# The role of the working poor in our society **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904 "2009-07-31T19:26:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/421 "2009-08-14T21:55:55Z")
Ok, let’s define our terms to reduce the silliness on both sides. Is coercion always bad? ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/422 "2009-08-14T22:07:57Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Nope. False analogy. Jim Crow was unconstitutional. The right of the federal government to levy income tax and spend that revenue according to the will of elected representatives has repeatedly been tested in the Supreme court and found to be constitutional. > > The income tax is not coerced. I was going to go into some vague esoteric notions of Jim Crow and the judicial expounding (rightfully so, though one could argue overbroad use of its powers) needed to fulfill the rights where Congress had initially enacted them away, but it misses the point, but like your retort, myopic as it is, misses the point. The point being: laws don’t get challenged every day (well, not like one thinks in an otherwise democratic society.) IOW, Congress (or whatever legislature/executive power/governing authority etc.) doesn’t write a law and ask the people to approve or disapprove. The fact that some law has survived scrutiny doesn’t make all laws equally valid. Of course some coercion is warranted. The point is not whether it is good or if it is bad, it is the fact that the only entity with legal power to coerce is the government. Why others fail to see that is really a mystery. Except for self-defense (and even that is limited in some jurisdictions) and secured interest (likewise limited), there is no self-recourse to enforce transactions, rather be it of keeping oneself alive (or rather, away from harm), or perfecting an interest in a collateral to avoid a debt. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/423 "2009-08-14T22:10:05Z")
Should the federal government coerce its citizens to obey the law? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/424 "2009-08-14T22:20:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Ok, let’s define our terms to reduce the silliness on both sides. Is coercion always bad? No. Now it’s your turn - Is it always good for the federal government to use coercion? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/425 "2009-08-14T22:26:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No. Then why is the income tax, which has been upheld by SCOTUS, singled out as a bad application of coercion? > [@](#): > > Is it always good for the federal government to use coercion? No. If we are to define law enforcement as coercion (which I find amusing), then that would be a legitimate use of coercion by the government. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/426 "2009-08-14T23:02:04Z")
> [@geezermom67](#): > > Should the children of these loafers also starve to death? Is it possible for a baby to be responsible for being born to lazy parents? Which it always comes back to, the poor innocent children. One of the reasons I cannot stand children is that people are always shoving them in my face and _demanding_ that I pay to raise them. When will you all realize that making the taxpayer pay to raise generations of drug addicted gang members isn’t exactly good for those innocent children you worry about? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/427 "2009-08-15T00:01:14Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > When will you all realize that making the taxpayer pay to raise generations of drug addicted gang members isn’t exactly good for those innocent children you worry about? And there you have it. **curlcoat** would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/428 "2009-08-15T00:07:01Z")
I’m done with **curlcoat**. If anyone sees me reply to any more of her nonsense, they are welcome to drag me to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![bri1600bv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@bri1600bv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bri1600bv)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/429 "2009-08-15T02:06:47Z")
> [@geezermom67](#): > > Should the children of these loafers also starve to death? Is it possible for a baby to be responsible for being born to lazy parents? Maybe. I have a solution to that too. Instead of food stamps give the poor free nutritious food stuffs. Very nutritious but not tasty (not full of sugar, fat and salt). They can have as much of it as they want. It will have the added effect of helping prevent diabetes which the poor get by stuffing their gobs with free sugar soda etc. But that would be cruel! No free food? Being poor should be tough. It should be miserable. People who are getting free food have no right to complain about the taste, as long as it’s nutritious. After all the biggest problem with the poor is that they are so damn fat. “But good food costs MORE, it’s not their fault!”. Sure it is. Even if good food costs more they could just EAT LESS of their crappy food so they don’t weight 400 pounds and get diabetes. ---
