry at a hypothetical person who pays less proportional income tax than a waitress at Waffle House is hard. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/26 "2013-04-02T16:19:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > My whole point is that just because we’re giving someone an income subsidy I don’t see why it’s anyone’s concern what they do with it. I’m a conservative, pro-market guy. However I think a decent portion of our government programs could realistically be replaced with a negative income tax, with the government basically being a middle man taking money from the wealthiest and giving it to people below some income threshold (the lower their income, the more they get.) > > I don’t think we’ll magically make people better decision makers by giving them an income subsidy, but that’s not the point. The middle class don’t make great decisions either, most people make poor decisions and have bad luck. The role of government should be to alleviate the situation of the poor, and not try to fix behavior in them that we haven’t fixed in higher income people either. I agree with much of this except you seem to be focused on giving\* things _to the poor instead of giving them_ jobs \*(which may not be what you intended to express). The vast majority of people in the modern US have been given jobs, they didn’t make those jobs themselves. Certainly we should guarantee that the necessities of life are provided to the poor, but more importantly they need a reasonable opportunity to earn their keep. When the jobs are available I don’t give a rat’s ass about those who are able but refuse to work, and wouldn’t care if their children are taken from them so that such behavior does not become generational. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/27 "2013-04-02T16:37:32Z")
In all the posts in this thread, how many suggestions were there for helping the poor find higher paying jobs as opposed to suggesting new and interesting ways to redistribute income? If it was just a matter of giving the poor money, we would have solved poverty a long time ago. While there is a benefit to providing social safety nets, if you are only giving people fish instead of teaching them how to fish, you aren’t solving the problem. You are just creating a permanent entitled underclass. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/28 "2013-04-02T16:41:10Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > In all the posts in this thread, how many suggestions were there for helping the poor find higher paying jobs as opposed to suggesting new and interesting ways to redistribute income? > > If it was just a matter of giving the poor money, we would have solved poverty a long time ago. While there is a benefit to providing social safety nets, if you are only giving people fish instead of teaching them how to fish, you aren’t solving the problem. You are just creating a permanent entitled underclass. I used to think this way but I think there’s room in our system, with such outsized rewards for the wealthiest, to redistribute a living wage to the poor and not try to ‘create jobs.’ Government is terrible at creating jobs in the first place, if we’re going to tax people let’s just take some of the money and distribute it to the poor. I’ve seen little evidence government has a great success at “teaching people to fish.” ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/29 "2013-04-02T16:42:53Z")
The problem with “get them a job” is twofold: 1. At present, we have more jobseekers than jobs. 2. Some jobs pay too little to live on. Establishing a minimum floor under which your income could not fall would alleviate help the social problems generated by 1 and 2. It wouldn’t completely eliminate them, but it would help. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/30 "2013-04-02T16:48:41Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The problem with “get them a job” is twofold: > > 1. At present, we have more jobseekers than jobs. > 2. Some jobs pay too little to live on. > > Establishing a minimum floor under which your income could not fall would alleviate help the social problems generated by 1 and 2. It wouldn’t completely eliminate them, but it would help. I’m not saying get them a job, I’m saying give them a job. Make the jobs, give them a paycheck instead of just a check. Even if they do nothing productive make sure they go to work, develop and demonstrate work skills. If real jobs become available some day at least they will be prepared. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/31 "2013-04-02T16:56:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From a certain POV, your way of life is better but your friend’s is . . . well . . . healthier. A deeply internalized social/psychological pressure to constantly be striving and improving – isn’t that a kind of sickness?! How can anyone live happily that way?! > > I remember when East Germany collapsed, media reported that the people were bewildered because up that point, in a Stalinist-Communist society, “their lives had been on autopilot.” Well, yes and no. Only the basic-economic aspects of their lives were on autopilot (i.e., state-managed); leaving them free to live without **worrying** about those aspects from day to day. There really is something to be said for that, even if constant expansion of the economy is not one of the things to be said for it. There is staggering ignorance in this post. One gains happiness from constant striving by constant small success..ie; positive reinforcement. Also, the lessening of stress and fear just might increase happiness. People living in Eastern Europe were never free to live there lives without worrying about basic day to day economic necessity. Almost all consumer goods and foodstuffs were in short supply if available at all. They were forced to stand on line for hours to acquire whatever meager supplies were on hand. And in exchange for this so-called economic security, they surrendered all their freedom. They couldnt assemble in groups, they couldnt watch or read what they wanted, they couldnt travel. There was nothing attractive about life in the East. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/32 "2013-04-02T17:17:43Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Getting the middle class to worry about the irresponsible behavior of poor people is a way to deflect attention from the irresponsible behavior of rich people. Amen. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/33 "2013-04-02T17:53:49Z")
Nobody has mentioned the immense amount of money squandered by this country on its military. We have had (essentially) a war economy since 1960-we now have troops all around the world-and a Navy that is larger than all of the world’s navies combined. We have blown \>2 TRILLION$$ of the last two wars-while Europe gets by without all of this waste. Compare Hiroshima Japan, with Detroit-and realize that The USA won WWII-shocking. Imagine if we actually spent this money on infrastructure, schools, etc.? Yet we are convinced that iompoverishing ourselves on an enormous military makes us 'more secure". ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/34 "2013-04-02T17:57:02Z")
**ralph** , did someone mention lack of money as the problem? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/35 "2013-04-02T18:10:31Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Nobody has mentioned the immense amount of money squandered by this country on its military. … > Imagine if we actually spent this money on infrastructure, schools, etc.? Yet we are convinced that iompoverishing ourselves on an enormous military makes us 'more secure". Suppose I were to suggest that the United States spends more on education per capita than any other country in the history of the world. It’s a common liberal dogma that we waste unimaginable sums on military spending while our schools scrape buy with barely a penny. The reality is that we waste unimaginable sums on military spending and waste unimaginable sums on education, but don’t get good results to show for it. Likewise we waste unimaginable sums on nearly everything else that liberals like spending money on, but we don’t get much to show for it. The notion that the richest nation in the history of the world is “impoverish” itself is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Dendarii\_Dame](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbce88/32.png) [@Dendarii\_Dame](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dendarii_Dame)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/36 "2013-04-02T18:20:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’d say the best solution is dispersal. Just because we have poor people does not mean we have to have poor neighborhoods. Poor people should not be required, indeed should not be allowed, to live next door to other poor people. You didn’t have an emoticon here, but you aren’t serious, are you? How would you enforce this? (Knock on door) “John Doe? Your income’s below the poverty level, and so is your neighbor Richard Roe’s. One of you must move.” To where? Also, what if the neighbors are also related? Now, if I understand Section 8 correctly, it’s supposed to enable poor people to move into better neighborhoods. However, IIRC, there’s a waiting list for it. Am I correct that the earned-income tax credit is essentially a negative income tax? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/37 "2013-04-02T18:22:36Z")
One of the things I’ve fairly recently become aware of is the staggering health gap between the rich and poor, a gap that isn’t explained by poor decisions at all, but by something environmental. There are studies showing that just where you grew up has an enormous impact on your life span and health, regardless of how smart you were about what you did with your life. So what? So, if you can look around you and see people making good choices and (admittedly) more people making bad choices and they all are sicker and die sooner than the people in the suburbs, and good decisions are hard while bad decisions are easy, well, I’m not sure that it’s not rational to make “bad” decisions, especially if it stresses you less in the short term. If two mice are in a maze with a block of cheese, the mouse who just sits and eats the cheese isn’t necessarily making a poor choice in relation to the mouse who scurries around searching for the way out only to come back and collapse at the fat mouse’s feet after a lifetime of striving. The stress that Manda JO is talking about is huge. Its impact on the health and lifespan of people in poverty is so large that its full extent is unknown. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/38 "2013-04-02T18:26:13Z")
