NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

I really get tired of hearing about how much I need to care for the poor. I KNOW the poor, and with the exception of the disabled they are all there as a result of their own decisions.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for folks finding their way out of poverty, but when that poverty is a result of their choices the first thing that needs to improve is not their poverty - it is the thing which has led them into it; their habit of making poor choices.

Drug and alcohol recovery services are good - too bad there aren't more. I think that work habits should be taught also - maybe as an extension of unemployment benefits. Single mothers have it rough - too bad there isn't a class somewhere on how to pick/be a responsible mate (for both genders). Best they can hope for is family/network of support.

All of these things are situations best not gotten into - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Consequences can often suck, but what would life be without them?

Good thing, because, we, the well-off, are always in need of extra body parts and/or cheap labor.

Good thing, because, we, the well-off, are always in need of extra body parts and/or cheap labor.

Wow - only five minutes in and you've already posted something completely irrelevant to the topic. Way to go.

The problem is, you make a few bad decisions early on in your life, and then they condemn you for the rest of your life. Once you are in poverty, it's very hard to get out again.

I also would place the number of people who are poor solely because of bad decisions much lower than you do.

Wow - only five minutes in and you've already posted something completely irrelevant to the topic. Way to go.

That's because I'm lost searching for meaning on your topic.

Or :

I don't see why this is a problem, consequences suck, obviously, no sense crying over every mistake. Some people do got out of it, most don't. Meh.

Ergo:

Yes, we still needs those body parts and/or cheap labor.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

..........

If you are born into a silly family in a silly neighbourhood, and are accordingly taught silly stuff, do you really have the choice to be anything but silly?

Do you really have the choice to stop being silly? Conversely, if you are born into a rich family, where you are taught how to stay rich, is that not a considerable advantage?

Are you not basically implying that poor people are stupid?

If you are born into a silly family in a silly neighbourhood, and are accordingly taught silly stuff, do you really have the choice to be anything but silly?

Do you really have the choice to stop being silly? Conversely, if you are born into a rich family, where you are taught how to stay rich, is that not a considerable advantage?

Are you not basically implying that poor people are stupid?

Agreed. If you're born poor, taught that you are poor, have been poor, and always will be poor, and have no chance at making more money or getting a better education or getting a better job, it becomes more or less impossible to achieve those things. If all you know is failure, you don't expect success. If all you're taught is how to lose, how can you be expected to win?

Finally, and possibly most strikingly, if 10% of the population controls 72% of the wealth (as it happens to be in the USA), where the fuck are you gonna get money from?

The poor are generally poor because society keeps them poor. Do they make a lot of bad decisions? Sure, but so do the rich. The difference is that the rich aren't penalized as much (if at all) for their poor decisions, while the poor are forced deeper into poverty. Add in that a disproportionate amount of the poor are minorities who also have to deal with discrimination and racism, as well as classism, and climbing out of poverty because damn-near impossible.

That said, the way to go about improving poverty is through better education - take funding away from some of those over-rich schools and route it to inner-city schools with no funds. Increase the education budget on a national level. Provide poor students with greater options for attending colleges - not just community and state schools, but private colleges as well. Offer better sex ed so students learn to have safe sex and don't have to drop out at 15 or 16 to support a child. And provide more control and oversight to prevent racist, discriminatory behavior.


I mean, do you really think that people consciously choose to be poor?

In theory, poverty like wealth is a choice but in practice it is something that is forced on people through bad or even poor decisions, or events that are beyond their control, like economic slumps, resulting in job loss and income decrease.

Some people opt for minimalist lives and so low income works fine for them because they don't need money as they don't have a desire for luxury. These people may seem to live beneath the poverty line but in practice, they aren't poor because they don't have luxuries nor extravagant needs. Thus, their low income isn't an issue.

Some people don't opt for that life but wind up poor because they try to escape from circumstances that are abusive but because they are on their own with little money and probably little education, they are forced into a life of poverty. They may try and escape it but they don't have the means to. They didn't make the choice to be impoverished; they were driven to it by means beyond their control; ie: they escaped from an abusive household only to wind up on the streets.

Only in the case of the minimalist is poverty really a choice. The minimalist isn't truly impoverished because they chose to live like that.

IME, a large number of poor DID get there by their own actions (drugs, teen pregnancy, etc). However, it's also far too easy, even for someone who doesn't make those stupid mistakes, to end up poor. Most Americans, even into the middle class, are only a few paychecks from homelessness, and a sick child or broken leg can wipe a person out.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

I couldn't agree with you more on this, I've been around poor people enough to know that they do make shitty choices. So do we help these people? I say no, if there are no consequences for making poor life decisions, then why expect people not to make them, they're still going to get their reward at the end of the day no matter how hard they work- this is the view espoused by most poor people. "It is silly to work hard because it doesn't pay off." the reason it doesn't pay off is because we reward those who try very hard to do nothing at all. I've known people whose life plan was to have enough kids that they could live comfortably on welfare, I wonder what the woman would have done if she didn't have a lifelong safety net to fall back on. Could she actually achieved something if negative reinforcement (in this case rewarding bad behavior) wasn't our official policy?

In theory, poverty like wealth is a choice but in practice it is something that is forced on people through bad or even poor decisions, or events that are beyond their control, like economic slumps, resulting in job loss and income decrease.

Some people opt for minimalist lives and so low income works fine for them because they don't need money as they don't have a desire for luxury. These people may seem to live beneath the poverty line but in practice, they aren't poor because they don't have luxuries nor extravagant needs. Thus, their low income isn't an issue.

Some people don't opt for that life but wind up poor because they try to escape from circumstances that are abusive but because they are on their own with little money and probably little education, they are forced into a life of poverty. They may try and escape it but they don't have the means to. They didn't make the choice to be impoverished; they were driven to it by means beyond their control; ie: they escaped from an abusive household only to wind up on the streets.

Only in the case of the minimalist is poverty really a choice. The minimalist isn't truly impoverished because they chose to live like that.

QFT, basically.

Just to go a little philosophical for a moment, I'd say that the minimalist is more wealthy than many who strive for possessions. Not wealthy by some measure of massive ownership, but because they have all they want. That, to me at least, is true wealth. If you own fourteen private jets, and still want more more more, you aren't wealthy. You're rich, but not wealthy. If you own no car, and get around on a shoddy old bicycle, but are content with that and do not want more, you're wealthy, but not rich. It's basically zen.

Having said that, many people who are in poverty aren't there through their own choices. How is it your choice that you're born to the wrong race, in the wrong area, with the wrong opportunities? Right wing capitalism basically says "Had bad luck? Well tough, you're screwed." and to me that isn't a system I want to live under. We all run into bad luck, often through no fault of our own, and saying that you support keeping other humans down just because they had something go wrong strikes me as selfish and cruel, to be blunt.

I find it telling that the people who most support the unregulated free market, and the idea that poverty is a choice, are the rich, those born into comfortable lives.

Poverty is a phenomenally complex phenomenon, in which degrees of societal determination and individual choice both play a role in nearly every case.

Either that, or it is pre-determined by the alien demon-God Zanaxor the Devourer of Worlds, wielder of the Million Eyes.

My head is spinning too fast to even reply to such drivel.

Poor by choice, my lord, that's so wrong. :eek:

Wow - only five minutes in and you've already posted something completely irrelevant to the topic. Way to go.

He beat me to it. :(

I wouldn't argue that poor choices contribute massively to being poor and remaining poor. But isn't the real question in fighting poverty why some poeple continue to make those poor decisions? Personally, I would guess a lot of it has to do with not even knowing that there is another choice when making the decision. Information is crucial about every decision, just have a look at why the US invaded Iraq.

So far all the evidence I've seen for the pro-choice side is "I know these people" or "I've talked to them on the street". Now all they need is definitive case studies and maybe some expert opinions. Until then it is just some way for some rich folk to justify their richiness.

Click Stand;13275843']So far all the evidence I've seen for the pro-choice side is "I know these people" or "I've talked to them on the street". Now all they need is definitive case studies and maybe some expert opinions. Until then it is just some way for some rich folk to justify their richiness.

What are you waiting for? Go get it and prove me wrong.... or right.

My head is spinning too fast to even reply to such drivel.

Poor by choice, my lord, that's so wrong. :eek:

Wow - talk about completely missing the point.

What are you waiting for? Go get it and prove me wrong.... or right.

I don't need to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right.

The problem is, you make a few bad decisions early on in your life, and then they condemn you for the rest of your life. Once you are in poverty, it's very hard to get out again.

I also would place the number of people who are poor solely because of bad decisions much lower than you do.

I would agree with this to a degree. But it is not necessarily poverty that is difficult to escape - drug addiction, for example is always hard to escape. And who is 'they'?

What do you think makes poverty hard to escape? I think it is dealing with the consequences from the decisions which led to poverty which are much harder. If you can addresst those then escaping poverty is relatively simple.

Wow - talk about completely missing the point.I did not miss "the point."

Click Stand;13275856']I don't need to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right.


Rationalize your surrender however you wish. If I am wrong it should be simple to prove it.

What do you think makes poverty hard to escape? I think it is dealing with the consequences from the decisions which led to poverty which are much harder. If you can addresst those then escaping poverty is relatively simple.

I think it is dealing with the poor education which will lead to less poverty. All decisions after are probably based on not getting a real education. It could either be from having to work a job just so your family to get by or just the fact that the school is underfunded.

I did not miss "the point."

Did you not say

Poor by choice, my lord, that's so wrong.
in response to;

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc.

yes - you missed the point.

Rationalize your surrender however you wish. If I am wrong it should be simple to prove it.

It is impossible to prove wrong because all you have provided is opinion. Proving opinion wrong would require me to convince you, which I deem impossible.

Edit: Without evidence, this thread most likely will melt down to:

Poster A: I'm right
Poster B: No you're wrong, I'm right
Poster A: That's impossible because I'm right.

If you are born into a silly family in a silly neighbourhood, and are accordingly taught silly stuff, do you really have the choice to be anything but silly?

Do you really have the choice to stop being silly? Conversely, if you are born into a rich family, where you are taught how to stay rich, is that not a considerable advantage?

Are you not basically implying that poor people are stupid?

Gee - there are only two types of people in your world - rich and poor?

Did you not say

in response to;


yes - you missed the point.But the majority of those in poverty aren't in poverty by choice, therefore making your point moot.

Gee - there are only two types of people in your world - rich and poor?

In your world there are only two types of people - those who make good choices and those who make bad choices?

Agreed. If you're born poor, taught that you are poor, have been poor, and always will be poor, and have no chance at making more money or getting a better education or getting a better job, it becomes more or less impossible to achieve those things. If all you know is failure, you don't expect success. If all you're taught is how to lose, how can you be expected to win?

Finally, and possibly most strikingly, if 10% of the population controls 72% of the wealth (as it happens to be in the USA), where the fuck are you gonna get money from?

The poor are generally poor because society keeps them poor. Do they make a lot of bad decisions? Sure, but so do the rich. The difference is that the rich aren't penalized as much (if at all) for their poor decisions, while the poor are forced deeper into poverty. Add in that a disproportionate amount of the poor are minorities who also have to deal with discrimination and racism, as well as classism, and climbing out of poverty because damn-near impossible.

That said, the way to go about improving poverty is through better education - take funding away from some of those over-rich schools and route it to inner-city schools with no funds. Increase the education budget on a national level. Provide poor students with greater options for attending colleges - not just community and state schools, but private colleges as well. Offer better sex ed so students learn to have safe sex and don't have to drop out at 15 or 16 to support a child. And provide more control and oversight to prevent racist, discriminatory behavior.


I mean, do you really think that people consciously choose to be poor?

LOL - before you start spending on college shouldn't you be helping them finish the primary grades first? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21531704

If 10% of the population 'controls' 72% of the wealth then 1 in 10 people must be 'wealthy'. That is a good thing. You provide no evidence whatsoever that it is these 'wealthy' people - and not an individuals decisions - which lead to their lack of wealth.

In your world there are only two types of people - those who make good choices and those who make bad choices?

pretty much

But the majority of those in poverty aren't in poverty by choice, therefore making your point moot.

If they made the decisions which let to it - then yes they are.

pretty much

Interesting. How long have you been a troll for?

You provide no evidence whatsoever that it is these 'wealthy' people - and not an individuals decisions - which lead to their lack of wealth.

You provide no evidence whatsoever that it is these individuals decisions which lead to their lack of wealth.

If they made the decisions which let to it - then yes they are.And how do you know they did? You don't.

Click Stand;13275869']It is impossible to prove wrong because all you have provided is opinion. Proving opinion wrong would require me to convince you, which I deem impossible.

NIce white flag.

My opinion is that most poor people are poor as a consequence of their own decisions. If you have evidence that is incorrect it should not be hard to convince me.

You provide no evidence whatsoever that it is these individuals decisions which lead to their lack of wealth.
And how do you know they did? You don't.

Unless you don't know that they didn't either.

The simple observation of cause and effect - aka consequences - does not support any other argument.

If they made the decisions which let to it - then yes they are.

Everyone makes mistakes, but it is those who are in poverty who cannot repair the damage dealt. They are not responsible for their poverty, but it is insead the system of keeping the down, down.

Interesting. How long have you been a troll for?

OIC - troll=not agreeing with you. Thanks for clearing that up.

NIce white flag.

My opinion is that most poor people are poor as a consequence of their own decisions. If you have evidence that is incorrect it should not be hard to convince me.

What are you basing that on, all I want are sources. How do you expect to convince others if you only go on your opinion. Wait! I forgot you don't like putting links in posts that prove your point, if you remember that recent argument with cat-tribe.

Also, I'll tell you when I surrender...and it won't be any time soon.

Click Stand;13275897']Everyone makes mistakes, but it is those who are in poverty who cannot repair the damage dealt. They are not responsible for their poverty, but it is insead the system of keeping the down, down.

Drug addiction, poor work ethics, dropping out of school - those are more than just 'mistakes'.

Click Stand;13275905']What are you basing that on, all I want are sources. How do you expect to convince others if you only go on your opinion. Wait! I forgot you don't like putting links in posts that prove your point, if you remember that recent argument with cat-tribe.

Also, I'll tell you when I surrender...and it won't be any time soon.

Go away until you learn how to debate. I started with a simple statement of opinion. You have done nothing to convince me that it is not a valid opinion. You demanded a source. I AM the source. Now provide evidence to the contrary or shut up.

Drug addiction, poor work ethics, dropping out of school - those are more than just 'mistakes'.

The middle class and rich also have poor work ethics and drug addiction. The difference is that they can come back, the poor can't. So it is instead that they make these mistakes based on being poor and not the other way around.

I don't need to source my opinion.

How did you get the opinion then? You must have seen some sort of report that lead you to this. And don't tell me that you formed it based on talking to poor people.

I don't need to source my opinion.

Then why should anyone else?

Drug addiction, poor work ethics, dropping out of school - those are more than just 'mistakes'.

being poor can lead to drug abuse as an escape.

being poor can lead to poor work ethics as a person gets rundown from constantly working and never getting ahead.

being can lead to dropping out of school as someone might drop out to work to aid in supporting their family.

Poverty is a necessity. Resources are limited. People who argue that everyone can live in security and wealth if they just try hard enough is plain and simple utopian and often enough a very ignorant opionion by those who live in a wealthy environment. On a global scale it is no cooincidence that two third of earth's population live in poverty. These peoples' poverty guarantees the wealth of the rest. Money, environmental resources, infrastructure, etc. don't propagate; if one takes some of it, others lose it.. there's no wealth without poverty. Poverty is determined by wealth on the other part and vice versa. The problem in today's societies is that the wealthy have the possibilities to accumulate more and more riches with the inherent effect that there's less and less people who get most of the resources whereas more and more fall below the poverty line, not just globally. This is a trend seen in most if not all societies. I'm not saying there's a solution to the problem given the circumstances (i wish there was one though) but people who say everyone can live in prosperity if they just strive for it is ignorant and plain illusive. Those who can afford it had to lower their standards of living to provide a better standard of living for those who struggle in order to lessen poverty but since people tend to try to keep their status (and i am no exception to that) the spiral won't be broken. It's a fragile balance: once you take some from one side it will be missed on the other.

Most Americans, even into the middle class, are only a few paychecks from homelessness, and a sick child or broken leg can wipe a person out.

They are making several poor decisions regarding insurance, savings, budget, etc. Even if they do fall victim to those decisions - I consider chances to be high that it will not be permanent.

what about people who are born in to less economically developed countries? they dont make a series of choices that mean they are poor. Sure a government might be corrupt or war torn, but the citizens didnt decide to live there did they? They cant move away because there simply isnt enough room in the world for everyone to move away from the problems.

You also seem to be labeling the poor and not well off as if your above them and wudn't touch them with several barge poles!

But I do have to say, when you do go to help the 'type' of poor your on about, by either state benifits or charity, they flounder it away on drugs or watever. My mother isn't given anything by my father to help with the upbringing of me and my brother and sister. he does work though and he spends his money on himself. Recent perchases inculding fags, booze and brand new computer and several guitars. He keeps promising he'll give her a monthly ammount and so far my mother has recived £40 since September 2004.

It's not down to choice. People don't choose to be poor. It's other people's actions, whether it be a government or a person, that mean someone becomes poor. (unless of course they have an addiction to gambling or drugs etc.)

I hope you get my drift coz i tend to go on a bit and lose the point :D

what about people who are born in to less economically developed countries?

I was specific in the OP to developed economies.

