NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Wow. I really wish I had your drugs. And your rose colored glasses. Let's see... I'm a woman and...

1) Finished HS. With a 3.0 GPA, no less, honors classes, and a 27 on my ACT.

2) No kids at 30.

3) Married at 24

And yet, I'm still poor! I must be doing something wrong...

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.

Troof. All of it. I recently found out that one of my student loans somehow ended up in my married name. Which I never use. EVER! Because the names didn't match, it didn't end up consolidated with the rest of my loans, and it went into default. Because I regularly throw away mail addressed to my married name (since I don't USE IT!), I didn't know until I applied for financial aid this year.

I'm in a rehabilitation program, but I can't even pay my own rent at the moment (luckily, I have an understanding landlady). So things are tough. Thank the Gods for Gov Granholm and No Worker Left Behind. I'm actually going to get an education!

Wow. I really wish I had your drugs. And your rose colored glasses. Let's see... I'm a woman and...

1) Finished HS. With a 3.0 GPA, no less, honors classes, and a 27 on my ACT.

2) No kids at 30.

3) Married at 24

And yet, I'm still poor! I must be doing something wrong...

What's your definition of poor? I don't want to ask for too many personal details, but what is your lifestyle like? Do you own or rent your home? How many cars do you have? How many TV's? etc.

What do we you when we talk about poverty? I'm talking about living below the poverty line, roughly $13,690 for a family of 2 or $20,650 for a family of 4. About 12.6% of the population in the US falls into this category.

What's your definition of poor? I don't want to ask for too many personal details, but what is your lifestyle like? Do you own or rent your home? How many cars do you have? How many TV's? etc.

What do we you when we talk about poverty? I'm talking about living below the poverty line, roughly $13,690 for a family of 2 or $20,650 for a family of 4. About 12.6% of the population in the US falls into this category.

I injured my hip in April and was unemployed in May. My unemployment benefits ran out at the beginning of the month, and redwulf isn't getting much work (because his respite client moved to BFE and we can't really afford gas to get him out there on a regular basis). So our income right now is roughly... zero. Well, okay, assuming redwulf works every other week, and gets twenty hours a week, and assuming he's getting nine an hour instead of five... it's something like $360/month. We rent, don't have cable or internet (we use my parents broadband), and have one car. The only reason we still have a roof over our heads is because our landlady is my grandma, and she's willing to let us owe her until we're employed again.

I'm going back to school in Jan, assuming all the No Worker Left Behind paperwork goes through. That covers tuition, books and fees. The college has an employment office, I have to assume I can get a part-time job through them. Because of a defaulted loan in my married name (which I didn't know about, or it would have been consolidated with the rest), I don't qualify for any kind of federal student aid. Once the loan is rehabbed, I should. That will hopefully be next October, assuming I can make the payments. So by mid- Feb, I'm hoping we'll at least be able to get current on our rent, and maybe make a dent in our back rent. Then we'll tackle... Student Loans!

So, yes, by any definition of the word, we qualify as poor.

I injured my hip in April and was unemployed in May. My unemployment benefits ran out at the beginning of the month, and redwulf isn't getting much work (because his respite client moved to BFE and we can't really afford gas to get him out there on a regular basis). So our income right now is roughly... zero. We rent, dont have cable or internet, and have on car. The only reason we still have a roof over our heads is because our landlady is my grandma, and she's willing to let us owe her once we're employed again.

Like I said in a post above, in a nation of 300 million, you're going to find examples of people who have hit a patch of events outside of their control. You clearly fall into that category. But your situation is certainly the exception to the rule. Overwhelmingly, poverty in the US is caused by bad personal decisions.

The OP is another example of why libertarianism is flat out stupid.

Most reasonable people, from capitalists to socialists and welfare statists (like me) all recognize that choice is an element of poverty, but it is also about the realities of society.

Get your heads out of your asses and take some classes... you obviously need an education in economics, politics, and sociology.

People are not born into the same set of circumstances. Hell, even some of the choices that people can make to get out of poverty, like going to a good college, are not accessible to everyone; and if they are, many people are at a disadvantage.

It takes capital to make money. The world isn't equal, and in a society that is market driven, the allocation of wealth isn't distributed equally.

As the beneficiary of a great suburban education, I'm at an advantage in college over my peers who did not learn to read, write, and think the way I did.

If you think poverty is about choice then explain why whites fled to the suburbs in the 1970s so their kids could have an excellent education, and inner-city blacks go to schools with holes in the roof.

If you think that is an unrealistic example, then maybe you should go to a city and sit it on a high school class.

I'm up to my eyeballs in Insurance Law, so I don't really have time to forumlate a well-rounded post. Instead, I'll just say:

Shut the hell up New Potomac.

I'm up to my eyeballs in Insurance Law, so I don't really have time to forumlate a well-rounded post. Instead, I'll just say:

Shut the hell up New Potomac.

I'll give that well thought out post all of the consideration it deserves.

If you're looking to practice law, you're really going to have to learn to make more cogent arguments.

If you think poverty is about choice then explain why whites fled to the suburbs in the 1970s so their kids could have an excellent education, and inner-city blacks go to schools with holes in the roof.

Isn't that a very clear example of personal choices determining whether or not one becomes poor?

I'll give that well thought out post all of the consideration it deserves.

If you're looking to practice law, you're really going to have to learn to make more cogent arguments.

I give you the arguments you're worth. Now shut up. You're interrupting my dissection of the time-frame of 'forthwith'.

I give you the arguments you're worth. Now shut up. You're interrupting my dissection of the time-frame of 'forthwith'.

When you get your own forum, you can tell people when to shut up. Until then, go back to your studies. Maybe, someday, we'll let you practice at a real law firm.

When you get your own forum, you can tell people when to shut up. Until then, go back to your studies. Maybe, someday, we'll let you practice at a real law firm.

We?

Shut up*.


*quite obviously, my comment is non-binding. Were that it were not so.

We?

Shut up*.


*quite obviously, my comment is non-binding. Were that it were not so.

You shutup! No you shutup!, no you shutup!.....

Now children! :p

You shutup! No you shutup!, no you shutup!.....

Now children! :p

I have no desire to make Neesika shut up. He's the one with censorious tendencies.

I'll give that well thought out post all of the consideration it deserves.

If you're looking to practice law, you're really going to have to learn to make more cogent arguments.

this coming...from you? Based on your history here I'd hazard to guess that you wouldn't recognize a well formed argument if it punched you in the face.

You shutup! No you shutup!, no you shutup!.....

Now children! :p

It provides a nice mental break. Plus he seems to really be enjoying it.

I have no desire to make Neesika shut up. He's the one with censorious tendencies.

He?

I have been SERIOUSLY misinformed. And besides, I wouldn't call it "censorious tendencies" to prefer stupid people to shut up. We call that "common sense"

I have no desire to make Neesika shut up. He's the one with censorious tendencies.

Don't make me pull out my dick.

I'm warning you./hijack

I have no desire to make Neesika shut up. He's the one with censorious tendencies.

He?????

Neesika? I thought those two bumps meant..............do you want to confess something? :eek:

this coming...from you? Based on your history here I'd hazard to guess that you wouldn't recognize a well formed argument if it punched you in the face.

Go ahead and try to make a well formed argument, if you can. I don't know if you realize this, but telling someone to "shut up" really doesn't qualify.

Go ahead, I can wait. It's a slow day at work, for once.

Go ahead and try to make a well formed argument, if you can.

A -> B

~B

: ~A

A -> B

~B

: ~A

*giggles*

Excellent form!

He?

I have been SERIOUSLY misinformed. And besides, I wouldn't call it "censorious tendencies" to prefer stupid people to shut up. We call that "common sense"

He, she, whatever. I don't really pay attention to posters' gender.

And I'm guessing that your definition of "stupid" means "someone who does not agree with Neo Art."

A -> B

~B

: ~A

:D

I bow to you. If I had been drinking something, it probably would have come out my nose!

Well done!

And I'm guessing that your definition of "stupid" means "someone who does not agree with Neo Art."

Not always. My definition of "stupid" is, however, someone who does not agree with that which is true.

And since I am fairly often right, disagreeing with me is, quite often, in error. And therefore stupid.

He, she, whatever. I don't really pay attention to posters' gender.

And I'm guessing that your definition of "stupid" means "someone who does not agree with Neo Art."

Considering the man rarely speaks about topics he is uninformed about, and has yet to be (to my knowledge) shown to be wrong when he DOES speak...I'd say you've made an excellent case for why 'stupid' should mean 'someone who does not agree with Neo Art'.

Now with that bit of ass-licking, I think I'll get back to the Insurance Act. Thank you, and have a nice day.

*bows*

Considering the man rarely speaks about topics he is uninformed about, and has yet to be (to my knowledge) shown to be wrong when he DOES speak...I'd say you've made an excellent case for why 'stupid' should mean 'someone who does not agree with Neo Art'.

Not entirely true. In fact, I recall at least one instance when you yourself showed me to be wrong about something I said.

Not always. My definition of "stupid" is, however, someone who does not agree with that which is true.

Okay, so point to something on this thread that I have written and that is untrue. Maybe we can, you know, try and have a discussion, rather than you and your cronies screaming "shut up!" and "you're stupid!"

Or, perhaps, you just like throwing out juvenile insults?

Isn't that a very clear example of personal choices determining whether or not one becomes poor?

No, its not. White people were upset about Brown vs. Board of Education in Milliken v. Bradley they were told that it was ok to flock to the suburbs where they could subsidize their schools with their tax dollars.

Many innercity blacks couldn't afford to move and after the whites left, the tax dollars funding the school pitfalled, giving them schools that are broken and don't produce quality students; thus creating a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

Your grasp of history is fucking skewed, man. If by some unfortunate stroke of luck you loose all your money because the job you do is cheaper to do in India, then you can tell me if poverty is all about choice.

:D

I bow to you. If I had been drinking something, it probably would have come out my nose!

Well done!

well he did ask me for an argument.

Okay, so point to something on this thread that I have written and that is untrue. Maybe we can, you know, try and have a discussion, rather than you and your cronies screaming "shut up!" and "you're stupid!"

Or, perhaps, you just like throwing out juvenile insults?

Poop-head!

*runs*

Okay, so point to something on this thread that I have written and that is untrue.

k (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13280366&postcount=258)

Or, perhaps, you just like throwing out juvenile insults?

Can't it be both?

Your problem is, you think your arguments are "fresh" and "clever" and "unique". They're not. In the end, they're the same poorly thought out, poorly articulated crap that gets repeated over and over again. At some point, one realizes that if you have reached this point in your adult life where you still hold these views you are either too dim to accept any reason why they're wrong, or too stubborn to listen to them.

Rational people capable of considering the angles tend to have come to the conclusion all by themselves why opinions like this are foolish. If you have not done so already, I highly doubt anything I can say will change your mind.

Breathe in. Breathe out.

We're all just taking a breather here, right? The quantity of big posts added to the thread in the last eight hours is rather intimidating.

I'm gonna read it if I have the time. For now, it's good to see other posters freaking out and unable to cope ...

No, its not. White people were upset about Brown vs. Board of Education

IIRC, Brown v. Board was decided in 1954, and we're talking about white flight in the 70's. So, you have a little problem with causation there. And, it wasn't just whites who fled the cities in the 70's- middle-class and working class blacks also got out, if they could. So, Brown v. Board couldn't have been the only reason.

in Milliken v. Bradley they were told that it was ok to flock to the suburbs where they could subsidize their schools with their tax dollars.

And what is wrong with that?

Many innercity blacks couldn't afford to move and after the whites left, the tax dollars funding the school pitfalled, giving them schools that are broken and don't produce quality students; thus creating a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots.

IIRC, District of Columbia schools have one of the highest per capita spending rates per student. So, money isn't terribly determinative when figuring out what school districts will get the best results.


Your grasp of history is fucking skewed, man. If by some unfortunate stroke of luck you loose all your money because the job you do is cheaper to do in India, then you can tell me if poverty is all about choice.

My job isn't moving to India, thanks. And I'm not the one trying to connect a court decision from 1954 to white flight in the 70's.

k (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13280366&postcount=258)

Your problem is, you think your arguments are "fresh" and "clever" and "unique".

Nope. The arguments I posted regarding the causes of poverty aren't terribly fresh or unique or even all that clever- they're fairly obvious points that been known to sociologists and economists for years. It's strange that such simple, straightforwad concepts would arouse such a rabid response.

At some point, one realizes that if you have reached this point in your adult life where you still hold these views you are either too dim to accept any reason why they're wrong, or too stubborn to listen to them.

So we're back to your mental masturbation of "anyone who disagrees with Neo Art is stupid."

Rational people capable of considering the angles tend to have come to the conclusion all by themselves why opinions like this are foolish. If you have not done so already, I highly doubt anything I can say will change your mind.

Don't bother trying to make an argument, then. I'm sure you're quite happy sitting in your little intellectual cocoon.

Nope. The arguments I posted regarding the causes of poverty aren't terribly fresh or unique or even all that clever- they're fairly obvious points that been known to sociologists and economists for years. It's strange that such simple, straightforwad concepts would arouse such a rabid response.

Where are all these sociologists and economists, and if they do exist are they well respected in their field?

Click Stand;13280577']Where are all these sociologists and economists, and if they do exist are they well respected in their field?

Let me give you a couple of articles you can look at. You may not like the source, but there are plenty of citations that you can follow.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg475.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm

Life is about choice....

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y295/Jedi-Gilthanas/111111.gif

I'm going to pick this up, just to try to get some more sense out of you. Let's not get silly and personal ...

If you think poverty is about choice then explain why whites fled to the suburbs in the 1970s so their kids could have an excellent education, and inner-city blacks go to schools with holes in the roof.

Isn't that a very clear example of personal choices determining whether or not one becomes poor?

I acknowledge your correct characterisation of this as an example. I'm not going to try to hang a social critique off this example, not least because I don't live in the States -- Aussie inner-city poverty has a somewhat different quality.

But to me, that example cuts both ways. It certainly does illustrate what you say: an individual's choice (to move away from poverty) can make them richer.

However, you can't just point to the choice and say it came purely from the individual. (I acknowledge Neu L's excellent observation about people having a will and a vested interest to see a choice as Theirs, it's empowering.) Nor is this choice (to move house) equally easy for all.

At it's simplest, wealth empowers a person, increasing their range of choices and making each option easier. What you're looking at here is a feedback loop.

Life is about choice....


That's rich, coming from the Kneejerk Kid. :p

I'm gonna change my vote to the "choice doesn't exist" camp. Since all choices you make are all based on past experiences combined with your genetics, it must be assumed that all choices are predetermined. So, from the very beginning it was decided that the poor would be poor.

Let me give you a couple of articles you can look at. You may not like the source, but there are plenty of citations that you can follow.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg475.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm


Oh no bias there.....

Remember "There are no hungry people in America"

And I belive they came up with the food insecurity label.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/03/heritage-foundation-there-is-no-hunger-in-the-us/

Click Stand;13280632']I'm gonna change my vote to the "choice doesn't exist" camp. Since all choices you make are all based on past experiences combined with your genetics, it must be assumed that all choices are predetermined. So, from the very beginning it was decided that the poor would be poor.

Irony?

It's interesting, really. The individual feels that their life is theirs, and their choice is the most important determinant of how their life goes. But when you look at other people (or more precisely, demographics) it's pretty plain that the most important determinant of how their life goes is their upbringing! Who there parents were, basically.

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.

Hmm - before they started squeezing out children maybe they should have considered if they could AFFORD it? You know - stuff like - child care, health care, a working mode of transportation, etc... Finances is certainly a part of the formula when making the CHOICE to have a family.

Pre-existing debt? Hmmm - don't be silly. Debt is never 'pre existing'. There is no magical debt-fairy who maxes out your credit cards. Every swipe of debt is your choice.

And - since when does a person require a college degree to avoid or escape poverty? That is a complete insult to every person alive who does not have a college degree. How arrogant can you be?

Can you choose NOT to be poor?

Does the choice exist in the first place? Are there avenues people can take to lift themselves out of poverty?

This is a contextual question and the answers depend on the means provided by a particular society for their most downtrodden members.

;)

Can you choose NOT to be poor?

Does the choice exist in the first place? Are there avenues people can take to lift themselves out of poverty?

This is a contextual question and the answers depend on the means provided by a particular society for their most downtrodden members.

;)

Uhm...yea. Rly.

Choices:
1. Stay poor because you're a lazy bum(literally, lawl lawl)
2. Learn to play a secondhand instrument and play it for some petty change
3. Join a band with the above instrument and make decent cash at bars/stuff
4. Put on a black cloak, acquire a longsword, and become a highwayman to earn some phat lewt.

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 know plenty of poor people who are married and graduated high school. You should get out more. Maybe get a job in a warehouse somewhere. You'll meet lots of poor people there, many of them married and with a high school diploma.

