Actually, most of us believe that if we work hard and sacrifice then we will suceed because we’ve either experienced it or have seen others do it. And no one is defining “succeed” by becoing a “king, able to screw the rest of the hard workers below.” Success for most is defined as having a comfortable life, a house, a car or two, and financial security. It’s easily available to all (yes, yes, with the caveat that there will always be a small group of people with disabilities and the like who will not have these opportunities) if you get an education, work hard, and don’t make stupid choices with your money. Of course, there are many in America who fail to go down this path and who end up living in poverty.
Just do what Renob says … and no one gets hurt!
I see. Are you talking about group A, those who have fully paid for their house and a car or two? Or are you talking about group B, those whose house can be taken away by the bank (the kings?) until they have paid their last monthly mortgage, or their car can be confiscated at any time unless they make their last monthly or lease payment? What do you think is the percentage of group A versus group B?
As for financial security, according to this link , typical American household has net financial assets of $1,000, and further, most American adults overestimate, by up to 25 times, the typical level of household assets and wealth.
So you were talking about hard work and success… Go on. Please give us some statistics and cites. Also please give us your vision of the coming trends, and what % of wealth belongs to what percentage of people. What percentage is increasing, and what percentage is decreasing.
Wow! I am impressed! To think that the answer was so simple all along. . . success is easy, thus anyone who is poor is so out of simple laziness!
What are you sitting here reading this for? Go! Go! You must share this epiphany with the rest of the world. There are scholars who waste their time researching the causes of poverty and wrting long papers and books about it. They must be told that they were wrong-- there are not myriad causes and factors which keep people in poverty, it’s just that they’re too lethargic to reach out and take hold of the success which dangles tantalizingly before them.
Not to say renob didn’t open himself up to easy snarks, but–at least so far as I have ever been able to tell it–most people in the US have not fallen into extreme poverty. if you’ve got a house, a family, a relatively secure source of income–you really are several ranks above “my life is down the shitter ™” even if the person doesn’t choose to believe so.
Most people in the US have succeeded in attaining the minimum for a stable and healthy life–and if 99%* of everyone has been able to do it, well…it really is kind of hard to say it isn’t easy even if that is a word prone to snarky responses.
Certainly I do sympathize with young women who got into the drug scene in high school, didn’t study, got impregnated by some 40 year old, dropped out of school, is ugly and can’t get a job even in Mc Donalds. They have essentially screwed their life before they even hit 18. My cousin did precisely this and it isn’t a mockup story to say “Yeah well people screw themselves over so screw them and let them burn.” I do sympathise, and I do hope that there is a way to get her back into society and not in a state where everything she does for the next thirty years is going to be dictated to her by the government or her boyfriend of the day.
But I don’t see that there is anything that can be done for her with more government money. If she gets rid of the boyfriend of the day, cleans up from alcohol and drugs, maybe gets a library pass and teaches herself to do something…then yeah, I can see things turning around. And certainly having help from the government at that point will be useful, but when that point comes is going to depend entirely on her, her friends, and our family.
I do want there to be a safety net in society, but I do think that there are points where you have to realise that the goal of this net isn’t to make anyones life pleasant, nor to try and convince them to turn their lives about. It is simply to keep them alive and kicking until such a time as the individual goes “Oh hey wait…this is stupid” and starts calling back their friends they blew off and the family members they angered.
But in the end, renob is correct. Making the right choice and working to put things right is the only solution to not get into or to get out of true poverty. And that is easy for 99% of everyone, but for the other 1% certainly it is difficult. But a big part of that is the individual having convinced himself that he is screwed and that there is no way out of it, and getting rid of that mental block does seem to me like the largest thing keeping them there.**
- I am not certain what actual percentage of the population has fallen into destitution and am willing to rescind my statements if this number is actually much larger than one would think
** Well, largest, but probably also often aided by alcoholism or drugs which are no simple matter to get over either. Another relative (her father) had started doing well, then got divorced, and now appears to be drinking again which might throw him back. And I’m not certain my Grandfather (who lives nearby) is trusted by him enough to be able to help. sigh
Quite true. The poorest people in the US are wealthy beyond the imaginings of some in Third World nations. After all-- people don’t usually starve to death in the US, die of thirst or freeze to death due to lack of shelter.
