I’m not sure how you equate a loser with no job, and 2 other kids that he doesn’t pay for as “money and power”
Really?
IF you have extraordinary good grades or extraordinary athletic skills you can get a scholarship.
If you don’t, you need to take out loans which will need to paid back and at least adequate grades. If you don’t finish college you’ll be left with debt that you can’t get out of and no better prospects for income than if you’d never gone to college at all.
If you don’t have adequate grades no one but a diploma mill will take you, and there are numerous threads on this forum about employers who view such degrees as worthless and won’t hire people with them.
If you never finished school you’ll have to get your GED first. Not an insurmountable obstacle (my spouse did that, then went on to eventually get a master’s level education) but difficult when your relatives are screaming at you to quit that nonsense that they didn’t need and get a job.
You would approve of, say, an 8 year old walking through an urban neighborhood on her own to the library? What if the 8 year old has to walk a mile or two through gang territory to reach the local branch? Because, remember, the parents need to work, that’s why a lot of kids are either in after-school programs or latch key kids whether the parents are poor or middle-class. As a prior poster noted, the stay-at-home parent is a thing of the past among all but the wealthy.
SOME kids can walk to the library, a lot can’t.
That is one of the saddest statements I’ve heard all week.
Bravo for the DC area. Not true everywhere. You will really think a state like Illinois, where colleges are threatening to shut down because the state, which has not budget, hasn’t sent any promised funding their way for 8 months or more are going to be paying for anyone to go to summer camp?
Because if you’ve grown up in a dysfunctional household and get lousy grades because no one ever gave a damn if you got an education and you’re starving for affection said loser said nice things to you and held you a bit and maybe gave you some gifts, so you believe him when he says he loves you because you’re so damn desperate to feel like you’re worth something, and the sex feels good.
Kids, on their own, are unlikely to learn good study habits and don’t have the capacity to plan years ahead. They do what’s fun in the moment unless there’s an adult pushing them to do the right thing. Sex education has been stripped from the schools so they think they can’t get pregnant their first time or if the guy pulls out or whatever the current myths are.
It’s not just poor girls - plenty of lesser-performing middle class students wind up having unprotected sex in the back of a truck or car with a loser asshole. The difference is that when she has a baby at 15 her parents can afford daycare while she gets sent back to school.
Yes. My mother-in-law never finished 8th grade, had two kids, her first husband was an abusive, alcoholic asshole who kept her and the kids poor, and when I met her she was living in Park Ridge and was solidly middle-class.
And, as I noted, my spouse never finished high school, got his GED, and went on to be successful in college. Despite being disabled from birth. But then, there was never a chance in hell he’d be accepted in the male sub-culture because he was disabled, which in a sense freed him to be a geek and bookworm. Public school music classes revealed he had considerable musical talent, sufficient to go professional, which he never would have known without a school band teacher, and his musical talents wound up with him performing for adults who weren’t from the chronically poor subculture and who mentored him.
But really, that’s deceptive, because while that was possible in my MIL’s generation that’s getting less and less possible for the younger kids. Those two are very much the exception, as well - the vast majority of the extended family are among the chronic poor. Even the ones who take advantage of opportunity usually manage to screw up - I had a niece who joined the army and was doing very well until she got kicked out for breaking the rules, wound up stripping in Texas for money, then got involved in shadier stuff. Sure, there are opportunities for poor kids but there are a LOT of poor kids, more than there are opportunities. My spouse’s relatives who weren’t highly talented never got the mentors that made a difference for him. They didn’t stand out sufficiently to attract anyone’s attention in that way.
What makes you think that’s restricted to just poor women?
A lot of middle-class guys refuse to wear condoms, too. Probably wealthy ones, too, but I never had an opportunity to socialize with the wealthy. The difference is that a middle class girl is a lot more likely to have alternatives, either because her parents can afford to get her on hormonal birth controls, or because the girl has some money of her own or her mom has money to steal to get birth control. She also has more options if the condom breaks because, again, money.
Which gets back to the notion that having money gives you a means to deal with mistakes you wouldn’t otherwise have. You don’t need a lot of money for it to significantly improve your situation. $50 can be the difference between reliable birth control that doesn’t depend on the cooperation of the other partner or not having reliable birth control. $50 is the difference between a morning after pill if the condom breaks or not having it. $400 is the difference between an abortion or being forced to carry a baby to term. See how money factors into this?
Well, I personally don’t, but you really seem to have a problem with sexual signalling.
Men are attracted to women with rounded curves and tits and smooth skin and all those other features that Hollywood starlets cultivate. And it works, that’s why it’s plastered all over advertising. That’s why trophy wives exist. This gets back to the drive to reproduce, and for men, they attracted to things that signal youth and fertility (all those curves and secondary sexual features women have).