**Author:** ![torie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@torie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torie)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/430 "2009-08-15T05:07:53Z")
> [@bri1600bv](#): > > These “poor” can’t care for themselves. They are basically adult children. IF you give them money, that will free up money for more cable TV, drugs, prostitutes, spinning wheels on their cars, etc. I shouldn’t even bother, but I’ll try anyway. The poor are adult children, what makes you presume that starving them will render them magically able to make sound decisions? > [@](#): > > How about this. Work hard in school or life will be absolutely brutal. YOu’ll probably be very hungry, may end up on a chain gang, may see your kid hungry, may have no money whatsoever for life’s luxuries. If you want to effect behavior, you need to change the carrots and sticks. The idea that some people are paying taxes to give “subsidized housing” to other people makes me sick. I remember one of my co-workers when starting out was on a tight budget…so he cut cable TV. There was a time in history when being poor meant all this exactly. Were there poor then? What did they do? Were problems regarding poverty non-existent then? > [@](#): > > Later the politicians were complaining that people on welfare were so hurting that some could barely afford premium channels on cable! Imagine that. People working so that loafers can afford stuff the workers can’t. I doubt any politician actually said that. Do you have a cite? > [@](#): > > If it were up to me the loafers would starve to death. Prosperity is not limitless. It is very possible that even if you got 100% of the people in the world to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, some people would still end up poor by circumstance. You are ok with hard workers starving to death, as an example to all? > [@](#): > > I remember growing up lower middle class (very lower) and my dad telling me that if I wanted to have a good life, it was up to me. Try hard in school and the world could be my oyster. Somehow I took that lesson to heart. Today’s lesson is that if you want something, you deserve it, and someone else (ie the gov’t) should pay for it. If you don’t get it cry racism or say that the poor are being disenfranchised or something. “No cable TV for the poor? What next? Shall we make them wear a Star of David of some kind or something”? You are creating a false argument. All most liberals want is for the poor to be able to have access to the basics. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare. Most of us are not flooding the streets to hand the poor Juicy Couture and cell phones. Their life still not a ‘good life’. If you truly think the plight of the poor is so wonderful now, then why don’t you quit your job and join them? We liberals make it so wonderful and worthwhile, don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/431 "2009-08-15T05:36:21Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > It’s what you do with your ambition that determines whether it is a virtue of a vice. But I can tell you that there is no virtue in laziness or apathy. Ah but there is! What if you are a POW? That’s a rather tough and patriotic call. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/432 "2009-08-15T05:50:37Z")
> **[Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516)** > > Income Inequality Is At An All-Time High: STUDY Income inequality is at an all time high. The gap is greater than before the first depression in the 30s. It is not an accident. Laws have been changed to make it that way. The paring of regulation ,the tax law changes and many other programs were designed to accomplish exactly what happened. That is who America is. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/433 "2009-08-15T06:30:30Z")
> [@](#): > > How about this. Work hard in school or life will be absolutely brutal. YOu’ll probably be very hungry, may end up on a chain gang, may see your kid hungry, may have no money whatsoever for life’s luxuries. If you want to effect behavior, you need to change the carrots and sticks. Poorhouses anyone? ---
**Author:** ![bri1600bv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@bri1600bv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bri1600bv)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/434 "2009-08-15T07:56:53Z")
> [@torie](#): > > I shouldn’t even bother, but I’ll try anyway. > The poor are adult children, what makes you presume that starving them will render them magically able to make sound decisions? ? It won’t. It will make them bear the fruit of their decisions though, as it should. I don’t care if they are able to make sound decisions or not. Negative reinforcement will work though. > [@torie](#): > > There was a time in history when being poor meant all this exactly. Were there poor then? What did they do? Were problems regarding poverty non-existent then? I’m sure there were lots of problems, but it was cheaper from the gov’t. Theyy didn’t support the poor. > [@torie](#): > > I doubt any politician actually said that. Do you have a cite? No, story relayed by co-worker. He may not have said “premium” channels though. Just cable. As if the ‘poor’ should have TVs at all. > [@torie](#): > > Prosperity is not limitless. It is very possible that even if you got 100% of the people in the world to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, some people would still end up poor by circumstance. You are ok with hard workers starving to death, as an example to all? Relative to some, there will always be poor. Today’s poor would be living the life of Reilly compared to 100 