I never said anything about feeling superior. I never used the word fault. I never claimed that all poverty was the result of bad choices. Can you read for comprehension or do you just rely on insults when someone disagrees with you? Additionally, you have no idea how much empathy I have for the poor.
That is in the freaking OP. Read for comprehension.
Additionally, I posted about my past because Voyager said
So instead of passing off the bad shit that happened in my life I took responsibility for it (which, it seems is a totally foreign idea on the Dope). Oh, Voyager, I never said ‘just a million’. And in any case, my net worth has nothing to do with the OP.
I think a better way to have phrased my OP is:
because we could actually discuss the issue instead of having a bunch of people jerk their knees when it is suggested that some poor people have some responsibility for their poverty.
I’d agree, as long as we’re clear that we should be looking not only at the traits of the individual, but also the traits of the society.
The United States has a tremendous percentage of our population living in poverty compared to the populations of other developed nations. It certainly seems possible that there are traits of our society that contribute to this problem, and that some of those traits can be changed, possibly through legislation.
And since I can’t necessarily change the traits of individuals, but I can work to change the traits of society, I’ll probably focus on the latter.
I’d be willing to bet that a lot of those are cohabitated, though.
Shodan, I’d dispute your marriage statement simply based on European marriage rates and poverty outcomes. It might be safer to say that stable, long-term relationships - as opposed to marriage - would be a better indicator.
Valid pints. And any obstacles that can be identifies should be probably be removed as quickly as possible. But one cannot overestimate the power of** “Stop you’re friggin’ whining and get to work”**. Seriously. Few people who have found themselves in hard times have transitioned out of them without adopting that attitude. Making sure people know this is important and helpful. Even if the poverty is not all their fault, adopting that attitude will help them make the best of a bad situation and increase the odds that they can extricate themselves from it.
There is exactly one trait that leads people out of poverty:
Income, less expenses, is greater than zero.
It helps one to subsequently stay out of poverty if assets (that is, property that appreciates in value), less liabilities (that is, net expense plus depreciation), is also greater than zero. This is why, say, athletes aren’t considered poor or impoverished, but as soon as they retire, they’re in the same hole they left (or worse, due to their newly acquired taste for caviar).
Unfortunately, the poor have no idea how to actually leverage money, which is a big part of why they are poor. But to place the blame for that on their shoulders is basically a form of denial of reality: they’re more often than not born into an environment that is strongly condusive to the poverty mindset and then inundated with horrendously incorrect lessons about how they should spend, and afforded little to no education on the matter - exactly how much finance did you learn from school? What, are their poor with no-idea-why parents supposed to teach their kids how to not be poor?
Ironically, I stumbled across this youtube documentary with Diane Sawyer right before getting involved in this thread. It provides a great example of people being born in abject poverty, of the lack of education/understanding, of the relative hopelessness a lot of the truely impoverished have to face every day, and more.
Based on reading these threads for many years, one thing that seems to be a big figurative millstone around a lot of poor people’s necks is the presence of needy relatives and friends who seem to suck away a lot of people’s spare cash, leaving everyone sort of chronically broke because when anyone has any extra cash, there’s always someone else who needs it.
This seems to be a horrible indirect manifestation of the “crabs in a pot” problem- nobody can accrue enough of a stake to get ahead, because some other person lays claim to their cash.
I don’t know how you tell people to tell others that they’re not going to give them that cash though.
Of course, in the US giving birth out of wedlock, especially for teenagers, is strongly correlatedwith long-term poverty, and I assumed that is the country under discussion.
Sure–my point is that it’s not universal. Furthermore, correlation does not equal sumpnorother, forget what; if we’re trying to tell people how to avoid poverty, it’s not necessarily clear that avoiding birth out of wedlock will itself have the effect we’re looking for.
Now that is a far more productive topic for discussion. Say we had pre-school for all kids, and we had teachers in those pre-schools who could identify poor kids with ability and try to get them the help they need to meet their potential, even if their parents are crack whores. We might miss some kids with potential, and some of the kids we identify may screw it up (I ran into a kid like this) but it would be a lot better.
The problem is that so many today say that the poor have no one to blame but themselves, and then refuse the resources that can help the poor get a break. I think for many the personal responsibility angle is tied directly to the “I’m not spending my tax money on you bums” angle.
Generally people are poor because there is something wrong with them that leads to poverty. Big deal. Nobody is perfect; it is just that their particular imperfections cause one set of problems while someone else’s imperfections (such as, say, greed) may lead to some different problem.