NIce white flag.

My opinion is that most poor people are poor as a consequence of their own decisions. If you have evidence that is incorrect it should not be hard to convince me.

My opinion is you are the standard privileged punk who sits around judging others because you are uninformed and like to feel pointlessly superior when you clearly arn't.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

I really get tired of hearing about how much I need to care for the poor. I KNOW the poor, and with the exception of the disabled they are all there as a result of their own decisions.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for folks finding their way out of poverty, but when that poverty is a result of their choices the first thing that needs to improve is not their poverty - it is the thing which has led them into it; their habit of making poor choices.

Drug and alcohol recovery services are good - too bad there aren't more. I think that work habits should be taught also - maybe as an extension of unemployment benefits. Single mothers have it rough - too bad there isn't a class somewhere on how to pick/be a responsible mate (for both genders). Best they can hope for is family/network of support.

All of these things are situations best not gotten into - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Consequences can often suck, but what would life be without them?

This is pretty much true. The ambience and the person's mistakes are the two factors that affect the equation, and in developed countries, the person's mistakes are of more influence than the ambience. Most people blame only on the poor environments, totally closing their eyes to the people's mistakes and isenting them of fault. Instead, the social network should focus on reintegrating them to the society, setting up courses to teach skills that help them be hired again. Such schools are more eficient than paying aid to the unemployed, because the person has to work hard to learn at school so they get a job. Paying monthly aid you are just rewarding the unemployed for the easy way of life, getting the person back to work makes the person value the progress they've achieved and treasure it by avoiding the same mistakes.

being poor can lead to drug abuse as an escape.

being poor can lead to poor work ethics as a person gets rundown from constantly working and never getting ahead.

being can lead to dropping out of school as someone might drop out to work to aid in supporting their family.

being poor is not an excuse for making mistakes

being poor is not an excuse for making mistakes

My brother will probably never be over the poverty line.

Small school and the teachers hated him, and basically harassed him until he quit. He tried to stay in but couldn't. Finally he set it up to do home schooling and if he finished so many classes he would graduate. He finished them, passed not failed. They then turned around and said he couldn't graduate because there were still classes to take. So he told them to fuck off.

My brother will probably never hold a steady job, as he is narcoleptic and has bi-poler disorder, and when his emotions run high (when he is angry or laughing) he basically shakes sometimes it is so bad he falls.

They tried to do the same thing to my sister but she stuck it out.

They probably would have done the same to me, but I was bullied constantly so all I did was go to class and when I did get into fights it shocked the hell out of the faculty. Evidence that they would have done the same to me? I was one of the few who actually did the work in english class, as such a lot of people copied off of me. The teacher was going to punish me and no one else. had my sister not overheard and bitched out the teacher that is.

btw: never tell a bullied kid "just ignore them and they will stop" it is complete bullshit.



Anyhow, the point is, not everyone drops out of school because they feel like it.


My opinion is not that bad choice is what has caused the majority of the poor but rather being poor has caused the majority of bad choices, because when you are poor good choices are few and far between.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

I really get tired of hearing about how much I need to care for the poor. I KNOW the poor, and with the exception of the disabled they are all there as a result of their own decisions.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for folks finding their way out of poverty, but when that poverty is a result of their choices the first thing that needs to improve is not their poverty - it is the thing which has led them into it; their habit of making poor choices.

Drug and alcohol recovery services are good - too bad there aren't more. I think that work habits should be taught also - maybe as an extension of unemployment benefits. Single mothers have it rough - too bad there isn't a class somewhere on how to pick/be a responsible mate (for both genders). Best they can hope for is family/network of support.

All of these things are situations best not gotten into - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Consequences can often suck, but what would life be without them?

Do you have any sources or reliable statistics to back this up? Otherwise its pure conjecture.

Do you have any sources or reliable statistics to back this up? Otherwise its pure conjecture.

That sums up the thread.

My two cents:

Humbly, you all should do a little research. All the sociological data suggests that poverty is a generational problem. Generally, people who are born poor, stay poor. Those born rich stay rich. There is some social mobility, but not as much as we like to pretend. As much as it might go against our national character, America is very much an economically stratified society.

It has more to do with opportunity than choice. The rich have more money, which can be invested to earn still more, go to better schools, and are connected with better job opportunities. The poor have none of these options. They go to worse schools, have fewer oppotunities, and parents own nothing that generates income that they can pass to children. So where as the rich really just have to wait around for the old man to kick the bucket, the poor have a much harder task to climb that ladder. It can be done, but we sure don't make it easy on them.

Interestingly, however, the JCPR states that most people who are truly impoverished in America are only so for a short term. Chronic, generational poverty is less common, so I think that should dispel illusions about the laziness of the impoverished.

For more information, go to www.irp.wisc.edu. That's the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty. Also visit JCPR.org. JCPR is the Joint Center for Poverty Research, a program funded by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services and operated by a joint endeavor of the University of Chicago and Northewester University.

And, in my opinion, (read: rant) all of you who believe poverty is a necessity lack imagination. This is America, brothers, its a big country, but there's no room for shit like that and you're just holding us back. Everyone should have the opportunity to excel on a level playing field through their hard work, ingenuity, and thrift. I'm sick of hearing this bullshit about the entitlement of the rich to be rich and the place of the poor. You ain't entitled to shit except the opportunity to make yourself. If I was rich, I wouldn't give my kids two nickles to rub together. Let the spoiled little turds earn their own way. And if I was poor, I'd lynch my school board over the conditions of my schools. And don't even get me started about how half-assed the welfare system. "We'll give you money as long as you don't work." What kind of shit is that? We should be rewarding work, not stripping down workers rights to organize, rolling back overtime pay, and otherwise punishing productivity. Equal opportunity for success is the foundation of a free and prosperous society. Period.

And them's my two pennies. Hope its enlightening. TG me in game if you all want anymore info or rants.

Click Stand;13276036']That sums up the thread.

Awesome.

The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

Prove it. You would need to show as a percentage that there is a majority of adults living in poverty, who (and you would need to show this as well) "chose" to do so.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do.

Prove it. Find me one person who simply woke up one morning and decided he wanted to live in poverty.

The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc.

Here's another unqualified generalization about "the majority." So far I see a lot of claims and absolutely nothing but your 'humble opinion' backing it up.

Not to mention your blithe assumption that dropping out of high school is "your own choice," or being an unwed mother "your own choice." Clearly the latter isn't true of, for example, rape victims.

I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

I've known unwed mothers, high school dropouts, unethical people and drug addicts, yes. And some of them were living in poverty. Some were not.

From what *I* know there are many causes of poverty and your simplistic boiling it all down to "their own choice" is insulting to my intelligence.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

I would guesstimate that your guesstimations don't qualify as statistics, facts, or arguments. If you're just going to INVENT statistics, and not even look up anything solid to back up your argument, you shouldn't even post at all.

99% of your post is 100% full of shit.

I really get tired of hearing about how much I need to care for the poor.

Poor baby. I mean, BEING in poverty -that can't be so bad, especially since 60% of the disabled did so because they dove into the shallow end of the swimming pool! - but having to hear about the poor? Oh man. Like a fucking nightmare, dude.

I KNOW the poor

I question the veracity of this claim.

, and with the exception of the disabled they are all there as a result of their own decisions.

Do you think just repeating your own unsupported conclusion over and over counts as a rational argument? It doesn't. Just FYI.

Do you have any sources or reliable statistics to back this up? Otherwise its pure conjecture.

:rolleyes:Can't you read? Mystic clearly states that his opinions don't need to rely on such petty trivialities as 'evidence' or 'proof'. If you knew anything about debating you would realise that the correct way to debate is to state an unsourced opinion then declare it correct until proven wrong. Allow me to demonstrate:

'Mystic Skeptic knows nothing about the realities of poverty and is spouting rubbish at an alarming rate'.

That statement is now true until Mystic Skeptic can prove otherwise.

In theory, poverty like wealth is a choice but in practice it is something that is forced on people through bad or even poor decisions, or events that are beyond their control, like economic slumps, resulting in job loss and income decrease.

Some people opt for minimalist lives and so low income works fine for them because they don't need money as they don't have a desire for luxury. These people may seem to live beneath the poverty line but in practice, they aren't poor because they don't have luxuries nor extravagant needs. Thus, their low income isn't an issue.

Some people don't opt for that life but wind up poor because they try to escape from circumstances that are abusive but because they are on their own with little money and probably little education, they are forced into a life of poverty. They may try and escape it but they don't have the means to. They didn't make the choice to be impoverished; they were driven to it by means beyond their control; ie: they escaped from an abusive household only to wind up on the streets.

Only in the case of the minimalist is poverty really a choice. The minimalist isn't truly impoverished because they chose to live like that.

QFT, basically.

Just to go a little philosophical for a moment, I'd say that the minimalist is more wealthy than many who strive for possessions. Not wealthy by some measure of massive ownership, but because they have all they want. That, to me at least, is true wealth. If you own fourteen private jets, and still want more more more, you aren't wealthy. You're rich, but not wealthy. If you own no car, and get around on a shoddy old bicycle, but are content with that and do not want more, you're wealthy, but not rich. It's basically zen.

Having said that, many people who are in poverty aren't there through their own choices. How is it your choice that you're born to the wrong race, in the wrong area, with the wrong opportunities? Right wing capitalism basically says "Had bad luck? Well tough, you're screwed." and to me that isn't a system I want to live under. We all run into bad luck, often through no fault of our own, and saying that you support keeping other humans down just because they had something go wrong strikes me as selfish and cruel, to be blunt.

I find it telling that the people who most support the unregulated free market, and the idea that poverty is a choice, are the rich, those born into comfortable lives.
QFT by me too. :)

I am one of those examples of a minimalist lifestyle person who is not rich but cannot be considered poor. As a self-employed fine artist, my income is extremely unstable. Sometimes I make good sales. Other times, I have to get other jobs. Sometimes, I have enough cash in reserve that I can go long periods with no income at all. Averaging it out and comparing it to my costs of living where I am (basic housing, utilities, and such), I would be placed below the US poverty line. But I do not have any of the hardships of poverty because my preferred lifestyle is relatively low cost and I am carrying no debt.

This is why, although poverty is quantified in income dollar amounts, poverty is defined by hardship/deprivation levels and inability to pay for necessary expenses, not specific dollar amounts. I earn relatively little, but I am deprived of nothing and am able to meet all my bills. Therefore I am not poor.

But I would not say I choose to be poor, because, obviously, I am not poor. I choose a lifestyle that makes it easier for me to avoid poverty without having to work very hard -- in fact, my lottery fantasies of fabulous wealth do not include much change in my way of living -- but I would certainly never choose to be unable to pay my bills or keep a roof over my head or put healthy food on my table. I would not choose to be hounded by creditors or locked into government systems.

<snip>
My opinion is not that bad choice is what has caused the majority of the poor but rather being poor has caused the majority of bad choices, because when you are poor good choices are few and far between.
That's a great point and very well put.

My two cents:

Humbly, you all should do a little research. All the sociological data suggests that poverty is a generational problem. Generally, people who are born poor, stay poor. Those born rich stay rich. There is some social mobility, but not as much as we like to pretend. As much as it might go against our national character, America is very much an economically stratified society.

It has more to do with opportunity than choice. The rich have more money, which can be invested to earn still more, go to better schools, and are connected with better job opportunities. The poor have none of these options. They go to worse schools, have fewer oppotunities, and parents own nothing that generates income that they can pass to children. There is a fundamental inequality in opportunity that reinforces poverty and class stratification. Try as we may, we are a society that punishes the children for the sins of their parents. Some people are just born on 3rd base while the rest of us are still waiting for our turn at bat.

Interestingly, however, the JCPR states that most people who are impoverished in America are only for a short term. Chronic poverty is less common, so I think that should dispel illusions about the laziness of the impoverished.

For more information, go to www.irp.wisc.edu. That's the University of Wisconsin's Institute for Research on Poverty. Also visit JCPR.org. JCPR is the Joint Center for Poverty Research, a program funded by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services and operated by a joint endeavor of the University of Chicago and Northewester University.

And them's my two pennies. Hope its enlightening. TG me in game if you all want anymore info.
Thanks for that. Also, I'd point out that the fact that most Americans experience poverty only temporarily goes to show how unstable the American middle class is, and I hardly think that is a matter of choice among individuals. Also, even when people manage to get above the poverty line again, they are still not free of it, nor safe from being dragged down again, as most people regain income only after amassing debt that is extremely hard to get rid of and places an ongoing extra burden.

So let's say a family manages to maintain a middle class lifestyle but is knocked into poverty by, for instance, natural disaster destroying their house and work places, or severe medical expenses. Eventually, they manage to rebuild their lives and get back into making money, but the debts they racked up in the effort, now mean they have to work even harder to regain stability, and make their period of financial instability last even longer.

Unfortunately for this theory, a very significant amount of the choices which cause poverty are made by children, or more accurate made by parents and peers for children. Children it should be remembered to not have the responsible faculty of volition that adults with developed brains and minds do.

That being the case, the choice to, say, play video games or hang out with friends instead of read books and go to school is not one which can reasonably be held against a person, or which a person can be responsible for choosing at such a young age.

If nothing else, we have an obligation to ensure that each person, regardless of how debased their parents or neighbors, is given an environment in youth where choosing success is as easy and favorable a choice as it is for the majority of the well-to-do.

It is easy for those of us born into the middle class to say "idiot, if you'd worked hard in school and didn't speak and act like you're trash then you wouldn't be poor," but it is not easy to reconcile this with the conditions and culture of many people who do poorly in school and life.

:rolleyes:Can't you read? Mystic clearly states that his opinions don't need to rely on such petty trivialities as 'evidence' or 'proof'. If you knew anything about debating you would realise that the correct way to debate is to state an unsourced opinion then declare it correct until proven wrong. Allow me to demonstrate:

'Mystic Skeptic knows nothing about the realities of poverty and is spouting rubbish at an alarming rate'.

That statement is now true until Mystic Skeptic can prove otherwise.
I have so accepted the truth of that statement that I am actually completely ignoring the OP, and only got into this on the off chance that a real discussion about poverty might start.

I don't see poverty as a concious choice (except in some circumstances), but as an unforseen consequence of choices.

The "in some circumstances" I referred to can be backed up with an example. Some people do feel that living in poverty is what they want. In the UK there is a show called "Filthy, Rich and Homeless" and they meet a homeless person who has chosen to live on the streets. He lives in the lowest form of poverty (in the UK).

Quote:
I've known unwed mothers, high school dropouts, unethical people and drug addicts, yes. And some of them were living in poverty. Some were not.

So what makes some of this group able to stay out of poverty, whilst others find it harder?

It may be because they will all have different personalities and different situations (so they cannot actually be compared). Some of them may have made a choice to go with the flow, or a series of innocent choices have built up. Others may have made the decision to stay out of poverty and worked incredibly hard to do so. Other choices in these situations may have also contributed.

Every situation has numerous causes, but surely in some cases of poverty, it is a result of decisions they have made in their life.

xxx

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.
Well, you're utterly and completely wrong. Sorry :)


(Well, that is the level of debate you're setting here.)

:rolleyes:Can't you read? Mystic clearly states that his opinions don't need to rely on such petty trivialities as 'evidence' or 'proof'. If you knew anything about debating you would realise that the correct way to debate is to state an unsourced opinion then declare it correct until proven wrong. Allow me to demonstrate:

'Mystic Skeptic knows nothing about the realities of poverty and is spouting rubbish at an alarming rate'.

That statement is now true until Mystic Skeptic can prove otherwise.

Ah, I wasn't aware that that was the "quality" of the "debate" from the OP.

i disagree, poverty is not a series of choices, its the end result of a system which operates on two or three levels.

at the top, money buys everything you want, which invariably gets squandered.

then comes the affluent middle classes, who get an education and squander it...

then come the products of state school. who run a system where factory fodder is the rule of the day. (i know) and it took me many years to get a degree, yet myteachers had me and the rest of my intake year down as duffers...

i persevered and got a degree, and yet statistically our kids aare expected to be duffers... no1 daughter is a childcare specialist, no2 is studying medicine at warwick, and no3 is 13 and thinking about it...

I have a friend. Let's call him Bob.

Bob chose to be born into a very poor family. This was his first and biggest mistake.

As Bob was growing up, he chose to have his parents give him inadequate nutrition because they could not afford better. He also chose to have his family continue to live in a crime-ridden neighborhood because they could not afford to move out. When he was 5 years old, he furthermore chose to go to a school that was incredibly under-funded due to the general economic circumstances of the area in which he lived, and as a result, received a lesser education than that of children born to wealthier families.

Bob chose to belong to a racial minority group that tends to get harassed by the police. Bob also chose to live within an environment in which violence and drug use and misogyny are encouraged, and in which being part of an organized criminal organization is respectable among his peers.

Bob chooses not to get a job because no employer will hire him due to his poor education and a lack of the social skills necessary to function in the workplace.

So really, you see, being poor is all about choice.

And what of the people who do work hard, perhaps at several jobs, and get nowhere in life? I suppose everyone is supposed to win a scholarship and go to Harvard or Yale?

The sad part is that Mystic Skeptic's capitalist wet dream relies on all these working class chumps, toiling away at their dead-end low-paying jobs. If they all did well in school and got degrees, there wouldn't be any high-paying jobs for them; there are no poor workers to make that possible. In addition to that, there would not be enough resources for all those upper-middle class and upper class people (there aren't enough as it is, but this the more upper class there are, the worse).