Women, on the other hand, need resources to raise their kids. They’re wired to be attracted to wealth and power, which is one reason men don’t need to worry so much about being young or pretty. That is why so many cultures have bride price - it’s proof the young man has the means to support a family. It’s why men in our culture feel obligated to drop X month’s income on a ring set with crystallized carbon artfully cut when proposing marriage, and women gather around and oooh and aaah over the rock and make judgements based on the size and how pretty it is. This is why the guy is expected to pay for the cost of a date. The guy has resources. And power/popularity is sexy because that also affects resources, that’s why the PotUS can get a blow job in the Oval Office from an intern but the White House janitor can’t.
Now, this is all primitive stuff, and it can be fooled. The “loser” asshole flashing a roll of cash, buying rounds for his buddies and surrounded by friends looks like he has money (even if he’s broke by the end of the night as well as drunk) and influence, and he has a ride he’s obviously sunk thousands of dollar into (displaying more wealth/resources, even if he’s living in the back of the truck because he can’t afford rent after that) so it looks like he’s a “good catch”. He gets laid. She finds out later he’s a broke loser after dropping all that money on booze and after-market mods and there actually isn’t anything left for her, he got what he wanted (laid) and she’s on the side of the road with a bun baking in the oven. This is nothing new, it’s a story that’s been related since people invented writing and is certainly older than that. Men have been fooling women into thinking they’re better off than they really are in order to get some sex and dumping the women afterward, and women have been falling for it forever.
And, again, this isn’t limited to just poor girls, middle class girls have loser boyfriends, too, who flash cash around and drive fancy cars and trucks, but, again, the fact their families have actual real resources means they can better clean up any negative consequences. Let’s be real here, even full adults are susceptible to this sort of thing, hence powerful men being caught screwing young women who aren’t their wives, and women going from one loser relationship to another. Why do we expect poor teenagers to behave better and have better judgement than anyone else?
Keep in mind, the parties involved might be in their teens, with the man older and the girl younger. They aren’t adults, they don’t have the experience to spot the pitfalls. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why we have laws against full adults having sex with underage people because the youngsters are much more easily fooled and susceptible to being deceived and used.
So yeah, loser guy with the fancy rims who needs to borrow money to buy gas for his fancy wheels after a night out is poor as dirt, but to the people around him he looks like he has money, especially to the girls, and it gets him laid. Which is what he wants out of the deal. As long as he keep buying rounds for his buddies he can probably find someone to spot him a few bucks when he really needs it.
This is also why girls get involved with gangbangers - they’re the ones in the poor neighborhoods with money, who can buy fancy dinners and expensive presents (or steal them) and drive fancy cars. Sure, there’s a risk with hanging out with criminals, but meanwhile the living is good. “Drug dealer” is a job that doesn’t require a high school diploma or GED, or great athletic ability, or great intelligence. It’s open to everyone, really, and there’s a lot of money there. It’s a get-rich-quick scheme but it’s a way for the guys to get laid and for them and their families to get the fancy toys they see advertised in “various media”. Some people see it as a short cut. Yeah, it’s a short cut that can leave you dead, in jail, or maimed but like I said, meanwhile the living is good. It’s not like teenagers are known for long-rang planning.
And, again drug dealing isn’t limited to just the poor. In my middle-to-upper-middle-class neighborhood I grew up in everyone in school knew which kids were dealing, and they had fancy toys and nice cars. The difference is that when they got arrested their parents could afford a good lawyer instead of a public defender, and bail so they didn’t rot in jail for months waiting trial. Look: money making a difference in dealing with negative consequences again.
The only thing that is clear is that you’ve been argumentative. I’m skeptical that you simply don’t get it; normally, when a person receives cites and information, they stop with the “B-b-b-but why do THEY do stupid thing I’d never do in a million years?!” Which is what you keep doing.
Do you think people are born into the world possessing the same positive ideas regarding education?
College actually is a lofty dream if you’ve been misinformed, which a lot of people have been. Going to college is a middle-class/upper middle class rite of passage, so why wouldn’t a poor person think “not for me”? Not everyone knows about financial aide and scholarships or that colleges often provide remedial courses to help students catch up.
College is a lofty dream even for those who haven’t been misinformed. Not only do college cost money, but they cost time–time that could be spent working so that Mama doesn’t have to work so hard keeping younger brothers and sisters clothed and fed. It is a middle class/upper middle-class notion that 18-year-olds will go out into the world and discover themselves. For poor folks, an 18-year-old is another breadwinner. They are a caretaker for siblings, niblings, cousins, and grandparents. It is a luxury to be able to turn 18 and be free from family obligations. But when your family is broke, you aren’t allowed to do this. Most people don’t want to abandon their family at a time when they need family the most.