There are around thirty six million Americans living in poverty. The poverty guidelines are:
**
There are 281.4 million people in the US, according to the 2000 census.
So, it’s a bit more than one percent of us living in poverty. The US Census Bureau lists it at 12.5 percent.
Are all of these people guilty of fucking up their lives with poor decision-making? Are all thirty six million irresponsible, lazy or otherwise worthy of the conditions in which they find themselves?
Could part of it be that there are not currently thirty six million good-paying jobs lying vacant waiting for someone to wander along and scoop them up? Could part of it be that many of these people never got the “start up capital” in life which most successful middle class kids got? (Car, clothes, medical/dental care, education funds, job references, networking . . .) Could some of them have made the best choices they were given and still have ended up in poverty?
Your antecdote about your cousin doesn’t prove anything. I could relate a dozen of my own stories of poor people I have known who busted their asses trying to claw their way up into the middle class, and never quite made it, despite almost super-human efforts. Antecdotes prove nothing.
Oh, so once they reconcile with their family and friends, their entire financial situation will change?
I, too, want there to be a sical safety net, for several reasons. Firstly, I do not want the embarassment that without welfare, though we’re one of the richest countries on earth, people would die of starvation. Secondly, I do not want crime rates to skyrocket as would happen if people saw their children dying of hunger. Thirdly, I realize that private charity will never, ever be able to fulfill the needs of the poor. Last, but not least, my tender heart quails at the idea of people suffering.
No, renob is still wrong. There is no solution to poverty. Period. All we can do is try to lessen the impact it has on society.
Sweetheart, if it were easy, everybody’d be doin’ it. That’s what “easy” is-- something that everyone can do with a minimum of effort. Making Ramen soup is easy. Climbing out of poverty is about as “easy” as climbing Mount Everest.
Damn good point. Hoplelessness is contagious, pervasive and enduring. Some let it turn into bitterness at the system. Some turn it into dogged determination. Some just give up.
Some, however, would call it “realism.” For most people in poverty, there is not going to be a happy ending. Most likely, they will die in the circumstances in which they lived-- if not worse off as they age. Their children are not likely to do better than they did.
The road to success has a lot of toll booths. People talk about education like it’s easy to get one, and anyone who doesn’t is just being neglectful of their duty as a good citizen. Well, who’s going to pay for it? If a young man isn’t good at sports, and isn’t bright enough to attract attention with his grades, he’s screwed.
Even if by some miricle he does get in, how is he going to keep from flunking out? If he went to a crappy school, he’s probably not academically prepared. His parents couldn’t afford tutors, and his friends (possibly even his family) made fun of him if he tried to read on his own.
Look, all I’m trying to say is that while it’s easy to be dismissive of the issue by saying that people are poor just because they’re lazy, it’s not accurate. Dare I say that espousing such a view is sociological laziness-- that one ought to at least consider the very real difficulties facing the poor before voicing an opinion?
Just butting in. Since I had so much fun researching this I’ll post it here too.
But very many people do.
Economic Mobility in the United States.
Perhaps the simplest measure of economic mobility is the percentage of individuals who move into a new income quintile. 7 In both periods examined, Sawhill and Condon find that slightly over 60 percent of individuals were in a different family income quintile a decade later (60.5 percent between 1967-76, and 60.7 percent between 1977-86). Mobility rates were lower for individuals in either the lowest or highest quintiles (44 percent for the bottom quintile and 48 percent for the highest quintile between 1967-76; 47 percent and 50 percent, respectively, between 1977-86). 8 Examining similar years using the PSID, Hungerford (1993) comes to similar conclusions regarding broad trends in mobility, as he finds significant mobility, but little change between 1969-76 and 1979-86.
Very close to half of the people in the lowest quintile were not there 10 years later. Hardly climbing mount everest.
Just a drive by. I have more cites if you want them.
Hm. Well certainly higher than I expected judging from the quantity of apartment buildings to the relatively few number of people you see about the streets. But then again, 30 people living in a 10’ X 10’ room makes up for a lot.
Will have to research this one beyond personal experience and randomly attained info.
But will try to post before this thread dies off.