IMO poverty/wealth in developed countries is "primarily" a bi-product of genetics. You're born with certain physical and mental traits which are condusive to accumulating wealth at the time and place you exist or you're not.
These traits would include I.Q., apptitude, talent, health, energy level, physical appearance, desire, etc.

If you go ask the homeless guy on the corner how he got there, you will understand what kind of dumbass choices he has made.

Sure circumstances are against some people. Life is harder for some. But there are limitless ways to work hard and make the best of life. A person who truly cannot help themselves is a rare thing indeed.

I have a friend. Let's call him Bob.

Bob chose to be born into a very poor family. This was his first and biggest mistake.

As Bob was growing up, he chose to have his parents give him inadequate nutrition because they could not afford better. He also chose to have his family continue to live in a crime-ridden neighborhood because they could not afford to move out. When he was 5 years old, he furthermore chose to go to a school that was incredibly under-funded due to the general economic circumstances of the area in which he lived, and as a result, received a lesser education than that of children born to wealthier families.

Bob chose to belong to a racial minority group that tends to get harassed by the police. Bob also chose to live within an environment in which violence and drug use and misogyny are encouraged, and in which being part of an organized criminal organization is respectable among his peers.

Bob chooses not to get a job because no employer will hire him due to his poor education and a lack of the social skills necessary to function in the workplace.

So really, you see, being poor is all about choice.


exactly

and while it IS possible to overcome a bad situation like this, you cant make any mistakes.

and who of us makes no mistakes?

those of us who were born into more fortunate circumstances have the support/leverage to overcome brushes with the law, drug abuse, early pregnancies.

those who are born into poverty or bad families dont.

If you go ask the homeless guy on the corner how he got there, you will understand what kind of dumbass choices he has made.

Sure circumstances are against some people. Life is harder for some. But there are limitless ways to work hard and make the best of life. A person who truly cannot help themselves is a rare thing indeed.

youve never known a "homeless guy on the corner" have you?

exactly

and while it IS possible to overcome a bad situation like this, you cant make any mistakes.

and who of us makes no mistakes?

those of us who were born into more fortunate circumstances have the support/leverage to overcome brushes with the law, drug abuse, early pregnancies.

those who are born into poverty or bad families dont.

So being born into bad circumstances is an excuse to spend all your money on lottery tickets and beer?

snip


*applauds use of reason and research in an otherwise pointless debate*

youve never known a "homeless guy on the corner" have you?

I know several. I give them rides occasionally. You've never worked at a gas station have you?

Most of the people who say its a "choice" probably haven't even been in poverty or close to it.

I have, and the stuff being said in here is outrageous. I'm sure others who have been in a similar situation are the same. Such outrageous claims.

So being born into bad circumstances is an excuse to spend all your money on lottery tickets and beer?

So you agree that the Jewish media controls the global banking system?

(Note: Strawmen arguments are bad, mmkay?)

Most of the people who say its a "choice" probably haven't even been in poverty or close to it.

I have, and the stuff being said in here is outrageous. I'm sure others who have been in a similar situation are the same. Such outrageous claims.

I've volunteered at several homeless shelters over the past 6 years. Once you see how hard these people work to get back on their feet, you will stop wanting to help them. The laziest, most selfish, ignorant people I have ever known are homeless bums.

I've volunteered at several homeless shelters over the past 6 years. Once you see how hard these people work to get back on their feet, you will stop wanting to help them. The laziest, most selfish, ignorant people I have ever known are homeless bums.Really? Funny you should mention that, because some of the laziest, most selfish, ignorant people I have ever known are rather wealthy. ;)

Agreed. If you're born poor, taught that you are poor, have been poor, and always will be poor, and have no chance at making more money or getting a better education or getting a better job, it becomes more or less impossible to achieve those things. If all you know is failure, you don't expect success. If all you're taught is how to lose, how can you be expected to win?

Finally, and possibly most strikingly, if 10% of the population controls 72% of the wealth (as it happens to be in the USA), where the fuck are you gonna get money from?

The poor are generally poor because society keeps them poor. Do they make a lot of bad decisions? Sure, but so do the rich. The difference is that the rich aren't penalized as much (if at all) for their poor decisions, while the poor are forced deeper into poverty. Add in that a disproportionate amount of the poor are minorities who also have to deal with discrimination and racism, as well as classism, and climbing out of poverty because damn-near impossible.

That said, the way to go about improving poverty is through better education - take funding away from some of those over-rich schools and route it to inner-city schools with no funds. Increase the education budget on a national level. Provide poor students with greater options for attending colleges - not just community and state schools, but private colleges as well. Offer better sex ed so students learn to have safe sex and don't have to drop out at 15 or 16 to support a child. And provide more control and oversight to prevent racist, discriminatory behavior.


I mean, do you really think that people consciously choose to be poor?

Truth.

So being born into bad circumstances is an excuse to spend all your money on lottery tickets and beer?

no its a symptom of hopelessness due to feeling trapped in your bad circumstances.

Really? Funny you should mention that, because some of the laziest, most selfish, ignorant people I have ever known are rather wealthy. ;)

what a coincedence!

Most of the people who say its a "choice" probably haven't even been in poverty or close to it.

I have, and the stuff being said in here is outrageous. I'm sure others who have been in a similar situation are the same. Such outrageous claims.

Because every person in poverty is in fact, a paragon of virtue and assidious work, who is trampled upon by the evil middle classes and their damn chinos?

Simply put, there is every oppurtunity for somebody born into even severe poverty to escape their birth and economically improve themselves. That this might require a measure of self-discipline, thrift and sacrifice seems to offend the likes of you, who expect the middle and upper classes to wring their hands at your "plight" and give you innumerable handouts.

Simply put, there is every oppurtunity for somebody born into even severe poverty to escape their birth and economically improve themselves.There's every opportunity for someone not born into poverty to escape their birth and be plunged into severe poverty as well.

Because every person in poverty is in fact, a paragon of virtue and assidious work, who is trampled upon by the evil middle classes and their damn chinos?

Simply put, there is every oppurtunity for somebody born into even severe poverty to escape their birth and economically improve themselves. That this might require a measure of self-discipline, thrift and sacrifice seems to offend the likes of you, who expect the middle and upper classes to wring their hands at your "plight" and give you innumerable handouts.Way to put words in my mouth and make sweeping assumptions about me. :rolleyes:

There's every opportunity for someone not born into poverty to escape their birth and be plunged into severe poverty as well.

You'll have to forgive TBC; he's unfamiliar with the concept of the economy.

There's every opportunity for someone not born into poverty to escape their birth and be plunged into severe poverty as well.

and?

I've volunteered at several homeless shelters over the past 6 years. Once you see how hard these people work to get back on their feet, you will stop wanting to help them. The laziest, most selfish, ignorant people I have ever known are homeless bums.

Are they poor because they're jerks or are they jerks because they're poor?

Because every person in poverty is in fact, a paragon of virtue and assidious work, who is trampled upon by the evil middle classes and their damn chinos?

Simply put, there is every oppurtunity for somebody born into even severe poverty to escape their birth and economically improve themselves. That this might require a measure of self-discipline, thrift and sacrifice seems to offend the likes of you, who expect the middle and upper classes to wring their hands at your "plight" and give you innumerable handouts.

not at all.

but the faults of the poor are equally represented in the ranks of the non-poor.

if you are born poor there are opportunities to better yourself. if you are able to focus on the opportunity, not make any common mistakes of youth, and not make any wrong guesses, you can do it. it is foolish to suggest that every poor person can live a life where they make no wrong turns. some can, most cant.

Way to put words in my mouth and make sweeping assumptions about me. :rolleyes:

Get over yourself. You might not have been born wealthy, but frankly, neither was I, or any number of people. That you, for all I know, might have been into poverty, is really immaterial; if you haven't worked your damndest, and saved your damndest, to economically improve yourself, I really don't see your complaint.

I know this isn't good debating form and that I should give you a list of reasons why you're wrong and so on, but...

Do people live in poverty out of choice?

Just NO!

As someone who has seen REAL poverty first hand, I can tell you, NO ONE deserves to live in it and NO ONE choses it.

Open your eyes.

no its a symptom of hopelessness due to feeling trapped in your bad circumstances.

okay, so I guess refusing to work a symptom of apathy? There are opportunities for homeless people everywhere. Sitting around and moping about how your life sux and not doing anything about it is your fault and no one elses.

You'll have to forgive TBC; he's unfamiliar with the concept of the economy.He also suffers from delusions of Imperial Glory.

and?Or?

okay, so I guess refusing to work a symptom of apathy? There are opportunities for homeless people everywhere. Sitting around and moping about how your life sux and not doing anything about it is your fault and no one elses.

there is a difference between the chronically homeless and the poor.

how about if we focus on one or the other and not try to mix the 2

since the topic is poverty (and you dont seem to understand homelessness) lets stick to poverty.

Are they poor because they're jerks or are they jerks because they're poor?

I would say neither. Some people are just jerks and some people are nice. It dosen't really matter how poor you are. But poor people are generally very irresponsible.

okay, so I guess refusing to work a symptom of apathy? There are opportunities for homeless people everywhere. Sitting around and moping about how your life sux and not doing anything about it is your fault and no one elses.Since when is poverty limited to the homeless?

Sitting around and moping about how your life sux and not doing anything about it

Oh, I see where you went wrong. You thought this was the definition of poverty.

I know this isn't good debating form and that I should give you a list of reasons why you're wrong and so on, but...

Do people live in poverty out of choice?

Just NO!

As someone who has seen REAL poverty first hand, I can tell you, NO ONE deserves to live in it and NO ONE choses it.

Open your eyes.

lol

its as good a technique as the OP had.

all of you who believe poverty is a necessity lack imagination.

Every society needs it's dreamers.

Frankly, I don't see how we can redistribute wealth to get rid of poverty as long as our societies value materialism.

:confused:

It dosen't really matter how poor you are. But poor people are generally very irresponsible.

I hope you didn't mean this to be serious. Cuz then I'd be embarassed on your behalf.

there is a difference between the chronically homeless and the poor.

how about if we focus on one or the other and not try to mix the 2

since the topic is poverty (and you dont seem to understand homelessness) lets stick to poverty.

I just can't talk about poverty without talking about how much I hate homless people. And homeless people are usually poor.

I hope you didn't mean this to be serious. Cuz then I'd be embarassed on your behalf.

blushes :)

So...
Basically all people make choices, some of which may bring upon bad consequences, one of which may be poverty.

The issue is determining whether a certain choice a person made led them straight to poverty, or it there were other choices along the way, or perhaps outside forces that shoved them down the path to poverty.

I am glad I did the right choice before even I existed, I have chosen to be born in a financially well middle class family rather than in a miserable existence in slums. Too bad I didn't chose being born as a Bill Gates son instead though.

I just can't talk about poverty without talking about how much I hate homless people. And homeless people are usually poor.

oh ok ill just ingore your posts on the topic since you have this unfortunate mental glitch.

So...
Basically all people make choices, some of which may bring upon bad consequences, one of which may be poverty.

The issue is determing whether a certain choice a person made led them straight to poverty, or it there were other choices along the way, or perhaps outside forces that shoved them down the path to poverty.

yeah thats a good summary. I would say, while life is very hard for some, a single decision will not make you poor. You have to fuck-up alot.

I am glad I did the right choice before even I existed, I have chosen to be born in a financially well middle class family rather than in a miserable existence in slums. Too bad I didn't chose being born as a Bill Gates son instead though.Bill Gates doesn't support inheritance, though.

lol

its as good a technique as the OP had.

Undoubtably, but there's no way of reasoning with these ruddy people...

Are you serious?? Do you understand socioeconomics? Your assertion is so off-base, that I am at a loss for where to start denying your claims. You seriously implicate Social Darwinismm, which has led to some of the darkest points in world history.

Let's try an example:
Three people are born simultaneously in different parts of the world.

Person A: is a white American male, born to parents in an upper-middle class suburb.
Person B: is a black Sudanese female, born to Darfur refugees.
Person C: is a black American male, born to parents who are in the new middle class.

Person A is the beneficiary of a top-notch public education. He is taught from an early age how to use computers, how to read and write, mathematics, science, and social studies.

He does good enough in school to go to College, which he can afford through a minimal use of loans, which allows him to have internships and study abroads. He gets a decent stable job and eventually moves past his parents socioeconomic status... social mobility worked fine for person A.

Person B lives a life on the run from a civil war. She is lucky enough to not get raped or murdered. Because of the civil war, she has no access to education. Though she wants to be educated, the reality is she never will. Her life will be one that nobody notices, a faceless refugee.

Person C is in school in the city. Because of white-flight in the 1970s, some city schools are just now beginning to to catch up. He has a decent education, doing well in all his classes. He ends up at the same college as Person A, even being in the same major, but using substantial student loans is unable to explore the same range of education that Person A did.
Person C graduates unable to find good work out college. Student loans are adding up, and to pay them off, Person C has to settle for a job that pays less and has less stability. Person C's job gets outsourced, and Person C is no longer competitive in his chosen field... hes been out of it too long. Person C slips deeper and deeper in to debt, moving backward on the SES scale.

Deleted troll-post.

this post says sooooo much more about you than it does about the people you look down on.

this post says sooooo much more about you than it does about the people you look down on.

good.

Are you serious?? Do you understand socioeconomics? Your assertion is so off-base, that I am at a loss for where to start denying your claims. You seriously implicate Social Darwinismm, which has led to some of the darkest points in world history.

Let's try an example:
Three people are born simultaneously in different parts of the world.

Person A: is a white American male, born to parents in an upper-middle class suburb.
Person B: is a black Sudanese female, born to Darfur refugees.
Person C: is a black American male, born to parents who are in the new middle class.

Person A is the beneficiary of a top-notch public education. He is taught from an early age how to use computers, how to read and write, mathematics, science, and social studies.

He does good enough in school to go to College, which he can afford through a minimal use of loans, which allows him to have internships and study abroads. He gets a decent stable job and eventually moves past his parents socioeconomic status... social mobility worked fine for person A.

Person B lives a life on the run from a civil war. She is lucky enough to not get raped or murdered. Because of the civil war, she has no access to education. Though she wants to be educated, the reality is she never will. Her life will be one that nobody notices, a faceless refugee.

Person C is in school in the city. Because of white-flight in the 1970s, some city schools are just now beginning to to catch up. He has a decent education, doing well in all his classes. He ends up at the same college as Person A, even being in the same major, but using substantial student loans is unable to explore the same range of education that Person A did.
Person C graduates unable to find good work out college. Student loans are adding up, and to pay them off, Person C has to settle for a job that pays less and has less stability. Person C's job gets outsourced, and Person C is no longer competitive in his chosen field... hes been out of it too long. Person C slips deeper and deeper in to debt, moving backward on the SES scale.

Yeah some people in this world cannot get out of their shittty lives no matter how hard they work. But in America, in atlanta at least, that is rarely true.

Yeah some people in this world cannot get out of their shittty lives no matter how hard they work. But in America, in atlanta at least, that is rarely true.Oh, boy. Atlanta, the place most representative of reality on Earth...

Oh, boy. Atlanta, the place most representative of reality on Earth...

you got that right.

Here's an example: My girlfriend's brother was hit by a car and was sent to the hospital. Here's the other thing: He's in college. So in addition to paying the hospital fee (which is going to be quite a pretty penny, believe you me), he also has to deal with missing a quarter of college and paying for it.

In the end, this is really enough to force an average middle-class citizen into poverty. Did they make a bad decision? No, somebody else did, and who suffers for it?

you got that right.:rolleyes:

Yes, the poor are obviously poor do to their own choices and they should have to suffer the consequences. Especially poor children -- those little bastards have what is coming to them.

Nearly 13 million children in the United States—17% of all children—live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level—$20,650 a year for a family of four. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 39% of children live in low-income families. (link (http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html))

Get over yourself. You might not have been born wealthy, but frankly, neither was I, or any number of people. That you, for all I know, might have been into poverty, is really immaterial; if you haven't worked your damndest, and saved your damndest, to economically improve yourself, I really don't see your complaint.Are you seriously saying all one has to do to lift themselves out of poverty is work hard and save?

Wow. I have no words. That's just so terribly irrational.

Are you seriously saying all one has to do to lift themselves out of poverty is work hard and save?

Wow. I have no words. That's just so terribly irrational.

Not in the slightest. What I am suggesting is that the individual has done their utmost to escape poverty, they should expect no help.

Not in the slightest. What I am suggesting is that the individual has done their utmost to escape poverty, they should expect no help.Why the heck not?

The cure for unemployment is called "getting a job". We should make more jobs, not give handouts.

Why the heck not?

Because the state should not have to compensate for people's apathy, ineptitude and incompetance. If one is not prepared to work damn hard to improve oneself, I see little reason why the state should do it for them.

Because the state should not have to compensate for people's apathy, ineptitude and incompetance. If one is not prepared to work damn hard to improve oneself, I see little reason why the state should do it for them.I used to give homework help, and it isn't the same as doing the homework for someone.

Because the state should not have to compensate for people's apathy, ineptitude and incompetance. If one is not prepared to work damn hard to improve oneself, I see little reason why the state should do it for them.

Then what should the state do?

Then what should the state do?

O_O you really don't know what someone who thinks poor=lazy thinks the state should do?




hint: I bet his anwser is "nothing"

I have a friend. Let's call him Bob.