years ago. Some people legitimately fall on hard times, death, disease, etc. There are charities for the few legitimate cases. > [@torie](#): > > You are creating a false argument. All most liberals want is for the poor to be able to have access to the basics. Food, water, shelter, and healthcare. Most of us are not flooding the streets to hand the poor Juicy Couture and cell phones. Their life still not a ‘good life’. If you truly think the plight of the poor is so wonderful now, then why don’t you quit your job and join them? We liberals make it so wonderful and worthwhile, don’t we? Health care meaning ‘fix broken bones, give hypertension medicine, tetanus shots, fix open wounds’ sure. Health care meaning liver transplants, miraculous cancer cures, I think is just wrong. They didn’t pay for that, why should they get it free? 40 years ago they would have died from it, everyone would. They didn’t pay into the system, so tough luck. Why don’t I quit my job and join them? Because I like my life and job better than being poor, even with gov’t handouts. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/435 "2009-08-15T14:35:33Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And there you have it. **curlcoat** would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater. Which, of course, isn’t what I said but you are welcome to believe whatever you wish. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/436 "2009-08-15T16:21:01Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0)…\_n\_259516.html Income inequality is at an all time high. The gap is greater than before the first depression in the 30s. It is not an accident. Laws have been changed to make it that way. The paring of regulation ,the tax law changes and many other programs were designed to accomplish exactly what happened. That is who America is. [/QUOTE] An interesting quotes from your link: > [@](#): > > The evidence suggests that top incomes earners today are not “rentiers” deriving their incomes from past wealth but rather are “working rich,” highly paid employees or new entrepreneurs who have not yet accumulated fortunes comparable to those accumulated during the Gilded Age. Which IMHO, is a good thing. These are people who are business leaders and entrepreneurs creating wealth and jobs for the poor and middle class. Not generations of widowers and idiot children earning interest on interest. No one ever seems to be able to explain why income disparity is such a bad thing. Why do people get worked up over the CEO of a company making hundreds of times the salary of a regular worker yet no one says jack shit about Eli Manning’s $97.5 million contract? > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Ah but there is! What if you are a POW? That’s a rather tough and patriotic call. Maybe you should come back when you have something intelligent to add to the discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/437 "2009-08-15T16:45:56Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > It’s what you do with your ambition that determines whether it is a virtue of a vice. But I can tell you that there is no virtue in laziness or apathy. To give you a better answer… I’m glad you aren’t as much of an absolutist about ‘virtues’ as I thought. Do you acknowledge the role of context in this issue? For example, if there isn’t a thing to work for in the first place, what is the motivation? No gains are possible. In situations like that one might point to a lack of motivation as evidence of non-ambition, and therefore moral badness on the part of the person, which leads to the conclusion that they deserve their fate. But… the situation doesn’t provide the person with grounds for motivation, and so the absence of ambition is traced to an _external_ cause. I still feel like you want to sort out the ‘good people’ from the ‘bad people’: > [@](#): > > I would cynically state that the role of the working poor is to provide a cautionary example to others. IOW, if you don’t study hard or train or find ways to add value to society, you will by default end up performing the least desirable jobs for the lowest wages. Tell me if I’m still reading you wrong. Success is proof of the presence of this virtue of ‘ambition’ in people. Poverty is evidence of its absence. Absence of ambition=bad person. Bad people need to be punished as a ‘cautionary tale’. Is that the gist? How does that view deal with the fact that any economic system virtually guarantees some level of unemployment? Especially in our current situation. Millions of people have seen their jobs disappear in the last year. Scolding them about a lack of ambition seems hardly the appropriate policy. > [@](#): > > At what point do you think you are responsible for your own success or failure in life? A good question. I’m not an absolutist about my position here either. At some point a person has to get off their duff and make something happen- I agree with you to a point you see. At what point is that? What kind of social support should poor people be able to count on? I dunno, let me think about it. I’d like there to be a difference between ‘failure’ and being ruined by some chronic, random condition though. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/438 "2009-08-15T19:07:25Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Do you acknowledge the role of context in this issue? For example, if there isn’t a thing to work for in the first place, what is the motivation? No gains are possible. In situations like that one might point to a lack of motivation as evidence of non-ambition, and therefore moral badness on the part of the person, which leads to the conclusion that they deserve their fate. But… the situation doesn’t provide the person with grounds for motivation, and so the absence of ambition is traced to an _external_ cause. There is always something to work on. One major question is do people create the community they live in or does the community create the people? A bit of both I think. But as a general rule if you have a thousand assholes living together they are going to shit all over everything. How come in many poor neighborhoods there are no grocery stores but there are liquor stores, gun shops, pawn shops and check cashing stores on every corner? Because those are the only stores where the demand is high enough to warrant the risk of doing business in those communities. Why do many poor urban neighborhoods look like shit and yet there are dozens of able-boddied unemployed people hanging around doing nothing? Because there is no pride of ownership. No one cares. And no one is going to invest in a community that looks like no one gives a shit. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I still feel like you want to sort out the ‘good people’ from the ‘bad people’: > > Tell me if I’m still reading you wrong. Success is proof of the presence of this virtue of ‘ambition’ in people. Poverty is evidence of its absence. Absence of ambition=bad person. Bad people need to be punished as a ‘cautionary tale’. Is that the gist? No, you are still trying to tie it back to some sort of moral judgement. No one cares if you are a “good” or “bad” person whatever that means. Let me put it a different way. People, especially poor people, seem to have no concept of what “wealth” means. Everything around you that you use - your home, your clothes, the food you eat, the TV you watch - are all produced from someone elses labor and intellect. Wealth is created by people taking ideas and transforming raw materials into goods and services people want or need. Money is our medium of exchange. So let’s say you are an able-bodied poor person. You have little more than a basic high school education and no real work experience. How much is your labor worth and who is it worth something to? Probably the only thing you are qualified to do is some sort of manual or otherwise repetitive and tedious work that just about anyone can do. Depending on your local labor market, you probably won’t get paid very well nor will you enjoy a particularly luxurious standard of living. Now you have a choice. If you are happy with your current standard of living then by all means continue working your current job. If, OTOH, you want a higher standard of living, you have the option of pursuing avenues to prepare yourself for a higher paying job. You can go to school, cross train at work making yourself a more valuable employee, work extra hours in order to contribute more, move to a better job market, and so on. That is what we call “ambition”. The “striving after something higher than oneself”. It has nothing to do with whether you are a “good” or “bad” person. If you don’t do anything, nothing will change. It’s like someone complaining about not being able to find a better job when they haven’t done anything beside sending out a couple resumes five years ago. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > How does that view deal with the fact that any economic system virtually guarantees some level of unemployment? Especially in our current situation. Millions of people have seen their jobs disappear in the last year. Scolding them about a lack of ambition seems hardly the appropriate policy. Irrelevant. There is always some level of unemployment for the simple reasons that jobs and employees are not homogeneous and unemployment is tied to normal economic cycles. There is some argument over what the ideal unemployment rate is so as not to incur excessive labor shortages and inflation, however most people who find themselves unemployed eventually return to work. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > A good question. I’m not an absolutist about my position here either. At some point a person has to get off their duff and make something happen- I agree with you to a point you see. At what point is that? What kind of social support should poor people be able to count on? I dunno, let me think about it. I’d like there to be a difference between ‘failure’ and being ruined by some chronic, random condition though. People should be able to expect a reasonable level of education, health care, police/fire/ambulance service, infrastructure maintanance and other services typically provided by government. As many of these services are provide at the local or state level, the quality of service is dependent on the wealth of the community. There is what economists call a “vicious/virtuous circle”. (also see “broken window theory”). Basically, these are feedback loops that work in both directions. Poor city management leads to money moving out leading to lower tax base leading to even worse city management and so on. Works in the positive direction to in the case of gentrification. Although with gentrification, the poor often don’t reap the benefits and instead are pushed out by rising costs. IMHO, the purpose of social safty nets is to provide a buffer that allows people who suffer a misfortune to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again. It should not be a wealth distribution scheme to steal from the rich and give to the poor. In any event, I think a lot of poor people are poor because they probably deserve to be. But I also believe that opportunities should be provided so that those who do want something more have the chance to pursue it. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/439 "2009-08-20T02:32:21Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > People should be able to expect a reasonable level of education, health care, police/fire/ambulance service, infrastructure maintanance and other services typically provided by government. As many of these services are provide at the local or state level, the quality of service is dependent on the wealth of the community. There is what economists call a “vicious/virtuous circle”. (also see “broken window theory”). Basically, these are feedback loops that work in both directions. Poor city management leads to money moving out leading to lower tax base leading to even worse city management and so on. Works in the positive direction to in the case of gentrification. Although with gentrification, the poor often don’t reap the benefits and instead are pushed out by rising costs. You know, this argument can never reach a screeching crescendo if we agree on so many fundamental points. Heck, you even support a ‘reasonable level of health care’. So we’re back to the op, the role of the working poor. I think a lot of any continued disagreement is going to come down to things like temperament, differences in _exactly_ what we mean by words, and different personal experiences with the poor. > [@](#): > > There is always something to work on. In a nutshell, I think I’m more into context than you are- you’re more into an economics model. I think my view is more comprehensive, but what do you expect out of me anyway? > [@](#): > > One major question is do people create the community they live in or does the community create the people? A bit of both I think. But as a general rule if you have a thousand assholes living together they are going to shit all over everything. > > How come in many poor neighborhoods there are no grocery stores but there are liquor stores, gun shops, pawn shops and check cashing stores on every corner? Because those are the only stores where the demand is high enough to warrant the risk of doing business in those communities. > > Why do many poor urban neighborhoods look like shit and yet there are dozens of able-boddied unemployed people hanging around doing nothing? Because there is no pride of ownership. No one cares. And no one is going to invest in a community that looks like no one gives a shit. I spent some time looking up a bunch of gloomy cites, but sheesh, I don’t know if you want to go into it. It depends on the poor neighborhood. My main thrust- and I’ll come up with some cites if you want to see it- has to do more with poor black neighborhoods. Maybe you aren’t talking specifically, only about that- I’m thinking of ghetto slums like I saw in Kansas City where it looked like the buildings had been bombed, people were literally standing around fires burning in steel drums, everything was a shambles. In other towns in the midwest I’ve seen ‘black neighborhoods’ where everything seems to suck and everyone seems poor. Add to that all the stories I hear about St. Louis, or LA, or New Orleans, other places… the poorest areas seem to be mostly black. (A counter-example is Denver. The ‘mostly black’ area of town there seems nicer than lots of other areas in town.) Ok- why is there this trend? Think about the history! Many (not all) of these people’s ancestors were bound in slavery. You know, separated from the entirety of their heritage and inheritance, reduced to nothing for generations until there was no living memory of freedom. Once they were finally freed, they had Jim Crow and the KKK to deal with, beating them, oppressing them, fucking them up at every turn. The KKK were largely religious fanatics you know, and a bent in that kind of thinking toward enemies is to harm them ‘unto the 3rd generation’ or ‘unto the 7th generation’- I hope I don’t have to detail the cruelty of it. It has only been a couple generations since segregation ended, and racism in this country still hasn’t entirely vanished. Do you really expect- from a people who were intimidated, beat down, sometimes lynched- that there would be no legacy at all of disenfranchisement? You can blame the parents, sure maybe from some perspectives they aren’t performing all that well. But I suspect for some of these poor people it is as if they are still crawling out from a condition of _ruin_, and not escaping very fast. Why is there no ‘pride of ownership’? Because they don’t own anything! Should they be hyper-motivated to work for $7 an hour for The Man at a demeaning job so that- in 20 years- they can work their way out of their situation? Ya sure it’d be great if everyone could do that, but I think it would be more great if the society as a whole could recognize the groups that are the most in need of help and give those groups… the most help. The current system- you must find a way to get a good job with good insurance in your hopeless position or, if you