What.The.Fuck? Most of those kids while not “wealthy”, are usually from high acheiver middle class suburbs. You’ll find a very small percentage of poor or middle class kids at elite colleges. HELLO…ever hear of the private prep schools being called feeder schools for the Ivy League?
I’m sorry but wealthy and upper middle class families do not have a lock on valuing education and hard work. …heck many wealthy and uper middle class families value “superfical” acheivement (oh wittle Smashlie can’t go to anything but an Ivy League School!) and maintaining wealth above all else
I’m curious; is there an alternate universe somewhere based on Dickens’s novels that somehow has access to this message board? Is anyone posting to this thread a character out of Les Miserables? Does anyone actually, truly believe that the working poor in 21st century western society live a life of unrelenting horror with no hope of escape?
Seriously; I’ve lived off minimum wage with no difficulty. It is a living wage. I had everything I needed, many things I wanted, and was even able to save some money. I had health insurance through work, but if I hadn’t had a car (and car insurance) I could have afforded the premiums for private insurance.
I (and many others I know) found that working hard does indeed pay dividends-I never had trouble earning promotions, raises, or working my way up to better jobs. I’ve worked some pretty crummy jobs, but someone had to do them and I knew even then that I wouldn’t be making a life-long career.
In my experience, many people in lower-class neighborhoods suffer from an unfortunate mental block. These people feel that they can’t get ahead, the “system” is against them, and that they are trapped where they are (geographically and financially). Much (not all; I am aware of this) of this is in their imagination, but it has the real-world effect of preventing them from trying for better. It’s quite sad, really, to see people unhappy with their life who could do better if they would make better choices- or sometimes even make a choice. I’ve known far too many people who see nothing wrong with spending their money on drugs/alcohol/other useless stuff rather than things that would help them such as education or birth control- partly because they have a false sense that they can’t improve their own life.
I’ve seen similar attitudes among poor in the developing world- where often the system really is against them and really is purposely exploiting them and keeping them down. And people actually do experience grinding poverty a la Dickens. It’s silly for anyone in the west to have the same attitude. The ‘working poor’ in the U.S. live a life that would be considered middle class by much of the world- and not just in material well-being but also legal protections and opportunities for advancement. Unfortunately, many simply don’t realize they have these opportunities or don’t know how to access them.
Now, when I was working lousy manual labor jobs for low pay I didn’t have children or health problems- these would definitely have made life harder and medical coverage far more expensive. Could and should access to medical coverage in the U.S. be improved? Absolutely. A catastrophic medical problem or unfortunate chronic condition can destroy or seriously impair anyone’s future plans. Does the fact that the current medical insurance/payment system is unwieldy (at best) doom all minimum wage earners to a dystopian life where they are worked to death and then ground up for Soylent Green? No, and exaggerating real problems to cartoonish levels is counter-productive.
I guess Der Trihs has abandoned this thread.
These are the sorts of topics he doesn’t exactly debate - he just spews out a block or so of hate against those who disagree with his view of the world, and then runs away.
Don’t worry, he will be back in a bit to do the same thing in another thread.
Regards,
Shodan
I love the smell of irony in the morning.
“Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he’s keeping is rightfully yours.”
[quote=“autz, post:252, topic:504904”]
http://edstrong.blog-city.com/americas_class_system_the_myth_of_upward_mobility.htm
Ancient stats. The fact is that upward mobility is a myth. It gets harder to move up every year. The station your parents occupy is where you will live too. The idea that you can easily move up creates the illusion that you will have an affinity with the upperclass someday, so it is to your future benefit to allow them to be free of economic restraints. It is a win/win for the rich.
SLOT95: Link Dewa Slot Online Gacor PG Soft & Situs Judi Pragmatic Maxwin Here are more recent stats. A person born to the bottom 20 percent has a 1/100 chance of making top 5 percent. The next group the slightly middleclass have a 1.8 percent chance.
gonzo, could you please stop posting cites that show you to be completely wrong? Especially since it has already been done?
Regards,
Shodan
Not only that. He’s arguing straw. The question is whether people on the bottom can move up, not whether than can move up to the top 5%.
Nobody is irreplaceable. You do know that don’t you? If you get killed in a car accident on the way home, you will be replaced. The company will not go out of business because you are gone. Everybody can and will be replaced.
I love your protestant work ethic .it is great for companies who know loyalty is a one way street. I was always a very hard worker. Sitting around would drive me nuts. But I never thought the purpose was to gain something. If the company succeeds ,theoretically you will. But they are scouring the world looking for a place to move that will get them free of environmental laws and access to cheaper labor.
The country is supposed to be about freedom, with that comes the responsibility to care for yourself.
No one is guaranteed a “living wage”, nor should they be. Who is to determine what that wage is, some bureaucrat somewhere?
Someone offers to employ you for a wage, you agree or don’t. Up to you (and them). Start a business if you like, or can. If you don’t have money but have ideas, use a venture capitalist.
But what about upward mobility! Is that in the constitution? You are guaranteed a good chance to be in the richest whatever %? And how would that be achieved?
Working poor aren’t guaranteed medical care, or at least shouldn’t be. Hospitals shouldn’t even be required to care for them under any circumstances if they can’t pay. If your car breaks down can you get free service at the garage if you’re “poor”? It’s nuts.