…and one really must wonder when someone named “pervert” can come about about with a tantalizing link like that. (No offence 
)
To jump back in here and clarify a few things about my assertion that it’s “easy” to get out of poverty. Of course I was being a bit oversimplistic. I understand that many people don’t find it easy to do so, but it really is pretty simple – put down the liquor or crack or meth, get a job, get an education, don’t get pregnant unless you can afford the baby, don’t buy things you can’t afford, show up to work on time, don’t fight with your boss, and work hard. Now, it’s clear that many people have trouble doing those things. However, just because some people cannot seem to get their shit together does not mean that these things are difficult. Millions of Americans do them all the time. Hell, millions of non-Americans (immigrants) do them all the time, too, and they succeed spectacularly.
As for the 36 million people living in “poverty” – One, the vast majority of people who live in “poverty” are not starving and without shelter. In fact, they have many material comforts. This data is from the National Center for Policy Analysis in the late 90’s, based on federal government reports (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/sept98r.html):
Two, to respond to Lissa’s point about the availablity of jobs: there are plenty of jobs in the U.S., especially in the cities. I live in Washington, D.C., and I see the classifieds every day filled with job opportunities. Many of them don’t require much in the way of education, either. This can be seen clearly by D.C.'s immigrant community. These folks, who barely speak English and have little in the way of education, are succeeding quite well. Why? Because they recognize that there is opportunity here just waiting to be taken advantage of. They aren’t sitting around thinking the government owes them a living.
This is also illustrated by a situation in New Jersey. I work in an industry that helps people with disabilities find employment. In Atlantic City they have to bus people with disabilities over an hour to work at the hotels. When I asked why don’t they just hire the welfare recipients who live next door (almost literally) to the casinos, they replied that these people simply weren’t willing to work. So they bus in mentally retarded people to do jobs that able-bodied welfare recipients refuse to do. That’s ridiculous (don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that the jobs are there for the people with disabilities. But if there are jobs available in your backyard and you refuse to take them, then you should not be receiving any form of welfare).
I would almost concede the point about the lack of jobs in rural areas. I grew up in an area that simply had no job opportunities, besides a few working in a mill. But guess what? I couldn’t get a job there so I moved. That’s what you do. If you can’t find work where you live, then get off your ass and go to where work is.
There are a few problems with this.
First of all, does the study take into account that some of the poor are “situationally” or temporarilly poor, due to job loss, illness and the like? Some people may spend a few years in poverty but their networks and advantages are still in place. After a while, they manage to pull themselves back up again. This is the reason why the majority of welfare recipients are off the welfare rolls within a couple of years. It’s those who are chronically poor with whom we should be concerned.
This site says that while your statistics ring true,
So, the question must be asked: who is making it out of poverty? I am not saying that every poor person faces the same disadvantages. However, it appears that few of the truly deprived manage to make it out of the bottom quintile.
This article disagrees with some of these studies’ findings:
This is very interesting as well:
The fun thing about studies is that you can find them to support almost any viewpoint.
Simple to you, maybe, but I tend to think about things a little deeper.
Have you ever struggled with substance abuse? Go downtown and find an addict and tell them how “simple” it is for them to kick their habit. If you come back alive, let me know how many you managed to convince to “put down the crack pipe” and follow Renob into success.
Pay for their educations, too, because God knows they can’t. You’ll probably need to buy them a car so they can get to school, as well. Don’t forget to buy their books! Those things can cost hundreds each quarter.
Oops! They already have a baby-- they might not have been able to afford reliable birth control, or because of our Fearless Leader’s brilliant plan for abstinance-only sex ed, they might have not known how to use it properly.
Well, the things they want to buy but can’t afford include food and medicine, and it’s hard to show up for work on time when you don’t have reliable transportation, the babysitter didn’t show up, or you’re sick because you can’t afford to go to the doctor for an antibiotic.
Christ, these people are disgusting! Lazy bums!
You just don’t get it, do you?
Sweetie, I’m trying to be patient, but it’s getting harder and harder. Yes, millions of Americans succeed, but they had the tools to do so!
I never said they were. In fact, I said that the poorest Americans are wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of those in Third World nations. That doesn’t mean that their lives are easy, though.
I’d betcha they don’t pay much in the way of money, either.