However, most of them were born into poor families. Continuing their education past high school would have given them more opportunities, but you see, that costs money. Most people who grow up poor don't really have much of that kind of thing just lying around. When they graduate from high school, or even while they're still attending high school, it's time to get a job so they can make the rent.

"Oh, but they should save money," you might say. That's hard to do when all your money is going towards rent, utilities and food. And gas if you have to get to work by car.

My job isn't moving to India, thanks. And I'm not the one trying to connect a court decision from 1954 to white flight in the 70's.

IT IS CONNECTED. Milliken was a direct challenge to Brown by people who wanted their white kids to not go to school with blacks.

I hate making personal appeals, but I think in this case its appropriate:
I'm a political science/education double major with an emphasis on constitutional law, I study how the application of law has affected the school systems.

Read Jonathon Kozol, he does a much better job than I do at explaining why idiots like you are ruining the world.

Let me give you a couple of articles you can look at. You may not like the source, but there are plenty of citations that you can follow.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg475.cfm

Geez man, read it yourself. (Archived document, may contain errors)

... it's almost incomprehensible. Don't make me quote from it!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm

Well, that's better. I urge posters not to waste time on the first one.

Uhm...yea. Rly.

Choices:
2. Learn to play a secondhand instrument and play it for some petty change
3. Join a band with the above instrument and make decent cash at bars/stuff


#2 is better since it is relatively steady in that you will always get paid (barring being past by complete jerks for an entire day). #3 however has a risk in that you could not get a paying job for a while, but when you do, it will be big. I would choose 2 over 3 because I don't like chances.

Jeeze... OP is ... um... what's the PC term for 'really, really dumb'?
Not sure, but if you use "Ultraviolent Radiation" we'll all know what you're talking about.


The typical poor person was born into a poor family and the typical rich person into a rich family.
Um, not only are you wrong, you are also ignoring the middle class.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/html/itp/How_To_Find_The_Next_Millionaire.pdf
Our research with thousands of affluent households during the past three years has shown that millionaires are made, not born (see the May 2000 Forrester Report “The Millionaire Online”).1 For example, nine in 10 millionaires built their wealth through a lifetime of work and clever investing.2 Only 7% inherited their fortune; just 2% married into it.
And, if you consider those paying the higher proportion of taxes you are even more wrong. SQUISH. That's the sound of your argument.


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 the middle class make for tasty snacks!!! Even more poor people DON'T become unwed mothers, get addicted to drugs or drop out of highschool. We call them - the middle class! (yum!)


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.
Ooooh!! Another education elitist!!! YAY!

Affluent;
31% - no college degree
28% - service jobs (craftsman, repair man, waiter, etc)
SQUISH!!!!!!!!!!
Aw shit, there goes another one!

Can you choose NOT to be poor?

Does the choice exist in the first place? Are there avenues people can take to lift themselves out of poverty?

This is a contextual question and the answers depend on the means provided by a particular society for their most downtrodden members.


I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I won't mock you like Bann-ed did.

The clearest demonstration of poverty being not just a matter of choice is Nationality. The debate was quite specifically tailored to exclude that by this:

It is my humble opinion that in a developed economy poverty is about choice.

Are we in the same ballpark?

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...

Ahh, nah, I was just misunderstanding which part of my post you were replying to.

SQUISHSQUISH!!!!!!!!!!


ummm, Your arguments haven't faired much better over the 18 pages in this thread. But I couldn't expect you to read all that now could I?

Not sure, but if you use "Ultraviolent Radiation" we'll all know what you're talking about.

Fair enough. Your OP wasn't dumb, just wrong.

Um, not only are you wrong, you are also ignoring the middle class.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/html/itp/How_To_Find_The_Next_Millionaire.pdf

*gag*

You have no self-respect, if you're tendering that as "evidence"

And, if you consider those paying the higher proportion of taxes you are even more wrong. SQUISH. That's the sound of your argument.

Pathetic. Quite miserably petty and stupid approach. If you had really squished anything, don't you think folks could tell without you drawing a cartoon for them?

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 then why aren't taxes voluntary? We should get the same results by sending tax returns in which we get to put the amount we want to pay ourselves, right?

So, it is not a matter of guilt. It is an alternate form of insurance.
But it's not voluntary, and that's the big thing here.

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.
But you do realise that this implies that despite doing everything right, despite making no wrong decisions, people will still end up poor even if there are no accidents or something completely random like that, right?

So the leap from that to determinism isn't much more than a half-hearted hop. I mean "I never had a chance" implies exactly that - nothing I ever did could have improved my situation.

But if you remove choice from the equation, then every person born into a certain set of circumstances should end up roughly the same, right? We should therefore determine how much of a reward it is worth to be born to a black single mum in New Orleans - and then pay that reward with absolutely no regard whatsoever to the recipient's further circumstances or the way he or she lives his or her life. If that kid somehow manages to become a millionaire, that of course doesn't change anything about the major determining factor (being born poor), and so that person must still be eligible for help.

But you don't do that, which basically admits that you do think it's about choice to some degree, and that you do think that choice can overcome adversity.

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.
Work Houses, hey? Sounds like a plan. ;)

Anyways, if you're happy to spend your cash on those sorts of things, be my guest. What hasn't been established is that anyone has to do so.

That's not really an argument. You're saying it can't be true because it's too scary to be true.
I'm just pointing it out, hoping that within those who say these things there is an element of humanity that cries out when it's confronted with them.

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.
The question is: can the things that are in our control outweigh the things that are not?

And if the answer is yes, how can anyone still claim that poverty is not about choice? If there is a "right" path to take that will lead out of poverty and beyond, then how can we punish anyone for that person not taking it?

I always see the path to riches as something like a linear regression equation. There are various input terms (like your education, your work ethic and so on), there is an intercept (the wealth your started out with due to your parents) and a random error (all the unforseeable things that happen to your wealth).

You don't influence the second two, but you do influence the first. And it's the input terms that determine the trend and make all the difference, and you decide all about them. Going to a bad school is no reason to get a bad education, because education is not a consumption good - the biggest factor in its success is yourself. And your work ethic and willingness to pass on yet another binge drinking contest at the local pub are quite obviously chosen by no one but you.

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.
By becoming cruel and unpredictable ourselves? Being a welfare recipient is to transform oneself from an equal, from someone who will trade on the basis of value for value to something else entirely. The money you receive is not given because you deserve it, or because its owner thinks you should have it, it is given by force of arms against the will of the owner. You don't live by virtue of providing value, but by being able to satisfy your needs/wants through that peculiar mix of violence and guilt that the modern state seems to depend upon.

But you do realise that this implies that despite doing everything right, despite making no wrong decisions, people will still end up poor even if there are no accidents or something completely random like that, right?

So the leap from that to determinism isn't much more than a half-hearted hop. I mean "I never had a chance" implies exactly that - nothing I ever did could have improved my situation.

Yes, so what?

But if you remove choice from the equation, then every person born into a certain set of circumstances should end up roughly the same, right?

Not in the slightest. Or, rather, yes, that two born in identical circumstances will end up identically. However, "identical circumstances" means, same genetics, same education, same household, same socializaiton, same EVERYTHING.

Which never at all occurs. Two people, on the other hand, from similar circumstances, even those of roughly equal drive, intellect, and capabilities, can end up in radically different circumstances.

Yes, some people who are dirt poor can end up rich by making the right choices. Other people who are dirt poor have no choices which will result in anything else other than them being dirt poor.

The right choices can make a difference, but not always.

We should therefore determine how much of a reward it is worth to be born to a black single mum in New Orleans - and then pay that reward with absolutely no regard whatsoever to the recipient's further circumstances or the way he or she lives his or her life. If that kid somehow manages to become a millionaire, that of course doesn't change anything about the major determining factor (being born poor), and so that person must still be eligible for help.

But you don't do that, which basically admits that you do think it's about choice to some degree, and that you do think that choice can overcome adversity.

Again, not in the slightest. you've set up a false dichodemy, either choices can never make a difference, or they will always make a difference. This, however, is simply not true, and it's foolish to operate under this assumption.

Some people can rise above with hard work, some can not. Those that can not, might be able to, if given a leg up. That's the point of welfare.

Um, not only are you wrong, you are also ignoring the middle class.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/html/itp/How_To_Find_The_Next_Millionaire.pdf

Um. Did you actually read that "article" before linking it?

Check the footnotes -- they relied on self-reporting to say what made one a millionaire. Not suprisingly few self-indentified as having totally inherited their wealth with no effort on their part. Instead, the majority evaluated themselves as having played a role in their wealth. Not exactly suprising.

Moreover, if you look at the things the "article" correlates with getting wealth, the top factor is wealth. Then it looks at high-paying jobs, executive positions, high-end education, etc. as predictors.

In the meantime, studies looking at upward mobility report that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html), pdf link (http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/2002JEP.pdf).

Um. Did you actually read that "article" before linking it?

Check the footnotes -- they relied on self-reporting to say what made one a millionaire. Not suprisingly few self-indentified as having totally inherited their wealth with no effort on their part. Instead, the majority evaluated themselves as having played a role in their wealth. Not exactly suprising.

Moreover, if you look at the things the "article" correlates with getting wealth, the top factor is wealth. Then it looks at high-paying jobs, executive positions, high-end education, etc. as predictors.

In the meantime, studies looking at upward mobility report that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html), pdf link (http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/2002JEP.pdf).

Sometimes I wish I had CT available for my everyday discussions.

But you do realise that this implies that despite doing everything right, despite making no wrong decisions, people will still end up poor even if there are no accidents or something completely random like that, right?

Yes I do. I belive that its possible to do everything "right" and one can still become poor. Someone who say works to get a degree, becomes a hard-working entrepeneur to sell a seemingly plausible good or service can still be screwed by comsumer demand and end up in poverty, at least momentarily.

So the leap from that to determinism isn't much more than a half-hearted hop. I mean "I never had a chance" implies exactly that - nothing I ever did could have improved my situation.

Untrue. Your universe is much more determinist than mine. Do this and this will happen. Consquences are easily forseeable and uncertainty doesn't exist. Your parents' bout of poverty not only only shows that they made poor choices, it shows that they are intellectually and morally deficient. They should have been able to foresee what would happen and change their actions. Because they didn't I have to presume that they're stupid, lazy, and spendthrift.

But if you remove choice from the equation, then every person born into a certain set of circumstances should end up roughly the same, right? We should therefore determine how much of a reward it is worth to be born to a black single mum in New Orleans - and then pay that reward with absolutely no regard whatsoever to the recipient's further circumstances or the way he or she lives his or her life. If that kid somehow manages to become a millionaire, that of course doesn't change anything about the major determining factor (being born poor), and so that person must still be eligible for help.

But you don't do that, which basically admits that you do think it's about choice to some degree, and that you do think that choice can overcome adversity.

I'm not removing choice from the equation. I'm just adding more variables. The "reward" to the woman born to a single mother would come in the form of early intervention education, subsidies in-cash and in kind to provide necessary housing, nutrition, and healthcare, a scholarship to a university if she is eligible. All of which make it more likely that she'll become a millionaire and be able to help others like her.

Sometimes I wish I had CT available for my everyday discussions.

You need to be a level 18 Generalite before you can cast Summon TCT. Pssh, n00b.

Sometimes I wish I had CT available for my everyday discussions.

Deus, how did you predict exactly what I said?

Oddly enough, the majority of people who access social welfare systems do so on a one-of basis. Were those systems not in place, these individuals likely would not have the means to get back on their feet, which would certainly lead to more societal stress than would be the case otherwise. People who believe that poverty is simply about choice, easy as a+b=c, tend to believe that social welfare systems are unecessary because individuals can better provide for their own financial 'safety net', and would do so were it not for socially provided mechanisms. However, this equation is simplistic in the extreme, and fails to take into account the ability of the individual versus society to marshal the kinds of resources necessary to truly help people get back on their feet.

Oddly enough, the majority of people who access social welfare systems do so on a one-of basis. Were those systems not in place, these individuals likely would not have the means to get back on their feet, which would certainly lead to more societal stress than would be the case otherwise. People who believe that poverty is simply about choice, easy as a+b=c, tend to believe that social welfare systems are unecessary because individuals can better provide for their own financial 'safety net', and would do so were it not for socially provided mechanisms. However, this equation is simplistic in the extreme, and fails to take into account the ability of the individual versus society to marshal the kinds of resources necessary to truly help people get back on their feet.

OK, now, say that naked while jumping up and down

OK, now, say that naked while jumping up and down

It's like you don't respect my intellect, and just want my body or something.

It's like you don't respect my intellect, and just want my body or something.

Well, he is a lawyer. And you are a law student. *nod*

Well, he is a lawyer. And you are a law student. *nod*

I don't buy into your hierarchical view of the world. I'm smart! I really am! Take me seriously! *stomps feet*

It's like you don't respect my intellect, and just want my body or something.

Of course I respect your intellect too. If I didn't, I'd just tell you to shut up and get naked *nods*

Of course I respect your intellect too. If I didn't, I'd just tell you to shut up and get naked *nods*

But I thought that was how teacher student relations worked?

Click Stand;13281087']But I thought that was how teacher student relations worked?

true...but, she's not my student, so it's not like I can fail her if she doesn't, so I have to at least pretend to care...

true...but, she's not my student, so it's not like I can fail her if she doesn't, so I have to at least pretend to care...

Bastard.

*wanders off, mumbling 'noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis, expresio unius...'*

<snip>
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'.
OK, then you go ahead and eliminate all government (tax) funded welfare and social programs, and rest assured that when you get hit by a car, and your spouse gets cancer, and your insurer refuses to pay, and you have to max out all your credit cards and take a 3rd mortgage on your house to cover the bills, and your job gets outsourced, and your property gets foreclosed on because you're defaulting on those debts, and you end up on the street, getting old and sick faster than you would if you had a roof over your head and food to eat, you can count on me to give you enough money, once in a while, for a few pipes of crack to ease your misery, since I sure the fuck can't afford to house you out of my own, shallow, dwindling, threadbare pockets, and the gods know nobody else will care enough to help if they're anything like you, you selfish, short-sighted bastard. :)

Bastard.

*wanders off, mumbling 'noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis, expresio unius...'*

Expressio :p See, I taught you something. Don't need to pretend anymore.

Expressio :p See, I taught you something. Don't need to pretend anymore.

Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam.

So I won't respond rudely. :P

Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam.

So I won't respond rudely. :P

ok...but...what if someone does an injustice to you...but you kinda enjoy it?

ok...but...what if someone does an injustice to you...but you kinda enjoy it?

I'm sure she's an expert on how to deal with that. :D

Off topic: I'll be announcing Character Creation for an Arena-focused D&D game on the PNPO site I TGed you a few weeks back, probably this Wednesday, once I've hammered out a few finals details. Just fyi.

ok...but...what if someone does an injustice to you...but you kinda enjoy it?

Bah you already know the answer to that...and it takes on a whole other meaning when put into that context, n'est pas?

I'm sure she's an expert on how to deal with that. :D

*coughs* I'm not even gonna touch that one.

I'm sure she's an expert on how to deal with that. :D



Dumb ass (http://www.discoverfun.com/freeinfo/cartoons/backgrounds/01dumbassDT800.jpg).

*coughs* I'm not even gonna touch that one.

Awww.:(

*touches it instead*

Dumb ass (http://www.discoverfun.com/freeinfo/cartoons/backgrounds/01dumbassDT800.jpg).

I notice you didn't deny it.

I notice you didn't deny it.

What's there to deny?

What's there to deny?

well there's the...no, wait, you can't deny that one..

OK there's the....no, not that one.

How about the...actually, you seemed to enjoy that one...

well there's the...no, wait, you can't deny that one..

OK there's the....no, not that one.

How about the...actually, you seemed to enjoy that one...

Stop flirting with me. It's getting me hot. :p

Stop flirting with me. It's getting me hot. :p

Now I'm feeling a tad left out.

Now I'm feeling a tad left out.

Communist.

Communist.

You know, sharing isn't always caring.

OK, then you go ahead and eliminate all government (tax) funded welfare and social programs, and rest assured that when you get hit by a car, and your spouse gets cancer, and your insurer refuses to pay, and you have to max out all your credit cards and take a 3rd mortgage on your house to cover the bills, and your job gets outsourced, and your property gets foreclosed on because you're defaulting on those debts, and you end up on the street, getting old and sick faster than you would if you had a roof over your head and food to eat, you can count on me to give you enough money, once in a while, for a few pipes of crack to ease your misery, since I sure the fuck can't afford to house you out of my own, shallow, dwindling, threadbare pockets, and the gods know nobody else will care enough to help if they're anything like you, you selfish, short-sighted bastard. :)

that was good enough to read outloud to the family!

the response was

"OUCH"

OK, then you go ahead and eliminate all government (tax) funded welfare and social programs, and rest assured that when you get hit by a car, and your spouse gets cancer, and your insurer refuses to pay, and you have to max out all your credit cards and take a 3rd mortgage on your house to cover the bills, and your job gets outsourced, and your property gets foreclosed on because you're defaulting on those debts, and you end up on the street, getting old and sick faster than you would if you had a roof over your head and food to eat, you can count on me to give you enough money, once in a while, for a few pipes of crack to ease your misery, since I sure the fuck can't afford to house you out of my own, shallow, dwindling, threadbare pockets, and the gods know nobody else will care enough to help if they're anything like you, you selfish, short-sighted bastard. :)

Bravo for the cutthroat and pissed portion of the show.