Bob chose to be born into a very poor family. This was his first and biggest mistake.

As Bob was growing up, he chose to have his parents give him inadequate nutrition because they could not afford better. He also chose to have his family continue to live in a crime-ridden neighborhood because they could not afford to move out. When he was 5 years old, he furthermore chose to go to a school that was incredibly under-funded due to the general economic circumstances of the area in which he lived, and as a result, received a lesser education than that of children born to wealthier families.

Bob chose to belong to a racial minority group that tends to get harassed by the police. Bob also chose to live within an environment in which violence and drug use and misogyny are encouraged, and in which being part of an organized criminal organization is respectable among his peers.

Bob chooses not to get a job because no employer will hire him due to his poor education and a lack of the social skills necessary to function in the workplace.

So really, you see, being poor is all about choice.

*Thumbs up*

O_O you really don't know what someone who thinks poor=lazy thinks the state should do?




hint: I bet his anwser is "nothing"

I want to hear his own words.

Because the state should not have to compensate for people's apathy, ineptitude and incompetance. If one is not prepared to work damn hard to improve oneself, I see little reason why the state should do it for them.So if someone is trying their hardest to better themselves and are still unable to do so, they should not expect help, because that's just how it is?

That's pathetic.

So if someone is trying their hardest to better themselves and are still unable to do so, they should not expect help, because that's just how it is?

That's pathetic.

Don't try to appeal to his sense of compassion. He doesn't have any anymore. I don't know what we have to do to make him change, but this tactic isn't going to work.

I'm not really that poor, but I have a rather shitty job that doesn't pay much, and for that situation I have no one to blame but myself. I failed in school due to my social issues, I have trouble working, again due to my social issues, and I just don't have the energy/will to get some valuable skills on my own.

I didn't choose to be poor, but a series of poor choices, and probably to some degree poor genetics, is definitely the cause of my situation. And frankly, I find the idea that it's NOT my fault to be insulting, as it would mean that I don't have any control over my own life, that somehow it's all decided by other people and I'm just along for the ride. And I know that this is false, because I realize what my mistakes have been, and I only have to look at my brother to see how it could have worked out much better if only I had done things differently.

Indeed, Coladrinkers. It's a combination of personal choices and factors outside our control. I too would be poor right now with my own poor choices--made mainly from emotional issues I have worked very hard to get under control--if I wasn't able to still live with my parents. As a result of those poor choices I am now having to join the Navy in order to get the education I need without drowning myself in debt, which I have no intention of ever doing if I can avoid it.

Because the state should not have to compensate for people's apathy, ineptitude and incompetance. If one is not prepared to work damn hard to improve oneself, I see little reason why the state should do it for them.

amen. you wanna cure apathy and hopelessness? Get a job and make some freinds.

Then what should the state do?

protect borders, enforce laws, lots of stuff

So if someone is trying their hardest to better themselves and are still unable to do so, they should not expect help, because that's just how it is?

That's pathetic.

We are all in a position to help one another in ways that the government cannot. The state is not in a position to decide who exactly needs what exactly and most of the time their handouts are abused.

protect borders

Why? You know, if someone sees a bunch of tanks coming, and stupidly doesn't get out of the way and gets run over, it's really their own choice.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

Well, yes. I read this study published by the National Bureau of Stuff Pulled Out of Your Ass that all poverty is a matter of personal choice. Even people who are disabled from birth can usually find work. Afterall, even if your legs down work you can still work sitting at a factory workstation or checking invoices at a warehouse.

Based on rectal-extraction source material all the worlds social ills can be completely explained without ever having to resort to things like reality or knowing what you're talking about.

For example, when you are the mechanic in a small town and make a decent living fixing cars and then a Walmart shows up in the next town putting you and all the mechanics in surrounding towns out of business... Well, it was your own choice to enter a profession for which you were trained simply because it paid well at the time and later would not. It's also your choice for not taking the job at Walmart fixing cars even though you don't have any economics background that would alert you to the fact that a Walmart spelled the end of your local industry and the Walmart would only pay you poverty wages anyway (meaning you'd be working poor instead of unemployed poor).

If he had chosen to be a mechanic in an area that wasn't going to be economically suppressed in a manner he was unable to predict then he wouldn't have become poor. It was totally his choice.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

I am poor, compared to the average citizen of my nation.

I'm that way by choice. Not "poor choices" but a deliberate choice to use my own time instead of selling it. Yes, I call your vaunted "work-ethic" ... slavery by the hour.

So, my individual case bears out your thesis.

Nonetheless, I utterly reject the rest of your OP. It is simply offensive to deny the effect of a privileged upbringing, and sheet it all home to an "individual choice."

I'm not reading your thread. I'm sure you've had a thorough beating-up by now.

You do realize the fallacy here. You're taking something incredibly complicated that the majority of you have probably never experienced and can be attained in a gazillion ways (Poverty) and trying to summarize it as either injustice or choice.

My personal thought is that as individuals we should try to help any poor people we know but in the end we can usually only help so much and some of it lays on them. Further, every single person is different and in many cases, the story of how they got there is a crazy complicated and tragic one and the way they will get out of it is a long and windy road. After all, poverty is often more then a monetary issue. It often contains in it a poverty of spirit as well, and just giving them things is not going to solve the inner remnant.

The reality is, people need not only to sustain themselves, they need something to call their own, an achievement that is all there's, and they will not be healthy individuals if they do not have that.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I do not consider poverty of choice poverty, even if you're monetarily poorer, because you have a made a personal sacrifice for something that is more important to you.

We are all in a position to help one another in ways that the government cannot. The state is not in a position to decide who exactly needs what exactly and most of the time their handouts are abused.So? Just because a minority of welfare participants abuse it doesn't mean to ruin it for the legitimate population that does need it. :rolleyes:

Then what should the state do?

What should the state do? Don't be too specific with he question, I mean, really....

If you meant to ask what I would have the state do to combat poverty, I can provide the answer in one word; education. Ultimately, no amount of welfare payments or moralistic left-wing handwringing can disguise the fact that the welfare budget would be far better put towards improving educational standards, primarily by establishing a grammar school in every town, and in so doing allowing the intelligent poor a fighting chance for an excellent education.

So if someone is trying their hardest to better themselves and are still unable to do so, they should not expect help, because that's just how it is?

That's pathetic.

Wrong. If one is prepared, and has, worked as hard as possible, I see no reason why the state should not offer tax remissions. These could be accomplished, in part, by withdrawing welfare from the unemployed who either refuse work, or refuse to even seek work.

amen. you wanna cure apathy and hopelessness? Get a job and make some freinds.

Thank you very much. So much of modernity is so very, very weak and spineless. Why should people look to the state to sustain them before looking to themselves? Oh wait, because its perfectly acceptable to be a drain on the state if you're poor, it's revenge on the nasty old establishment.

Thank you very much. So much of modernity is so very, very weak and spineless. Why should people look to the state to sustain them before looking to themselves? Oh wait, because its perfectly acceptable to be a drain on the state if you're poor, it's revenge on the nasty old establishment.

So, the miniature minority that just doesn't want to work should just rot on the street? At what point in time should they be arrested for not contributing?

I think even those who refuse to work should be fed. And provided with minimal housing, at the cost of the tax-payers. And get free health-care and access to the swimming pool.

So, the miniature minority that just doesn't want to work should just rot on the street? At what point in time should they be arrested for not contributing?

I think even those who refuse to work should be fed. And provided with minimal housing, at the cost of the tax-payers. And get free health-care and access to the swimming pool.

Why the fuck would I want to arrest them if they don't break the law? That would be silly.

However, as to whether I would abandon those who refuse to work, the answer is yes. Frankly, if one refuses to contribute to society economically, I see little in merits in society sustaining them. Why place a further burden upon the tax-payer?

Why the fuck would I want to arrest them if they don't break the law? That would be silly.

However, as to whether I would abandon those who refuse to work, the answer is yes. Frankly, if one refuses to contribute to society economically, I see little in merits in society sustaining them. Why place a further burden upon the tax-payer?

Works fine in Scandinavia, best countries in the world. When our kids won't eat, we tell them to think of the poor children in New Orleans. Works superbly, until they offer to just send them the food directly.

Works fine in Scandinavia, best countries in the world.
All people need is the right motivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_law).

Anyways, as far as the OP is concerned, I agree by en large. I think it's phrased in an unfortunate way, because "choice" always implies that the person knows the consequences of the possible alternatives to some degree.

My family decided to move to Australia, which sounded like a great plan. Unfortunately there were great difficulties in finding a job here, selling the house in Germany and generally building up an existence here. We ended up really quite poor (or rather, in fear of not being able to pay the bills next time 'round), and that's been changing only in the last year or so.

So did we choose to be poor? Of course not - but we still made the choice that led us to be, and our poverty was the direct consequence of our own actions.

The real question is whether or not this honest mistake on our part confers some sort of claim on the wealth or lives of other people, whether the mistake really bears repairing by anyone but those who made it. I don't think so.

Works fine in Scandinavia, best countries in the world. When our kids won't eat, we tell them to think of the poor children in New Orleans. Works superbly, until they offer to just send them the food directly.

If you say so. That must be why Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway are such dominant global powers...

I think even those who refuse to work should be fed. And provided with minimal housing, at the cost of the tax-payers. And get free health-care and access to the swimming pool.

This is as bad as the OP.

This is as bad as the OP.

Worse.

If you say so. That must be why Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway are such dominant global powers...

Because power is how you determine living standards...

Click Stand;13277612']Because power is how you determine living standards...

Countries with small populations should obviously invest in nuclear programmes before they do anything so trivial as make their country work properly.

Anyway, without having read the thread the obvious question to ask the OP is why the poor tend to stay poor and the rich tend to stay rich. Is good decision making genetic?

Click Stand;13277612']Because power is how you determine living standards...

The funny Scandanavian poster stated that Scandanavia comprised the "best" countries in the world. That my definition of "best" differs from his is a different matter, and one which, as ever, the majority of the slack-jawed fuckwits here fail to appreciate.

This is as bad as the OP.

Scary part is, I'm not even trolling. :)

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.

The only real exception I can think of are the disabled who were not disabled as a result of their own recklessness (like diving into the shallow end). I would guesstimate that these account only for less than 40% of the poor.

I really get tired of hearing about how much I need to care for the poor. I KNOW the poor, and with the exception of the disabled they are all there as a result of their own decisions.

Don't get me wrong; I am all for folks finding their way out of poverty, but when that poverty is a result of their choices the first thing that needs to improve is not their poverty - it is the thing which has led them into it; their habit of making poor choices.

Drug and alcohol recovery services are good - too bad there aren't more. I think that work habits should be taught also - maybe as an extension of unemployment benefits. Single mothers have it rough - too bad there isn't a class somewhere on how to pick/be a responsible mate (for both genders). Best they can hope for is family/network of support.

All of these things are situations best not gotten into - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Consequences can often suck, but what would life be without them?

I dislike your poll. It doesn't give the option "often victim of their choices and should recieve little help" Don't get me wrong. We should have programs to help them help themselves. But stuff like welfare is idiotic. We should have inner city education programs (to help them learn to manage themselves better, teach them an employable skill), and programs for single moms, orphans, veterans, and the mentally disabled. But for unemployed, able-bodied workers, there should be little help outside of the education program I've outlined.

All people need is the right motivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_law).

Anyways, as far as the OP is concerned, I agree by en large. I think it's phrased in an unfortunate way, because "choice" always implies that the person knows the consequences of the possible alternatives to some degree.

My family decided to move to Australia, which sounded like a great plan. Unfortunately there were great difficulties in finding a job here, selling the house in Germany and generally building up an existence here. We ended up really quite poor (or rather, in fear of not being able to pay the bills next time 'round), and that's been changing only in the last year or so.

So did we choose to be poor? Of course not - but we still made the choice that led us to be, and our poverty was the direct consequence of our own actions.

The real question is whether or not this honest mistake on our part confers some sort of claim on the wealth or lives of other people, whether the mistake really bears repairing by anyone but those who made it. I don't think so.
A large deal of my respect for you has just evaporated, Neu Leonstein. :(

I never understand what happy world you guys live in. You must never have seen or experienced poverty. It is RARELY bad choices. It's a cascading spiral and deep hole that is hard to surmount. It's not "easy" to get a job. The only jobs they can get are low-paying. They may have dropped out of high school because they needed to support their family or had a baby. At that time abortion and contraception was not as prevalent, nor was sex-ed, back then. My mom is very qualified and hasn't had a full time job in three years. A few part times, but they might not add up to even $20,000. My dad gets his pension or whatever and it all works, but the argument "anyone can get a job" is only partially true. Anyone can get a job, but it probably pays about minimum wage, which people can't live off of. Poverty is not about poor choices. It's about bad luck and shitheads like you who are greedy/selfish and won't help.

Also, there are lots of high-paying jobs available to the poor. Why can't they just be a CEO of a multinational company or something? It's not that damn hard, one or two people did it so why not one or two million?

I never understand what happy world you guys live in. You must never have seen or experienced poverty. It is RARELY bad choices. It's a cascading spiral and deep hole that is hard to surmount. It's not "easy" to get a job. The only jobs they can get are low-paying. They may have dropped out of high school because they needed to support their family or had a baby. At that time abortion and contraception was not as prevalent, nor was sex-ed, back then. My mom is very qualified and hasn't had a full time job in three years. A few part times, but they might not add up to even $20,000. My dad gets his pension or whatever and it all works, but the argument "anyone can get a job" is only partially true. Anyone can get a job, but it probably pays about minimum wage, which people can't live off of. Poverty is not about poor choices. It's about bad luck and shitheads like you who are greedy/selfish and won't help.

I'm not being critical or anything, I'm just curious. Have you ever experienced real poverty? I think it's pretty rare in the US. Real poverty, that is. All our poor at least have enough to eat. Which is fanatically amazing compared to the rest of the world. There's a difference between being poor and not being able to afford a PS2.

And the key word in what you just said is "pension".

I'd like to provide a link to some information regading slavery

http://www.criticalthink.info/Phil1301/lieshist.htm

I'd aslo like the OP to try and read chapter 7 of the same book. This is all I will add to the OP's exercise in futility.

I'm not being critical or anything, I'm just curious. Have you ever experienced real poverty? I think it's pretty rare in the US. Real poverty, that is. All our poor at least have enough to eat. Which is fanatically amazing compared to the rest of the world. There's a difference between being poor and not being able to afford a PS2.


That's a worryingly detatched way of looking at it. Relative poverty is still poverty and it's still horrible.

I never understand what happy world you guys live in. You must never have seen or experienced poverty. It is RARELY bad choices. It's a cascading spiral and deep hole that is hard to surmount. It's not "easy" to get a job. The only jobs they can get are low-paying. They may have dropped out of high school because they needed to support their family or had a baby. At that time abortion and contraception was not as prevalent, nor was sex-ed, back then. My mom is very qualified and hasn't had a full time job in three years. A few part times, but they might not add up to even $20,000. My dad gets his pension or whatever and it all works, but the argument "anyone can get a job" is only partially true. Anyone can get a job, but it probably pays about minimum wage, which people can't live off of. Poverty is not about poor choices. It's about bad luck and shitheads like you who are greedy/selfish and won't help.

Getting a kid that you can't support is a bad choice. A really, really bad one. And as long as you're willing to do the less pleasant and low paying jobs, it is easy to get a job. I know, because that's what I do. When people around me complain about how it's difficult or impossible to get a job, I give them a few suggestions, things I know works, and they look at me like I'm crazy and go "But I don't want to do something like that!". They would much rather collect benefits than do dishes. At least that's my experience, from the people I've met and worked with here in Sweden.

I make about $15k a year, but it's well enough for me because I've adjusted my life to work for that salary. Do you really need more than one room to live in? Do you really need a car? Do you really need to go out and drink and party every weekend? Do you need to smoke? It's tough to live on a low income, but you can do much more with it than most realize. Me, I'm saving some each month for a rainy day. Yes, even on my income.

I'm not being critical or anything, I'm just curious. Have you ever experienced real poverty? I think it's pretty rare in the US. Real poverty, that is. All our poor at least have enough to eat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_US#Food_security

Many impoverished people in the US can't afford a healthy, balanced diet. They subsist on dollar menu McD's or unsanitary stuff in dumpsters.

That's a worryingly detatched way of looking at it. Relative poverty is still poverty and it's still horrible.

Yes, we should all feel sorry for the average CEO because he doesn't have as much money as Bill Gates.

Yes, we should all feel sorry for the average CEO because he doesn't have as much money as Bill Gates.

I think you misunderstand the term 'relative poverty'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_US#Food_security

Many impoverished people in the US can't afford a healthy, balanced diet. They subsist on dollar menu McD's or unsanitary stuff in dumpsters.

As long as you have a place to live and equipment and electricity for storing and preparing food, there's no way you can convince me that McDonald's is cheaper than what you can cook on your own.

If you are so poor that you have to count every penny, you should probably live mostly on rice and beans. Buy them in huge sacks, it's dirt cheap and contains most of what you need. The money you save from not buying that daily McDonald's meal is well enough to compliment your diet with vegetables and even meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_US#Food_security

Many impoverished people in the US can't afford a healthy, balanced diet. They subsist on dollar menu McD's or unsanitary stuff in dumpsters.

Food security can be caused by a lot of things. My dad, who was food insecure for about 2 years before establishing his career (he subsisted on 7 fishsticks a day) worked his way up to make quite a lot of money. Generally, college kids out to work for the first time are food insecure.