Define “plenty”. One hundred? Two hundred listings? And how many people do you think are out of work in DC right now? I’d gander to say it’s a bit more.
I looked in my town’s newspaper just a moment ago. There are about a dozen jobs listed. The highest compensated pays $7.25, with no insurance benefits.
Most immigrants are not simply dumped off the boat with nothing but a suitcase. IIRC, to immigrate legally to the United States, one must show that you have the tools to succeed: an education, specialized job training, etc.
Realize that many immigrants have a support group unlike that of the American poor. Immigrants often have tight family and community bonds which help them get started in their new lives-- much like the support network that helps middle class children get started.
So, the ignorance and prejudice of the person you spoke to justifies your viewpoint. I understand completely.
How extraordinary! According to that person, not a single welfare recipient wanted to work. I have a hard time believing that they were all asked and that they were all to lazy to accept work.
Hmm. How much are they paying those with mental disabilities, might I ask? Secondly, considering that persons with mental disabilities are limited in what they can do, task-wise, in the casino, exactly what kinds of jobs were being offered? The reason that I ask is that I’ve heard of some programs in which disabled persons are paid less than minumum wage to do menial or repetative tasks. If the casino can get their cleaning done, or their grounds kept for less than they would have to pay one of those welfare recipients, I’d gander to say that’s why they’re not hiring them-- not because they didn’t want to work.
Secondly, I’d bet the casino gets some kind of government grants or benefits for hiring the disabled.
You know, in Texas, Mexicans come across the border to pick vegetables for ten cents an hour. Should the Texans recieving welfare benefits be denied help because they didn’t fight for these jobs?
Oh! I see! Gosh, you’re right! It is so simple!
But, just a moment . . . I assume you must have had a lump sum of cash for a deposit on a new home, correct? And the deposit for utilities?
And you could afford to rent a moving truck?
And you had able-bodied friends, or were in sufficient good health to move your stuff?
And you could afford to go a couple of weeks without a paycheck, looking for a job, and then waiting until the first pay period?
And you had a car?
And you weren’t reliant on the support network of your family to get by?
And you had references?
Your point has been proven. When you have every advantage to begin with, I guess it IS easy to succeed.
Riddle me this batman.
I have a degree, straight A’s all the way through. We live in an apartment, barely making rent. Two people. We work two jobs each. We rarely drink at all, we don’t do drugs. We cannot afford medical insurance or medical care. We do not buy things we cannot afford. We have no kids. We cannot even go out to movies or dinner because we cannot afford it. If we get sick we just have to get sick. No doctors. Sometimes we don’t eat properly.
You think we don’t have our shit together. Nice of you. I would say something a lot stronger if this were the Pit. I am sure you can think of something on your own. :wally
Should we move somewhere with better prospects? Sure. Just show us where to get the thousands we need to move, get established and survive while we find those fabulous new jobs. Are you offering to finance it?
In case you were wondering this SDMB subscription was paid for ny someone else. Not us. We could not afford our subs.
Who got them into that mess? They chose to start smoking crack (or meth, which rural folks tend to use more than crack), have a baby, or whatever. The people in these situations are responsible for their own problems. No one forced them to smoke crack, have unprotected sex (repeatedly), drop out, etc. And if they are in poverty because of these reasons, then they bear the blame for their situation. I’m not saying we should not help them climb out of poverty, but they have to realize that their bad choices are what put them there in the first place.
If you define tools as the ability to make the right decisions, then I’ll agree with you.
There was no ignorance and prejudice of the person who was discussing the situation in Atlantic City. It was a fact. Because of welfare to work, the folks on welfare in Atlantic City were indeed approched about these jobs, and some took them. However, there weren’t enough of them to actually fill all the jobs, so they have to bus in people with disabilities to do this.
A little education is in order – yes, some people with disabilities are paid below minimum wage to do certain tasks, but these people are always among the lowest functioning people and almost always this type of work is done at a facility. Jobs in the community don’t pay sub-minimum wage work. The work in Atlantic City was over minimum wage. And the welfare recipients didn’t take the jobs because they don’t earn enough money (they would have earned more money than they get for being on welfare) – they did it because they simply refuse to work.
How do you know my situation? The fact is, you don’t. When I started here in D.C. I didn’t have any money and I was working a minimum wage job. I got along just fine. I didn’t have a care, I didn’t have any stuff, and I didn’t bitch and moan that the world owed me a living.
