I’m going to guess you’ve probably already been accused of racism long before you made that post.
I’m 40 years old, and I’m guessing that my great-great aunt probably died in the 1920s or 1930s, just because I know my great-grandparents died in the 1950s and 1960s.
I can’t imagine how anyone knows their great-great anything- that must take multiple generations of teen pregnancies or something equally dire.
My personal thoughts are that the majority of the problems with poverty and the impoverished are due to a combination of mindset/outlook/behavior issues, and an abject lack of anything approaching assets.
To that end, I don’t believe it does anyone any good if you transplant them somewhere else among people of a different SES, and expect them to change their behavior, outlook and lifestyle just because the people around them do things differently. I also think that when the races are different in that situation, it doesn’t help things- the poor side reinforces their behavior as part of their identity, and the non-poor side reinforces their own stereotypes of the other group.
I’m leaning toward poverty being insoluble on a large scale; the US is too heterogenous for anything to be a panacea on a national scale, and to some degree, there’s too much cultural identity wound up in poverty and poverty behaviors for things to change on a large scale.
That being said, there are families and individuals who buck the trend, and I’m all for giving them all the assistance that’s possible, but I’m not convinced that much of anything is really going to help those who aren’t bucking the trend- they’ll treat it as a windfall or an entitlement, neither of which is a positive outcome.
No, my mother was 19 and the youngest, but I have met my great great grandmother, and in fact I made a thread about it here and it was more common than I thought it was. She was just extremely old and I was very young.
NM.
One thing I have heard and read more than once is that people who work with a population at high risk for joining gangs is that they never saw a child who had hope join one.
I think I’m getting the great-aunt/grandmother equivalency wrong; if your great-aunt is your grandmother’s sister, your great-great aunt is your great-grandmother’s sister. i was thinking great-great grandparents.
I’ve actually met one of my great-great aunts too. She was old as hell (97-ish) back when I was around 20.
My grandmother had my mother at 27. My mother had my brother at 33. My brother’s children were born when bro was in his 30s. Visits from The Kidlets to their remaining great-grandmother (when the youngest was born they still had two great-grandmothers and one great-grandfather) are considered high points by all parties involved, including Grandma’s co-residents (she’s been in a home since May). The next visit is planned for early November, when Grandma turns 100.
I remember two of my great-grandmothers. One of them died at a mere 86 years of age, the other one at 96. I’ve also known several of my great-uncles and one great-great-aunt. Is “being a long-lived family” now considered “dire”?
You probably weren’t, actually. Most college students aren’t eligible for food assistance unless they’re disabled or have kids.
This was in the early 1990s, and I was an independent student. My brother was able to get them around that time; I’m mentioning this because he tells people about it all the time. 
Students who live in dorms are rarely eligible; I lived off-campus and was nearly 30 years old at the time.
The woman is 65, the boy 3. I didn’t press for the details of the relationship, but do keep in mind that siblings born to the same parents can be a “generation” apart - my husband’s youngest sister is 25 years younger. Half-siblings can have even greater spans. Talking about aunts doesn’t hold the same assumptions as grand^n- parents.
As I keep trying to point out, it is already happening in Minnesota at least. I expect we will see a lot of this in other states as well. And eventually in the whole nation as Democrats solidify control with a less and less white electorate.
Ooh, good point I hadn’t even thought of.
It would be interesting to hear your contrasting experiences.
But the “worse” jobs should pay decently. We see so often from conservatives in particular, but also commonly from Democrats, the idea that people who work poor paying jobs have a problem–which is that they need to get educated up to better jobs. But if everyone did that, who would work their old “worse” jobs? Should we even have a category of jobs that need to be done, but about which people are generally agreed that employment in same is either a social problem, a personal failing, or both? This “logic” is a pet peeve.
Not even for children or adolescents? My experience is that they are very sensitive to how their peers act and dress and very intent on fitting in.