Bravo for the cutthroat and pissed portion of the show.

It WAS well done, don't you think?

OK, then you go ahead and eliminate all government (tax) funded welfare and social programs, and rest assured that when you get hit by a car, and your spouse gets cancer, and your insurer refuses to pay, and you have to max out all your credit cards and take a 3rd mortgage on your house to cover the bills, and your job gets outsourced, and your property gets foreclosed on because you're defaulting on those debts, and you end up on the street, getting old and sick faster than you would if you had a roof over your head and food to eat, you can count on me to give you enough money, once in a while, for a few pipes of crack to ease your misery, since I sure the fuck can't afford to house you out of my own, shallow, dwindling, threadbare pockets, and the gods know nobody else will care enough to help if they're anything like you, you selfish, short-sighted bastard. :)

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow.

Damn Muravyets. You are hot now! :p

I am eager to see if there will be a response.

Stop flirting with me. It's getting me hot. :p

Feh, you like it

Um. Did you actually read that "article" before linking it?

Check the footnotes -- they relied on self-reporting to say what made one a millionaire. Not suprisingly few self-indentified as having totally inherited their wealth with no effort on their part. Instead, the majority evaluated themselves as having played a role in their wealth. Not exactly suprising.

Moreover, if you look at the things the "article" correlates with getting wealth, the top factor is wealth. Then it looks at high-paying jobs, executive positions, high-end education, etc. as predictors.

In the meantime, studies looking at upward mobility report that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html), pdf link (http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/2002JEP.pdf).

You forgot *squish* *squish*

Feh, you like it

As true as the fact that you aren't going to stop just cuz I told you to :P

As true as the fact that you aren't going to stop just cuz I told you to :P

You should know me well enough by now to know that it'll just make it worse.

Before someone else says it, 'I can't afford a fucking room!'

Before someone else says it, 'I can't afford a fucking room!'

s'ok, I got a place you can stay ;)

and that was an effective job at derailing this thread....

s'ok, I got a place you can stay ;)

and that was an effective job at derailing this thread....

Totally not my intention.

Totally not my intention.

so what was your intention? :p

Before someone else says it, 'I can't afford a fucking room!'

I can't afford a fucking room either :( man, to be rich enough to own a room just for fucking.......that's the life!

so what was your intention? :p

I am intentionless.

Also headed for UMP not to bother NSG any further :P

I can't afford a fucking room either :( man, to be rich enough to own a room just for fucking.......that's the life!

One day Smunk...one day...you and I should start a dungeon together. We could make a mint renting it out...

Um. Did you actually read that "article" before linking it?

Check the footnotes -- they relied on self-reporting to say what made one a millionaire. Not suprisingly few self-indentified as having totally inherited their wealth with no effort on their part. Instead, the majority evaluated themselves as having played a role in their wealth. Not exactly suprising.

Moreover, if you look at the things the "article" correlates with getting wealth, the top factor is wealth. Then it looks at high-paying jobs, executive positions, high-end education, etc. as predictors.

In the meantime, studies looking at upward mobility report that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html), pdf link (http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/2002JEP.pdf).


LOL. You are really a piece of work. You dismiss research because of 'Self Reporting" which is a standard tool of statistical reserach. It is perfectly acceptable with regards to marital infidelity, adolescent masturbating, occurrence of VD, or even poverty, but when it comes to wealth - oh no Everybody Lies!!!! LOL!

Then you link a five year old "research" from Samuel Bowles, a neo-marxist and author of such works as;
Globalization and Egalitarian Redistribution.
Recasting Egalitarianism: New Rules for Markets, Communities and States.
Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought.

In spite of this you present it as somehow more valid?! ROFLMAO!!!

I would call you a hypocrite - but really - why put hypocrites down?

OK, then you go ahead and eliminate all government (tax) funded welfare and social programs, and rest assured that when you get hit by a car, and your spouse gets cancer, and your insurer refuses to pay, and you have to max out all your credit cards and take a 3rd mortgage on your house to cover the bills, and your job gets outsourced, and your property gets foreclosed on because you're defaulting on those debts, and you end up on the street, getting old and sick faster than you would if you had a roof over your head and food to eat, you can count on me to give you enough money, once in a while, for a few pipes of crack to ease your misery, since I sure the fuck can't afford to house you out of my own, shallow, dwindling, threadbare pockets, and the gods know nobody else will care enough to help if they're anything like you, you selfish, short-sighted bastard. :)

What a stunning example of how reductio ad absurdum can be a fallacious argument. Finished with a brillaint example of a flame too!

I agree in some accounts - I know some people that fully fit that. But at the same time, I know some people where it's not a result of poor choices.

I can't afford a fucking room either :( man, to be rich enough to own a room just for fucking.......that's the life!

Meet Philip Johnson, one of the most famous US architects of the twentieth century. He had a sex room on his estate. It has a Kandinsky hanging in it above the bed.

If you think he could afford this because he was born independently wealthy, rather than his money earned through architecture, you would be entirely correct.

Meet Philip Johnson, one of the most famous US architects of the twentieth century. He had a sex room on his estate. It has a Kandinsky hanging in it above the bed.

If you think he could afford this because he was born independently wealthy, rather than his money earned through architecture, you would be entirely correct.

my fucking room would have a swingset. (well, a set of swings anyway)

my fucking room would have a swingset. (well, a set of swings anyway)

You're a swinger? :eek:

I agree in some accounts - I know some people that fully fit that. But at the same time, I know some people where it's not a result of poor choices.

Yeah, but we wouldn't have a debate if everyone was all reasonable like that.

You're a swinger? :eek:

no, sadly, I'm too poor to swing, it's a choice I made.

no, sadly, I'm too poor to swing, it's a choice I made.

So, you're one of those parasites who votes for Public Swings, stealing recreational resources from the pocket of hardworking wage-earners?

Parasite! Communist! I hope you get chewing-gum on your bum!

So, you're one of those parasites who votes for Public Swings, stealing recreational resources from the pocket of hardworking wage-earners?

Parasite! Communist! I hope you get chewing-gum on your bum!

:p

In spite of this you present it as somehow more valid?! ROFLMAO!!!

I would call you a hypocrite - but really - why put hypocrites down?

Oh no he didn't...

Someone hold me back....NO ONE talks to Cat that way....*gets all Jerry Springer show*

I would call you a hypocrite - but really - why put hypocrites down?

I hope you don't mind me asking (I know I was pretty rude before) ... but have you read Neu Leonstein's posts?

I disagree with him. I can't find a weak point to attack though. Each post I read comes a step closer to actually persuading me to his point of view.

If you could do that, you could simply rise above petty flames. Do please give NL's posts the attention they deserve.

*gets all Jerry Springer show*

*is one of the bouncers*

Hey, now. Break it up!

*does that losing interest thing so you can have another go*

*is one of the bouncers*

Hey, now. Break it up!

*does that losing interest thing so you can have another go*

*knocks Mystic Skeptic out cold*

*knocks Mystic Skeptic out cold*

*tucks a copy of the show contract into MS's pocket*

I think it's worth mentioning, that we're just having fun here, right? Nothing mentioned on this program should be construed as medical or legal advice.

*stands back to let the medics handle it*

I hope you don't mind me asking (I know I was pretty rude before) ... but have you read Neu Leonstein's posts?

I disagree with him. I can't find a weak point to attack though. Each post I read comes a step closer to actually persuading me to his point of view.

If you could do that, you could simply rise above petty flames. Do please give NL's posts the attention they deserve.

I don't mind you asking at all and I always appreciate a reply which is not rude. You will find that my replies tend to match the tone of the post to which I am replying. If you find my posts 'petty flames' that is my intentional reflection of the various members of this forum who conduct themselves in an unsavory manner. (That they are the first to call me out for it is something I find amusing to no end.)

When someone rises above it, as you just did, I am always humbly impressed. That we don't agree is irrelevant - that you could humbly and unsolicited apologize for being rude and asking for my honest feedback has flattered me and raised your profile far above the muddled masses here. For that and that alone I take my hat off to you. (salutes) You now have my respect.

Regarding, Neu Leonstein's posts, I only found two on quick review and only glanced briefly at them. At first blush it would seem I agree with NL, so I may not be the best ally at finding a weakness to it. (still - sometimes just for fun and skill-building I will argue a point contrary to my own beliefs) I would for now only suggest you change your approach from 'attack' to 'discuss'. I'd bet one of the best people here to help you find a weakness to NL's posts would be NL.

Maybe if you were more specific about which of his points are most troubling for you it would be easier to help. I will also admint that where I am it is almost 2 AM and me eyes are droopy. I work more than full time, am pursuing an advanced certification, and have a family - so I cannot devote the time here that many do ( and they are only too pleased to critisize me for it - ha! jokes on them) I'll look nxt time I can, but it is likely to be several days from now.

g'night.

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.


Why should I? You didn't give arguments. You listed three things you claimed were the primary (if only) reasons for poverty. You gave no supporting reason or facts. I'm not going to construct your own arguments for you just to debunk them - it's up to you to back up what you say, or STFU.

That's just how life works. Don't want to support your own statements? Fine with me.


Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Was this your attempt at being clever? Because see, my three points mimicked yours completely while conveying (apparently not to you, but to most others here anyway) the valid point as listed above. This however seems like nothing but pointless flamebait.


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.

You haven't shown any correlation, let alone a strong one, and let alone (as your main 'argument') that "For people whose lives do not fall into any of these 3 categories, poverty is almost non-existent."

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.

Your three "indicators" are, you claim, essentially the only causes of poverty.

We could talk about how even those three "indicators" do not support the statement that "poverty in the US is almost exclusively based on poor individual decisions."

And we could talk about how those three are NOT the only or main causes of poverty.

I've already done that, by pointing out just a few examples of other causes of poverty.


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.

Not relevant to the issue. Poverty is just wealth below a certain level.


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.

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.


Support? Evidence? Statistics? At best you have a claimed correlation - you're trying to put that across as documented correlation, and then causation, and then ONLY causations.

As far as being "logical" goes, I think you ought to eat your own words.

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

If you believe poverty is caused by poor personal choices, it stands to reason you believe other things are as well. Other things like rape. Both rape and poverty are things of which social, economic, and political factors have great influence in. The idea of boiling either one down to "poor personal choices" is equally offensive and equally oversimplified.

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.

When my opponent gives an "argument" that's so lacking as yours, I kind of have to make do with what's given. I.E, nothing but your own opinion in this case.

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.

No? But you believe poverty is. How interesting. Everything else then, has external forces which factor into your condition, but not poverty?

LOL. You are really a piece of work. You dismiss research because of 'Self Reporting" which is a standard tool of statistical reserach. It is perfectly acceptable with regards to marital infidelity, adolescent masturbating, occurrence of VD, or even poverty, but when it comes to wealth - oh no Everybody Lies!!!! LOL!


Self Reporting has it's flaws. For example - the self-reporting of things considered socially unacceptable differs wildly from self-reporting of the same things at more permissive times.

Examples would be sexual practices such as masturbation, or oral pleasure... or such things as sexual orientations.

Another big flaw with the practise is that - while it's not horribly inaccurate at making a statistical claim about something, it is pretty poor at getting explanations.

Example - if you asked how many people had served jail sentences, you'd get one answer. If you asked why - you'd find out just about everyone is innocent. Apparently.

This is the other extreme - people are far more likely to claim (they might even really consider it so) they caused their own wealth, than to volunteer some other option.

LOL. You are really a piece of work.

Right back at ya, Sparky.

You dismiss research because of 'Self Reporting" which is a standard tool of statistical reserach. It is perfectly acceptable with regards to marital infidelity, adolescent masturbating, occurrence of VD, or even poverty, but when it comes to wealth - oh no Everybody Lies!!!! LOL!

Anyone who knows statistical research knows that different methods have different drawbacks and weaknesses. Self-reporting of things like maturbation and occurrence of VD may underreport and can't be taken at face value alone. As I pointed out, the marketing report you relied on appears to be based on biased questioning and self-reporting of how one accumulated wealth. There is a built-in bias towards people saying they have worked for their money -- rather than simply had it given to them.

Think of it this way: what you cite didn't prove that "millionaires are made, not born." Instead, it proved that if you ask millionaires how they got their money more will say the worked for at least part of it than will admit they entirely inherited it. If you aren't capable of critically evaluating your source, perhaps you shouldn't rely on it.

Moreover, you are conspicously silent about my other observation about the marketing report -- that the primary predicators for wealth are wealth itself and other wealth-based factors. So, even your own report is generally consistent with the fact athat the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Then you link a five year old "research" from Samuel Bowles, a neo-marxist and author of such works as;
Globalization and Egalitarian Redistribution.
Recasting Egalitarianism: New Rules for Markets, Communities and States.
Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought.

In spite of this you present it as somehow more valid?! ROFLMAO!!!

Actually, I linked an article from the Christian Science Monitor and a related peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3) (2002).

Your sole response is a feeble ad hominem attack on one of the authors of the study. While calling Dr. Bowles names is consistent with your pattern of "debate," it doesn't actually address the validity of Dr. Bowles's data.

Also, is Bhash Mazumder of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago also one of these not-to-be-trusted neo-marxists?
Bhash Mazumder, a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economist, calculates that on average fully 60 percent of the income gap between any two people in one generation persists into the next generation.

In the 1980s, studies found that only 20 percent of the income gap persisted. But improvements in econometrics show a gloomier picture - that poverty may well endure over several generations.

"For people to say we are a very mobile society, people will have to confront this evidence," says Mr. Mazumder.

So, yes, I submit the article and study that I cited were more valid that the marketing survey which you misrepresented.

I can, of course, provide more sources if it becomes necessary, but for now they clearly aren't needed.

I would call you a hypocrite - but really - why put hypocrites down?

You like to use that word, but you appear to have a problem using it correctly. That is less than impressive.

Ok, just now coming into this topic, and read the first 12 or so pages of posts.

I will start out by saying that my opinions are relative to these united States, specifically, the South.

First things first:

No one choses the life they are born into
Few decisions made as a child affect your adult life
By the age of 25, you have started making the decisions that will affect your future
For the vast majority of people, staying in a given wealth class is a matter of choice


From what I've read of this thread, people have talked of "being poor" or "being rich", which, in all actuality, has nothing to do with anything, other than political fodder. What really matters, is where you are going, and, for reference, where you have been.

Yes, many people are born, and raised, poor. However, given the opportunities in this country, there is little to no reason for most people to stay poor. Staying poor is a matter of choice, most of it in the realm of motivation, discipline, and pride.

If someone is born poor, and/or raised poor, even in the worst parts of a city, or the most back-country town or area, with the worst public schools (or perhaps he never even went to school), it is possible for him to do well his self, and he doesn't even need to make every decision correctly (bad decisions teach us more than good ones).

Motivation is the first obstacle to overcome, but getting motivated can be found in a seed as simple as thinking "I'm tired of being poor, I'm going to do something about it." However, it is an obstacle due to the negative influences of others (family, friends, even politicians) telling you that there is nothing to be done about it, and that no matter what you do, you will always be poor. If you choose to ignore those negative influences most of the time, you have done something many choose not to do.

Next is Discipline, sticking to your goals (also a choice). If you lapse, no big deal, you can get Motivated again, and start from where you left off. Depending on your choices, you may make things more difficult for yourself, but not impossible.

Then there is Pride. This is a double-edged sword. You need to know when pride is good, and when it gets in the way. This is one of the most difficult lessons (and one you are constantly learning). When do you take help? From who? How will taking the help affect your future? Pride always brings up a lot of questions, and many times, the answers can only be acquired via trail and error.

Sometimes, people find themselves poor due to circumstances beyond their control, for reasons that are not due entirely to decisions they have made, but regardless of how you got that way, staying poor is a choice.