get sick, you just might die- is cruel IMHO. > [@](#): > > No, you are still trying to tie it back to some sort of moral judgement. No one cares if you are a “good” or “bad” person whatever that means. > > Let me put it a different way. People, especially poor people, seem to have no concept of what “wealth” means. Everything around you that you use - your home, your clothes, the food you eat, the TV you watch - are all produced from someone elses labor and intellect. Wealth is created by people taking ideas and transforming raw materials into goods and services people want or need. Money is our medium of exchange. In this case at least, it comes down to what concepts people have. So by a different route we end up in similar territory to where we were with Curlcoat- if the problem is ignorance, what’s the curriculum? If these people are the ones who need the very most help- well, maybe it is a pipe dream, but I sure wish society made the extra effort to provide that help. > [@](#): > > So let’s say you are an able-bodied poor person. You have little more than a basic high school education and no real work experience. How much is your labor worth and who is it worth something to? Probably the only thing you are qualified to do is some sort of manual or otherwise repetitive and tedious work that just about anyone can do. Depending on your local labor market, you probably won’t get paid very well nor will you enjoy a particularly luxurious standard of living. > > Now you have a choice. If you are happy with your current standard of living then by all means continue working your current job. If, OTOH, you want a higher standard of living, you have the option of pursuing avenues to prepare yourself for a higher paying job. You can go to school, cross train at work making yourself a more valuable employee, work extra hours in order to contribute more, move to a better job market, and so on. That is what we call “ambition”. The “striving after something higher than oneself”. Yes, I know. It worked for me. Maybe I’m Mr. Special, maybe I’m lucky, maybe I’m just a good example of Just Some Guy for your model. In the example I’ve describe above, poor people have a history of having everything pulled out from under them, and so I don’t feel like all the poor are facing the same set of opportunities. That’s all. In some places a load of ambition still only leaves you with a very limited menu of options. Does this make me some kind of bleeding heart or something? I see these people as my countrymen; I’d like my country to do more to remove the ‘grind’ from grinding poverty if ya know what I mean. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with whether you are a “good” or “bad” person. If you don’t do anything, nothing will change. It’s like someone complaining about not being able to find a better job when they haven’t done anything beside sending out a couple resumes five years ago. Ok. You aren’t trying to say the poor are morally bad. You’ve said that a couple times now at least. What the hell am I supposed to beat you over the head with?!? > [@](#): > > IMHO, the purpose of social safty nets is to provide a buffer that allows people who suffer a misfortune to get back on their feet and become productive members of society again. It should not be a wealth distribution scheme to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Sure. But keep in mind they can always be characterized as such a scheme. And many if not most of the rich depend on the poor for the environment that allows for their wealth. ‘Wealth distribution’ is such a nasty buzz-phrase. Some taxes should benefit the poor-as you seem to agree- even if the rich don’t like it. They’re not above the government, hard as they try. > [@](#): > > In any event, I think a lot of poor people are poor because they probably deserve to be. But I also believe that opportunities should be provided so that those who do want something more have the chance to pursue it. Right. But again, the thread ultimately is about the _working_ poor. It grieves me to see their lives damaged by circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![taras1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@taras1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/taras1)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904/440 "2013-03-11T20:50:47Z")
I have mixed feelings about this topic. Feel for the poor struggling. My concern is 1. are they doing what deserves more money? Some are and some not really. Do they need more money? Yes. What happens with the people that finished college and is making somewhat more than this, but not much more do to lack of jobs. Working real hard, even doing 2 to 3 peoples jobs with one small salary. Having to pay for school also, and health care due to employer only offering min. amount of health care. These people will not not get an increase. My son’s employer gives .02% increase if he wants to every 18 months. Times are hard for many people in this world. It is true. I don’t have answers only more questions. Are some of the middle class becoming poor? I see more homeless in NY than before. Yes, some is due to Sandy, but not all. I feel we are not really in touch with what really is happening in this country and will soon be surprised as to where we really stand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-role-of-the-working-poor-in-our-society/504904.md?page=21)