I don’t know if this is a new phenomenon, or if I’m just noticing it more since re-joining the ranks of the poor after a stint in the middle class. I hear a lot of it from conservative talk show hosts, and I’ve also encountered it from certain people here on the SDMB.
The argument is that taxes for the wealthy should be cut to nothing because people should be able to keep the money they “work for”. On the flip side, social safety nets should be done away with because the poor should not have money that they didn’t work for. If the poor would work, or if they work, work harder, they would have money, or more money, and would not be poor.
What it boils down to is, if you’re poor, it’s because you’re lazy.
While I have known some poor people who were your basic shifless slackers, most of the poor people I have known are/were working people who either put in as much overtime as their employers would allow or held second jobs desparately trying to make ends meet.
Also, I’ve noticed that, at least in terms of physical labor, the people on the lowest end of the wage scale actually work harder than their higher-paid cohorts, who generally have cushy desk jobs. My mother used to joke about how cushy her job as a business manager at a medical office, which paid $40,000 a year was. This was back in the early '90’s, when a dollar was worth a bit more than one is now, in a mid-sized Midwestern city where the cost of living was fairly low. Compared to the COL here in Vegas, she was probably earning the equivalent of at least $70K. Her job as a pit clerk here in Vegas was a much harder job, and paid $9.00 an hour.
Most of the jobs I’ve had in my life, whether in a factory, a warehouse, or as a cashier at Wal-Mart, have been physically demanding. Wal-Mart was also demeaning, as was the factory job, because they basically regarded the employees as replacement parts. These were also the lowest paid jobs. During the period of time I was actually making good money, I was dealing craps, a job which was not as physically demanding as other work I’ve had, and was also a helluvalot more fun.
I don’t understand this attitude that equates wealth with hard work, and poverty with laziness. Granted there are some “rags to riches” stories where someone basically by the sweat of their face started a company that became a raging success, and there are some poor people who could lift themselves out of their circumstances if they would get off their asses and get a job, but in my experience, this is not the case for most people.
The wealthy sit behind mahogany desks in Corinthian leather chairs, sign documents with $300 Cross pens, and feel entitled to every cent that the people who break their backs manufacturing the goods and providing the services earn for them.
While I am not sure (in a General Questions sort of way) where this notion came from, like you I have observed it and do have a thought or two that I can share.
First, I think that if poverty is looked at as a condition that is 100% the responsibility of the poor person, then the folks that aren’t poor don’t have to feel as though they need to do anything about it. As a bonus, you get to feel as though you deserve the privilege that you have.
Couple this with the fact that we have a strong illusion in the USA that our society is a meritocracy. This seems, to me, to be a very important part of our national identity. If we have to start taking a critical look at poverty, a core belief is lost. This is threatening.
I am sure that I will think of more later, but those are just some quick notions.
As with all “boiling downs”, this one is wrong. I’m afraid you will not find many conservative talk show hosts who would agree with this. Since you attribute it to them, it may be a strawman.
Technically true enough. The old addage to “work smarter, not harder” is really good advice.
Is it possible that you misunderstand the use of the term hard work? In this context, I don’t think it means physically difficult.
I will repeat my earlier admonishment against “boiling down”.
If I may quote you one more time.
Look around you. Every single business you see, every single one is an example of exactly this. Someone put together the idea that a particular business might make money, with the capital to start said business. Such things are not done simply by waving $300 dollar Cross pens around behind mahogany desks.
I’ve always heard the opposite stereotype. That the wealthy are lazy leeches who accumulate money off the backs of the workers who perform back-breaking labor on their behalf. The truth of the matter is that there are lazy people of all socioeconomic classes. But since “broke”, not “rich” is the default, the lazy, shiftless and incompetant tend to settle to the bottom of the ladder.
I don’t think all poor people are lazy. Many of them certainly work extremly hard. On the other hand, certain behaviors - laziness, irresponsibleness, sloth, poor attitude, lack of direction will hamper your success.
While some people are born into wealth, a great majority earn it - starting businesses, high paying successful careers, so on. How many poor people would go through the trouble of getting a graduate degree and working 70, 80, 100 hours a week or living out of a suitcase for months at a time in order to acquire wealth?
It’s not “laziness” per se but a defeatest attitude that prevents many people from succeeding. “There are no jobs”, “I can’t do that”, “that’s a job for rich people”, “it’s too hard”. My girlfriend complains all the time that she can’t find a better job. “When was the last time you actually called someone or sent out a resume?” I ask (and then find myself of the sofa).
Being lazy won’t necessarilly make you poor. It won’t help you get rich either.