(Now, before someone starts screaming "rich guy doesn't know what he's talking about", let me say that I was born into the upper-end of the lower class (not even middle class). I went to my grade schools, and was taught in class pretty much nothing beyond the basics. For the most part I am self educated. I took my first job, paying $50/week + room and board at the age of 15. I qualified for a government scholarship that paid for some of my college (I took out loans for the rest). Due to some -very- poor choices I made in my freshman year, I lost that scholarship after the second semester. I went to college for 2 more years, on loans alone, until I was faced with the choice of Work or School. Had I chosen school, I would have lost the income that was paying my rent, and would have had to leave school anyway, so I chose work. I have not been back to school since. I am now married, and a father (this part is new for me). I have worked a very wide variety of jobs, in many different environments from the city to small towns, to a tourist attraction. I have lived and worked in one of the poorest areas of the state, eating Ramen and Mac'n'cheese, while those "paid" for Lobster and Steak with foodstamps. I have made good decisions, and thus bettered my situation, I have made poor decisions that have set me a great deal. I have had circumstances beyond my control set me back to the point that I was homeless. All this has happened to me, and I'm just a 25 year old kid, with a full life ahead of me. A full life I plan on not being poor.

Being poor may not always be a choice. For most folks, staying poor, is always a choice.

I don't mind you asking at all and I always appreciate a reply which is not rude. You will find that my replies tend to match the tone of the post to which I am replying. If you find my posts 'petty flames' that is my intentional reflection of the various members of this forum who conduct themselves in an unsavory manner. (That they are the first to call me out for it is something I find amusing to no end.)

I actually meant "you could rise above attacks which are petty flames of you" ... so even less offense was intended.

Regarding, Neu Leonstein's posts, I only found two on quick review and only glanced briefly at them. At first blush it would seem I agree with NL, so I may not be the best ally at finding a weakness to it. (still - sometimes just for fun and skill-building I will argue a point contrary to my own beliefs) I would for now only suggest you change your approach from 'attack' to 'discuss'. I'd bet one of the best people here to help you find a weakness to NL's posts would be NL.

Well, that's what I will do. Of course, if any of the posters who NL replied to wish to argue the points, they have precedence.

Maybe if you were more specific about which of his points are most troubling for you it would be easier to help.

Er, I haven't made myself clear apparently. I perhaps commend other people too much for saying things I agree with, but the opposite is worse. To never spare a word of congratulations suggests one who is only interested in destructive argument.

I was just asking if you liked those two posts. You have answered that you looked them over and broadly agree. I'm impressed in my turn: I've tried this tactic a few times and to date have been utterly ignored. Thankyou!

I will also admint that where I am it is almost 2 AM and me eyes are droopy. I work more than full time, am pursuing an advanced certification, and have a family - so I cannot devote the time here that many do ( and they are only too pleased to critisize me for it - ha! jokes on them) I'll look nxt time I can, but it is likely to be several days from now.

g'night.

Good on you.
*bows*

there's a simple logic here. if you're going to have a differentiation of 'wealth', you're going to have someone at the low end of it as well as the high.

poor choices yes, poor collective choices of the entire society, not just of those at the short end of it.

=^^=
.../\...

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Was this your attempt at being clever?

I recognize this, it's a favourite quote of my fathers. Once you realize it's a quote, the meaning is pretty clear: "I don't accept the premise of the question."

Carry on.

there's a simple logic here. if you're going to have a differentiation of 'wealth', you're going to have someone at the low end of it as well as the high.

That's an oxymoron, surely?
But it highlights an important point: in developed economies, "poverty" isn't the real, hunger-pangs and no shoes poverty in which far too many of the the world's people live.

poor choices yes, poor collective choices of the entire society, not just of those at the short end of it.

*meoww*

Look, I think it's worse than that. I think wealth and poverty are a scale we believe in and actively work to perpetuate, from an urge to compete with each other. Without losers, being a winner would be meaningless.

The "losers" of developed economies actually don't do so badly economically, their suffering comes as much from a sense of being oppressed by the system, as a real lack of the necessities of life. The "lack" of air-conditioning or a reliable car hurts them more than it rationally should.

It's almost impossible to starve to death in Australia, and I bet the United States is the same. There's food in every second garbage bin ...

Ok, just now coming into this topic, and read the first 12 or so pages of posts.

I will start out by saying that my opinions are relative to these united States, specifically, the South.

First things first:

No one choses the life they are born into
Few decisions made as a child affect your adult life
By the age of 25, you have started making the decisions that will affect your future
For the vast majority of people, staying in a given wealth class is a matter of choice


From what I've read of this thread, people have talked of "being poor" or "being rich", which, in all actuality, has nothing to do with anything, other than political fodder. What really matters, is where you are going, and, for reference, where you have been.

Yes, many people are born, and raised, poor. However, given the opportunities in this country, there is little to no reason for most people to stay poor. Staying poor is a matter of choice, most of it in the realm of motivation, discipline, and pride.

If someone is born poor, and/or raised poor, even in the worst parts of a city, or the most back-country town or area, with the worst public schools (or perhaps he never even went to school), it is possible for him to do well his self, and he doesn't even need to make every decision correctly (bad decisions teach us more than good ones).

Motivation is the first obstacle to overcome, but getting motivated can be found in a seed as simple as thinking "I'm tired of being poor, I'm going to do something about it." However, it is an obstacle due to the negative influences of others (family, friends, even politicians) telling you that there is nothing to be done about it, and that no matter what you do, you will always be poor. If you choose to ignore those negative influences most of the time, you have done something many choose not to do.

Next is Discipline, sticking to your goals (also a choice). If you lapse, no big deal, you can get Motivated again, and start from where you left off. Depending on your choices, you may make things more difficult for yourself, but not impossible.

Then there is Pride. This is a double-edged sword. You need to know when pride is good, and when it gets in the way. This is one of the most difficult lessons (and one you are constantly learning). When do you take help? From who? How will taking the help affect your future? Pride always brings up a lot of questions, and many times, the answers can only be acquired via trail and error.

Sometimes, people find themselves poor due to circumstances beyond their control, for reasons that are not due entirely to decisions they have made, but regardless of how you got that way, staying poor is a choice.

(Now, before someone starts screaming "rich guy doesn't know what he's talking about", let me say that I was born into the upper-end of the lower class (not even middle class). I went to my grade schools, and was taught in class pretty much nothing beyond the basics. For the most part I am self educated. I took my first job, paying $50/week + room and board at the age of 15. I qualified for a government scholarship that paid for some of my college (I took out loans for the rest). Due to some -very- poor choices I made in my freshman year, I lost that scholarship after the second semester. I went to college for 2 more years, on loans alone, until I was faced with the choice of Work or School. Had I chosen school, I would have lost the income that was paying my rent, and would have had to leave school anyway, so I chose work. I have not been back to school since. I am now married, and a father (this part is new for me). I have worked a very wide variety of jobs, in many different environments from the city to small towns, to a tourist attraction. I have lived and worked in one of the poorest areas of the state, eating Ramen and Mac'n'cheese, while those "paid" for Lobster and Steak with foodstamps. I have made good decisions, and thus bettered my situation, I have made poor decisions that have set me a great deal. I have had circumstances beyond my control set me back to the point that I was homeless. All this has happened to me, and I'm just a 25 year old kid, with a full life ahead of me. A full life I plan on not being poor.

Being poor may not always be a choice. For most folks, staying poor, is always a choice.

Cute. Funny how good choices and bad stories did blah blah... but the situation that made you homeless was 'beyond your control'. And yet, you STILL think you can push the old 'it's a choice' crap on people.

Some people have nothng to use as collateral, no way of borrowing money, and way too many concerns in every day life to 'decide' to spend their money differently. Faced with taking that course that might help you make a bit more money, or feeding your kids... well, kids are going to win out.

That's not to say there are NO people who choose to live certain lifestyles. I'm sure there are... I know someone who has no ambitions higher than his pizza delivery job - because it EXACTLY matches his chosen lifestyle - he's all about a good time, doesn't want a full time job, doesn't eat much, and is lucky enough to have a friend that lets him bunk down at her place.

But a lot of people... just waiting for a break. For the pressure to let up.

That's an oxymoron, surely?
But it highlights an important point: in developed economies, "poverty" isn't the real, hunger-pangs and no shoes poverty in which far too many of the the world's people live.



Look, I think it's worse than that. I think wealth and poverty are a scale we believe in and actively work to perpetuate, from an urge to compete with each other. Without losers, being a winner would be meaningless.

The "losers" of developed economies actually don't do so badly economically, their suffering comes as much from a sense of being oppressed by the system, as a real lack of the necessities of life. The "lack" of air-conditioning or a reliable car hurts them more than it rationally should.

It's almost impossible to starve to death in Australia, and I bet the United States is the same. There's food in every second garbage bin ...

exactly! most of what is called wealth is a pretty much imaginary and damd near meaningless concept. and poverty for the most part, is only created by having and perpetuating such a concept.

beyond survival and gratification, it's all a mater of ego and emotional attatchment, to generally culture based and rather arbitrary expectations.

if you've ever seen the furnishings of REALLY ancient royalty, (those far off, often highly romantacized times) you know that the underside of bridges in developed countrys are somewhat more luxurious.

=^^=
.../\...

exactly! most of what is called wealth is a pretty much imaginary and damd near meaningless concept. and poverty for the most part, is only created by having and perpetuating such a concept.

beyond survival and gratification, it's all a mater of ego and emotional attatchment, to generally culture based and rather arbitrary expectations.

if you've ever seen the furnishings of REALLY ancient royalty, (those far off, often highly romantacized times) you know that the underside of bridges in developed countrys are somewhat more luxurious.

=^^=
.../\...

Sounds like hollow rhetoric to me. Which ancient royalties? For that matter - which bridges? Mesopotamian royalty with their warm climate and plentiful food probably fares quite poorly against the underside of a rural Georgia bridge in December.

. . . . I have had circumstances beyond my control set me back to the point that I was homeless.

. . . .

Being poor may not always be a choice. For most folks, staying poor, is always a choice.

So let me get this straight. There were circumstances, beyond your control, which you could not choose to avoid, that rendered you homeless.

But, being poor is a choice.

I see...so, poverty, homelessness, things like that, "choice". Except for yourself. Then it was "circumstances beyond your control".

exactly! most of what is called wealth is a pretty much imaginary and damd near meaningless concept. and poverty for the most part, is only created by having and perpetuating such a concept.

beyond survival and gratification, it's all a mater of ego and emotional attatchment, to generally culture based and rather arbitrary expectations.

if you've ever seen the furnishings of REALLY ancient royalty, (those far off, often highly romantacized times) you know that the underside of bridges in developed countrys are somewhat more luxurious.

=^^=
.../\...

My dear friend, there is nothing imaginary about having a 70 room mansion. Nor is there anything imaginry about living on the street, both are real situations that are brought about by the amount of resources someone has at their disposal, which is what wealth, or lack thereof, is all about.

My dear friend, there is nothing imaginary about having a 70 room mansion. Nor is there anything imaginry about living on the street, both are real situations that are brought about by the amount of resources someone has at their disposal, which is what wealth, or lack thereof, is all about.

69 of the rooms are imaginary, you can only be in one at once. And ...

The real delineation of poverty is between living on the street, and starving to death there.

Sounds like hollow rhetoric to me.

Then you have a tin ear!

I have irrational, but not personal, reasons for valuing the posts of Cameroi.

I find them lyrical. They make me think and feel.

To really take that concept to Haight and Ashbury, I think I just like the person who makes the posts. I don't need a reason to do that.

Oh, and you know I'm Nobel Hobos, right?

Which ancient royalties? For that matter - which bridges? Mesopotamian royalty with their warm climate and plentiful food probably fares quite poorly against the underside of a rural Georgia bridge in December.

It was hyperbole. You punctured it well.

But the Pharaohs didn't have a $40 boom-box, thumpin' out "Underneath the Bridge" 'til the $2 batteries packed it in.

69 of the rooms are imaginary, you can only be in one at once. And ...

But the rooms do exist. If you have a room packed with gold, to pay for everythign you will need for life, does that security disappear when you are not in the room looking at the gold? Of course not, you will always be more secure because you have gold, and the poor man does not.

The real delineation of poverty is between living on the street, and starving to death there.

Then living in your idea of a country not in poverty is depressing. If your nation lives on the strets and eats out of bins, then your people are not poor? Bangladeshis and Somalis can rejoice in their riches... We should stop sending aid right this moment.

But the Pharaohs didn't have a $40 boom-box, thumpin' out "Underneath the Bridge" 'til the $2 batteries packed it in.

They used Duracell... The battery that lasts for all time!

Hmm - before they started squeezing out children maybe they should have considered if they could AFFORD it? You know - stuff like - child care, health care, a working mode of transportation, etc... Finances is certainly a part of the formula when making the CHOICE to have a family.

And for people who are crushingly poor to begin with, things like contraception and abortion are quite often completely unavailable. So you are actually saying that the poor don't deserve to have sex, because having sex leads to a risk of pregnancy that the poor are unable to avoid. I guess married poor people should just abstain for life.

Oh, and poor women never get raped, either.


Pre-existing debt? Hmmm - don't be silly. Debt is never 'pre existing'. There is no magical debt-fairy who maxes out your credit cards. Every swipe of debt is your choice.

You just didn't read the post, did you? If you had, you'd probably have noticed the entire paragraph where I identify an extremely common source of debt.

And, of course, if your parents or spouse die and leave you with THEIR debts, as an increasing number do these days, then it really does kind of start to resemble the debt fairy. You absolutely can inherit the debts of others. Poor people are disproportionately likely to do so.


And - since when does a person require a college degree to avoid or escape poverty? That is a complete insult to every person alive who does not have a college degree.

Good thing that's not what I said. But hey, if YOU want to insult every person alive who doesn't have a college degree, you go right ahead.


How arrogant can you be?
Why do you ask questions to which you are already the answer?

So let me get this straight. There were circumstances, beyond your control, which you could not choose to avoid, that rendered you homeless.

But, being poor is a choice.

I see...so, poverty, homelessness, things like that, "choice". Except for yourself. Then it was "circumstances beyond your control".
It's kind of like all those pro-life women who have abortions, because THEIR abortion is for a valid reason (unlike all the filthy sluts who get them for immoral reasons).

If one of these "being poor is a choice" folks ever were to feel the cold hand of poverty on their own shoulder, you can be sure that they will remain completely blameless because THEY were doing everything right and it was just a one-in-a-million fluke that landed them in the gutter. Unlike all those other lazy idiots who totally deserve to be poor because of all their bad choices.

That's an oxymoron, surely?
But it highlights an important point: in developed economies, "poverty" isn't the real, hunger-pangs and no shoes poverty in which far too many of the the world's people live.



Look, I think it's worse than that. I think wealth and poverty are a scale we believe in and actively work to perpetuate, from an urge to compete with each other. Without losers, being a winner would be meaningless.

The "losers" of developed economies actually don't do so badly economically, their suffering comes as much from a sense of being oppressed by the system, as a real lack of the necessities of life. The "lack" of air-conditioning or a reliable car hurts them more than it rationally should.

It's almost impossible to starve to death in Australia, and I bet the United States is the same. There's food in every second garbage bin ...

No I strongly disagree with you.

Poverty in developed counties still means going without food, and clothing. I guess what you mean is you have not seen such poverty for yourself?

No I strongly disagree with you.

You are one poster I know I can take seriously. That you disagree with me, strongly, certainly gives me pause.

Poverty in developed counties still means going without food, and clothing. I guess what you mean is you have not seen such poverty for yourself?

I lived for a year with exactly zero income, no assets and no friends. I was so mentally ill (as I judge it now) that hunger or the state of my clothing meant little to me. Yet I don't remember hunger pangs or being arrested for public nudity.

Perhaps I am simply living in a richer and more generous country than the standard "developed country." I would walk into bakeries and ask for the old stock, and was rarely refused.

Sometimes, I ate from garbage cans. Until 1998, in Bondi, I had never seen a locked skip (or whatever you call a huge garbage container made for machine-loading).

I have lived in houses no-one wanted. I have slept under the bushes in the center of town. I have (not to skite) slept in Taronga Zoo.

Yet, my experience is no more than anecdotal evidence. It is far more meaningful to me, than I can ask it to be to you.

I'm afraid that I must now ask you to Prove It. We would agree that Australia, Britain, all Western European countries, and the United States are "developed economies"? Perhaps your claim includes some countries I am not so familiar with, like Russia or Turkey.

EDIT: I'm sorry if my puppeteering is confusing. BunnySaurus Bugsii is always sober, I'm probably not, and No-Bugs Ho-Bot is our Drunk/Stoned/Crazy/Ignore-me-please Representative for Random. That's all the puppets I have just now.

You are one poster I know I can take seriously. That you disagree with me, strongly, certainly gives me pause.



I lived for a year with exactly zero income, no assets and no friends. I was so mentally ill (as I judge it now) that hunger or the state of my clothing meant little to me. Yet I don't remember hunger pangs or being arrested for public nudity.

Perhaps I am simply living in a richer and more generous country than the standard "developed country." I would walk into bakeries and ask for the old stock, and was rarely refused.

Sometimes, I ate from garbage cans. Until 1998, in Bondi, I had never seen a locked skip (or whatever you call a huge garbage container made for machine-loading).