One does not help the poor with charity (except in some situations) as much as with identifying the problem and working on it.
I’m nearly finished with my third year as a volunteer teacher in the poor section of town. I teach for a non-profit whose main goal is moving families from shelters into employment and their own apartments, with one of the key elements being education. Obviously this doesn’t qualify me as an expert, but my opinions are based on more than watching TV.
With the exception of disabilities, poverty still looks mostly self-inflicted to me. In many cases it’s generationally self-inflicted (on families), but the causes are fairly plain. After 3 years of this (3 classes of 12/year), my conclusion is they need some serious parenting classes.
Of course, even questioning these habits brings out the apologists in force (as I found out in this thread), but I still think it’s a huge part of the problem. They just don’t seem that invested in their kids.
Flame away if you must, but remember I am out there trying to help.
This may be true, but it doesn’t explain why poor people “self-inflict” poverty onto themselves. Whenever I hear something like this, I think of the rich person who looks down on middle-class fools like me. Mr. Moneybags no doubt thinks the middle class also “self-inflict” their status. “Instead of investing their tax refunds, they run out to the store and buy shiny new appliances. Instead of living frugally in a one-bedroom basement apartment and using the savings to put their children through the very best private schools, they buy over-priced houses in over-priced subdivisions and send their kids to mediocre public schools just so they can play football and sing in lame-ass Show Choir! These people don’t know a single thing about investing in their children!”
To the degree that we tend to inherit the status of our parents, we all repeating the patterns of the previous generation. Because this is all we know. Taking classes can help, but unless you have an alternative template to refer to every step of the way, it’s really hard to “go your own way”. Especially poor people, who really depend on close-knit families for survival.
I don’t think I’m an apologist. It’s more like I’m an explainer. I don’t like that people self-inflict poverty on themselves, but it’s not inconceivable to me why this happens. It actually makes perfect sense.
Why just the kids “with ability”? If they all had decent nutrition, a fairly reliable and predictable environment, educational stimulation, and freedom from abuse and neglect, they’d all have ability, if by ability you mean “able to learn enough to be able to be a productive member of society”.
So if someone is raised well and fails, then they inflicted poverty on themselves, correct?
I get it, I used to manage a fast food place, and you see all types there. I came from nothing and quickly realized that in the absence of college the best option for me was to work my way up through the corporation. Some others had the same idea. Others took a different route, working themselves through college. That was about a third of us. Then there was about 20% who didn’t really want much out of life money-wise, so they worked about 20 hours a week and got by on that(it can be done, actually, if you don’t want a family). It could be said that they “inflicted poverty on themselves”, but they didn’t really live in poverty, as in living in need. They had all they wanted, at least compared to the effort they were willing to put forth. Then there was the 50% who went from fast food job to supermarket job to no job to gas station attendant. No work ethic, always complaining that life didn’t just give them what they were entitled to.
Now I can concede that maybe that 50% were malnourished, raised poorly, or whatever. The problem with that line of thinking is that it infantilizes them. It’s one thing to come to that conclusion on a social science basis. It’s another entirely to craft public policy on that assumption. What happens is that half of us strive to achieve(or get by) because we realize that’s the best path, and the other half listen to those who tell them that it’s not really their fault and a middle class lifestyle is owed them. I also wonder how many of those people would have achieved had they not been told indirectly that their efforts were useless.
adaher, I’ve encountered the same break down you mentioned among the “non-poor” population. There are plenty of middle class slackers who bounce from job to job. And some who are perfectly content leaching off of friends and family (sometimes under the ruse of “finding oneself” or “professional student”).
The guy whose office is right next to mine sits at his desk and sleeps while the rest of us are working. And he’s comfortably middle class. If he were a minumum wage slave, his ass would have been fired years ago and he’d probably be one of those ne’er-do-wells you see hanging out on the corner. But because he comes from a middle class background and can quote Shakespeare and flash his credentials, he’s protected from the consequences of his slackerdom. Poor people don’t hold on a monolopy on laziness, but they sure do lack these qualities.
Depends on the company, I guess. When I worked fast food, you had to try really hard to get fired, simply not doing your job was not good enough. Now that I work in a more professional environment, some of the behaviors that were routine even among workers I’d consider to be quality workers doesn’t cut it in the office. At least at the company I work for now. I actually kinda miss the more care free days when you could just cuss each other out good naturedly or see if we could make a spray can explode.