According to Max Weber, it was early 17th century Calvinism. His theory has been discredited, but check out his “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”.
pervert, I kinda need some clarification of your post. Are you saying that the notion that people are poor because they are lazy is one that you have simply never encountered? If you say so, I will believe you (although I will have to assume that we live in very different worlds, as I have heard this argument quite a bit during my stay on this sad little planet).
That said, assuming that you have encountered this notion, how is anything that you posted (other than accusing the OP of setting up strawmen) relevant?
The only things that I see in your post that seem to have much to do with the OP are the “Work smarter not harder” quip, and the notion that if we look around we will see that every single business was set up with hard work.
The first notion seems to me to be rather smug, and plays in to the thesis of the OP (IMO) in that it fails to realize that not only is “working harder” something which is all that a lot of folks can do, it also fails to recognize that as a society we absolutely need the hewers of wood and carriers of water. It also teeters in to the territory of placing all of the blame at the feet of the poor people for being poor; rather that considering that there may well be other factors.
As to the successful businesses that we see, I will give that one to you for the small businesses. At this point, most of what the large successful businesses work at is creating more wealth for stockholders on the backs of labor.
This would be a reasonable argument if there were plenty of decent, well-paying jobs available for everyone who was willing to work.
Arguably, the more fairly a society is structured, the higher the correlation between poverty and laziness.
The people who are equating poverty with laziness—are they, themselves, poor? Didn’t think so. They want to think well of themselves and/or to believe that their world is fair. And there are examples out there of people who are poor because they’re lazy, or well off because they’re hard-working, so there is some truth to the equation. But basically, I can’t really argue with the OP.
The stereotypical conservative view is that poor people are poor through their own fault (laziness, lack of responsibility, etc.); the stereotypical liberal view is that it’s society’s fault, and the poor are pure victims. The reality somewhere in between, with the amount that each contributes varying from individual to individual.
Oddly enough, it seems that very little attention has been paid to the basic question:
Why would someone automatically decide that the poor must be lazy?
In general, it’s more broad than “lazy”. The real sentiment is that the poor must deserve their fate, and there are two reasons that people hold such attitude.
1: Fear. If the poor are not 100% to blame for their fate, then you, who work, save, are responsible, do the right thing, obey the law, and are not a Bad Person ™ run the risk of yourself suffering poverty through no fault of your own. Therefore, it is far more comforting to tell the fairy tale that all poor people are Bad People ™ who deserve their fate completely.
2: Sinfulness. If one holds to the belief that the poor are all Bad People ™ who deserve their fate, then one no longer feels any moral obligation to exercise the virtue of charity toward them. The poor are Unclean ™, thus, they are unworthy of consideration, unlike us Virtuous and Not Poor ™.
No. I am saying that the notion that all poor people are poor because they are lazy is not one usually proposed by conservatives, but by others as a strawman. I should probably refer you to msmith537’s post as he expresses the idea better than me. But what I am saying is that while lazyness and poverty may be linked, that does not mean that all poor people are lazy. And this is what Thea Logica is claiming SDMB posters and conservative talk show hosts are proposing.
But only if you read it that way. I have not in any way suggested that poor people, people who do physical labor, or any people at all are unvaluable.
What I was getting at relied on the fact that some types of labor are more valuable than others. As a rule, mental labor tends to be more valuable than physical labor. And finally, that hard work is not limited to physically difficult work. In other words just because someone works behind a desk does not mean that she does not work hard.
But all of the large businesses were once small businesses. I would suggest that you undertake the mental experiment to see what those workers would produce if you removed that large business from the equation. Not merely replace it with some other idealized business, but remove it entirely.
I believe that it is a fallacy to suggest that business creates wealth on the backs of the worker. Most of the wealth that businesses create goes to the workers. While I will refrain from spouting utopian sillyness about the benifits of capitalism for everyone, I must also object to equally silly generalizations about businesses being Bourgeois tools of oppression against the Proletariate.
[QUOTE=BinarydroneAs to the successful businesses that we see, I will give that one to you for the small businesses. At this point, most of what the large successful businesses work at is creating more wealth for stockholders on the backs of labor.[/QUOTE]
I’d like to second that. Thing is, I don’t see a lot of the hardworking small business owners getting rich. Making a somewhat more than adequate living, but the small businessman who becomes a millionaire is still relatively rare. I seriously doubt that the owner of the little Greek fast food place where I get my falafel, who is frequently seen behind the counter, slicing gyro meat, toasting pita bread, cooking souvalaki (getting hungry yet, Dogface or does it take pyrogie and kielbasi to tempt your palate? mmm, pyrogie) is a wealthy man. Comfortable, maybe. His little business seems to be thriving, but he’s certainly not getting rich.