College isn’t a breeze anyway. Even if you’ve got money and time, it is hard if you don’t have any guidance. Middle class kids can play around with different majors without suffering through identity crises, because maybe they have the social connections to help them get a “good” job after graduation no matter what they study. A poor person knows they can’t afford to make mistakes because they are already taking so many risks as it is.
Too bad the DC area has one of the highest costs of living in the country.
Be honest now. Would you be pleased if your kids enrolled at one of these non-selective colleges? I’m guessing you’re like the majority of middle class parents and you’d freak out if you’re kids aimed for “easy” than cutthroat. Because “easy” isn’t going to get you a good job, especially if you are poor or a member of a stigitized racial minority group. And poor people know this. The ones who don’t are the ones who become cautionary tales for everyone else.
This quote here is why I think you’re just being argumentative. Or else, you’ve been very very sheltered and I feel bad for you. Of course, there are opportunities, but they are LIMITED. I mean, there are tons of middle class people who are struggling to get those opportunities, and they went to college and stayed out of trouble and know all the right people. So why would someone living in a shack in rural Appalachia or a project in the inner city NOT be severely disadvantaged in this rat race?
Personally, I think the only way we can help poor people is to exempt them from the rat race and set them up with their own collective economies. But of course this is a radical idea that scares people (COMMUNISM!!) Something that is less radical is simply creating more opportunities and positive pathways targeted at poor people. I’d love to see public boarding schools, where poor kids can be instilled with middle class values and social capital without being totally uprooted from their families.
I’ll add that a lot of opportunities that are presented to poor people are limited to a lucky few or those who know how the system works. Like the public boarding school I linked to, which enrolls students through a lottery system.
As a kid, I participated in the bussing program–whereby minority kids were bussed out of their neighborhoods to attend schools with white kids. The schools in my neighborhood had horrible reputations, but the schools I attended were great. Guess which kids were more likely to take advantage of this program? The kids who had parents who had some political awareness. It was often a word-of-mouth thing. Your mother knew someone else’s mother who had figured out how to get a bus stop on her street, and so your mother followed suit. There were poor kids who boarded the bus with me, but most of us weren’t poor poor. Poor poor kids were left behind in the crappy neighborhood schools.
manson, you seem to be perplexed that there is still poverty given all the opportunities that are out there. But it is important to consider the basic facts: 1) the current opportunities are not enough to meet the demand, 2) there are always going to be people who have a hard time acquiring those opportunities, for complicated reasons, 3) that poverty would probably be a lot worse if NOT for the current level of opportunity out there, and 4) an opportunity is not a guarantee of anything. I mean, a lot of the kids I attended school with are still low-income, despite having been educated in good schools. But this doesn’t mean school integration was a failure, since it is quite possible they are doing better than their peers who hadn’t received any kind of intervention.
They’re charging for abstinence now?
I think I can sum up the issue in one scenario. A person goes to the movies every Friday but cannot afford food. They complain to everyone how broke they are and beg money so they won’t starve.
Does anyone on the board support that person’s decision making?
The ten dollars a week that person spends on a movie isn’t enough to buy food for a week. He’s going to be short anyway, dead broke and without enough for food. Facing that prospect every day. With obstacles to progress that loom so large he can no longer see any reasonable way past them. He decides as long as he’s fucked anyway, he might as well spend a few bucks on something to help him survive, some distraction to get him through the week.
Yeah, I totally get that. Do you not?
And there’s the problem. By treating it as a different culture, you legitimize and validate it to a great extent.
What society SHOULD be doing if they want to really put a dent in poverty is looking at those behaviors, traditions and attitudes as things that should be as mercilessly and ruthlessly eradicated as disease carrying vermin, which in a metaphysical sense, IS what those attitudes, behaviors and traditions are.
And that is bullshit. EVERYONE I know pretty much went to school, maybe changed majors once, and then got out and competed with all the other graduates of all the other local schools for the jobs that were out there. Nobody called up daddy or their daddy’s buddy and got a cushy job.
Nope… we all applied for jobs through the college’s career center and the newspaper, and the quality/pay of the jobs pretty much followed our GPAs in a rough fashion.
If you’re arguing that poor kids can’t make good grades, then that’s one thing, but implying that middle school kids don’t have to bust ass for post college jobs is absolutely, categorically and emphatically not true at all.
No but $10/wk (and lets assume popcorn and coke so more like $20) can buy a few days of food at the end of the month. And since when are movies needed for survival?