That would contradict the view expressed by a high school police resource officer in an interview with This American Life. He said that pretty much every kid at the school joined a gang, and he didn’t try to talk even the “good kids” out of it any more because it was too dangerous to be unaffiliated.
Explain how Minnesota is dispersing the poor and restricting the ability to move from the ones that can afford it. This is what BG is describing, forcing the middle class to not be able to move away. And what being white has to do with anything is beyond me. Not sure what your fixation on race is, but your continual bringing up the issue makes your post seem pretty racist.
I already cited how Minnesota is doing it in other threads that I know you participate in. Here is one example:
His point by saying “under this administration” is that Democrats now control both houses of the Legislature, and the governor’s mansion as well. If they want to require all communities in the state to start “providing housing choices for a mix of income levels”, they can do it–and people who don’t like it will have to find a different state to move to. But that is too much of a pain for a lot of people. Furthermore, as more and more states become solid blue, and most of the best jobs are found in these states, moving will become less and less an option. Ultimately, when Democrats very solidly control the federal government, there will be nowhere to go unless you move out of the entire country.
Conservatives are obsessed with this whole bit about being colourblind (Colbert hilariously sends this up all the time), but progressives are not so restricted. It is a commonplace observation that a big reason the country is becoming more Democratic is that it is becoming less white. I’m pretty sure Mitt Romney got a higher percentage of the white vote than Reagan did. If Dukakis had had the much less white electorate that exists today, he would have won in '88. Etc.
This is not some kind of taboo subject to broach; here is one of countless examples from the MSM, in this case the NY Times:
The steadily increasing vise grip this will give Democrats on the levers of power is not going to ultimately allow communities to get away from policies like Rep. Hornstein is threatening. Not even in red states, not if they want any federal money. You are perfectly entitled to oppose such policies, to describe what you think is wrongheaded about them; but to dismiss them as “fringe” fantasies is naive. And I think a lot of even your right wing brethren would agree on that.
So you admit to hating white people and being a racist. Got it. I must have forgotten the add age ‘as goes Minnesota, so goes the nation’. Good luck with that.
It’s funny you think I’m right wing.
Don’t put words in my mouth: I admit to no such thing. I am white myself, in fact, although I do have a nonwhite grandmother and a mother who identifies as nonwhite.
Seriously, mods? There are scientific racists left and right and I got warned for calling a spade a spade, but this is okay?
Slacker,
-
Even accepting that predicted demographic Democratic vise grip (and assuming the the GOP will never make inroads with non-White demographics is a big assumption) you presume that all Democrats and all minorities (or at least a solid majority of the same) endorse the same course of action regarding “dispersing the poor.” You presume too much.
-
Is having communities with “housing choices for a mix of income levels” the same as dispersing the poor? Please note that Minnesota, esp the Twin Cities region, is solidly Blue and progressive. Yet even there that article notes that specifics on how to accomplish that mix of housing choices are not being given:
And even there there is much resistance even to something as benign as having a mix of income levels.
In short your cite shows the opposite of what you claim it does. They have not succeeded in dispersing the poor and they have no specific plans even for how to do it.
The original post about this said they are going to simply make it a required zoning thing, that there has to be X percent of low income housing per capita, etc. I’m no city planner, but this is not a brand new idea piped in from Mars. I heard mention that even out on the dreaded East Side suburbs of Seattle that I have described in the past, there is a requirement for at least some small amount of low income housing for each X number of acres developed for high end housing.
But sure, if you want to believe it will just never come to pass, that’s fine. I don’t foresee DFLers talking about this aggressively and then letting it drop when they have the levers of power in their hands.
I am not claiming it won’t come to pass, merely pointing out that your cite in that post is no evidence of such occurring, and questioning if a “requirement for at least some small amount of low income housing for each X number of acres developed for high end housing” and/or requiring some “housing choices for a mix of income levels” is as grand as what the op is discussing.
Meanwhile I happened on this review (pdf) that may be of interest to some.
There are some neighborhoods, I’ve read, where no young man is safe if he does not join a gang.