I have lived in houses no-one wanted. I have slept under the bushes in the center of town. I have (not to skite) slept in Taronga Zoo.

Yet, my experience is no more than anecdotal evidence. It is far more meaningful to me, than I can ask it to be to you.

I'm afraid that I must now ask you to Prove It. We would agree that Australia, Britain, all Western European countries, and the United States are "developed economies"? Perhaps your claim includes some countries I am not so familiar with, like Russia or Turkey.

Umm it was bunnysaurus post that I was strongly disagreeing with.

Umm it was bunnysaurus post that I was strongly disagreeing with.

Then BunnySaurus will answer you. BSB never posts drunk, I am now drunk ... ergo I must sober up before I can post as BSB.

I will make a short reply to part of Bottles post, then it's Self-Criticism Voluntary Re-Education Camp for me ... ie, bed!

Then BunnySaurus will answer you. BSB never posts drunk, I am now drunk ... ergo I must sober up before I can post as BSB.

I will make a short reply to part of Bottles post, then it's Self-Criticism Voluntary Re-Education Camp for me ... ie, bed!

Ahh ohh errrr umm I see, are you saying that you are bunny?

From what I've read of this thread, people have talked of "being poor" or "being rich", which, in all actuality, has nothing to do with anything, other than political fodder. What really matters, is where you are going, and, for reference, where you have been.

That sounds lovely. Of course, if you'd ever actually had to go without food for longer than a couple days, you'd probably have learned that "being poor" has a lot to do with...well, pretty much everything, if you're actually poor.


Yes, many people are born, and raised, poor. However, given the opportunities in this country, there is little to no reason for most people to stay poor. Staying poor is a matter of choice, most of it in the realm of motivation, discipline, and pride.

Hence, poor people are poor because they're unmotivated, undisciplined, and have no pride in themselves.

Well, that's that! We've solved poverty! It's all their fault, which (conveniently) means that us non-poor people are free to go on our merry way, content in our knowledge that anybody who is poor deserves it.


If someone is born poor, and/or raised poor, even in the worst parts of a city, or the most back-country town or area, with the worst public schools (or perhaps he never even went to school), it is possible for him to do well his self, and he doesn't even need to make every decision correctly (bad decisions teach us more than good ones).

Possible? Sure. Happens all the time. But not to everybody who tries. It's a combination of hard work AND good fortune.


Motivation is the first obstacle to overcome, but getting motivated can be found in a seed as simple as thinking "I'm tired of being poor, I'm going to do something about it." However, it is an obstacle due to the negative influences of others (family, friends, even politicians) telling you that there is nothing to be done about it, and that no matter what you do, you will always be poor. If you choose to ignore those negative influences most of the time, you have done something many choose not to do.

So poor people are so stupid that they are won over by propaganda telling them that they should just stay poor? Despite how poverty kind of, you know, really fucking sucks?

"Sure, your kids are hungry, you haven't got a pair of shoes, and the water company shut off your house so you are all showering at the YMCA. But you should just stay poor! Don't try to fix anything!"

Convinces me!


Next is Discipline, sticking to your goals (also a choice). If you lapse, no big deal, you can get Motivated again, and start from where you left off. Depending on your choices, you may make things more difficult for yourself, but not impossible.

Then there is Pride. This is a double-edged sword. You need to know when pride is good, and when it gets in the way. This is one of the most difficult lessons (and one you are constantly learning). When do you take help? From who? How will taking the help affect your future? Pride always brings up a lot of questions, and many times, the answers can only be acquired via trail and error.

I'm sure you're the first person who's ever mentioned such things to poor people. And, heaven knows, they're too stupid to understand such things on their own.


Sometimes, people find themselves poor due to circumstances beyond their control, for reasons that are not due entirely to decisions they have made, but regardless of how you got that way, staying poor is a choice.

It's this lovely black-and-white world of "poor" and "not poor." Anybody who is currently poor must want to be that way, because otherwise they'd have instantly become "not poor." It certainly never takes TIME to climb out of poverty. It certainly never requires years of struggle and effort. No, if a person is currently poor then they must not be trying at all. They must lack discipline and pride etc., because if they had those then the "not poor" light would have gone off already and all would be well.


(Now, before someone starts screaming "rich guy doesn't know what he's talking about", let me say that I was born into the upper-end of the lower class (not even middle class). I went to my grade schools, and was taught in class pretty much nothing beyond the basics. For the most part I am self educated. I took my first job, paying $50/week + room and board at the age of 15. I qualified for a government scholarship that paid for some of my college (I took out loans for the rest). Due to some -very- poor choices I made in my freshman year, I lost that scholarship after the second semester. I went to college for 2 more years, on loans alone, until I was faced with the choice of Work or School. Had I chosen school, I would have lost the income that was paying my rent, and would have had to leave school anyway, so I chose work. I have not been back to school since. I am now married, and a father (this part is new for me). I have worked a very wide variety of jobs, in many different environments from the city to small towns, to a tourist attraction. I have lived and worked in one of the poorest areas of the state, eating Ramen and Mac'n'cheese, while those "paid" for Lobster and Steak with foodstamps. I have made good decisions, and thus bettered my situation, I have made poor decisions that have set me a great deal. I have had circumstances beyond my control set me back to the point that I was homeless. All this has happened to me, and I'm just a 25 year old kid, with a full life ahead of me. A full life I plan on not being poor.

Being poor may not always be a choice. For most folks, staying poor, is always a choice.
Since you shared a bit of your personal story, let me share a bit of mine.

I was poor by choice. Yeah, you read that right. I ran away from home for some semi-valid reasons when I was a young teen, and I ended up doing a lovely stint as a homeless person. I stayed in a few shelters, managed to find a place in the piss-poor literal ghetto after a while, and generally lived the crap life for a while. I'm not talking small-studio-apartment-and-Ramen poor, I'm talking about sleeping under the bench at a bus stop for an hour before some crazy guy decides to sit down and start whacking off while he sings lullabies at me. Not glamorous. Not romantically Spartan and free from material concerns and all the other idiot crap that rich people imagine when they think about "life on the streets."

I made it until the first winter hit. That's when I learned that nobody, but NOBODY, chooses to be poor that way. If the filth, the violence, the sickness, and the crushing depression weren't enough, the 15 below zero will do it every time. If you have any possible way out, any at all, you take it.

I met other teens who left home, too. You can say that they were poor by choice, I suppose, though I don't really see what choice a 14 year old girl has when she's been impregnated by her father and wants to get the hell out so he won't start raping her baby when she has it.

It's also a bit hard for a 16 year old guy whose parents were blowing smoke into his face since infancy, and who gave him a pipe for his 13th birthday. When his folks decide they can't afford to keep him any more, it's not really like he can "choose" to be more important to them than their habit.

I was lucky because I could choose. I was lucky because I had 15 years of good food, good education, good medical care, and good living under my belt before I took a turn being poor. I met plenty of people who had none of that. I met a kid who'd never tasted filtered water in his life, and who assumed that water was supposed to have that sulfuric stink and the metallic burn at the back of your throat.

We all can make choices. Poor people, like rich people, can make both good choices and bad choices. That's not up for debate. The issue is whether or not poor people can magically start making "good choices" that will suddenly lift them out of poverty.

If you believe that they can, then you also must believe that poor people DON'T make those choices. Which either means that poor people are too stupid to make these choices, or that they want to be poor.

I'm telling you, flat out, that (with the exception of a few crazies) pretty much nobody wants to be poor.

I'm also telling you that poor people are plenty smart, and nothing you have said on this thread would come as any surprise to poor people. They've heard it a million times before. Hell, I heard it a million times over, and I lived in real poverty for less than a year.

The reality is that poor people can make all the "right" choices and still be poor. Sometimes, after a long while, they can work their way out of poverty. That's great, but it still means that you have a bunch of people WHO ARE POOR who are working their asses off to get out. Other times, lousy shit keeps happening, and they never can quite make it out. They hurt their arm working their second job, and the medical bills erase all the savings they've built up for the last 5 years. Their kid/spouse/parent gets sick or dies. A storm knocks over a tree onto their roof. Their landlady dies, and the new owner wants to flip the building for a profit, so they have two weeks to move.

The list of things that can fuck you over royally gets a lot longer the less money you have. Money is insulation against suckitude. You might never see the insulation in your house, but I promise that you'd notice if it suddenly wasn't there.

<Sniped all the great stuff>....... Money is insulation against suckitude. You might never see the insulation in your house, but I promise that you'd notice if it suddenly wasn't there.


Very well put, if I may summerise, we are all indeed only two paypackets away from being homeless.

Well the vast majority of us anyway!

Very well put, if I may summerise, we are all indeed only two paypackets away from being homeless.

Well the vast majority of us anyway!
I really get a kick out of how Kenzalheim seems to think that having jobs, a place to live, and Mac and Cheese for dinner constitutes "poverty."

You know what poor people call it?

"Middle class."

And for people who are crushingly poor to begin with, things like contraception and abortion are quite often completely unavailable.

Abortion is free in Australia. It's on Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Australia%29).

That's Federal, pissy little State governments don't get a say. The only limitation on abortion is (IIRC) requiring two doctors' opinions.

The doctors are free too, they're on Medicare. Plenty of doctors making a good living 'bulk-billing' (ie government pays) ... not operating 'free clinics' out of their own pockets.

Too good to be true? Come see for yourself! It's a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, but with English the official language, better weather, and lots of Handsome Chaps like myself!

*stands back, not to be vomited on*

Eh, what am I saying? You'd move to Canada if you were going to move. I swear, you'd lose your raison d'etre if you didn't live in the United Stoats. :p

*lumbers off to bed*

I really get a kick out of how Kenzalheim seems to think that having jobs, a place to live, and Mac and Cheese for dinner constitutes "poverty."

You know what poor people call it?

"Middle class."Word!

I had a most delicious grilled cheese for five days straight. :D

Well, I have to admit, the OP is right. The poverty my family went through when growing up was all about choice. After all, someone chose to send US troops to Vietnam and someone chose to draft men into the Army to serve there. Someone chose to use Agent Orange as a chemical defoliant and someone else chose to send improperly shielded x-ray equipment to Vietnam. And when my father developed leukemia, something that has never run in my family and at his age was more than a little odd, well, someone decided that it wasn't the government's fault that he was exposed to said x-rays and Agent Orange.

I'm pretty sure my father did not choose to die and leave his wife with two small children and a heap of unpaid medical bills though.

Someone also decided that for all the lip service paid to the sacrifice of our men in uniform, it wasn't the problem of the US to take care of the widow and children of such a man, all we got was a folded flag and a pre-printed and stamp signed letter from President Regan. Neither of which put food on the table or paid the bills.

After that, yeah, my mother faced some damned hard choices and it took us over 10 years to get to the point where we didn't have to rely on any form of charity for food, clothing, or medical attention. It took another 10 for her to finally get stable enough that anything unexpected would probably NOT knock us back down. I sincerely doubt that she choose to spend such an enjoyable decade where McDonald's was a once a year luxury and new clothing was a pipe dream.

But, yeah, choices were made, too bad none of them were ones we wanted to make.

Ahh ohh errrr umm I see, are you saying that you are bunny?

I am a rarebit.

*becomes rarer*

<Lots of snipped stuff, ending with>
The list of things that can fuck you over royally gets a lot longer the less money you have. Money is insulation against suckitude. You might never see the insulation in your house, but I promise that you'd notice if it suddenly wasn't there.
Well said. With the quoted post having already been put up for reading, there's nothing I can contribute to this discussion and so I'll just say that it boggles my mind to read a post like that on the same page of a forum containing a "Superman vs. Spider-man" poll. Perspective, ftw.

I really get a kick out of how Kenzalheim seems to think that having jobs, a place to live, and Mac and Cheese for dinner constitutes "poverty."

You know what poor people call it?

"Middle class."

Heh and I'm not to sure what the upper end of poor is?

Well said. With the quoted post having already been put up for reading, there's nothing I can contribute to this discussion and so I'll just say that it boggles my mind to read a post like that on the same page of a forum containing a "Superman vs. Spider-man" poll. Perspective, ftw.
*heh* NSG at it's finest!

I really get a kick out of how Kenzalheim seems to think that having jobs, a place to live, and Mac and Cheese for dinner constitutes "poverty."

You know what poor people call it?

"Middle class."

I love the bit about how people choose to have children. Because, you know, no one chooses to have children and THEN becomes poor. That never happens. You never, say, have excellent medical care because your mother is a nurse. Both your parents are decently-paid professionals and money isn't an issue. Then your sister develops a disease no one can figure out so the insurance company decides she's loony and says they'll only pay for psychiatrist. Except the psychiatrist can't manage to do anything about her throat closing up, so we have to just go ahead and use that silly health care that's keeping her alive and putting us literally 7 figures in debt. Then, when it turns out she actually has a definable disease and is cured, the insurance companies still don't pay because we didn't follow their suggestion for care, that would have killed her.

Yeah, that never happens. It's just those damn poor people squeezing out chillens.

Abortion is free in Australia. It's on Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Australia%29).

That's Federal, pissy little State governments don't get a say. The only limitation on abortion is (IIRC) requiring two doctors' opinions.

The doctors are free too, they're on Medicare. Plenty of doctors making a good living 'bulk-billing' (ie government pays) ... not operating 'free clinics' out of their own pockets.

Too good to be true? Come see for yourself! It's a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, but with English the official language, better weather, and lots of Handsome Chaps like myself!

*stands back, not to be vomited on*

It's true, I am only speaking from my experience, and that is the experience of an American. Sadly, no matter what our government may be telling the world, we do still have poor people here.


Eh, what am I saying? You'd move to Canada if you were going to move. I swear, you'd lose your raison d'etre if you didn't live in the United Stoats. :p

*lumbers off to bed*
Honestly, the #1 reason I strongly consider moving out of the USA is because I'm so sick and tired of living in a country where we actually DEBATE things like contraception and abortion rights. Like, what's the fucking debate, assholes? Welcome to the 21st century, where developed nations have caught on to the fact that health care is kinda sorta important!

Oy. My country gives me migraines.

I love the bit about how people choose to have children. Because, you know, no one chooses to have children and THEN becomes poor.
Well of course not. If you follow The Rules and always Make Good Choices, then you'll never be poor! DUH!

If you find yourself poor it can only be due to your Bad Choices. If you are poor then you obviously must want to be poor forever because if you didn't want to be poor you'd already have made yourself not-poor by having discipline and pride and stuff. Which you obviously lack because you're poor.

But there's hope! If enough sanctimonious rich kids tell you to toughen up and get a job, that's sure to do the trick! You're poor, which means you're stupid, so they'll probably have to repeat the message a few times before you are able to grasp that jobs pay money, and poor people need more money, so poor people should have jobs.

That's why God gave us spoiled rich kids: so there'd be somebody to remind the poor to stop being so lazy!

That's why God gave us spoiled rich kids: so there'd be somebody to remind the poor to stop being so lazy, and cut their grass, clean their house, ect!

Fixed

There's an implication behind that line of argument - if the poor are poor because they've made poor choices then...

Finish the above self-congratulating sentence for a cookie.

There's an implication behind that line of argument - if the poor are poor because they've made poor choices then...

Finish the above self-congratulating sentence for a cookie.

Exactly. I kind of alluded to that earlier - no one says they got rich entirely from someone else's work... even those who inherit large sums usually have some way of convincing themselves it was their own doing..... that time they invested some of daddy's money, or the way they did so well at the nice expensive school... rockstars and baseball players feel like they made a great effort (doing what most of us do (or - would like to do!) as recreation)...

But, if you're poor... well, it couldn't be that you can't go to job interviews because you don't have a car. It couldn't be that you don't get hired because you only HAVE two shirts, and neither of them looks work appropriate. It couldn't be that people won't even consider your application because you don't even HAVE a physical address, as such.

No. Lazy. That's it.

There's an implication behind that line of argument - if the poor are poor because they've made poor choices then...

... the rich are rich because they made good choices.

Finish the above self-congratulating sentence for a cookie.

Give G_n_I the cookie, please. This WAS said before, in criticism of "How to find the next millionaire."

I love the bit about how people choose to have children. Because, you know, no one chooses to have children and THEN becomes poor. That never happens. You never, say, have excellent medical care because your mother is a nurse. Both your parents are decently-paid professionals and money isn't an issue. Then your sister develops a disease no one can figure out so the insurance company decides she's loony and says they'll only pay for psychiatrist. Except the psychiatrist can't manage to do anything about her throat closing up, so we have to just go ahead and use that silly health care that's keeping her alive and putting us literally 7 figures in debt. Then, when it turns out she actually has a definable disease and is cured, the insurance companies still don't pay because we didn't follow their suggestion for care, that would have killed her.

Yeah, that never happens. It's just those damn poor people squeezing out chillens.