And notes from the article : only 11%, part of the year, healthy balanced diets.

The numbers and wording indicate that the problem isn't very significant. I'm not really concerned, especially since in 3 year's time, when I try to establish my career, I'll fall into the "food insecure" category.

I think you misunderstand the term 'relative poverty'

A measure of relative poverty defines "poverty" as being below some relative poverty threshold. An example is when poverty is defined as households who earn less than 50% of the median income is a measure of relative poverty. Notice that if everyone's real income in an economy increases, but the income distribution stays the same, relative poverty will also stay the same.

What I was trying to get across was that relative poverty doesn't necessarily have to be bad. If everyone has all the money they need, it wouldn't really matter if they were still relatively poor, now would it?

What I was trying to get across was that relative poverty doesn't necessarily have to be bad. If everyone has all the money they need, it wouldn't really matter if they were still relatively poor, now would it?

Sorry, I wasn't aware this was the case. Don't know what all these poor people with swimming pools are complaining about.

You provide no evidence whatsoever that it is these individuals decisions which lead to their lack of wealth.

Save yourself the trouble. Mystic is of the opinion that nothing in history has really had an effect on society. Things are the way they are today becuase they just are. Prepare for him to ignore evidence to the contrary of his argument. The OP doesn't realize that he needs to prove his theory to be true before others are asked to refute it. He just makes statements such as "they make bad decisions and that is why they are poor because I said so." He can choose to ignore the past and its effect on people of differentiated social stratafication.

Climbing out of poverty to him is "easy" because he doesn't recognize what the root causes of poverty are in the first place. To him it's all about choices. Because he comes from either a middle upper class family, perhaps higher, he looks down on others as being inferior or making bad choices. This is the same attitude that many people who are living in poverty have of themselves. They are taught not to recognize the causes of their situation and therefor feel guilt for being where they are. They look at their family as deserving to be poor because after all poor people "choose" to be poor. If someone is born into an affluent family and they then make bad choices and wind up in poverty then his argument would be true. Someone who comes from poverty does so with every disadvantage that he cannot imagine. From poor schools, to horrible living conditions, to violence and danger in their neighborhoods, etc. Growing up in the suburbs, as Mystic has done, blinds you to the world around you. You start to see people as either being right or wrong. The past has no effect on the present to him because he has not been in the struggle, noe does he really know anyone that has. It's easy to chastise others when you sit at the top.

wealth distribution in America, the one in ten someone else cited is false. (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm)

more data. (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) I know how you hate data and evidence mystic but give it a go, eh?

more (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Wealth_Divide.html)

I'll rely on evidence. Mystic will rely on, "well people I know."

Sorry, I wasn't aware this was the case. Don't know what all these poor people with swimming pools are complaining about.

What? You might want to consider rephrasing that, because, as it stands, it makes you sound stupid. Swimming pools are clearly a measure of extreme affluence, and to measure the lowest members of society against that is ridiculous. You measure them against whether they have enough food, water, shelter, etc. to live properly (if uncomfortably), not swimming pools. Sheesh.

As long as you have a place to live and equipment and electricity for storing and preparing food, there's no way you can convince me that McDonald's is cheaper than what you can cook on your own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States


It's fairly common in American cities, as evidenced by overflowing shelters that charge for bedding. Look for homeless camps under freeway interchanges, near rail yards, and in vacant lots in the non-rich parts of town.

Additionally, many people who aren't on the streets may be living in situations where they don't have the means or skill to prepare meals.

What? You might want to consider rephrasing that, because, as it stands, it makes you sound stupid. Swimming pools are clearly a measure of extreme affluence, and to measure the lowest members of society against that is ridiculous. You measure them against whether they have enough food, water, shelter, etc. to live properly (if uncomfortably), not swimming pools. Sheesh.

You might want to consider the idea that people can write things which aren't meant to be read literally.

Finally, and possibly most strikingly, if 10% of the population controls 72% of the wealth (as it happens to be in the USA), where the fuck are you gonna get money from?

72% and the money equivelent of that percentage seem a lot. In fact, it is, but there is still a :shit load: of money in that other 28% (if that statistic is even acurate/true) just to say.

In anycase, I sort of agree with you.

Society in general doesn't Punish per se, poor people who make mistakes, it is generally that, as you said, rich are born in a stable enviornment and the poor in an instable. Likewise, if a rich person 'makes a mistake' they have money to fall back on, if poor people make a mistake, they're screwed.

Generally, most poverished probably come from instable enviornments (such as 'the hood') or are born into families that are generally poor (poor people make MORE poor choices!)

Is society in general responsible for people in poverty ending where they are? No. Of course not(in most situations), what the hell did I do to make that homeless guy down the street poor? Nothing, but society sometimes makes people poor by creating bad envirornments. Is it their own fault? possibly, is it their parent's fault? If it wasn't their childs fault then it would be theirs.

Is it the governments fault? Of this we know to be true. No. They don't do it to be mean to people, they neglect them.

Really, I believe enviornment is a big problem. Things I would suggest to decrease poverty rate.

1. Make it a requirment to have a stable income(*insert other names/things here*) to be able to have a child. Or they'll be yanked by child protective services and put into a foster home, orphanage (eliminates poor being born poor to an extent)

2. Increase funding for Law&Order, part of the problem is that when crime is rampant, it is harder to get an education, thus be able to go from being poor to at least middle class. Plus, if crime is rampant, life becomes a struggle for survival, (again, education becomes harder).

3. As said before, increase education funding (or rather, divert it from other areas like rich schools to metropolitan areas) although, Law and Order should be a priority.

You might want to consider the idea that people can write things which aren't meant to be read literally.

What you meant literally is poor people do have a right to complain because they aren't as affluent as rich people, as evidenced by things like swimming pools. And I responded by saying that not all people in society are economically equal, and measuring whether a poor person is well off or not by things like swimming pools is ridiculous.

What you meant literally is poor people do have a right to complain because they aren't as affluent as rich people, as evidenced by things like swimming pools. And I responded by saying that not all people in society are economically equal, and measuring whether a poor person is well off or not by things like swimming pools is ridiculous.

Thanks for that but what I actually meant - and clearly communicated - is that that mentioning that if everyone had lots of money (ignoring the real life implications eg inflation) some people would still be in 'relative poverty' is at best irrelevant as that is very much not the case.

Thanks for that but what I actually meant - and clearly communicated - is that that mentioning that if everyone had lots of money (ignoring the real life implications eg inflation) some people would still be in 'relative poverty' is at best irrelevant as that is very much not the case.

It seems to be the case. The number of starving people is extremely small-- so small, in fact, that the category has to be renamed to "Food insecure" just to include more people and be considered statistically relevant. 89% of the US's citizens are "food secure" (meaning no food problems AT ALL), which is one of the best ratings in history, especially considering the size of our population.

Finally, and possibly most strikingly, if 10% of the population controls 72% of the wealth (as it happens to be in the USA), where the fuck are you gonna get money from?

72% and the money equivelent of that percentage seem a lot. In fact, it is, but there is still a :shit load: of money in that other 28% (if that statistic is even acurate/true) just to say.

In anycase, I sort of agree with you.

Society in general doesn't Punish per se, poor people who make mistakes, it is generally that, as you said, rich are born in a stable enviornment and the poor in an instable. Likewise, if a rich person 'makes a mistake' they have money to fall back on, if poor people make a mistake, they're screwed.

Generally, most poverished probably come from instable enviornments (such as 'the hood') or are born into families that are generally poor (poor people make MORE poor choices!)

Is society in general responsible for people in poverty ending where they are? No. Of course not(in most situations), what the hell did I do to make that homeless guy down the street poor? Nothing, but society sometimes makes people poor by creating bad envirornments. Is it their own fault? possibly, is it their parent's fault? If it wasn't their childs fault then it would be theirs.

Is it the governments fault? Of this we know to be true. No. They don't do it to be mean to people, they neglect them.

Really, I believe enviornment is a big problem. Things I would suggest to decrease poverty rate.

1. Make it a requirment to have a stable income(*insert other names/things here*) to be able to have a child. Or they'll be yanked by child protective services and put into a foster home, orphanage (eliminates poor being born poor to an extent)

2. Increase funding for Law&Order, part of the problem is that when crime is rampant, it is harder to get an education, thus be able to go from being poor to at least middle class. Plus, if crime is rampant, life becomes a struggle for survival, (again, education becomes harder).

3. As said before, increase education funding (or rather, divert it from other areas like rich schools to metropolitan areas) although, Law and Order should be a priority.

It seems to be the case. The number of starving people is extremely small-- so small, in fact, that the category has to be renamed to "Food insecure" just to include more people and be considered statistically relevant. 89% of the US's citizens are "food secure" (meaning no food problems AT ALL), which is one of the best ratings in history, especially considering the size of our population.

Are you kidding me? In the richest country in the world this is what we're going for? If you're not literally starving to death you're not poor? Awesome.

Are you kidding me? In the richest country in the world this is what we're going for? If you're not literally starving to death you're not poor? Awesome.

The richest country in the world is about the have its economy gutted. But our horrible trade relations are another story.

Yes, seeing as the rest of the world is literally starving to death, I'd say our poor have it relatively good. I've seen kids drop out before-- the rich suburban kid who smoked pot and then flunked his way out of high school. He's never had to work before so he can't work hard, and his failure at school means that he has no employable skills. I've seen several of these kids before. No, he shouldn't starve, but robbing those who did work hard to make his life comfortable is criminal.

The richest country in the world is about the have its economy gutted. But our horrible trade relations are another story.

Yes, seeing as the rest of the world is literally starving to death, I'd say our poor have it relatively good. I've seen kids drop out before-- the rich suburban kid who smoked pot and then flunked his way out of high school. He's never had to work before so he can't work hard, and his failure at school means that he has no employable skills. I've seen several of these kids before. No, he shouldn't starve, but robbing those who did work hard to make his life comfortable is criminal.

Indeed, an accurate representation of all poor people.

Give people the chance.

Like say, free and paid full primary, secondary and tertiary education. That takes out poverty as a factor in improving your standing and leaves what a lot of people here are really asking for: For people to be judged according to their laziness or talent. Not everyone will get in, on account of there being limited resources available, but at least it'll be based on skill rather than wealth.

Healthcare should be free too. There'll be the occasional person who purposefully hurts themselves, but seeing as how most healthcare issues are accidental, there's no reason for society not to pay for it. That takes out wealth as a factor again. Essentially, the poor who do not have to pay for it will not sink lower into poverty and make worse choices or be forced to steal.

Basically, I want to give people the potential to pull themselves out (unlike some here who believe that anyone can realistically just work hard and magically become a millionaire), while removing accidents as a factor (drug abuser because you weren't smart enough to say no at the time? I'd say that counts as an accident) and yet not giving them a free ride (they still have to work to make use of their potential).

By chance, that would be pretty much how the Scandinavian model functions.

Also, I fail to see why being a global power is somehow necessary to have a good society (referring to Blessed Chris' rather strange comment).

Edit: I would also like to note that the free and paid education includes enough to pay for lodging, food, books and equipment, plus a tiny bit extra, though you can work on the side if you really want more stuff.

Indeed, an accurate representation of all poor people.

No, not all. There are some who really are the victims of shitty circumstances. Which is why we should have some self-help education programs in the cities. But in the end, they need to work to advance themselves. It's good for society and its good for them.

The richest country in the world is about the have its economy gutted. But our horrible trade relations are another story.

Yes, seeing as the rest of the world is literally starving to death, I'd say our poor have it relatively good. I've seen kids drop out before-- the rich suburban kid who smoked pot and then flunked his way out of high school. He's never had to work before so he can't work hard, and his failure at school means that he has no employable skills. I've seen several of these kids before. No, he shouldn't starve, but robbing those who did work hard to make his life comfortable is criminal.

That's an incredibly bizzare way to look at poverty. Almost cartoonish.

That's an incredibly bizzare way to look at poverty. Almost cartoonish.

There is nothing cartoonish about it. And btw, please say something more than a brief, opinionated statement that carries no information in it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the US is divided into an overclass of lazy fatasses and an underclass of heroic, oppressed laborers, but its not true, for the most part. Yes, its true, its highly unlikely that an impovershed man will ever become a CEO, but he can work hard enough to financially secure himself and send his kid to college. Which is what happened to my mom. Which is also the sign of a good society.

There is nothing cartoonish about it. And btw, please say something more than a brief, opinionated statement that carries no information in it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the US is divided into an overclass of lazy fatasses and an underclass of heroic, oppressed laborers, but its not true, for the most part. Yes, its true, its highly unlikely that an impovershed man will ever become a CEO, but he can work hard enough to financially secure himself and send his kid to college. Which is what happened to my mom. Which is also the sign of a good society.

I don't have that idea. Nothing I said indicates I have that idea. I just don't think it's fair to say that people are generally rich because they work hard.

It is cartoonish. If you ever end up in poverty you will see why.

Edit: I would also like to note that the free and paid education includes enough to pay for lodging, food, books and equipment, plus a tiny bit extra, though you can work on the side if you really want more stuff.

Perhaps this was just a wish for how you wish things would work, but I'd just like to point out that this is definitely not how it currently works here in Scandinavia.

I don't have that idea. Nothing I said indicates I have that idea. I just don't think it's fair to say that people are generally rich because they work hard.

It is cartoonish. If you ever end up in poverty you will see why.

They do work hard. CEOs, doctors, and lawyers work like hell. They work hard and they have conditions favoring them. Those who work hard but don't have conditions favoring them comprise of the upper lower class and the lower middle class. Those who don't work hard at all are at the bottom.

If I ever end up in poverty, its because I'm a furious procrastinator and deserve to fail.

They do work hard. CEOs, doctors, and lawyers work like hell. They work hard and they have conditions favoring them. Those who work hard but don't have conditions favoring them comprise of the upper lower class and the lower middle class. Those who don't work hard at all are at the bottom.

Sure, certain jobs require you to work hard. However, the children of the rich tend to be rich and the children of the poor tend to be poor. Your upbringing and your natural talent are far more important than how hard you work. Working hard in a call centre or working hard as a waiter doesn't get you shooting up the class structure.

Sure, certain jobs require you to work hard. However, the children of the rich tend to be rich and the children of the poor tend to be poor. Your upbringing and your natural talent are far more important than how hard you work. Working hard in a call centre or working hard as a waiter doesn't get you shooting up the class structure.

Because in American society, people get paid on how much they're worth, which is dependent on two things:
A) How hard you work
B) The employable skills you have

The people you're railing against work very hard. What distinguishes them is that they also have employable skills. If the waiteress had any baseline intelligence and paid attention during school, she would realize that yes, she wouldn't be able to make it as a waiter. Her labor simply isn't important enough to recieve attractive pay. But by conserving her money, she would be able to send herself or her child through a community college or trade school and gain that employable skill to raise her position in society. As a real life ancedote, my uncle, who recieved no money for college from our grandfather, raised himself up as a firefighter at minimum wage, into a community college, from which point he got hired into a real company and traveled to Belgium to work.

If our system is so unjust, how is it that so many dirt poor Asian immigrants succeed?

Because in American society, people get paid on how much they're worth, which is dependent on two things:
A) How hard you work
B) The employable skills you have

The people you're railing against work very hard. What distinguishes them is that they also have employable skills. If the waiteress had any baseline intelligence and paid attention during school, she would realize that yes, she wouldn't be able to make it as a waiter. Her labor simply isn't important enough to recieve attractive pay. But by conserving her money, she would be able to send herself or her child through a community college or trade school and gain that employable skill to raise her position in society. As a real life ancedote, my uncle, who recieved no money for college from our grandfather, raised himself up as a firefighter at minimum wage, into a community college, from which point he got hired into a real company and traveled to Belgium to work.

If our system is so unjust, how is it that so many dirt poor Asian immigrants succeed?

Who am I railing against? People who have money? I have money. The thing is I know that I made my money sat on my butt typing on a computer. Do I work harder than a miner? Do I fuck. Saying people are wealthy because they have worked hard is a complete misrepresentation. My skills are more in demand than those of a miner and that's what makes me worth more money but it's crazy to claim that's because of hard work.

How bizarre this thread is. I feel like I'm in a time warp, watching the 21st century argue with the 19th century.

On the 21st century's side, there are statistics and data and a willingness to at least question social attitudes.

On the 19th century's side, there is blaming people for being unfortunate, singling out an economic class to stigmatize morally, characterizing wealth as a sign of character, and extolling the glories of unfettered capitalism.

But you know, the 21st century arguments were current in the 19th century as well. Charles Dickens made them very well indeed. To quote just one, in keeping with the holiday season, there was a scene in "A Christmas Carol," when the Spirit of Christmas Present finishes his time with Scrooge. I'll quote the 1951 movie version (the best version by far):

Standing in a freezing cold square at midnight, the Spirit asks Scrooge if he will learn from what he has been shown. Scrooge protests that he cannot answer, that he is too old to change. So the Spirit says that if he cannot learn those lessons, "Then learn this one."

And he parts his robe to show two skeletal, flithy, starving children clinging to him like terrified animals.

Scrooge: "Spirit, are they yours?"

Spirit: "They are Man's. They cling to me for protection from their fetters. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want (poverty). Beware them both, but most of all, beware this boy."

Scrooge: "But have they no refuge, no resource?"