The gov’t owes people nothing except defense, public safety and a clean environment.
I don’t care if the “working poor” are sleeping on the streets or dying of the plague, I don’t want my money used for them.
Okay a bit late in the thread but things have finally slowed down for me enough to really give it some thought.
People really are focusing on one of the causes of poverty, and ignoring the rest. However there’s many causes, and each cause needs to be handled differently.
For the record I tend to be liberal, but I’ll attempt to present this list from a neutral point of view. If you think the list shouldn’t or should have some cause, feel free to speak up. Let’s go for a list by consensus.
I’ll start off with one from the otherside:
Poor by choice - this is the group that just doesn’t care about making money, or at least care enough to make lots of money. Sometimes someone from this group really makes an impact, such as Einstein. This is the only group the hardcore Conservatives in this thread will admit exists.
poor by upbringing - this group is escapable, but here’s the important thing. If you’re born into it you’re more likely to stay into it. There is a lot of documented social pressure to. The reason being people being born into this group are socialized as part of this group, and have an extra learning hurdle to escape it. Also being born into this group brings other disadvantages such as poor diet, and poor schools, both of which are documented to hamper development. Another disadvantage is networking. It’s a documented fact that kids who go to rich schools, and have privileged backgrounds have an easier time getting into prestigious schools and the like, as well as better jobs¹. All coupled together this can have a drastic impact on one’s potential development. An example would be the poverty cycles of inner cities, and the rustic poor.
poor by calamity or unfortunate situation - being poor by factors beyond your control. Examples would be the recent Ponzi scheme that obliterated retirement savings, or the hardworking mechanic getting cancer, and then dropped by his health insurance company, due to a technicality, to save costs. Another would be a teenager having a condom malfunction and dropping out to get a job and provide for their kid.
poor by disability a real mental or physical disability prevents you from earning a living and advancing.
Okay so my take on the list:
poor by choice well if they want to then let them have at it I guess
poor by upbringing This one is complex. It’s solution mainly hinges on being able to upgrade educational opportunities and communicate their value. It can’t be done entirely by the government, but the government does need to play a role in providing services such as increased educational opportunities. Also children need to be sure to have adequate food for proper growth.
poor by calamity - this is why we need safety nets. If you fall down in life, then something should catch you before you hit the rocks below. It needn’t be much, just basic shelter, basic food, medical care, sanitation, and other basic needs as well as a hand up, such as education. I include medical care as cheap because UHC countries show UHC is cheaper overall anyway.
poor by disability - who, other then complete and utter pieces of trash would think this group should suffer?
¹cite: Sociology in a Changing World, eighth edition, Chapter 6, page 135 a couple of graphs which show a strong correlation between school school prestige and educational achievement, and another graph which shows a strong correlation between company leaders and coming from a privileged background.
I think I’ve got a total doper man-crush on you now, bro.
ITT: a post from Scrouge McDuck.
Ahem.
Fair broad strokes representation? Or am I just being picky?:o
And you never scour the job boards looking for better pay or benefits? Your relationship with your company isn’t a marriage. It’s great if you can work for a place 40 years and keep growing there, but the reality the economy changes so fast that at any time your job is a relationship of convenience for both parties.
Interestingly, a person born in the bottom 100% only has a 5% chance of making it into the top 5%.
Forget becomming “rich”. Unless you do something extraordinary like run a business or invent a better lightbulb or something, it is very difficult to get into the top 1-5% income bracket.
What you should be asking is how difficult is it for the bottom 20% to enter into a reasonably comfortable lifestyle with the top 80%.
Corporations making more profit is a good thing.
Philanthropy is when two parties compete based on price or quality and the loser thinks the job should go to him anyway.
The feeling’s mutual. 
In all seriousness, a code of selflessness leads to an attitude like Der’s. Those that have much are hated and the rich owe those that have little. And those that have less than me are a threat, because they have the same kind of claim to my money as I might claim on those that have more than me.
I’d like to repeat the point made earlier in this thread that poverty is the natural state of human beings. We are born into this world with nothing. That we have so many wonders and luxuries around us does not mean that any one is entitled to any of it. Rather than asking why there are poor, we should ask why there are rich.
And lastly, there will always be “working poor”. Someone will always have less than what a society considers ideal. The only metric which is of any interest is if the lifestyle of the working poor is improving or not. And over the last generation or so, the lives of the working poor across the world has improved immeasurably.
Is this the best you can do? Yikes. I suggest a wiser course of action for you would be to follow the example of your compadre, Der Trihs, and simply run away this thread.
And you do realize that your first paragraph is a restatement of a pint I made to you, right. Gee, maybe you’re learning something. Or some ignorance has actually been slayed.
Just thought I should add this for clarity and to prevent weaseling:
How much of that increase is through standards like food assistance, minimum wage, other labor laws, child assistance, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc? The working poor’s lifestyle improved in large part because society improved it’s treatment of them. Also included in these improvements were increasing access to education. Children go to school now instead of work a factory. College is more and more an option for everyone.
Economic Conservatives were the ones who argued against these improvements the whole time.
The antonym of your “Code of selfishness” is a code of selfishness, and exploitation. Surely you’re not too blinded to see the excluded middle?