Well of course! More chillens means more welfare money and a new generation of welfare people! Damn the lazy poor! To think that money could be going to the golden parachutes of poor oppressed corporate execs!

Well of course! More chillens means more welfare money and a new generation of welfare people! Damn the lazy poor! To think that money could be going to the golden parachutes of poor oppressed corporate execs!

Hey, I'm a corporate exec. I'm on the wrong side of this argument. Fuck the poor!!

Hey, I'm a corporate exec. I'm on the wrong side of this argument. Fuck the poor!!

YOU HYPOCRITE!

ok that actually made me laugh. Cheers!

YOU HYPOCRITE!

ok that actually made me laugh. Cheers!

For the record, it's going amazingly. Really amazingly. We're up to 9 full-time employees, and several more in the wings. in my industry that's breaking into the big time. I'm almost to the point where I can do some real oppression. I'm trying to hire Grave_n_Idle so I can exact vengeance on him for occasionally putting his boot in my behind in an argument. Him and his family. Stupid foreigners.

I'm almost to the point where I can do some real oppression. I'm trying to hire Grave_n_Idle so I can exact vengeance on him for occasionally putting his boot in my behind in an argument.

May I suggest the Bait-and-Switch ? Show GravenI a nice contract with minimal hours and a huge salary package. At the last moment, substitute with the Soul and Firstborn contract.

Sure, that's illegal. But that's what your legal team is for, right?

Exactly. I kind of alluded to that earlier - no one says they got rich entirely from someone else's work... even those who inherit large sums usually have some way of convincing themselves it was their own doing..... that time they invested some of daddy's money, or the way they did so well at the nice expensive school... rockstars and baseball players feel like they made a great effort (doing what most of us do (or - would like to do!) as recreation)...

But, if you're poor... well, it couldn't be that you can't go to job interviews because you don't have a car. It couldn't be that you don't get hired because you only HAVE two shirts, and neither of them looks work appropriate. It couldn't be that people won't even consider your application because you don't even HAVE a physical address, as such.

No. Lazy. That's it.

I believe that the rich people in their own paragraph are partially rich because of their choices. They may not have always known that the consequence of their actions would be wealth, but the choices they made influenced their situation.

The first person you mentioned CHOSE to invest some money.

The second person CHOSE to listen to his teachers, revise, etc to get the results. An expensive school simply influenced his choice in that direction.

The third person either trains incredibly hard and is in peak physical condition to do his job well and stay at the top, or, in the case of the rockstar, has perfected stage prescence, learns songs, does numerous interviews and press releases, never stops for one second and perhaps plays (and therefore has learned to play) the guitar in there as well! Don't these people just have it so easy?

As for the poor, other circumstances play a larger role, but still choice is a factor.

If you give up looking for a job because you don't have a car then that's your CHOICE. But I guess poor people don't have local shops or schools where they could clean within walking distance. If you want work badly enough, and you go about it the right way, work's available. Perhaps hard to find and get, but people can survive without a car.

The "no appropriate work shirts" is valid: appearance is everything. However, I know a homeless guy who saved up the money people gave him to buy a recorder, which he then used to busk for a better income. You only need to find a little money to buy a shirt, or some might be lucky and borrow one.

Finally, so a place refuses you because you don't have an address. If you look hard enough, somewhere will let you in.

I believe that it can be virtually impossible to overcome poverty, but with ingenuity, determination and optimism, you can choose to haul yourself at least to a more comfortable standard of living.

Okay, phew. That's me done. :)

that was good enough to read outloud to the family!

the response was

"OUCH"

Bravo for the cutthroat and pissed portion of the show.

It WAS well done, don't you think?

Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow.

Damn Muravyets. You are hot now! :p

I am eager to see if there will be a response.
Thank you, thank you, all. I'm always happy to entertain. :)

EDIT: Oh, and I would expect any response to be along the lines of "that's not what I said."

What a stunning example of how reductio ad absurdum can be a fallacious argument. Finished with a brillaint example of a flame too!
Ooh, somebody owns a thesaurus! Maybe this year Santa will bring you a dictionary to go with it. That was not a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Poverty is not about choice.
The poor are there as a result of their own actions? Really, we'll see about that.
Let me explain, the rich (upper classes) in the UK own 75% of private shares,
The richest 5% in UK own 90% of private shares.

Do you realise many of the rich don't have a job because they don't need one, they live off the interest.
Most research done on class differences are on middle and upper classes.
The upper class consists of a small minority of individuals who have both wealth and power, and are able to transmit their privilages to their children. The upper class can be roughly defined as the top 1% of wealth-holders. Below that class is the service class, made up, as Golthorpe says, of professionals, managers and top adiministrators.

The poor are poor not because they want to be there (why would anyone want to be poor, it defies rational and logical thought.)
4 classes, Upper, middle, lower, underclass. of these the underclass would be the beggers and others shunned from society.
Often it's very hard to become upper class because there is social closure, that means they shut out anyone they can from becoming upper class or elite, often send their children to private schools, have more than one house, have shares, or the head of a huge company.
Often your accent, social mannerisms and behaviours, type and level of education define your class as a person aside from what job you do.

A means to move up the classes is by education to learn a trade as a skilled worker or manager etc.

If you are poor it's often much harder to afford good education, it's usually the middle classes who send their children to university, but not always.
If you're poor you have many new concerns, "can you afford the rent, can you afford to heat your home, can you afford that holiday, can you pay your taxes, can you afford another trip to home with the price of fuel."

Social mobility allows a person from one class to move to another ie miner to become a lawyer, or a doctor to lose their job and become a secretary of a small business.
If there is no social mobility this is called the caste system, e.g. you can't change your job or even your children you're born poor you die poor, you're born rich you die rich. This tends to be undesirable in a modern society.

The upper classes in many western societies have shut out the entire world, they don't want anyone else to know what it's like to be rich often have misguided views of the poor. e.g. "the poor are poor because they are lazy".
This is known as a common sense opinion, more specifically individualistic, as in it's one persons view of the world, a naturalistic view of the world would be in 1940's "smoking is good for you", this is often driven by media and is usually not backed up by any research or evidence it's just what most people think.

I've noticed in this thread there are many alarmingly common sense opinions and are poorly judged, and ill concieved.

The welfare state although it's true there will be abuses of the system, the majority of people on benefits or poor relief genuinly need it.
If you look at USA it has no welfare state, and the homeless are often depicted as pariahs and seen as "lazy" or "pathetic", so medical care has to be paid for, thus the rich have better health care.
This is one reason why the UK has the Welfare state, often it can help many lives and save many too. Of course it's true that as a result there is alot of bureaucracy, alot of paper shuffling to accomidate this but i think it's well worth having. Also as part of the benefits recieved because of e.g. clinical illness, disability, bankruptcy. people are put on education programmes to help them get new jobs.
Too many people make judgements about the poor, try being one you might change your mind.
Poverty is not about choice. People are often ascribed with poverty (born with it).
Please be as objective in your approach to social and political matters as possible to avoid bias of opinion, and base your arguments on research were possible.


(references Giddens 5th edition by Giddens et al, pages 310-318.)
see following sites for more information;
http:/www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/soc/class/class.htm
Sociology central (http://www.sociology.org.uk/cload.htm

I believe that the rich people in their own paragraph are partially rich because of their choices. They may not have always known that the consequence of their actions would be wealth, but the choices they made influenced their situation.

Yes, their choices influenced their situation. So did their starting situation, and a whole host of events that they did not choose or control.


If you give up looking for a job because you don't have a car then that's your CHOICE. But I guess poor people don't have local shops or schools where they could clean within walking distance. If you want work badly enough, and you go about it the right way, work's available. Perhaps hard to find and get, but people can survive without a car.

You clearly have never lived in a car-dependent area. I grew up in the Twin Cities, and while much of my time was spent in the major metro area (where there's at least a passable bus system) I also spent a lot of time in the outlying areas, where there's no mass transit and everything is at least 5 miles from everything else. Minnesota loves sprawl, you see.

And if you think walking or biking 5 miles to work is a practical option for most people in the depths of Minnesotan winter, then please come visit my folks and I. We'll introduce you to a charming Minnesotan tradition called "The Hellish Ice Storm From Hell" (otherwise known as "February").


The "no appropriate work shirts" is valid: appearance is everything. However, I know a homeless guy who saved up the money people gave him to buy a recorder, which he then used to busk for a better income. You only need to find a little money to buy a shirt, or some might be lucky and borrow one.

Oh, well that fixes everything! If only I knew that I just had to "find a little money," and I could afford things! Perchance I shall happen upon a crisp five-note in the sofa cushions, and then off to the tailor I shall go!


Finally, so a place refuses you because you don't have an address. If you look hard enough, somewhere will let you in.

Of course, while you're looking you aren't making money. Which means you're not buying that shirt you need, or that car that would allow you to check places further away. Also, your kids are bitching about wanting to eat again (spoilt buggers), and your mother has been muttering something about her dialysis.


I believe that it can be virtually impossible to overcome poverty, but with ingenuity, determination and optimism, you can choose to haul yourself at least to a more comfortable standard of living.

Can we please stop "debating" this complete non-issue?

Nobody around here is arguing that humans can't make choices that impact their situation. We're all on board with that. If you'd like to continue on with that topic, kindly direct your attentions to the Water Is Wet forum, where the debate will be more your speed.

Let me explain, the rich (upper classes) in the UK own 75% of private shares,
The richest 5% in UK own 90% of private shares.
And that, my friends, is why I can't take sociology seriously.

And that, my friends, is why I can't take sociology seriously.

You can't take sociology seriously because you've clearly told us time and time again that if things don't meet your world view then they can't be true because that'd just be depressing. Good sociology is based on evidence and if everyone on this board spend a little time looking into some of this evidence, half the crap that crops up time and time again would be knocked on the head soon enough.

And that, my friends, is why I can't take sociology seriously.

Because it depends on statistical analysis, not provable principles?

Statistics are horrible things, it's true. They can be used to mislead, they're always subject to dispute. And they're descriptive, not prescriptive.

Still, that beats defining some idea of "rational self-interest" for an individual, and then expecting a rational society to magically pop into existence.



*looks around warily for Muravyets*

I'm pretty sure I misused at least one word in this reply.

You can't take sociology seriously because you've clearly told us time and time again that if things don't meet your world view then they can't be true because that'd just be depressing.
The sociology building at my university is right next to the economics building, so I do get contact with the content of the lectures, the lecturers and the students.

You can tell me whatever you want about what good sociology is, but unless I see it in practice somewhere, that's not going to change my mind. Getting into the degree requires vastly lower results in high school than economics or even business, not mentioning law or engineering. Its content is supplanted by economics, psychology and, if you must, political science. There is no need for it as a discipline and no discernable academic rigour in the teaching of it. The idea of gathering macro data, doing some statistics on it and then proclaiming some sort of conclusions you can apply on a micro level is precisely what undid Keynesian macroeconomics - it wasn't until the introduction of microeconomic disciplines into it that its flaws could be solved.

But even if it did, most sociology I have seen doesn't deal with the facts themselves, but with subjective interpretations of them. To get back to the thread's topic: if we're talking about wealth or income, the right discipline to refer to is economics. But we're talking about poverty, which is a loaded term and a value judgement about a given level of wealth - and only that allows people to bring sociology into it and start denying the individuality of those subjected to this poverty. We're not sitting down and determining what exactly poverty means, we'e not thinking about appropriate policy responses targetting the individual's ability to earn more wealth, we end up talking about compensation for being subject to poverty. That's not economics, but it's precisely what those sociology professors next door like to talk about. All you need to get there is make up and talk about a "social" problem.

Because it depends on statistical analysis, not provable principles?
Yes, but that wasn't actually my point. It was the fact that knowledge of numbers apparently isn't required. Unless he's trying to prove that the upper class is less than 5% of the population, what he said makes no sense.

But then, it may well be, because trying to sort people into classes is a subjective and arbitrary exercise.

Psst! Are we going to have a roast for Grave_n_Idle ?

20, 000 posts must mean something. Hone your barbs!

I think we should. *nod*

Because it depends on statistical analysis, not provable principles?

Statistics are horrible things, it's true. They can be used to mislead, they're always subject to dispute. And they're descriptive, not prescriptive.

Still, that beats defining some idea of "rational self-interest" for an individual, and then expecting a rational society to magically pop into existence.



*looks around warily for Muravyets*

I'm pretty sure I misused at least one word in this reply.
Relax. I'm too pissed off to vet your vocabulary tonight. ;)

I think we should. *nod*

OK. I'll try to think of something ... er ... characteristic. Shhh now. :)

You clearly have never lived in a car-dependent area. I grew up in the Twin Cities, and while much of my time was spent in the major metro area (where there's at least a passable bus system) I also spent a lot of time in the outlying areas, where there's no mass transit and everything is at least 5 miles from everything else. Minnesota loves sprawl, you see.


Thanks. That's where I was headed. I was thinking about how much of America isn't in the cities. At all. Or near.

Big country... not all of it urban. That's a lot of people living roughly on the corner of Nothing and Fuckall.

Even if all individuals had equal opportunity as they gain their autonomy (they DON"T)

Even if the market rewarded the same choice by different people (it DOESN"T)

Even if non-career choices were entirely irrelevant to prosperity (they AREN"T)
...

Poverty would not be entirely dependent on personal choices. Because ...

Not all people have the same capacities. Perhaps work-ethic, selfishness or career inclination are choices. Even more dubiously, health or likeability may be personal choices.

But there remains one factor which is beyond an individual's capacity to choose, and it is one which is played on often on this forum: intelligence.

(You can't count the number of times one poster has called another stupid, as though this was a choice they could be held morally responsible for.)

All else being equal, the intelligent person has more capacity to see the consequences of their choices. They have the ability to discern more opportunities (available choices). They can learn skills more quickly, overcome rivalries more easily, and have more confidence in their own decisions. They learn more from their bad decisions, flowing on to being able to make better decisions thereafter.

Now, consider two people who don't work very hard, have a comparably mediocre education, are equally attractive and healthy, and make the same non-career decisions like parenthood or drug use. Seperate their intelligence by twenty IQ points. The more intelligent will escape poverty, the less intelligent will do it hard, possibly even dying young.

Yes, this is a hypothetical. That's all it takes to bust a categorical statement like the OP's. Disadvantage these people (make them ugly, give them bad health, whatever) until the lower is in poverty. Don't quibble over the definition -- there is some point at which the less intelligent person is unmistakably in poverty, the other not.

It's busted. Not one person in this thread has come close to proving that poverty (or its complement, prosperity) is a consequence ONLY of personal choices. It won't be proven, and in fact it's been busted several times already.

I won't pester you all further. If anyone feels that a post defending the OP thesis stands against this, please link to it so I can give it further consideration. Perhaps someone has a crazy theory about how intelligence is a spiritual choice from before birth or something ...

*snip*

It's busted. Not one person in this thread has come close to proving that poverty (or its complement, prosperity) is a consequence ONLY of personal choices. It won't be proven, and in fact it's been busted several times already.
Great points, all, and I particularly second this last bit.

Not one single person has managed to defend the idea that poverty results purely from personal choices. We've had plenty of people creating a false dualism ("Either EVERYTHING is determined by fate or EVERYTHING is determined by choices!"), but this is just a lazy, dishonest, sloppy diversion.

Even if all individuals had equal opportunity as they gain their autonomy (they DON"T)

Even if the market rewarded the same choice by different people (it DOESN"T)

Even if non-career choices were entirely irrelevant to prosperity (they AREN"T)
...

Poverty would not be entirely dependent on personal choices. Because ...

Not all people have the same capacities. Perhaps work-ethic, selfishness or career inclination are choices. Even more dubiously, health or likeability may be personal choices.

But there remains one factor which is beyond an individual's capacity to choose, and it is one which is played on often on this forum: intelligence.

(You can't count the number of times one poster has called another stupid, as though this was a choice they could be held morally responsible for.)

All else being equal, the intelligent person has more capacity to see the consequences of their choices. They have the ability to discern more opportunities (available choices). They can learn skills more quickly, overcome rivalries more easily, and have more confidence in their own decisions. They learn more from their bad decisions, flowing on to being able to make better decisions thereafter.

Now, consider two people who don't work very hard, have a comparably mediocre education, are equally attractive and healthy, and make the same non-career decisions like parenthood or drug use. Seperate their intelligence by twenty IQ points. The more intelligent will escape poverty, the less intelligent will do it hard, possibly even dying young.

Yes, this is a hypothetical. That's all it takes to bust a categorical statement like the OP's. Disadvantage these people (make them ugly, give them bad health, whatever) until the lower is in poverty. Don't quibble over the definition -- there is some point at which the less intelligent person is unmistakably in poverty, the other not.

It's busted. Not one person in this thread has come close to proving that poverty (or its complement, prosperity) is a consequence ONLY of personal choices. It won't be proven, and in fact it's been busted several times already.