Ok, you’re changing the hypothetical, but that’s fine. 
But when has entertainment not been essential for survival? Survival as a functioning human being, I mean, not merely as a living thing.
There are billions of people all over the world that go long stretches between seeing movies in a theater (some even their whole lives). When your actual survival, as a living thing, is threatened by starvation, going to the movies looks an awful lot like a “want” and not a “need”. I wouldn’t give a dime to someone who blew their last $10 at the movies on a Friday and then was asking me for grocery money on Monday.
Actually clarifying. You post made it clear to me I didn’t fully explain it to begin with. My poor person is the sort that needs to choose between electricity bill and food at the end of the month.
The real question is if a person COULD afford food but at the expense of entertainment or other non-essentials, is it a good/valid/other judgement term decision to pick a non-essential (expensive dinner vs cheap dinner, movie, expensive car, pet, etc.) rather than an essential (basic food, bills, rent, cheap but reliable car, etc.)?
As a minimum wage worker, I have to fully admit that sometimes I spend money on things that are not strictly necessary for my survival. Let me give you a specific example from my personal life. When I come back home from an 8 or 9 hour shift at a fast food restaurant, I’m feeling tired and greasy and stressed out from being on my feet all day, and dealing with asshole customers. So sometimes I buy some cheap beer to alleviate that stress. My beer budget is probably around 10 bucks a week.
You may find this hard to believe Saint Cad, but I’m a fairly well read and intelligent individual. I know full well from an intellectual standpoint that if I completely forgo purchasing Pabst Blue Ribbon beer, and instead put that money in a mutual fund, I would have a pretty good sum of money in 5 to 10 years. Oftentimes I wake up in the morning and resolve to myself that I’m going to do this. But then I clock off my shift tired and stressed out, I end up saying to myself “fuck it”, and buy the beer anyway. From your point of view this may be an indulgent luxury, but from my point of view it helps make my life just a little bit more tolerable.
I think conservatives are holding poor people up to incredibly unrealistic standards that they would never accept for themselves. Like don’t spend ANY money on entertainment. Don’t ever go out to restaurants. Poor folk should just eat rice and beans and stare at the wall for entertainment, or they don’t deserve any sympathy. They bitch about the nanny state, but when it comes to giving aid to the poor they turn the Nanny State into a micromanaging bitch.
If you don’t have money for food, entertainment, especially paid entertainment, is never essential for survival as a functioning human being.
Regards,
Shodan
Gotcha.
My concern is with where the lines get drawn. What’s “basic” food? Why is a car even an essential? Maybe you should only buy clothes from Goodwill…except there are places you can get free clothes, so isn’t Goodwill just a needless extravagance? You just bought the fresh apple, when you could have scrounged in the bargain bin and only had a few black spots to eat around. Why on earth would you have a pet, companionship is hardly an essential. Why ever spend a couple bucks on a beer, or a movie, or anything nice to make you happy for a moment? Those aren’t essential.
I guess I’m responding more to Hurricane here than you, Cad. I’m not saying that we should encourage people to spend their money stupidly or extravagantly or in search of some fucked-up American ideal of wealth. I’m not a fan of $200 shoes, I think they’re bullshit. But I can’t get behind the idea that someone is unworthy of help just because they might be spending some of what money they do have on things that are beyond the barest scraping minimums.
Paging Dr. Maslow to the white courtesy phone.
I couldn’t speak for all conservatives, but I wouldn’t hold a poor person to a standard I couldn’t accept for myself. Like graduate from high school, don’t get convicted of a felony, don’t have kids you can’t support, don’t spend money you don’t have on things you don’t need. That is very far from ‘incredibly unrealistic’ - it’s what grown-ups do.
Or go to the library and borrow books for free. Just be sure to bring them back on time.
The poverty apologists seem to be working overtime to reduce any sympathy I could possibly feel for the poor to as close to zero as possible. They’re poor because they have no impulse control, no ability to think further than twenty minutes ahead, poor women are so stupid that they think some loser with a car and a criminal record is a catch, and they cannot even control their sexual impulses enough to turn down any barebacking bozo who asks.
Regards,
Shodan
Dr. Maslow answered your page. He said you should look up the definition of the word “hierarchy” and get back to us.
Regards,
Shodan
It doesn’t have to be “daddy”. It can be frat brother, friend-of-a-friend, or mother’s-best-friend’s-sister.
You’re essentially saying that “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is a myth, even though research shows that More than 70% of jobs are obtained through networking.
Why do middle-class people beat down the doors to gain admission into Ivy League schools? Because they ain’t crazy. They know good and well that if you want to get a foot into the best social networks, you’ll get it by attending an Ivy League.