You seem to think that the only reason people succeed in this world is because their parents or family give them every advantage. That’s a ridiculous assertion. Many people from poor families succeed spectacularly. How do you think a family becomes rich in the first place? There isn’t just one big group of rich families who continues to have kids who succeed in the U.S. People succeed not because of their family supports (although I will admit this helps if you are willing to take advantage of it) but because they make good choices, don’t depend on drugs or alcohol, get an education, don’t have a kid when they are teenagers, etc. Do this, and chances are excellent that you won’t be living in poverty.
You really want to discuss your situation? How old are you? What is your degree in? What job do you work in? Why did you choose to start working in an area where you couldn’t make much (I assume you live in Alabama) rather than moving to another area?
I’m not saying that it won’t be hard for people who make the right choices. When I was starting out, I didn’t have much money and I couldn’t do much, either. However, people make sacrifices in order to have a better life in the future.
I am 36, my wife is 22. She is also educated. My degree is a duble major in philosophy and political science. I work delivering newspapers at night, and renovating ahouse during the day - when my employer there is able to have me over (she has medical problems).
I am an immigrant (from New Zealand). I moved to Alabama because this is where my wife was. In NZ (before going to Australia for a while) I made over $60k. Here, between us, we would not bring in $10k - of which around half has be used for rent. My wife has just accepted her second job. Part-time. She will make the fabulous total of $6 per hour. Although this is another argument, the minimum wage here is at fault for some of this. In NZ it is substantially higher (over $9 I think) and guess what - they are having a labour shortage, have one of the best performing economies in the world and a complete welfare system. I guess you just can’t trust those democratic socialists. They might even be right.
Why are we not there now? We will be as soon as we can figure out a way to get there affordably.
[Moderator Hat ON]
UnwrittenNocturne, this is NOT the Pit, and use of the Putz smilie against another poster is not allowed.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Unwritten, I sympathize with your situation. I have a double major in history and political science, and if I would have stayed in Idaho (quite similar to Alabama – just colder) my degree wouldn’t have gotten me anywhere in the realm of employment. Come up to D.C. where there are plenty of people earning way too much money with their political science degrees.
Philosophy and political science are both worthy subjects. However, to work in either subject area, an advanced degree is virtually required, and even then the market is limited. There are other degrees which are much more salable right out of the box.
Choices. Not necessarily good or bad, but which do have an impact on your future.
Have you never made a poor decision? I know I have-- decisions which could have seriously fucked up my life had I not had a support network which helped me deal with the problems.
I’m sure most of them realize they made mistakes, but that’s all in the past. There’s nothing they can do about it now. Blame is not as important as you seem to feel that it is. The important thing is to try to fix the present, not beat them up for the past.
You were not born instinctively knowing how to make the right decisions.
I’m going to make a guess that you had pretty good parents (or people who raised you.) They probably taught you the value of hard work, how to economize, how to converse politely, impulse control, the dangers of substance abuse, empathy, and how to submit to authority. They probably insisted that you do your homework and behave in school. They probably kept you away from the “bad kids” who would steer you down the wrong path. They probably taught you the value of education, and, at the very least, encouraged you to go to college. They probably taught you to dress correctly for business situations, and may have bought you some clothing to start out with.
This sort of socialization is not just very important, it is crucial. Without it, people don’t have a clear sense of direction.
Yes, to you, making good decisions probably seems instinctual, because you were so deeply programmed that being a productive citizen seems automatic.
I have strong doubts that this is, indeed, a “fact.” You did not address whether or not the casino got tax breaks or grants for employing the disabled. Could it be that this may have had something to do with why they wanted to employ them?
How much over minimum wage was it? Was it enough to pay for daycare for, say, two kids? Since you lose some of your benefits if you work, would the job be enough to pay for housing, utilities, daycare, transportation, medical care, food, clothing and all of the other myriad expenses which comes form daily life?
Methinks that probably it wasn’t. And if your standard of living goes down from going to work, I can’t blame welfare recipients for chosing to stay on the dole until something better comes along.