Spirit, repeating his habit of throwing Scrooge's own words back at him, quotes Scrooge's remarks in response to an earlier request for a charitable contribution: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

The Spirit vanishes, with those words echoing in the night and inside Scrooge's head, who then runs in terror right into the path of the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come, who has the face of Death.

Ignorance and Poverty. Twin demons that have stalked civilization forever. And we see Ignorance at work in every post in this thread that judges the poor for being poor, that treats poverty as someone else's problem.

Is poverty a result of bad choices? Yes, it is, but not the bad choices of the poor. No, it is the result of the bad choices of the ignorant who cannot see what is right in front of them -- that poverty is a cancer in society, and contrary to what some posters seem to think, it does not prefer some kind of people over others. It will swallow anyone and everyone it can get. We all are skating on ice over an ocean of poverty and deprivation, and the deeper we let that ocean get (the more we tolerate poverty), the thinner that ice gets under us.

Who am I railing against? People who have money? I have money. The thing is I know that I made my money sat on my butt typing on a computer. Do I work harder than a miner? Do I fuck. Saying people are wealthy because they have worked hard is a complete misrepresentation. My skills are more in demand than those of a miner and that's what makes me worth more money but it's crazy to claim that's because of hard work.

CEOs, doctors, and lawyers, to name just a few, are well paying positions that require extremely hard work, not backbreaking physical labor, but very strenuous mental labor and hard work. Those who have it easy in their career worked their asses off in school to make it so. And it isn't a question of purely hard work but intelligent management of that work as well. A miner can adequately allocate his money to a means to advance himself.

And if what you said is true, then you're part of the problem you've been attempting to elaborate on and need to shut your face immediately. If you feel you don't deserve your money, then give some of it away, don't vote to take it away from those who actually worked hard for their money.

CEOs, doctors, and lawyers, to name just a few, are well paying positions that require extremely hard work, not backbreaking physical labor, but very strenuous mental labor and hard work. Those who have it easy in their career worked their asses off in school to make it so. And it isn't a question of purely hard work but intelligent management of that work as well. A miner can adequately allocate his money to a means to advance himself.

And if what you said is true, then you're part of the problem you've been attempting to elaborate on and need to shut your face immediately. If you feel you don't deserve your money, then give some of it away, don't vote to take it away from those who actually worked hard for their money.

I'll let the hard work thing slide because it seems to me I've conclusively proved the hard work = wealth thing to be misleading and I'll just ask why I'm "part of the problem"?

How bizarre this thread is. I feel like I'm in a time warp, watching the 21st century argue with the 19th century.

On the 21st century's side, there are statistics and data and a willingness to at least question social attitudes.

On the 19th century's side, there is blaming people for being unfortunate, singling out an economic class to stigmatize morally, characterizing wealth as a sign of character, and extolling the glories of unfettered capitalism.

But you know, the 21st century arguments were current in the 19th century as well. Charles Dickens made them very well indeed. To quote just one, in keeping with the holiday season, there was a scene in "A Christmas Carol," when the Spirit of Christmas Present finishes his time with Scrooge. I'll quote the 1951 movie version (the best version by far):

Standing in a freezing cold square at midnight, the Spirit asks Scrooge if he will learn from what he has been shown. Scrooge protests that he cannot answer, that he is too old to change. So the Spirit says that if he cannot learn those lessons, "Then learn this one."

And he parts his robe to show two skeletal, flithy, starving children clinging to him like terrified animals.

Scrooge: "Spirit, are they yours?"

Spirit: "They are Man's. They cling to me for protection from their fetters. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want (poverty). Beware them both, but most of all, beware this boy."

Scrooge: "But have they no refuge, no resource?"

Spirit, repeating his habit of throwing Scrooge's own words back at him, quotes Scrooge's remarks in response to an earlier request for a charitable contribution: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

The Spirit vanishes, with those words echoing in the night and inside Scrooge's head, who then runs in terror right into the path of the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come, who has the face of Death.

Ignorance and Poverty. Twin demons that have stalked civilization forever. And we see Ignorance at work in every post in this thread that judges the poor for being poor, that treats poverty as someone else's problem.

Is poverty a result of bad choices? Yes, it is, but not the bad choices of the poor. No, it is the result of the bad choices of the ignorant who cannot see what is right in front of them -- that poverty is a cancer in society, and contrary to what some posters seem to think, it does not prefer some kind of people over others. It will swallow anyone and everyone it can get. We all are skating on ice over an ocean of poverty and deprivation, and the deeper we let that ocean get (the more we tolerate poverty), the thinner that ice gets under us.

I suppose you are referring about my views. Allow me to elaborate, lest you get the wrong idea about what I support, because debating with a very one-sided person hasn't allowed me to demonstrate all my views.

There are two reasons, generally, why a person is poor:
a) He doesn't work hard (like my neighbor, who originally inherited $4 million. He attempted to live as an artist, doing no work. He now lives in a homeless shelter, along with his kids)
B) he doesn't have skills that are marketable (you can work damn hard as a waitress and go nowhere in life)

What I think we should do is we set up schools in impovershed areas teaching the poor how to work, how to use their money effectively, how to advance, and a marketable skill of some sort. At that point, they cease becoming a concern for the rest of society. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

There should be minimum wage of some sort, just because wealth being concentrated in the hands of too few was a prime cause of the Great Depression.

We should be concerned about them, but this mindless worship of them as heroic workers oppressed by an unjust system is ridiculous. Each and every person holds in their hands the means to their own advancement. If we lived in czarist Russia, my opinion would be different, but here in the US, everyone can advance who has the will and intelligence to do so. We should give them a push to help them, but subsidizing them is ridiculous and counterproductive.

I'll let the hard work thing slide because it seems to me I've conclusively proved the hard work = wealth thing to be misleading and I'll just ask why I'm "part of the problem"?

A) You have not proved conclusively that hard work = wealth. I said it all along. Allow me to break it down to you in a series of equations.
Hard Work + Marketable Skills= Unfathomable wealth
Marketable Skills + a little bit of work= Well off, but not wealthy
Marketable Skills + no work= Poverty
Hard Work + a few marketable skills= Well off, towards the poorer end, with the capability to rise
Hard Work + no marketable skills= Upper lower class, frequent money worries, but not necessarily poverty
No hard Work + no marketable skills= abject poverty, the hobo, the lowest of the low, as it should be
I do, in fact, have personal examples of all of these, if you want to hear them.

B) You are part of the problem because you say that people with money don't work to earn it and used yourself as an ancedote. Not the wisest thing in the world.

A) You have not proved conclusively that hard work = wealth. I said it all along. Allow me to break it down to you in a series of equations.
Hard Work + Marketable Skills= Unfathomable wealth
Marketable Skills + a little bit of work= Well off, but not wealthy
Marketable Skills + no work= Poverty
Hard Work + a few marketable skills= Well off, towards the poorer end, with the capability to rise
Hard Work + no marketable skills= Upper lower class, frequent money worries, but not necessarily poverty
No hard Work + no marketable skills= abject poverty, the hobo, the lowest of the low, as it should be
I do, in fact, have personal examples of all of these, if you want to hear them.

B) You are part of the problem because you say that people with money don't work to earn it and used yourself as an ancedote. Not the wisest thing in the world.

A) No, I didn't prove it. I disproved it. Btw, personal examples are known as anecdotal evidence and are filmsy at best.

B) I didn't say that. I said that differing work ethics is not the main reason for gaps in wealth. I don't know where I said people who dared to earn money without working hard were part of a problem.

A) No, I didn't prove it. I disproved it. Btw, personal examples are known as anecdotal evidence and are filmsy at best.
Pardon my lapsus lingui, typing fast has a habit of doing that. I meant disproved for both my argument and yours. I'm well aware that pure hard work means jack shit if you aren't intelligent with it.

B) I didn't say that. I said that differing work ethics is not the main reason for gaps in wealth. I don't know where I said people who dared to earn money without working hard were part of a problem.

The crux of your argument has been "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". And our debate devolved into whether rich people deserved their money or not and whether poor people deserve their lack there of. I said that rich people generally deserve their money (or most of it) because they do work hard have rightly earned it. You stated that they didn't and then used yourself as an example of one who didn't work hard and still got good money. Which would count you as part of the problem you've been elaborating on of rich people having undeserved money that should go to the poor.

Well, I've loved debating with you (I actually have), but I really have to go now. Uber-massive report due tomorrow. Auf Wiedersehen.

The crux of your argument has been "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". And our debate devolved into whether rich people deserved their money or not and whether poor people deserve their lack there of. I said that rich people generally deserve their money (or most of it) because they do work hard have rightly earned it. You stated that they didn't and then used yourself as an example of one who didn't work hard and still got good money. Which would count you as part of the problem you've been elaborating on of rich people having undeserved money that should go to the poor.

Well, I've loved debating with you (I actually have), but I really have to go now. Uber-massive report due tomorrow. Auf Wiedersehen.

I think the crux of your argument is that you've been massively presumtious the whole time and unfortunately it's not paid off. I'm not arguing what you think I'm arguing and I think you should read over the last couple of pages and realise that not everyone who doesn't agree that rich people just happen to have children more deserving of being rich than anyone else are communists.

realise that not everyone who doesn't agree that rich people just happen to have children more deserving of being rich than anyone else are communists.

I'm not sure I follow you here. If you don't think children of rich people deserve to be rich as well, you must then think that rich people either can't do with their own money and property as they wish (such as giving it to their kids), or that they don't deserve to be rich in the first place. But in that case, you don't think that the people who give their money to the rich people should be allowed to do so.

Either way, it does sound rather communistic. No private property and all that. Or am I off somewhere?

I'm not sure I follow you here. If you don't think children of rich people deserve to be rich as well, you must then think that rich people either can't do with their own money and property as they wish (such as giving it to their kids), or that they don't deserve to be rich in the first place. But in that case, you don't think that the people who give their money to the rich people should be allowed to do so.

Either way, it does sound rather communistic. No private property and all that. Or am I off somewhere?

I'm not talking about people inhereting money, that's not typically why the rich stay rich. I mean that the very fact that America is not a true meritocracy by definition means that those who succeed do so with an unfair advantage.

Edit to add: Of course, even if that were the case you're being presumptious as well. Holding that inhereted money is undeserved (and I can't see an argument that it generally isn't) doesn't mean you want to abolish inheretence.

I'm not talking about people inhereting money, that's not typically why the rich stay rich. I mean that the very fact that America is not a true meritocracy by definition means that those who succeed do so with an unfair advantage.

Edit to add: Of course, even if that were the case you're being presumptious as well. Holding that inhereted money is undeserved (and I can't see an argument that it generally isn't) doesn't mean you want to abolish inheretence.

If the advantage is unfair, and the advantage exists because people are allowed to spend their resources as they see fit, you surely can't like the idea of people being allowed to do just that? And it's of course not just inheritance, but spending money, time and energy making sure the kids are well fed, well educated, and well prepared for life and for making money.

Again, if you don't like this, maybe you don't like property much? Maybe it does sound a tad communist? Or maybe I just don't get it?

If the advantage is unfair, and the advantage exists because people are allowed to spend their resources as they see fit, you surely can't like the idea of people being allowed to do just that? And it's of course not just inheritance, but spending money, time and energy making sure the kids are well fed, well educated, and well prepared for life and for making money.

Again, if you don't like this, maybe you don't like property much? Maybe it does sound a tad communist? Or maybe I just don't get it?

That's just a massive jump. Right now you can't spend your money as you wish - we have taxes. So is America communist? Yes, I want further state intervention but I'm neither communist nor, as the other guy kept implying, engaging in class warfare. And, more importantly, I don't see why the way I (or anyone else) would deal with this lack of fairness has any effect on whether it's unfair or not.

It's possible to recognise that something is unfair and not to want to do something about it.

Poverty is the result of choices. This is irrefutable.
People do not suddenly appear and are kept within an economic class by some accounting god. It is choice that leads people to where they are.

This does not mean that people make conscious choices toward becoming impoverished, or that they consciously fail to make appropriate choices that would lead them out of poverty. All this means is that an individual's life is not outside of their control - it is entirely within their ability to shape with what decisions they make in life. To say that poverty is not the result of choice is to patronize people by saying that they are no more responsible for their life than a hamster in its cage.

While those in developing nations may not have many avenues toward alleviating their poverty, anyone in a developed nation has plenty of opportunities to become financially stable - if they are willing to make the right choices. Sometimes this takes discipline and dedication, but those paths toward greater prosperity are there. You just have to avail yourself of the opportunity.

Of course it is not only your own choices that affect your life, but the choices of your family, close friends, partners, and whoever else who plays a significant part in your life. This is why people tend to be in the same socioeconomic group as their parents - their parents have made the right choices to raise their children properly and teach their children how to make the right choices. Those born into poverty tend not to be taught how to make the right choices, and their parents tend not to make the right choices when raising them (poor decision making is part of the reason why the parents are poor to begin with).

Sometimes a person is affected by something completely out of their control, but I doubt those incidences are statistically significant for the population as a whole, and are not pertinent to this discussion.

It is truly ludicrous to suggest that someone has no control over their economic situation. If I work 60 hours a week and go to school to make myself more marketable, I will have a better economic future than someone for precisely the same background that decides to just live on the beach scavenging for food because it is easier than stocking shelves at the supermarket. Choices matter.

Poverty is a choice? :rolleyes:

Ok. Explain you wait out of this one.

Minority female blue collar skills.
Divorced abusive husband gone(was a decent guy, became an alcoholic).
You have one good kid.
You have one severely autistic kid.
You have no resources and are a renter.
Insurence available to you will not cover the needs of the autistic kid.
The school you have him in helps but the hours he is in it does not allow for a full time job, let alone a part time as the autistic kid needs someone with skills with dealing with them. Resources for that are limited and expensive.

What do you do to get out of your situation?

Poverty is a choice? :rolleyes:

Ok. Explain you wait out of this one.

Minority female blue collar skills.
Divorced abusive husband gone(was a decent guy, became an alcoholic).
You have one good kid.
You have one severely autistic kid.
You have no resources and are a renter.
Insurence available to you will not cover the needs of the autistic kid.
The school you have him in helps but the hours he is in it does not allow for a full time job, let alone a part time as the autistic kid needs someone with skills with dealing with them. Resources for that are limited and expensive.

What do you do to get out of your situation?

I don't think anyone is saying that absolutely everyone that is poor is it only because of the choices he or she has made. But most people don't have an autistic kid, and if you remove that from the equation and it's suddenly looking much, much brighter. Most people really can get out of their shitty situations. I should know, I did it myself.

snip

My friend was born as a result of rape to an extremely poor mother. Consequently, her mother resents her and has been violent to her at times. After about 7th grade, she became the major breadwinner of the family, as her mom was too sick to work (and no, I don't think it's legal for a 13 year old to work, but it was under the table). This of course made her grades suffer, leading to being sent to continuation school. Not to mention the fact that she has a few medical conditions that she can't afford permanent treatment for.

Do you seriously think that it's her own fault that she's poor? She's one of the hardest-working, least-complaining people I've met in my life.

My friend was born as a result of rape to an extremely poor mother. Consequently, her mother resents her and has been violent to her at times. After about 7th grade, she became the major breadwinner of the family, as her mom was too sick to work (and no, I don't think it's legal for a 13 year old to work, but it was under the table). This of course made her grades suffer, leading to being sent to continuation school. Not to mention the fact that she has a few medical conditions that she can't afford permanent treatment for.

Do you seriously think that it's her own fault that she's poor? She's one of the hardest-working, least-complaining people I've met in my life.

According to the logic that is being used here, there is ALWAYS a wrong choice somewhere in the background. "She should have left her mum to starve. She chose not to and is therefor poor."

All people need is the right motivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_law).......Your point being what?

According to the logic that is being used here, there is ALWAYS a wrong choice somewhere in the background. "She should have left her mum to starve. She chose not to and is therefor poor."

Apparently. Calling "stay here and be poor and maybe beaten or move out and be homeless" a choice is pretty ludicrous.

Apparently. Calling "stay here and be poor and maybe beaten or move out and be homeless" a choice is pretty ludicrous.
It's ludicrous even if she could have gone off and had a good life. IMO, leaving one's mum to starve is not an option. But that is just my Scandinavian, distorted, communist opinion.....:cool:

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.

This is not to mean that they woke up one morning and decided that they wanted to live in poverty - though some do. The majority of adults living in poverty are there as a result of their own choices; drug addicts, some unwed mothers, high school dropouts, horrible work ethics, etc. I'm sure we all know at least one person who falls into each of those categories.


You, sir, are totally wrong. And your opinion is grounded on ideology alone, not on facts.

Try living in a well-economically-developed city of northern Italy with 900 €/month. This is what many, many workers get - I mean WORKERS, 42 hours a week, not drug addicts or school dropouts, because most of them have high school degrees from tech schools. And many people with university degrees don't get much more - around 1100 €/month.

Here a small-sized house (I mean really small-sized: 40 squared meters) can cost up to 600-700 €/month.

Poverty is the necessary state in which most people have to live to fuel the economical model of the so-called "first world". And don't forget people living in underdeveloped countries - they contribute with their poverty to our well-being .

I know a woman who works 40 hours a week, who is still below the poverty line. And yes, she saves, and no, she has no vices or substancially bad habits. Her partner also works long hours, but because they both come from poor families, and have no connections, opportuinities, welfare or laws to protect their rights, like a living wage, they are still poor.

I am an intelligent and studious woman. I will earn less, no matter how hard I study, and regardless of my high GPA. I was born poor, and rely on the public tertiary education loans scheme to attend university (HECS, in Australia). I am 22 and I now have shoes and electricity, but my income is still only half-way to the Australian poverty line.