Dogface, I think your explanation is the best I’ve seen, especially part 2. A high percentage of the people who condemn the poor as being lazy also claim to be Christians- mostly of the fund’ist Protestant variety, although one of local talk show hosts of right-wing bent is Catholic.
Blaming the poor for their own poverty by branding them as lazy makes a nice out for people who want to claim to be followers of Christ, but still maintain a decidedly unChristian attitude for those who are not as fortunate as themselves.
BTW, I hope you don’t mind my asking, but how do the Orthodox make it through Lent?
In the Greek Catholic Church, we are only asked to abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, but still allowed dairy products, except during Holy Week- on Great and Holy Friday, (as well as Wednesdays and Fridays during the St. Phillips Fast), we do the whole "no meat, dairy, wine or oil).
I suppose that I could go without eating meat or having wine for the entire forty days, and abstain from dairy products maybe two days a week, maybe no oil ( :eek: ) on Fridays, but I don’t know if I could get through the entire Great Fast with no meat, dairy, oil or wine for forty days. Or is it something you become accustomed to growing up Orthodox, so your body just learns to deal with living on four calories a day for six weeks out of the year?
And always blaming poverty on circumstances beyond your control makes a nice out for people who want to claim to be followers of Christ, but still maintain a decidedly unChristian attitude about admitting your failings taking responsibility for yourself. Let’s not get holier-than-thou.
Not all rich people work hard; not all poor people are lazy.
A lazy person is, however much more likely, sooner or later, to end up poor.
And FWIW, I made $12,000 last year.
pervert, I guess that I am still not getting you. The OP stated that the attitude was prevalent, and that this sentiment is one which she (?) encountered with some frequency especially from Conservative talk-show hosts. Oddly enough, I share this experience and so am inclined to take the OP at face value.
To be honest, the debating style that you are engaging in seems to be rather off topic and sidestepping the issue. For some reason, this seems to be gaining popularity around here.
Let me then simply ask you this:
[ul]
[li]Have you encountered the notion that people are poor because they are lazy?[/li][li]If so, what was the specific source of that theory?[/li][li]If not, are you calling the OP a liar?[/li][li]Assuming that you have encountered the notion that poor people are lazy, to what you attribute this notion?[/li][/ul]
[QUOTE=olanv]
As far as I’m concerned, one fundamental truth resolves this debate.
Does one work less hard if they accept wealth that they have access to?
[QUOTE]
I hope we are not going to get into this over and over again. But what do you mean? The way I read your question : “Do people work less if they have wealth?” Is that a fair restatement?
No, it is not. Poor people are lazy. Rich people are lazy. White people are lazy. Tall people are lazy. Thin people are lazy. In any demographic you want to name, there will be lazy people. To suggest otherwise (as I take this sentence to mean) is simply to suggest that one demographic is a different kind of people in some essential way, than another.
I appologize for any perception of this phenomena. I am guilty of hijacking many threads. I sincerely did not mean to do so in this case.
Of course. I have not encountered the notion that all poor people are lazy as the OP suggested when he wrote *“What it boils down to is, if you’re poor, it’s because you’re lazy.
*”. At least not from conservaties. I have only encountered it from those who interpret someone elses position in this light.
Well, (and again, re read msmith537’s post, it is much more elequent than myself) simply from the idea wealth is not static, it is created. Usually such creation requires effort. People who are less willing to put forth effort will see fewer rewards than those who are willing to put forth more effort. Please notice that this does not equal the idea that people who do not see rewards have not or are unwilling to put forth effort. It simply acknowledges that there is a link between sloth and poverty. It may not be the only causal link, it may not even be a sufficient causal link. But there is a link.
Not at all. I simply pointed out that he did not back up the claim with, for instance, a link to a conservative column which claims that poor people are lazy. And that it has been my experience that the statement is more often made about conservatives than by conservatives.
As I said above, there is certainly a link. I think it is simply common sense. I’m willing to be proven wrong.
[QUOTE=Thea LogicaThing is, I don’t see a lot of the hardworking small business owners getting rich.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Most businesses stay small. But rest assured that all of them started small. Consider that even those which “started out large” did not suddenly pop into existence from nothing. Perhaps a certain business never went through the mom and pop stage. But at some point it had to start out as an idea. Usually an idea by an individual. Someone who had, could borrow, or could convince people to invest enough money to make the idea happen.
I’m sorry, but I’ve heard explanations like the one Dogface gave dated back to victorian times. While I do remember some early writers advocating it back then, I do not know of any who do so now. If we are to fight ignorance, can we at least identify one proponent of the idea and examine why he thinks it is true before we begin to extrapolate motives to “many conservative talk show hosts”?