You keep insisting that it was just flat-out refusal to be gainfully employed. Did you personally ask all of these people, or are you just making an assumption based on prejudice? Did you actually find out what their situations were, or did you just lump them all in the “lazy” category without bothering to find out why they refused the jobs?
That’s right, I don’t. But since you feel comfortable making assumptions about the welfare recipients, I suppose I’m allowed to make a few of my own.
Did you have deposits for your utilities, or did you live in the dark with no water?
Did you have money for a deposit on an apartment, or did you live in a box on the street?
Did you have money for bus/mass transit fare or did you walk everywhere?
Did you come equipped with an education? Who paid for that?
Bully for you.
That’s a big part of it, yes. If not in material goods, people get enormous advantages from good socialization, family networks, etc. The fact that you don’t even seem to realize that these advantages exist suggests to me that you had them.
You cannot take a few rags-to-riches tales and claim that if these tiny few could do it, then everyone can. There are a tiny number of astronauts in the country. Should I point to them and say that they are proof that anyone can be an astronaut if they are willing to work for it. But that’s ignoring the fact that there are only a few shuttle seats and there is fierce competition for them.
They ususally didn’t start with absolutely nothing. With a few exceptions, they usually had start-up capital which was invested wisely. They had business accumen which most poor people don’t. Hell, most poor people don’t even know much about something as simple as the stock market.
Investments are for those who have surplus cash. If every cent of your income is going to essentials, you don’t have much left over to save for retirement, or to play around on the markets, or to start your own business.
Actually, there kind of is . . . you’re likely to be in the same socio-economic group as your parents-- at least starting out in life.
Again, you fail to understand that the right choices are not instinctual, especially when you see everyone around you making different decisions. You have to be taught the keys to success. If there’s no one to teach you, likely you won’t learn it just from watching those around you.
You have been extremely lucky in your life-- so lucky you don’t even realize it. Yes, you made your successes through hard work, but you had the tools and skills you needed to get started on your path. You were smart enough to get through college, for one. Not everyone is.
Just so we understand each other, yes, there are some difficulties with the summary of several studies I cited.
I’m not sure how you would take this into account. The studies seemed to follow a sample of households from one time period to another. They did report findings for various durations. That is they reported how many people moved from one income quintile into another after a year, 5 years, and 10 years. The percentages I quoted were from teh 10 year period (since those were the largest )
Agreed. But my quibble was with your association with moving from poverty and climbing mount everest. Unless you would like to revise the poverty rates you posted earlier (didn’t you say we had about 12% or so) so that those temporarily poor were not included (we’d have to remove about half or so from the list according to my numbers). I was only using your definition of poverty.
Quite. And I am saying that almost half of those in poverty are making it out. If you like we could half that and say that only 25% of those in poverty make it out of poverty over 10 years. That’s still much higher than the rate at which people climb mount everest. No?
Then you need to define “truly deprived”. You cannot simply say that all of those living below the poverty line are hard pressed to make their lives better and then complain that you did not mean all of them when I demonstrate that they do in fact make their lives better.
No, it simply thinks that the amount of mobility is going down not up. The only number they give is “most”. Do a google on “economic mobility” and you’ll find lots of studies. The summary of several that I linked to actually concludes that the picture is not bery good for the poor. That while mobility is pretty good, it is better for the upper income quintiles.
Well, yes it is. Except that this study proves my point. If you look at the number of people who climb mount everest, I think (I don’t really know, I’m guessing) that it will be far far far far far far less than 7%. The study you linked to suggests that fully 7% of children born at the bottom of the income pile will make it to the top of the pile! That sounds like a huge amount to me. Also, if you look at figure one in your cite it shows that less than half of those born into poverty will die there. Note, that it does not say how many of these people spend all of their time in this quintile. Economic mobility works both ways as we all know.
Possibly. But if we limit ourselves to fairly well done studies, fairly narrow issues, and look at them carefully, we can become less ignorant.
Probably group B. One does, after all, have the use of the house and car while making payments on it.
Well, if you like, you can start with this from the census bureau, (pdf) which disputes what I think your cite was claiming. Median net worth for American households in 2000 was $55,000, up from $49,932 in 1998. So instead of overestimating by 25 times, you seem to have underestimated by about 55 times.
Unless you meant something else, in which case by all means share.
Regards,
Shodan