> [@grude](#): > > It is easier to make middle class people resent poor people, they see more of them and can more easily wrap their head around the issue of welfare fraud. Trying to get someone angry at a hypothetical person who pays less proportional income tax than a waitress at Waffle House is hard. Not when he’s your jackass boss who hands himself a huge raise while telling you he can’t afford to pay for family medical insurance so your kids can see a doctor when sick. It is entirely possible to loath the way some poor people behave without wanting to see people homeless and hungry as punishment. My idiot brother is currently without a job. He’s an able-bodied 38 year old who labors under the delusion that people care more about his grades in a local college he’s been attending for about a decade than the fact that he’s been unemployed for over two years and sponging off my dad. I despise him. He could easily find a job from the numerous job leads I’ve sent him. While they don’t pay a lot, they would enable him to at least pay something to my dad and have some sense of respect. Instead he makes all sorts of bs excuses and whines the jobs don’t pay enough. I’ll say this for him: he’s not getting direct welfare. He also hasn’t fathered any children or served jail time. But he has the same mindset. He does not save. He’s careless with money and only not out on the streets because my dad has been generously allowing him to live rent free with access to a refrigerator full of food for over two years. He’s so lazy he doesn’t help out around the house in any real way. My dad’s almost eighty and has to hire a maid. I still don’t want him to without food, shelter or medical care. Although I have to admit I would be hard-pressed to know what to do should my elderly father die and said bro came to my house asking for shelter. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/39 "2013-04-02T18:50:53Z")
Wow. Lives rent free and doesn’t pay for food and still doesn’t help out with cleaning or housework and forces Dad to _hire a maid?!_ :dubious: I’d despise him too. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578/40 "2013-04-02T19:00:18Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I used to think this way but I think there’s room in our system, with such outsized rewards for the wealthiest, to redistribute a living wage to the poor and not try to ‘create jobs.’ Government is terrible at creating jobs in the first place, if we’re going to tax people let’s just take some of the money and distribute it to the poor. I’ve seen little evidence government has a great success at “teaching people to fish.” I’ve seen little evidence that wealth redistribution works either. I’m fine with taxes going to pay for better infrastructure or shared services like schools or health care. Even social safety nets to help people get back on their feet. But I find the notion of taking money away from people who do everything right and giving it to losers like LavenderBlue’s brother offensive. > [@LavenderBlue](#): > > It is entirely possible to loath the way some poor people behave without wanting to see people homeless and hungry as punishment. > > My idiot brother is currently without a job. He’s an able-bodied 38 year old who labors under the delusion that people care more about his grades in a local college he’s been attending for about a decade than the fact that he’s been unemployed for over two years and sponging off my dad. I despise him. He could easily find a job from the numerous job leads I’ve sent him. While they don’t pay a lot, they would enable him to at least pay something to my dad and have some sense of respect. Instead he makes all sorts of bs excuses and whines the jobs don’t pay enough. > > I’ll say this for him: he’s not getting direct welfare. He also hasn’t fathered any children or served jail time. But he has the same mindset. He does not save. He’s careless with money and only not out on the streets because my dad has been generously allowing him to live rent free with access to a refrigerator full of food for over two years. He’s so lazy he doesn’t help out around the house in any real way. My dad’s almost eighty and has to hire a maid. > > I still don’t want him to without food, shelter or medical care It’s not about “rewards” and “punishments”. Mark Zuckerberg isn’t a billionare because he won the lottery. He’s a billionare because he created a multi-billion dollar company. Your brother wouldn’t starve on the street because he is being punished. It’s because no one should have the right to take the fruits of someone else’s labor and give them to someone who refuses to work. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > If two mice are in a maze with a block of cheese, the mouse who just sits and eats the cheese isn’t necessarily making a poor choice in relation to the mouse who scurries around searching for the way out only to come back and collapse at the fat mouse’s feet after a lifetime of striving. I don’t know if you are referencing the book “Who Moved My Cheese”, but that’s not the point of it. You can do whatever you want with the block of cheese while it’s there. But when it’s gone, you can’t just sit on your ass all day bitching about how there’s no more cheese. You need to figure out how to get more. That is one of the major form of poor-minded thinking. That sort of learned helplessness that they have no control over their lives or their decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confronting-the-culture-of-the-poor-ideology/654578.md?page=3)