I won't pester you all further. If anyone feels that a post defending the OP thesis stands against this, please link to it so I can give it further consideration. Perhaps someone has a crazy theory about how intelligence is a spiritual choice from before birth or something ...

Tha winner!

Tha winner!

Nah, the winner would be whoever busted it first.

*goes back to look at first page*

From page one:

no sense crying over every mistake.
*points at own sig*

I declare a winnar. :D

Nah, the winner would be whoever busted it first.

*goes back to look at first page*

Ohh go on take your props man. It's a non issue though really, it was a broken argument from the start, and all I really saw was a lot of sticking tape trying to make it whole!

back when I was in school, my mother lived in a very rural area of upstate New York. I remember once, visiting home, my car was in the shop and she was at work. I was bored and needed...something or other, I think superglue. The nearest store of any reasonable size was a walmart down the road. Were I to be looking for a job, this would likely be my closest career option.

It took 2 and a half hours to walk there and back.

back when I was in school, my mother lived in a very rural area of upstate New York. I remember once, visiting home, my car was in the shop and she was at work. I was bored and needed...something or other, I think superglue. The nearest store of any reasonable size was a walmart down the road. Were I to be looking for a job, this would likely be my closest career option.

It took 2 and a half hours to walk there and back.

In the snow? :D Uphill both ways? :p

In the snow? :D Uphill both ways? :p

Stop that. Yorkshiremen don't use smilies.

Stop that. Yorkshiremen don't use smilies.

Good for them. I'm an Indian American (Not to be confused with American Indian).

Good for them. I'm an Indian American (Not to be confused with American Indian).

Did you really miss that joke? Dear fucking lord, that's shocking.

Did you really miss that joke? Dear fucking lord, that's shocking.

Heh hey man horse for courses you know!

Heh hey man horse for courses you know!

But he doesn't know about Yorkshire...:confused:.... I thought everybody knew about Yorkshire...

I know I bloody do. I've spent the last 10 weeks being called a "southern (insert insult here)" by northerners for complaining its cold in York. Which it is.:D

But he doesn't know about Yorkshire...:confused:.... I thought everybody knew about Yorkshire...

I know I bloody do. I've spent the last 10 weeks being called a "southern (insert insult here)" by northerners for complaining its cold in York. Which it is.:D

Heh it is bloody cold in Yorkshire, thats why the brew their beer so thick. It's like drinking stew!

Heh it is bloody cold in Yorkshire, thats why the brew their beer so thick. It's like drinking stew!

Stew costs less.;)

But then, it may well be, because trying to sort people into classes is a subjective and arbitrary exercise.

I'd just like to mention that this is trivially true. Sure, it's subjective to sort folks into classes, but that's what many societies actually do. Class distinctions have very objectively real impacts because folks operate with those distinctions in mind. The subjective leads to the objective, which can be measured.

Sociology actually studies both the ways in which humans think subjectively in social contexts and the impacts those subjective thoughts have on social realities.

I'm not saying that sociology is a fantastic discipline, but I do think you're confusing sociologists with what they study.

Neu Leonstein
And that, my friends, is why I can't take sociology seriously.

Let me explain further;
Ownership of stocks and bonds is more unequal than holdings of wealth as a whole. The top 1% in the UK own 75% of privately held corporate shares; the top 5% own over 90% of the total. But there has also been more change in this respect. Some 25% of the population own shares, which compares with 14% in 1986 - many people bought shares for the first time during the privatisation programme of the Conservative government that came to power in 1979. The increase is even more dramatic when looked at over a longer period, for in 1979 only 5% of the population held shares. Most of these holdings are small (worth less than £1000 at 1991 prices), and insitutional share ownership shares held by companies in otherfirms is growing faster than individual ownership.
'The Rich' do not constitute a homogeneous group. Neither do they form a static category: individuals follow varying trajectories into and out of wealth. Some rich people were born into families of 'old money' - an expression which refers to long-standing wealth that has been passed down through the generations. Other affluent individuals are 'self-made', having successfully built up wealth from more humble beginnings. Profiles of the richest members of society vary enormously. Next to members of long-standing affluent families are music and film celebrities, athletes and representatives of the 'new elite' who have made millions through the development and promotion of computers, telecommunications and the internet. Like poverty, wealth must be regarded in context of life cycles. Some individuals become wealthy very quickly, only to lose much or all of it; others may experience a gradual growth or decline in assets over time. While it is difficult to collect precise information about the assets and lives of the rich, it is possible to trace broad shifts in comparison of the wealthiest segment of society.
Britain's ten richest individuals;

1 Roman Abramovich £7,500 million= oil, football and investments.
2 The Duke of Westminster £5,500 million= property.
3 Hans Rausing and family £5,000 million= food packaging.
4 Philip Green £3,610 million= Retailing.
5 Lakshmi MIttal £3,500 million= Steel.
6 Sir Richard Branson £2,600 million= Transport and mobile phones.
7 Kirsten and Jorn Rausing £2,575 million= Inheritance, bloodstock and investments.
8 Bernie and Slavica Ecclestone £2,323 million= Motor racing.
9 Charlene and Michel de Carvalho £2,260 million= Inheritance, brewing and banking.
10 David and Simon Reuben £2,200 million= Property and metal trading.
(source sunday Times Rich List 2004).
(source Giddens et al 5th edition pgs, 310-312).

So my previous comments still stand, you give no reason why you don't take sociology seriously therefore you argument is non-existant so don't block up the forum with your opinion. Whereas mine are based on other sources than my own head.
Poverty is not about choice, the real choice is whether the super rich can live giving up their millions to help others but so far i have seen little evidence of this.
This debate could go into the determinism and freewill but i wouldn't want to confuse anyone or myself for that matter.

but the choices are not always your own. And sometimes the choices a person has available are both terrible -- for example, you are a poor child who could pull yourself out of poverty by furthering your education. But if you don't quit school and get a job your younger siblings might starve since your parents are unwilling or unable to take care of them.

For your own future, the first choice is logical. But what kind of person could live with the resulting suffering of their family? A person of high moral character would choose the second choice, thereby denying themselves an education.

We, as a society have to provide some relief for those who would be in those situations. And in America, we do...but I assume you are against that.

but the choices are not always your own. And sometimes the choices a person has available are both terrible -- for example, you are a poor child who could pull yourself out of poverty by furthering your education. But if you don't quit school and get a job your younger siblings might starve since your parents are unwilling or unable to take care of them.


Of course sometimes other factors can influence your decisions, sometimes you can change things for better or worse (as argued by Weber), however as you say some things the choice is made for you.

But surely unless your parents have some sort of disability, then it was your parents choice to send you to education to escape poverty. I'm not saying that it would be the more moral thing to do but i can see why your parents would want you to suceed while your other siblings suffer (so one person at least can have the chance to live a healthy life), of course the situation is a cruel one and taking this choice would mean you would be isolated.

If you were cruel you could say that well it's your education and why do you have to care so much for your siblings if they are going to hold you back?
What if the situation had changed so your other siblings were horrific bullys of other people and later in life run a mafia style protection racket, would you go into education or suffer your siblings torture?

The scenarios are endless but ultimately you have few options as to what you can do while poor, while rich your options are more flexible.

Poverty is absolutely about choice. Almost anyone can escape poverty.

That is not to say that everyone can escape poverty, but I do maintain that almost anyone can escape poverty.

I wish MeansToAnEnd were still here. He offered an excellent description of how a poor American could escape poverty, and he even used some really conservative financial estimates to do it.

But even if it did, most sociology I have seen doesn't deal with the facts themselves, but with subjective interpretations of them. To get back to the thread's topic: if we're talking about wealth or income, the right discipline to refer to is economics. But we're talking about poverty, which is a loaded term and a value judgement about a given level of wealth - and only that allows people to bring sociology into it and start denying the individuality of those subjected to this poverty. We're not sitting down and determining what exactly poverty means, we'e not thinking about appropriate policy responses targetting the individual's ability to earn more wealth, we end up talking about compensation for being subject to poverty. That's not economics, but it's precisely what those sociology professors next door like to talk about. All you need to get there is make up and talk about a "social" problem.


Ignoring the first bit - you really want to argue based on the grades required to do a subject at University? - you have to actually operationalise things if you want to sociologically examine them. It's not about denying the individuality of those involved, it's about recognising that there are trends in society which need to be explained with sociological theories. Yes, there are times where it overlaps with other subjects but I don't see how that impacts on the validity of sociological findings. You have an obsession with personal determination which just doesn't apply to reality - the poor are born to poor parents and the rich are born to rich parents. Claiming this to be a coincidence or sociology to be meaningless doesn't actually stop you from being wrong. It just makes you in denial.

Poverty is absolutely about choice. Almost anyone can escape poverty.

That is not to say that everyone can escape poverty, but I do maintain that almost anyone can escape poverty.

I wish MeansToAnEnd were still here. He offered an excellent description of how a poor American could escape poverty, and he even used some really conservative financial estimates to do it.

Ha. Amusing. His estimates required a perfect outcome. Like has been said here repeatedly that money is an insulator. People with no money can be knocked down by any financially harsh event.

So what percentage is "almost" anyone. 90%. 80%. 20%? Certainly, you've got some evidence to support the suggestion that "almost anyone" can escape poverty, right? You couldn't be completely and utterly full of it, no?

Not one single person has managed to defend the idea that poverty results purely from personal choices.
No one has tried.

What I have done is put into the room that there is, short of some accident happening, some course of action for every person that would allow this person to escape poverty, given they start early enough. And from this it follows that personal choices are both a contributor and a potential escape from poverty.

So given this, why is it that someone else's poverty is used to punish me? If I have to pay welfare payments, doesn't that imply some sort of guilt? Doesn't the only valid reason for me having to pay (not: wanting to pay) these payments say that I must someone have caused this poverty that it is now my duty to alleviate?

The top 1% in the UK own 75% of privately held corporate shares; the top 5% own over 90% of the total.
But that's not what you said, is it. You said the "Upper Class" owns 75% shares, which implies that this upper class is less than the richest 5%.

As I said, that may very well be, but it depends entirely on how you define "Upper Class". So either sociology has an issue because its students have difficulties with statistics, or sociology has an issue because, when convenient, it is apparently valid to declare people in the top 5% something other than Upper Class.

Alternatively, you just made a mistake, in which case I apologise.

Regardless of all that, I'd like to ask you whether there is a law against poor people owning shares.

Sociology actually studies both the ways in which humans think subjectively in social contexts and the impacts those subjective thoughts have on social realities.
Hey, if they think that will tell them anything, let them. But I still don't see how that can offer any prescriptions in terms of policy, or even be used to show anything on a debating forum, since "how humans think" is not only something that can't be measured without significant error, but not even something that is fixed at any point in time. Psychology is much more in-tune with that fact, hence my saying that anything sociology can tell us about human thought, psychology can tell us better - and the same goes for economics and human interaction. Combine the two and sociology is utterly unnecessary.

You really want to argue based on the grades required to do a subject at University?
It's certainly a more empirical way of doing it than most. For sociology to be a proper social science, there would have to be some science involved. You know, maths, statistics, logic, proper methods of gathering samples and other data and so on.

That requires some minimum level of intelligence and prior knowledge on the part of the students who I'd expect to be learning that stuff. But since the entry requirements are so ridiculously low, we can expect that many students won't have that knowledge. Since I haven't heard of high failure rates in sociology courses, it therefore looks like the material is being dumbed down for them, and instead of "non-linear multiple regression analysis 101", you get "the role of women in the workplace 101". Which I'm sure is an interesting area to spend one's free time looking at, but firstly hardly worth a science and secondly not something you can generalise even across as few as two women or two workplaces.

It's not about denying the individuality of those involved, it's about recognising that there are trends in society which need to be explained with sociological theories.
I think you're actually seeing what I'm getting at. If you can make up some impersonal trend, and then go to government and present it, then government can use that to put in place some policy.

Conceivably every single individual that comes into contact with this policy could be hurt by it, but to a sociologist that wouldn't make the slightest bit of a difference, as long as the trend (which may well just have been a statistical anomaly) changes to something he judges to be better.

You have an obsession with personal determination which just doesn't apply to reality - the poor are born to poor parents and the rich are born to rich parents.
And yet, there obviously are poor born to rich parents and rich born to poor parents. So something in your opinion needs expanding.

Personal choice is the difference in many of these, what you would consider oddities. A sociologist couldn't see that, nor care. A sociologist looks at systems, forgetting in the process that the system is made up of individuals who at any given time can choose to do something they have never done before and for which your theories (in so far as there are theories in sociology about individual behaviour) have no explanation whatsoever. As such it's a thoroughly marxist science, if I may say so.

Hey, if they think that will tell them anything, let them. But I still don't see how that can offer any prescriptions in terms of policy, or even be used to show anything on a debating forum, since "how humans think" is not only something that can't be measured without significant error, but not even something that is fixed at any point in time. Psychology is much more in-tune with that fact, hence my saying that anything sociology can tell us about human thought, psychology can tell us better - and the same goes for economics and human interaction. Combine the two and sociology is utterly unnecessary.

So do you have something against macro economics?

Ha. Amusing. His estimates required a perfect outcome.
But he used conservative estimates. Plus, success only needed to be possible to prove the point, not likely.
People with no money can be knocked down by any financially harsh event.
That's true. That's party why everyone can't escape poverty, or even anything close to everyone.

But that doesn't preclude it being possible for almost anyone.
So what percentage is "almost" anyone. 90%. 80%. 20%?
I'd put it somewhere north of 90%. The only people I'm excluding are those with disabilities they can't overcome.
Certainly, you've got some evidence to support the suggestion that "almost anyone" can escape poverty, right?
Unless you maintain that no one can escape poverty, or that those who do escape poverty are somehow different in kind from those who don't, even you hold the opinion that almost anyone can escape poverty.

All you need to hold that opinion is a possible scenario by which someone could escape poverty where that scenario does not rely upon characteristics that are rare or unique to that individual. As such, that method could be employed by almost anyone, and thus almost anyone could escape poverty.

But he used conservative estimates. Plus, success only needed to be possible to prove the point, not likely.

No, it doesn't. That's like saying that since I could win the lottery that everyone could be a multi-millionaire.


That's true. That's party why everyone can't escape poverty, or even anything close to everyone.

Um, everyone can't escape poverty or anything close to anyone jives with "almost everyone can escape poverty".


But that doesn't preclude it being possible for almost anyone.

I'd put it somewhere north of 90%. The only people I'm excluding are those with disabilities they can't overcome.

Unless you maintain that no one can escape poverty, or that those who do escape poverty are somehow different in kind from those who don't, even you hold the opinion that almost anyone can escape poverty.

All you need to hold that opinion is a possible scenario by which someone could escape poverty where that scenario does not rely upon characteristics that are rare or unique to that individual. As such, that method could be employed by almost anyone, and thus almost anyone could escape poverty.

No, see here's how possible works. If I do everything right, I would escape poverty. There's a chance I won't do everything right, but it's possible. If I do everything right and I don't escape poverty, then it's not possible for me to escape it. And as you said, it's not even likely that if I do everything right I'll escape poverty. Unless almost everyone would escape poverty if they did everything right, then almost everyone can't escape poverty, which you've already admitted to be true.

As I said in another thread, you have to address that there is both denotation and connotation in words and in sentences. Ignoring either one is by definition ignorance.

So do you have something against macro economics?
The old kind, yes. Before they integrated it with microeconomic theory.

No, see here's how possible works. If I do everything right, I would escape poverty. There's a chance I won't do everything right, but it's possible. If I do everything right and I don't escape poverty, then it's not possible for me to escape it. And as you said, it's not even likely that if I do everything right I'll escape poverty. Unless almost everyone would escape poverty if they did everything right, then almost everyone can't escape poverty, which you've already admitted to be true.

Okay, now THAT was confusing.

Click Stand;13286456']Okay, now THAT was confusing.

That's actually his point. He's trying to ignore connotation in order to bastardize the meaning of what he said. That's why he accidentally directly said the opposite of what he was saying. It's pretty unlikely a conversation is going to make sense when someone cites MTAE as having a better argument then themselves.

No, it doesn't. That's like saying that since I could win the lottery that everyone could be a multi-millionaire.

Um, everyone can't escape poverty or anything close to anyone jives with "almost everyone can escape poverty".
Are you using the words "anyone" and "everyone" interchangeably on purpose, or because you're not paying attention?

Either way, your response is dependent upon the two words being synonymous, which would be fine if they were, but they're not, so you didn't add anything to the discussion at all.

Are you using the words "anyone" and "everyone" interchangeably on purpose, or because you're not paying attention?

Either way, your response is dependent upon the two words being synonymous, which would be fine if they were, but they're not, so you didn't add anything to the discussion at all.

When you say almost anyone can, it means exactly what I described. It means that if almost anyone did everything in their control they would escape poverty. Otherwise, they aren't capable of it, they can't do it. By your own admission, it's not likely that they would even if they did everything right, which means not almost anyone can.