A friend of the family was a barrister, who went into hospital after a freak car accident. She was badly injured, and she also got golden staph while in hospital. She has saved and scraped and managed her savings as well as she can, but she now lives below the poverty line and has no hope of working. Her husband has to work and take care of her, and has been retrenched twice when the (rich) people of his company made bad decisions and had to cut staff. Who goes first? The ones working on the fringes or on casual terms, because they have no choice.

My dad, on the other hand, is a very rich drug addict. He is disabled, in part from his morphine abuse, and supplements his rather hefty payments from Workcover by selling drugs in the apartment complex he lives. My mum very sensibly divorced him when she could (she had no real choice in marrying him: her family basically forced her into it), and is still poor.

So before you go on about how choices effect poverty, these are four stories where people really don't have any choice. No matter how hard they work, or how esteemed their profession is, it really is a matter of absurd luck and the value of certain people relative for others. The schizophrenic who has never been diagnosed and resorts to illegal drugs to dull his paranoia, the single Indian mum who is fleeing her abusive husband with two children, the refugee who can't even afford his initial food costs, let alone English lessons, they do not 'choose' to be poor. Neither do the several million people in countries successively damaged by incursions, imperialism, famine and disaster. The only people who really get choices are the rich. I am also pretty convinced that the writer of this topic is not living in poverty, and is probably gauging this off 'poor' (read: middle-class, who have just gained independance and don't know how to manage their money) people they know in college. OP, correct me if I'm wrong.

There was an article in The Age newspaper here about how women in developing countries sell their hair to cover basic amenities, and then rich women here pay up to $2000 for that hair to be used as hair extensions. Try telling the average lower income Russian that they 'choose' to live in poverty. Good grief.

Poverty is only a result of "choice" if you define everything that happens to you as "your choice" since - in theory - everything can be avoided. This is exactly the same kind of sick and twisted ideology that leads people to blame the victim - like blaming a rape victim for walking alone at night.

This should perhaps have a thread of its own, but it fits nicely here....link to wikipedia article on homo economicus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_oeconomicus)

Ask not what J.C. would do, but what H.E. would do.

Poverty is only a result of "choice" if you define everything that happens to you as "your choice" since - in theory - everything can be avoided. This is exactly the same kind of sick and twisted ideology that leads people to blame the victim - like blaming a rape victim for walking alone at night.

Yep, in theory... after all, it's the own free choice of the son of a poor family not to suicide himself before he becomes a poor adult... ;)

Iirc, it was Vlad the Impaler (aka Dracula) who found an easy solution to the poverty issue: he had his soldiers round up beggars and poor people from all his country, then had them all shut into one of his manors and had this manor set on fire. Problem solved, ain't it?

Poverty is only a result of "choice" if you define everything that happens to you as "your choice" since - in theory - everything can be avoided. This is exactly the same kind of sick and twisted ideology that leads people to blame the victim - like blaming a rape victim for walking alone at night.

poverty is an ongoing situation with a complex web of causes. In the instance of rape, it happens and the causes are easier to determine. Since they are two very different things, it is hard to compare them.

I believe many people's choices can lead to poverty.

In the UK everyone gets free schooling until 16. I go to a state school and you have some people who choose not to come to lessons, revise for exams or do coursework. It would not surprise me if, in ten years time, I have a better income because I've achieved (by choice) the grades to go onto higher education. Also, since Universsity costs money and you copuld argue that some people can't afford it, you could get a job and do an Open University course, which gives you skills, work experience and a degree.

Perhaps this was just a wish for how you wish things would work, but I'd just like to point out that this is definitely not how it currently works here in Scandinavia.

That's funny, because last I checked, 4500 dkk + the ability to work on the side (though not much) is plenty to pay a rent of 2-3000 dkk + food for 1-2000 dkk.

I certainly get by and I always have 1000 dkk to spare. I call that a choice to be rich.

It's funny when rich kids get all snobby at the poor. Lulz.

What should the state do? Don't be too specific with he question, I mean, really....

If you meant to ask what I would have the state do to combat poverty, I can provide the answer in one word; education. Ultimately, no amount of welfare payments or moralistic left-wing handwringing can disguise the fact that the welfare budget would be far better put towards improving educational standards, primarily by establishing a grammar school in every town, and in so doing allowing the intelligent poor a fighting chance for an excellent education.

Replace "welfare budget" with "defense budget" and I agree 100%.

Lots of money is wasted trying to educate people. We should waste more, because a proportion of it actually educates people. Education is an unequivocal good. It's a far better waste of money than weapons systems.

Particularly children. We jail children, all children -- we owe something to them in exchange. We owe them all we can afford. We should not only educate children when they are forced into school, we should fucking pay them as well.

Oh, and reducing welfare is a false economy. It costs far more to jail a person than to keep them on welfare.

Good grief.

Fuck yeah!

Wow - only five minutes in and you've already posted something completely irrelevant to the topic. Way to go.

Heh like you wanted a 'meaningful' discussion with your choice in topic? Naaaa you know you just wanted a flamefest.

Now I have not yet gone through the several pages yet, but I bet you got shouted at and called names I just bet it!

It's funny when rich kids get all snobby at the poor.

Rich kids have an inherent contradiction: they are young, and disempowered thus. They long to define themselves, by breaking away from their parents.

Yet, their parents are plainly the source of their privelege. The image of society beckons "to be rich is to be a valued."

They want to be valued. They want to be independent.

They have the headstart to be rich. Using that headstart undermines their individuality.

The poor things. It's no wonder they can't think straight!

That's funny, because last I checked, 4500 dkk + the ability to work on the side (though not much) is plenty to pay a rent of 2-3000 dkk + food for 1-2000 dkk.

I certainly get by and I always have 1000 dkk to spare. I call that a choice to be rich.

When I said that this wasn't the way it worked in Scandinavia, I was talking about medical care, not what kind of salary you need to get by. Did you perhaps mean to quote someone else?

Anyway, I make about 8000 SEK/6300 DKK a good month (it depends on how much I get to work), and I find that to be plenty as well. My rent is a bit higher than yours, but as long as you don't waste your money on flat screen TVs, video games and vacations abroad like some of the knuckleheads where I work, you can save a nice sum every month.

Good thing I don't live in Italy, where I apparently need to buy myself a house instead of renting a small apartment...

called names

My Stick Septic!

OK, I'm going now ...

A large deal of my respect for you has just evaporated, Neu Leonstein. :(
See, the thing is that if poverty is not a choice, then being rich is not a choice either. So if fate (and how appropriate a word it is too) has it that I stay poor because my parents happen to be poor at this point in time, everything that happens from here on in is of no consequence, and I might as well shoot myself.

It's determinism, pure and simple, and there are few things I can think of that are more evil than a philosophy which basically implores you to sit back and accept whatever happens to you.

I've never made a secret of my views on this issue, and the fact that my general support for the free capitalist system comes from the micro-level realisations about myself and my own life. If the socialist point of view holds true, so to speak, then I can only ever be a glorified parasite, taking from those who have without any prospect of being able to sustain the life I want.

And, just as I did in that post, every poor person can trace their actions back to some decision they made which changed things. The only people who ever claim "they never had a chance" are rich folks - because admitting that about your own life robs you of your humanity and makes you a witless object tossed about by the forces of nature. People just don't want to do that.

That's not to say that sometimes random things (accidents) don't happen. Of course those aren't things that you can reasonably hope to avoid by making any choice whatsoever - short of taking out insurance cover, of course.

But regardless of how many personal stories you come up with, that's not really what we're talking about in all this, is it. When people defend transfer payments, they don't just defend them for accident victims without insurance - they defend a much larger idea, it just so happens to be easier to do by portraying poverty as a result of fate. And often, those people might not even realise the true horror of what they're saying.

Your point being what?
I think you know quite well what my point was. For people to tolerate having to pay for other people's misfortune, not because they want to, but because the law says they must, they need guilt.

I'd dare say that Germany isn't as extreme in that regard as some Scandinavian communities, but I've still seen it: the constant need to apologise for wealth, the fact that when you buy a Ferrari the first question you ask is how to hide it from your neighbours and constantly being reminded of the "unfortunates" to whom you have some sort of obligation. The fact that you worked 1000 hours, but get paid less than 500 of them - the rest of the money goes to the state and you dare not question it lest you seem ungrateful. I've seen it, my dad is still caught up in it.

The Jante rules are an expression of what is needed to sustain this sort of collectivism. They're not some children's story, they are a description of what is necessary to make the welfare state work. That's why I said "they need the right motivation". The idea that a man is his brother's keeper (to borrow a phrase) is the idea that every man is his brother's slave, and there is no more powerful way of enslaving someone than through a set of social relations based upon guilt.

The poor things. It's no wonder they can't think straight!

Heh plus a lifetimes access to Mummies Gin, and Daddies Coke huh!

Rich kids have an inherent contradiction: they are young, and disempowered thus. They long to define themselves, by breaking away from their parents.

Yet, their parents are plainly the source of their privelege. The image of society beckons "to be rich is to be a valued."

They want to be valued. They want to be independent.

They have the headstart to be rich. Using that headstart undermines their individuality.

The poor things. It's no wonder they can't think straight!
The idealist in me likes to think that rich kids who behave in this manner are doing so because somewhere, deep down, they feel a bit guilty for all the luxury they enjoy while other people have little to nothing. The idealist in me likes to think it's defensiveness which prompts them to lash out.

The cynic in me thinks that they probably have internalized the messages they've been receiving their entire life, which basically state that rich people are morally better than poor people and are thus entitled to live better.

The realist in me is pretty sure that they're just young people who have trouble caring about anything outside their tiny personal universe.

The idealist in me likes to think that rich kids who behave in this manner are doing so because somewhere, deep down, they feel a bit guilty for all the luxury they enjoy while other people have little to nothing. The idealist in me likes to think it's defensiveness which prompts them to lash out.

The cynic in me thinks that they probably have internalized the messages they've been receiving their entire life, which basically state that rich people are morally better than poor people and are thus entitled to live better.

The realist in me is pretty sure that they're just young people who have trouble caring about anything outside their tiny personal universe.

Ladies and genteel-men I give you, 'the three faces of bottle'!

.........
I think you know quite well what my point was. For people to tolerate having to pay for other people's misfortune, not because they want to, but because the law says they must, they need guilt.

I'd dare say that Germany isn't as extreme in that regard as some Scandinavian communities, but I've still seen it: the constant need to apologise for wealth, the fact that when you buy a Ferrari the first question you ask is how to hide it from your neighbours and constantly being reminded of the "unfortunates" to whom you have some sort of obligation. The fact that you worked 1000 hours, but get paid less than 500 of them - the rest of the money goes to the state and you dare not question it lest you seem ungrateful. I've seen it, my dad is still caught up in it.

The Jante rules are an expression of what is needed to sustain this sort of collectivism. They're not some children's story, they are a description of what is necessary to make the welfare state work. That's why I said "they need the right motivation". The idea that a man is his brother's keeper (to borrow a phrase) is the idea that every man is his brother's slave, and there is no more powerful way of enslaving someone than through a set of social relations based upon guilt.
Nobody here apologises for their expensive cars, Porsche, Hummer or whatever brand (no Ferraris in Iceland, speed bumps are too high).

Recently however, the chairman of a bank (whose son made the Fortune 500 recently, link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfur_Thor_Bj%C3%B6rg%C3%B3lfsson)) was asked what it felt like to pay 4.800.000 dollars income tax.

He replied that he was quite pleased, he had himself been through hard times, and knew the value of social security and free education.

So the Jante Law is a bit alien to me, at least. It does not rule this society.

We do however think that people should be helped out of poverty traps, instead of leaving them. You never know when you may need a hand.

So, it is not a matter of guilt. It is an alternate form of insurance.

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice. The vast majority of adults who live in poverty do so as a matter of choice.


Gods, obviously you have never been at the receiving end of the gross mismanagement of our society, have you?

Would you care to explain to me the following? How someone who works full time in a first world city, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't do anything beyond the norm of society, yet lives in poverty, having to live in a share flat and use the bus because they can't afford to rent a whole place to themselves or a car. Working for the minimum wage (or even above it) this is how it is in most first world cities, particularly places like London, Tokyo, Rome, New York etc.

Ah, but why don't they seek out opportunity for higher paid work? Many try to, some succeed, some don't, due to any number of factors. Either way it makes no difference overall, because someone has to do those jobs, and as long as the wages are kept artificially low, the people working in those jobs will live in poverty.

This accounts for the majority of the poor, along with those who simply cannot find work. Hard though it may be to believe, finding a full time job in many areas isn't something you can do by snapping your fingers and wishing. Unemployment in many first world countries is rampant, even when the economy is officially "booming" and everyone is happy, young, attractive, and has good hair, like we do in all good neo-liberal democracies. And people in such places, naturally, only live in grinding, soul destroying, poverty because they like it.

No doubt such an attitude is used to morally justify the otherwise indefensible "I want lower taxes" argument.

See, the thing is that if poverty is not a choice, then being rich is not a choice either. So if fate (and how appropriate a word it is too) has it that I stay poor because my parents happen to be poor at this point in time, everything that happens from here on in is of no consequence, and I might as well shoot myself.

It's determinism, pure and simple, and there are few things I can think of that are more evil than a philosophy which basically implores you to sit back and accept whatever happens to you.

I've never made a secret of my views on this issue, and the fact that my general support for the free capitalist system comes from the micro-level realisations about myself and my own life. If the socialist point of view holds true, so to speak, then I can only ever be a glorified parasite, taking from those who have without any prospect of being able to sustain the life I want.

And, just as I did in that post, every poor person can trace their actions back to some decision they made which changed things. The only people who ever claim "they never had a chance" are rich folks - because admitting that about your own life robs you of your humanity and makes you a witless object tossed about by the forces of nature. People just don't want to do that.

That's not to say that sometimes random things (accidents) don't happen. Of course those aren't things that you can reasonably hope to avoid by making any choice whatsoever - short of taking out insurance cover, of course.

But regardless of how many personal stories you come up with, that's not really what we're talking about in all this, is it. When people defend transfer payments, they don't just defend them for accident victims without insurance - they defend a much larger idea, it just so happens to be easier to do by portraying poverty as a result of fate. And often, those people might not even realise the true horror of what they're saying.

Actually I don't think that believers in the welfare state are determinists. I think instead they think that while individual effort does play a role there social factors also play a role.. Indeed, one could hardly look at the relative lack of social mobility in many countries and wonder what the fuck they are thinking when they choose to not to go up the economic ladder, if individual choice is all that mattered.. A study of the effects of the Perry Preschool graduates found that compared to the controls they were more likely to graduate high school, go to college, had higher average earnings, were less likely to need social services, and were less likely to go to jail. The fact that outcomes of individuals are not just determined by one's effort creates much support for the welfare state. Second, I think that even when the outcome has a lot to do with one's choices many find the outcome unacceptable if it means extreme dreprivation. This does not mean a lavish standard of living just something basic enough not to starve, die from easily treatable diseases, or freeze to death in the winter.

See, the thing is that if poverty is not a choice, then being rich is not a choice either. So if fate (and how appropriate a word it is too) has it that I stay poor because my parents happen to be poor at this point in time, everything that happens from here on in is of no consequence, and I might as well shoot myself.

It's determinism, pure and simple, and there are few things I can think of that are more evil than a philosophy which basically implores you to sit back and accept whatever happens to you.


That's not really an argument. You're saying it can't be true because it's too scary to be true.

You can make choices that lead to poverty. You can make choices that lead to riches. However, the evidence suggests that being born poor or being born rich is a massive factor and we have no control over our birth. Some things are out of our control and some things are in it. We don't have full control and although we may desire it we have to face the reality of a sometimes cruel and unpredictable world.

I suppose you are referring about my views. Allow me to elaborate, lest you get the wrong idea about what I support, because debating with a very one-sided person hasn't allowed me to demonstrate all my views.
Heh, self-centered much? :p

No, I was not just referring to you. Look around, you'll find plenty of ignorant blowhards in this thread.

As for the rest of your stated position, yeah, fine, whatever. No doubt you and I could work together on a team charged with doing something about poverty, since we would both support the same kinds of fixes -- such as public education, job creation, minimum wage standards, etc. We could probably even get through a work day without a major argument, as long as we avoided talking about our opinions of poor people, as a group.

I have no problem with your proposed measures to address poverty. However, I do take exception, on a personal level, to any comment (by anyone) that claims to know how or why any given person ended up homeless or poor. If you are not in their life, you do not know what happened to them or why they reacted the way they did or why their efforts to run their life failed. I also bristle at ALL comments that would tend to divide poor people into "deserving" or "undeserving" groups.

I am not one of those people who get pissed off if a poor person fails to use charitable moneys in some approved way. That is because I believe that every person has the right to do with their lives whatever they like, even to the point of self-destruction. However, I do not just assume that anyone who I see hungry and homeless is so by choice. If I see someone in need, and I can give them the price of a hot meal, I will. It is neither my concern nor my business if they choose to spend that money on crack instead of food. If I was really worried about it, I would give them food instead of money, even if they turned around and sold the food for crack money. But even if I knew they were doing that, it would not stop me from giving them what charity I can. I would not deny food, shelter, etc to anyone just because I disapprove of their lifestyle.