While I detest attempts to paint groups with a broadbrush stroke, maybe I can provide a little different viewpoint.
I grew up in a poor region of Eastern Tennessee. I can tell you that there were poor families that were called lazy, but they were called lazy by other poor people. The difference was that the families being termed lazy were sitting around waiting for public assistance rather than working. There was a lot of resentment between the people that were busting their ass to scratch out a living and the people sitting on their porch waiting for a welfare check.
I don’t think the people of East Tennessee were that unique, so maybe those feelings were garnered in other regions as well. Maybe the poor/lazy associations grew from those times.
Being lazy won’t make you poor, but it will surely help you become poor. In the same way that being stupid will. A lazy person will have great difficulty getting promoted, will not apply for jobs that they see as difficult, will miss opportunities, will not take full advantage of available education when they are a child.
Lazyness like stupidity is a disadvantage (maybe even a disability) and any such disadvantage will have an effect on the average earnings of a large group that shares the disadvantage compared to a non-disadvantaged group.
The poor as a group cannot be called lazy, that would be a mistake, but I susspect that lazy people (as a group) would tend to be poorer than non lazy people.
No, it doesn’t. What it boils down to is that people are paid according to the value of their services. The more valuable a person’s service, the more money they are paid. If everyone got paid the same regardless of whether they work or not, there would be no incentive for anyone to work, and our economy would stagnate and we’d all starve.
There is no judgment about the value of the person as an individual. There is no judgment about work ethic. It’s just a statement about the value of the services the individual provides the market.
It gets changed to “poor people are lazy” iwhen people misinterpret the original point. Admittedly, some conservatives believe that poor people are lazy, but they, too, are misinterpreting the original point.
Incidentally, the argument that “allowing people to keep the fruits of their own labor will encourage work” dates back long before conservative talk shows. For example, here is Adam Smith in The Invisible Hand, published in 1776:
Before this argument gets twisted into the idea that the rich are simply better than the poor, Smith also said this:
That’s the crux of the argument. People should be paid as much as the market will pay them. And people should be allowed to keep what they earn because they earned it with their own labor. By paying people more, and by allowing them to keep the fruits of their labor, the best employees (according to habit, custom, education, or nature) rise to the top because they’re going to be pursuing the best incentives (like lots of money).
It’s a mistake to define “hard work” merely in terms of physical labor. There are all sorts of things that can make a particular job hard: stress level, mental demands, technical knowledge requirements, ability to make demands of others, whether it’s boring, etc.
In fact, these “cushy desk jobs” are not “cushy,” at all. They’re hard work, and they often rely on the employee having worked hard for years prior to that. If you think CEOs have it easy, then you have no idea what they actually do. I assure you, it’s a lot more than just signing paychecks with a $300 Cross pen. Their jobs require technical knowledge in a wide range of fields and attention to the most minute detail. They work extremely long hours and with high levels of stress. And typically, they arrived at their position through years of working hard from high school through college and graduate school, and then years working their way up in the company. To suggest that they have it easy is an incredible misunderstanding of their jobs.
If it is, as you suggest, so much easier being a CEO, and the pay is obviously so much better, then why aren’t we all CEOs? Why aren’t you a CEO? Why don’t you have one of these “cushy desk jobs?”
In fact, the reason you and so many others don’t have “cushy desk jobs” is because those jobs aren’t “cushy,” at all. The vast majority of the working population is not qualified to perform them, and in fact, could not perform them. Because so few people are qualified to perform these “cushy desk jobs,” employers are forced to pay more for the services of people to fill those slots. In other words, CEOs are paid more because their services are more valuable than the services of a stocker or cashier.
Prepare to be shocked and offended:
Wal Mart saw their lowest paid employees as replaceable parts . . . because in the grand scheme of things, they were replaceable parts. [This is coming from someone that’s worked mostly at the “replacement parts” jobs.]
The people that work for $5 an hour are typically working for that much because it’s either all they want to do, or all they are qualified to do. Rationally, if these people could make $7 an hour, they’d probably leave their $5 an hour jobs and take move money per hour. And if those $5 an hour employees leave, then there are literally thousands of other unskilled laborers (that’s a technical term referring to their qualifications, not a value judgment) that will step in and take their job. And that type of movement in the unskilled labor force is always going on for Wal Mart. Wal Mart never even feels a bump.
Unskilled labor is, by its nature, less valuable because anyone can do it, and if anyone can do it, there is likely a much bigger work force competing for that job. And if there are more people competing for that job, the employer can pay the employee less.
That’s not Wal Mart’s fault; it’s the free market economy. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world, except for all the others.”