It is my belief that EVERYONE deserves food and shelter, no matter how good or bad their character might be, and I consider it the duty of society as a whole to provide access to those things, as a matter of human rights and common decency. If they really do choose not to use that access, that's an entirely different situation. I do not believe it is the duty of society to impose a standard of living upon people, only to remove obstacles that bar people from attaining and maintaining a decent standard of living.

Actually I don't think that believers in the welfare state are determinists. I think instead they think that while individual effort does play a role there social factors also play a role.. Indeed, one could hardly look at the relative lack of social mobility in many countries and wonder what the fuck they are thinking when they choose to not to go up the economic ladder, if individual choice is all that mattered.. A study of the effects of the Perry Preschool graduates found that compared to the controls they were more likely to graduate high school, go to college, had higher average earnings, were less likely to need social services, and were less likely to go to jail. The fact that outcomes of individuals are not just determined by one's effort creates much support for the welfare state. Second, I think that even when the outcome has a lot to do with one's choices many find the outcome unacceptable if it means extreme dreprivation. This does not mean a lavish standard of living just something basic enough not to starve, die from easily treatable diseases, or freeze to death in the winter.

I partially agree with you. However, I have a few questions for you that I think need to be addressed in your argument:

-First of all, even in countries with little social mobillity, and even in places with extreme prejudice against certain individuals, some people are still able to climb the social ladder. One good example is an African American woman, whose name I cannot remember but some of you probably know whom I'm talking about, in the South in the 1920's who was able to become a millionaire by starting a cosmetics corporation. Another example is George Washington Carver, who became a great botanist in the 1800's despite being African. And a third example is the small business class that almost all countries, regardless of how impoverished they are, possess. Is it possible that there is a Bell Curve at work here? That maybe some people are that passionate, that energetic, and that intelligent that their individual drive is all that matters but they do not make up the majority?

-Second, could it be claimed by Free-Market advocates that a libertarian government which encourages economic growth could bring up wage rates at all levels to a point where the least fortunate members of society who can still work would be taken care of better then in a welfare state, while those who cannot work would be able to benefit from increased private charity (ie. let the church take care of the poor) as they would be smaller in number and the only ones who needed it, and there would be more rich people to create Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations.

-Third, what about concerns that government welfare policy helps to keep the poor poor? After all, having a welfare state is often a way for politicians to buy votes, and if this is so, why would it not be in the politicians best interest to prevent people from getting off welfare?

If you are born into a silly family in a silly neighbourhood, and are accordingly taught silly stuff, do you really have the choice to be anything but silly?

Do you really have the choice to stop being silly? Conversely, if you are born into a rich family, where you are taught how to stay rich, is that not a considerable advantage?

Are you not basically implying that poor people are stupid?

Sadly, even wealthy families do not do a good job at teaching children to be wealthy. I think this is because the wealthy parents puch their children into middle class lifestyles because they do not want their children to have to work as hard as they did.

Everybody is taught silly stuff. I blame the media. I also blame any and all pro-lifers that encourage young people to have accidental babies.

I think poverty would be less of a problem if we had 99% fewer pregancies by people under 25 who were not married or in a "marriagish" relationship. I also think that we would have a lot less poverty if we had a protectionist trade policy so there would be more and higher paying jobs even if this meant higher prices for goods and services.

I'm very poor right now.

Can I choose not to be poor?

Cool. I choose not to be poor. *waits for money to rain down*

Goddamn it. You lying bastards.

I'm very poor right now.

Can I choose not to be poor?

Cool. I choose not to be poor. *waits for money to rain down*

Goddamn it. You lying bastards.

I think you have to get a job. Surely on top of being a mom and going to school and dealing with the idiots of the world you have time to work 60 hours a week, come on! I do it! wait....uh......this sucks.....and I still don't have all the money I want......hmm..... *chooses a higher salary*

*waits*

It's funny when rich kids get all snobby at the poor. Lulz.

Isn't it though! :D

I partially agree with you. However, I have a few questions for you that I think need to be addressed in your argument:

-First of all, even in countries with little social mobillity, and even in places with extreme prejudice against certain individuals, some people are still able to climb the social ladder. One good example is an African American woman, whose name I cannot remember but some of you probably know whom I'm talking about, in the South in the 1920's who was able to become a millionaire by starting a cosmetics corporation. Another example is George Washington Carver, who became a great botanist in the 1800's despite being African. And a third example is the small business class that almost all countries, regardless of how impoverished they are, possess. Is it possible that there is a Bell Curve at work here? That maybe some people are that passionate, that energetic, and that intelligent that their individual drive is all that matters but they do not make up the majority?

I'm not who you were originally talking to, but I feel like responding again. So here goes.

It is true that a very few people do manage to climb out of the pit, and make it to the top. However, the vast majority of people don't manage to hit it lucky, don't manage to have everything turn out right. If you work hard for all your life, you might manage to crawl out of debt. Well done you. But that's nowhere near what a kid born rich can reach without even working.

"Every rags to riches story is balanced by a million rags to rags stories" I can't recall who said that, but I heard it on here a while ago, and it's rather true, even today.


-Second, could it be claimed by Free-Market advocates that a libertarian government which encourages economic growth could bring up wage rates at all levels to a point where the least fortunate members of society who can still work would be taken care of better then in a welfare state, while those who cannot work would be able to benefit from increased private charity (ie. let the church take care of the poor) as they would be smaller in number and the only ones who needed it, and there would be more rich people to create Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations.

No, because an unfettered free market, where the only obligation of a company is to create profits for its workers, will find itself paralysed by monopolies, controlled by cartels, and wages will go down. After all, if you need to increase profits, you can simply decrease wages, fire workers, or pull all sorts of unsavoury tricks. Look, for instance, at the railroad and coal companies in the 1800s, and think of what similar groups could do now.


-Third, what about concerns that government welfare policy helps to keep the poor poor? After all, having a welfare state is often a way for politicians to buy votes, and if this is so, why would it not be in the politicians best interest to prevent people from getting off welfare?

No, a welfare state does not help keep the poor poor. It helps those who are down on their luck at the moment along, it helps people to get their feet off the ground and get their lives sorted out. It prevents people from simply being cast aside by society due to a bit of bad luck, and helps them to focus on getting their lives sorted out.

In the US, at least, poverty correlates with three factors (especially for women):

1) Not finishing high school

2) Have a child in your teens or early 20's

3) Not getting married

For people whose lives do not fall into any of these 3 categories, poverty is almost non-existent.

So, poverty in the US is almost exclusively based on poor individual decisions, rather than structural or societal issues.

I think you have to get a job. Surely on top of being a mom and going to school and dealing with the idiots of the world you have time to work 60 hours a week, come on! I do it! wait....uh......this sucks.....and I still don't have all the money I want......hmm..... *chooses a higher salary*

*waits*
Don't forget to choose to have affordable, accessible child care in your area, as well as health care for you and your family, and a working mode of transportation that fits easily within your budget, and also a partner/spouse who is prepared to shoulder an equal share of the domestic work (including child care).

Oh, and be sure to choose to have no pre-existing debt. Granted, the overwhelming majority of Americans cannot afford to pay out of pocket for the education that they must have in order to receive the salaries they would have to earn to not be in poverty...but YOU should be able to choose to get your education without going into debt. Because your Power Of Choice is like the Force, and you can use it to defeat Sith Lords and loan payments alike.

Jeeze... OP is ... um... what's the PC term for 'really, really dumb'?

The typical poor person was born into a poor family and the typical rich person into a rich family.

Furthermore, plenty of poor people who don't have teenage pregancies or drug addictions stay poor and plenty of rich kids survive despite living an aimless life of excess.

And it's hard for poor people to get the education to rise above the rest as the schools simply aren't good enough where they live.

In the US, at least, poverty correlates with three factors (especially for women):

1) Not finishing high school

2) Have a child in your teens or early 20's

3) Not getting married

For people whose lives do not fall into any of these 3 categories, poverty is almost non-existent.

So, poverty in the US is almost exclusively based on poor individual decisions, rather than structural or societal issues.

Mystic Skeptic and people like yourself here tend to make several kinds of arguments.

1) Based on completely bullshit statistics

2) Based on blanket generalizations

3) Based on how their bowels may be acting up today.

On the other hand, the rational people - people who, whether capitalist (as me) or anti-capitalist, acknowledge that causes of poverty are not as easily simplified and dismissed as the moral equivalent of saying "she was asking for it" for rape victims.

For example, one can go to school, get an education, and learn about this little thing *I* like to call, "the economy." Now, the economy is not nearly like a sewer - you don't necessarily get out of it, what you put into it. For example, lottery ticket winners and inheritors of family fortunes did not work much if at all to get their wealth and subsequent economic status. Another example, people who work hard and try their best may face institutional racism, minimum wages not sufficient to live above the poverty line on, face domestic abuse, get a disability, not to mention the more widespread effects of substandard education, deindustrialization and drastically changing local job markets, outsourcing and immigration pressures, crime, etc. All of which can factor into a person's ability to sustain an above-the-poverty-line status, and much of which an individual can do little to change.

I could cite sources for these well-known and well-documented factors in poverty, but why bother with a guy who just pulls out shit like "not getting married" as, apparently, 1/3rd the main reasons anyone is poor? You probably *would* say something like "she was asking for it," since you seem to have this odd belief that everything that ever happens is under one's own personal control. A belief I might add, that if you apply to yourself would no doubt lead to megalomania and delusions of grandeur.

Don't forget to choose to have affordable, accessible child care in your area, as well as health care for you and your family, and a working mode of transportation that fits easily within your budget, and also a partner/spouse who is prepared to shoulder an equal share of the domestic work (including child care).

Oh, and be sure to choose to have no pre-existing debt. Granted, the overwhelming majority of Americans cannot afford to pay out of pocket for the education that they must have in order to receive the salaries they would have to earn to not be in poverty...but YOU should be able to choose to get your education without going into debt. Because your Power Of Choice is like the Force, and you can use it to defeat Sith Lords and loan payments alike.

I like it, Bottle. Based on the OP, I guess Native Americans made a series of lousy choices, not inventing metallurgy and gunpowder and such, to be ready when the Europeans arrived. And all those starving people in Africa, and the ones with AIDS, and those in Darfur being massacred ... poor choices of a place to live, eh?

I like it, Bottle. Based on the OP, I guess Native Americans made a series of lousy choices, not inventing metallurgy and gunpowder and such, to be ready when the Europeans arrived.

They rather stupidly failed to develop biochemical immunities to European diseases, too. Don't you just HATE it when people choose to get diseases and die? It's all I can do to keep from choosing to do it myself.

They rather stupidly failed to develop biochemical immunities to European diseases, too. Don't you just HATE it when people choose to get diseases and die? It's all I can do to keep from choosing to do it myself.

And how about those Africans who let themselves be captured by slavers? Man, talk about poor decision-making skills!

Mystic Skeptic and people like yourself here tend to make several kinds of arguments.

1) Based on completely bullshit statistics

2) Based on blanket generalizations

3) Based on how their bowels may be acting up today.

My bowels are fine, thanks. But it's fairly obvious that you are more interested in trying to appear clever than actually discussing the points I raised. But feel free to keep spouting off whatever you feel like while avoiding my actual arguments.

On the other hand, the rational people - people who, whether capitalist (as me) or anti-capitalist, acknowledge that causes of poverty are not as easily simplified and dismissed as the moral equivalent of saying "she was asking for it" for rape victims.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

For example, one can go to school, get an education, and learn about this little thing *I* like to call, "the economy." Now, the economy is not nearly like a sewer - you don't necessarily get out of it, what you put into it.

True enough, I guess. But what does it have to do with the fact that poverty in the US is strongly correlated to the 3 factors I listed.

We could talk about the fact that those three things are indicators of deeper problems in certain sections of American society (such as in the African-American community). Or, we could do what you seem to love doing- flying off the handle, rather than talking logically about the issue at hand.

For example, lottery ticket winners and inheritors of family fortunes did not work much if at all to get their wealth and subsequent economic status.

Sure. But we're talking about the causes of poverty, not wealth. There's a difference- one does not have to be wealthy to not be poor.

Another example, people who work hard and try their best may face institutional racism, minimum wages not sufficient to live above the poverty line on, face domestic abuse, get a disability, not to mention the more widespread effects of substandard education, deindustrialization and drastically changing local job markets, outsourcing and immigration pressures, crime, etc. All of which can factor into a person's ability to sustain an above-the-poverty-line status, and much of which an individual can do little to change.

Sure. But, like I said, if you control for those three things I listed, poverty is pretty rare. We can always find exceptions in a nation of 300+ million, of course.

I could cite sources for these well-known and well-documented factors in poverty, but why bother with a guy who just pulls out shit like "not getting married" as, apparently, 1/3rd the main reasons anyone is poor?

Try to read what I wrote, rather than what you want me to have written. What I said was that, in the population of people who do not fall into any of those three categories, poverty is very rare.

You probably *would* say something like "she was asking for it,"

Now you're arguing against something I never actually said? How amusing.

since you seem to have this odd belief that everything that ever happens is under one's own personal control.

Where did I say that? Again, it's generally considered a logical fallacy to try and argue against something your opponent did not actually say.

A belief I might add, that if you apply to yourself would no doubt lead to megalomania and delusions of grandeur.

I really have no idea what you are trying to get at here. I certainly acknowledge that not everything in my life is under my own control.

If you work hard for all your life, you might manage to crawl out of debt. Well done you. But that's nowhere near what a kid born rich can reach without even working.
That is due to their parents working hard to give their children the benefit of their labors. Unless you demand that all children be taken from their parents and given to some regulatory system that ensures that every child has an identical background, who your parents are will influence how wealthy you will be. I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone working hard their entire life to be able to give their children a high standard of living - it is what every parent should do and we should not use force to steal what was earned just because they want to use it to provide for their children.

No, because an unfettered free market, where the only obligation of a company is to create profits for its workers, will find itself paralysed by monopolies, controlled by cartels, and wages will go down. After all, if you need to increase profits, you can simply decrease wages, fire workers, or pull all sorts of unsavoury tricks. Look, for instance, at the railroad and coal companies in the 1800s, and think of what similar groups could do now.
Monopolies are exceedingly rare and are created by barriers to entry preventing competition. Those barriers to entry are created by government control of the market - usually in the name of protecting the consumer or some such idiocy. Pointing to what was absurdly not a free market (19th century railroads and coal mines) is no critique of a free market.

No, a welfare state does not help keep the poor poor. It helps those who are down on their luck at the moment along, it helps people to get their feet off the ground and get their lives sorted out. It prevents people from simply being cast aside by society due to a bit of bad luck, and helps them to focus on getting their lives sorted out.
That is what the theory states - the reality is something else. The US welfare system does not work as a temporary hand up to get people back on their own. It discourages work - because you lose your benefits if you start working again. The one and only 'welfare' program that has had a positive effect has been the Earned Income Tax Credit - other programs just create a dependency and perverse incentives against the choices that would lead out of poverty.

Poverty is the necessary state in which most people have to live to fuel the economical model of the so-called "first world". And don't forget people living in underdeveloped countries - they contribute with their poverty to our well-being .
Poverty does not 'fuel' wealth. Economics is not a zero-sum game, and wealthy people do not conspire to keep people poor. That is absurd. Poverty is a considerable drag on the economy and inhibits economic growth creating a negative impact on everyone, including those at the high end of the economic spectrum.

Please, present your model of the economic system - everyone will be absolutely fascinated at the economics savant we have in our midst that can somehow completely turn the entire field of study around. You will definitely be getting the John Bates Clark medal for pointing out how absurd we have all been in our obvious misunderstanding of the world.

Speaking of economic ignorance...
I also think that we would have a lot less poverty if we had a protectionist trade policy so there would be more and higher paying jobs even if this meant higher prices for goods and services.
Stopping trade does nothing but hurt us - otherwise why dont you just try a little experiment and try out autarky on a neighborhood level? Everyone in your neighborhood is only able to trade with those in your neighborhood - no outside food, clothing, electricity, or anything else other than what your neighborhood can provide.

Trade allows us to specialize in what we are efficient at producing, and thus increases the amount of resources available to us. What is true in your neighborhood is true for the nation: trade with outsiders is good. Any benefit you might think you gain from higher wages (which would only be in nominal terms anyway, not in real purchasing power) is grossly dwarfed by the losses.

It is called comparative advantage and it is why having more people in your trading sphere improves everyone's outcome.

It is my belief that EVERYONE deserves food and shelter, no matter how good or bad their character might be, and I consider it the duty of society as a whole to provide access to those things, as a matter of human rights and common decency. If they really do choose not to use that access, that's an entirely different situation. I do not believe it is the duty of society to impose a standard of living upon people, only to remove obstacles that bar people from attaining and maintaining a decent standard of living.
Fantastic - I heartily approve of your charity.
It is your money and you can chose how you wish to spend it, and if you want to spend it to help those less fortunate, I applaud your compassion and idealism. What I do not applaud (vehemently oppose actually) is using government to forcibly take monies from people for the purpose of bureaucratized 'charity'.

That you want to spend your money to support someone's crack addiction is your choice - you seriously cross the line when you suggest that I should be forced to support someone's crack addiction in the name of 'society helping the less fortunate'.

Riiight. I made the decision to hurt my hip during a temp job, which led to me being out of work for six moths. redwulf made the decision to have his client move out to BFE, making getting there and back almost impossible. Sure.

I'm not arguing that poor life choices lead to being poor, but to say that all poor people are poor because they make bad choices is stupid.