When you say almost "any person at all" (which is what anyone means) can escape poverty. It means I could pick people at randomly and have them do everything perfectly and they would successfully escape poverty. If odds on favorite outcome there is continued poverty, then most people aren't capable of escaping poverty and "almost anyone" or "almost everyone" doesn't change the level of wrongitude that your argument exudes.

The old kind, yes. Before they integrated it with microeconomic theory.

So if sociology and psychology, being the large-scale and small-scale studies of human behavior, were to be similarly integrated, would that be your preference?

While I'm somewhat leery of your antipathy towards collectivism (despite being a capitalist myself), I would agree that integrating the two would be profitable for both.

Poverty is absolutely about choice. Almost anyone can escape poverty.

That is not to say that everyone can escape poverty, but I do maintain that almost anyone can escape poverty.

I wish MeansToAnEnd were still here. He offered an excellent description of how a poor American could escape poverty, and he even used some really conservative financial estimates to do it.

Almost anyone can escape poverty.

Wrong on two levels.

ANYONE can escape poverty - if the right circumstances present themselves... an unknown benefactor, for example.

NO ONE can escape poverty - if the wrong circumstances present themselves... a good example might be some kind of recession/depression.

To suggest there is some universal mechanism, some route which 'almost anyone' can follow is not only illogical, but ridiculous and laughable. Why? Because the process of climbing out of poverty entails gaining relative 'value', which is done at the expense of the 'value' of others. Example: I climb out of poverty by selling sexual favours... and someone else is buying.

Ultimately - there are only two options, then - either everyone levels off at some balance point (which pretty much has to be externally enforced), at which point 'poverty' becomes an irrelevent term - or some get further from poverty, whilst others get deeper into it. Look at the US GINI - which one is happening, do you think?

So do you have something against macro economics?

I do. All those formulas and statistics. Ugh! Who can keep up with it? I feel like I'm a pretty smart guy, but one little macro econ class at a community college just rocked my world. And when I say rocked my world, I mean turned me off of the concept of education entirely.

All else being equal, the intelligent person has more capacity to see the consequences of their choices. They have the ability to discern more opportunities (available choices). They can learn skills more quickly, overcome rivalries more easily, and have more confidence in their own decisions. They learn more from their bad decisions, flowing on to being able to make better decisions thereafter.

Of course you do realize that this assessment of general intelligence is, to some degree, a statistical trick, as it assumes a mental state generally free of abnormalities (the average). If one person has a higher IQ but also has OCD, and the other person has a slightly (but not too much lower) IQ, the first person may be less confident in their own decisions and less able to overcome rivalries then the second even with a higher IQ, although they will still have most of the other benefits. Likewise, a person with Aspergers Syndrome or a mild Autism may have a hard time seeing the consequences of their own decisions though they are otherwise quite intelligent. And sometimes also people will have severe anxieties or phobias that interfere with thought.

Also, keep in mind that intelligence can be improved, though not so much by education as by improved physical fitness. General intelligence is partly an expression of blood flow to the brain, as your brain is a very high performance machine which requires vast amounts of oxygen and nutrients to function well, and if there are any circulation issues it will be more difficult for your brain to function.

Still though, it is an important point, and something to be considered in any discussion of poverty. For anyone who has a further interest in this, I suggest a book called The Bell Curve.

All you need to hold that opinion is a possible scenario by which someone could escape poverty where that scenario does not rely upon characteristics that are rare or unique to that individual. As such, that method could be employed by almost anyone, and thus almost anyone could escape poverty.
It makes no sense to talk about the ability to escape poverty in boolean terms, 0 or 1. Most poor people do indeed have some chance of escaping poverty, but the point is that this chance is very low.

In other words, you should think in terms of someone's probability to escape poverty, which can take any value between 0 (impossible to escape) and 1 (guaranteed to escape).

You seem to be trying to lump together everyone whose probability of escaping poverty is non-zero, as if it makes no difference whether your chances are 0.0001% or 67%.

It makes no sense to talk about the ability to escape poverty in boolean terms, 0 or 1. Most poor people do indeed have some chance of escaping poverty, but the point is that this chance is very low.

In other words, you should think in terms of someone's probability to escape poverty, which can take any value between 0 (impossible to escape) and 1 (guaranteed to escape).

You seem to be trying to lump together everyone whose probability of escaping poverty is non-zero, as if it makes no difference whether your chances are 0.0001% or 67%.

Actually, he later admits that a large percentage of people couldn't escape poverty even if they did everything right. So even if you lump together all the non-zeros, you still don't have almost anyone AND you've made a completely pointless statement.

This thread is hurting my brain.

I am, however, enjoying the macro economics debate.


*continues lurking*

NO ONE can escape poverty - if the wrong circumstances present themselves... a good example might be some kind of recession/depression.

Grave_n_idle: Oh I'm sure nothing interesing will happen on my random trip to Khartoum!
(Insanely good looking and sensual African beauty walks up to Grave_n_idle...)
Grave_n_idle: (Immediately thinks of buying her a diamond necklace.)

:D

I am intentionless.

Also headed for UMP not to bother NSG any further :P
Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. :D

BTW, you can't leave here.....you are addicted to NSG. You tried to leave here before and failed......I believe that it was a bitched (errr botched) suicide by Mod??

Of course you do realize that this assessment of general intelligence is, to some degree, a statistical trick, as it assumes a mental state generally free of abnormalities (the average). If one person has a higher IQ but also has OCD, and the other person has a slightly (but not too much lower) IQ, the first person may be less confident in their own decisions and less able to overcome rivalries then the second even with a higher IQ, although they will still have most of the other benefits. Likewise, a person with Aspergers Syndrome or a mild Autism may have a hard time seeing the consequences of their own decisions though they are otherwise quite intelligent. And sometimes also people will have severe anxieties or phobias that interfere with thought.

Yes, I realized that. I think I abstracted my definition well enough that your objection doesn't hold water. Just by bringing up examples of DISABILITY you made my case stronger.

Make it forty IQ points. Surely we can now say "this person is more intelligent than that one and has an advantage in decision-making"

Also, keep in mind that intelligence can be improved, though not so much by education as by improved physical fitness. General intelligence is partly an expression of blood flow to the brain, as your brain is a very high performance machine which requires vast amounts of oxygen and nutrients to function well, and if there are any circulation issues it will be more difficult for your brain to function.

Still though, it is an important point, and something to be considered in any discussion of poverty. For anyone who has a further interest in this, I suggest a book called The Bell Curve.

Noted. I reply on behalf of Nobel Hobos because I'm in a rush just now.

Grave_n_idle: Oh I'm sure nothing interesing will happen on my random trip to Khartoum!
(Insanely good looking and sensual African beauty walks up to Grave_n_idle...)
Grave_n_idle: (Immediately thinks of buying her a diamond necklace.)

:D

I'd like to say this couldn't happen.

I really would like to say that....

Yes, I realized that. I think I abstracted my definition well enough that your objection doesn't hold water. Just by bringing up examples of DISABILITY you made my case stronger.

Make it forty IQ points. Surely we can now say "this person is more intelligent than that one and has an advantage in decision-making"

It wasn't really an objection, I was just filling in additional detail, so in effect I was trying to make your case stronger.

Noted. I reply on behalf of Nobel Hobos because I'm in a rush just now.

Thank you.

No one has tried.
But that's not what you said, is it. You said the "Upper Class" owns 75% shares, which implies that this upper class is less than the richest 5%.

Alternatively, you just made a mistake, in which case I apologise.

Regardless of all that, I'd like to ask you whether there is a law against poor people owning shares.
Psychology is much more in-tune with that fact, hence my saying that anything sociology can tell us about human thought, psychology can tell us better - and the same goes for economics and human interaction. Combine the two and sociology is utterly unnecessary.

(in so far as there are theories in sociology about individual behaviour) have no explanation whatsoever. As such it's a thoroughly marxist science, if I may say so.

Well i did make a mistake to begin with then i got rid of that in my other message, Sociology is needed for social workers to help various people suffering from social problems, psychology is more about doing the best kind of research to prove a theory (i know my crude analogies aren't perfect but it's what i think).
Sociology has other sciences other than Marxism (a macro theory),

Functionalism founded by Emile Durkheim and philosopher and psychologist, which follows as the society is what controls your actions, also known as a macro theory.

Or there's Neo-marxism which although similar to Marxism has a few differences founded by Antonio Gramsci, he developed the concept of Hegemony to describe the ideological cultural domination of one class by another, through means of a false consciousness and decieving the mass media and education that what you should do in life is whatever the ruling class told you to do.

Weberism founded by max weber believes in the individuals ability to change their situation, that they control society a micro theory.

Symbolic interactionism founded by George Mead, Erving Goffman and Herbert Blumer. which discusses the symbols used in society, e.g. language, body language, how human beings behave towards things based on their understanding, which allows you to empathise and understand, society wouldn't exist if we didn't share the same symbols. Also a micro theory.

Radical Feminism about how men dominate the workplace, although nowadays it's less accepted than before, also helped reveal the darker side of hetrosexual relationships ie domestic violence.
Liberal feminism increased political pressure in the 1970's in the UK to pas equal pay act 1975 and sex discrimination act 1983.
Marxist feminism is concerned with how women tend to(but not always) do more housework than their male counterpart, and this leads to unpaid housework and working for the capitalist system for free bringing up children. A macro theory.

However as you can probably notice there are many flaws to each of the theories i have briefy outlined, Marxism places too heavy a strain on the economy in society when we know that many more things affect your class than the amount of money you have, Functionalism relies on a value consensus and doesn't allow for the minority opinion.
Weberism is too focused and tends to ignore the wider impact of society has on your decisions.
Feminism doesn't take into account homosexual relationships, the fact that men too can be oppressed in the workplace and tends to ignore the idea that you can change your environment if you wanted too.
Again Neo-marxism suffers from many of the same problems as marxism, as it's still a macro theory so it doesn't believe that he individual can change their situation.
Typically nowadays micro theories are accepted more becasue there's more research that can back them up as macro theories like marxism were a bit damaging to say the least to many economies.

At the moment i'm studying stratification and that's before i get onto education, also there's postmodernism and globilisation discussed in sociolgy and many other theories like gender issues, age issues, mass media, politics, economic life, crime environment to name but a few.


And i get to do a lovely exam on most of these topics (hooray!), that's without knowing many other things about sociology.
I defy anyone who says that sociology doesn't have enough in it to be counted as a good a social science as other subjects.
Typically people use sociology to get jobs in teaching and education, care work, counseling, social work (which is very hard, i should know both my parents are social workers), it's also an interesting perspective on the world.
It aims to be objective in it's conclusions although with any research this is near impossible, due to researcher bias etc.

Well i did make a mistake to begin with then i got rid of that in my other message, Sociology is needed for social workers to help various people suffering from social problems, psychology is more about doing the best kind of research to prove a theory (i know my crude analogies aren't perfect but it's what i think).
Sociology has other sciences other than Marxism (a macro theory),

Functionalism founded by Emile Durkheim and philosopher and psychologist, which follows as the society is what controls your actions, also known as a macro theory.

Or there's Neo-marxism which although similar to Marxism has a few differences founded by Antonio Gramsci, he developed the concept of Hegemony to describe the ideological cultural domination of one class by another, through means of a false consciousness and decieving the mass media and education that what you should do in life is whatever the ruling class told you to do.

Weberism founded by max weber believes in the individuals ability to change their situation, that they control society a micro theory.

Symbolic interactionism founded by George Mead, Erving Goffman and Herbert Blumer. which discusses the symbols used in society, e.g. language, body language, how human beings behave towards things based on their understanding, which allows you to empathise and understand, society wouldn't exist if we didn't share the same symbols. Also a micro theory.

Radical Feminism about how men dominate the workplace, although nowadays it's less accepted than before, also helped reveal the darker side of hetrosexual relationships ie domestic violence.
Liberal feminism increased political pressure in the 1970's in the UK to pas equal pay act 1975 and sex discrimination act 1983.
Marxist feminism is concerned with how women tend to(but not always) do more housework than their male counterpart, and this leads to unpaid housework and working for the capitalist system for free bringing up children. A macro theory.

However as you can probably notice there are many flaws to each of the theories i have briefy outlined, Marxism places too heavy a strain on the economy in society when we know that many more things affect your class than the amount of money you have, Functionalism relies on a value consensus and doesn't allow for the minority opinion.
Weberism is too focused and tends to ignore the wider impact of society has on your decisions.
Feminism doesn't take into account homosexual relationships, the fact that men too can be oppressed in the workplace and tends to ignore the idea that you can change your environment if you wanted too.
Again Neo-marxism suffers from many of the same problems as marxism, as it's still a macro theory so it doesn't believe that he individual can change their situation.
Typically nowadays micro theories are accepted more becasue there's more research that can back them up as macro theories like marxism were a bit damaging to say the least to many economies.

At the moment i'm studying stratification and that's before i get onto education, also there's postmodernism and globilisation discussed in sociolgy and many other theories like gender issues, age issues, mass media, politics, economic life, crime environment to name but a few.


And i get to do a lovely exam on most of these topics (hooray!), that's without knowing many other things about sociology.
I defy anyone who says that sociology doesn't have enough in it to be counted as a good a social science as other subjects.
Typically people use sociology to get jobs in teaching and education, care work, counseling, social work (which is very hard, i should know both my parents are social workers), it's also an interesting perspective on the world.
It aims to be objective in it's conclusions although with any research this is near impossible, due to researcher bias etc.

The way you acknowledge the incompleteness of the description of society, in each school of sociology, inspires confidence.

By contrast, Neu L said this:

The idea of gathering macro data, doing some statistics on it and then proclaiming some sort of conclusions you can apply on a micro level is precisely what undid Keynesian macroeconomics - it wasn't until the introduction of microeconomic disciplines into it that its flaws could be solved.

Both fields attempt to study something that their knowledge changes. Graduates of Economics affect the economy, and thereby society, graduates of Sociology affect society, and thereby the economy. Both have a long way to grow, and might some day be indistinguishable.

I am in no doubt about which approach is more scientific. It's the one with competing theories, which acknowledges the vast complexity of what it is attempting to explain. Not the one which considers itself rigorous by making precise predictions about an abstract system, even though such knowledge inherently changes the behaviour of the system.

Or perhaps it's just a different culture in study, reflecting the different career aspirations of the students ... ;)

When you say almost anyone can, it means exactly what I described. It means that if almost anyone did everything in their control they would escape poverty.
It means no such thing.

Anyone who can buy a ticket can be a multi-millionaire. You were right the first time.

But I think it's easier to escape poverty. There are choices the poor can make that will greatly increase their chances of escaping poverty. That most of them don't make those choices doesn't mean they aren't there and available.

It means no such thing.

Anyone who can buy a ticket can be a multi-millionaire. You were right the first time.

But I think it's easier to escape poverty. There are choices the poor can make that will greatly increase their chances of escaping poverty. That most of them don't make those choices doesn't mean they aren't there and available.

Uh-huh. Equivocation. You recognize that fallacy. "See, you're wrong because if I choose the loosest definition of the word, technically, I'm not wrong." It's what trolls and idiots claim in order to try act like they have a rational point. No dice. Provide evidence or I call bullshit.

Meanwhile, it's not that they they can't make better choices. It's that most of the time, those choices mean shite. Like any game, if you play long enough, the odds eventually get you, no matter how long they are. The problem is that just one lucky occurrance will rarely pull you from poverty, but just one unlucky occurrance can almost always plunge you deeper into it (when you're already poor). When the world works that way, it's pretty obvious why most poor stay poor and most rich stay rich.

The difference in buying a ticket is if you bought a different ticket or picked different numbers you could win, though the probability is so far from a rational point that it's nonsensical. With the poor, often if they do everything perfectly, there is NOTHING within their control that would have changed the outcome. However, if you want to claim otherwise, provide evidence. So far, it just seems like you're trying to make really weak claims and act like they matter. Evidence. I'll wait.

Poorchu! I choose you!

It WAS well done, don't you think?

Indeed, cutthroat and pissed posts bring joy to my black heart. Mury made it about as clear as it can be done in the fewest words possible. The past effects the present more so than any attempt as upward mobilization in social stratification schemes. People learn (if they are not willfully ignorant or obtuse) that America is not the "land of opportunity" that people make it out to be. When you look at income distribution in all industrialized nations, you'll realize that the United States actually ranks near the bottom of the pack. The gap widens more each year and those who choose to ignore its effect cannot see how it changes the whole picture. The concepts of poverty and wealth are self perpetuating cycles. Wealthy people remain wealthy through a variety of different means, while the poor stay poor for the same reasons. When a rich kid drops and becomes poor that's an argument for poor choices. Someone who is poor from the start staying that way? Shit, that's called life.

Many wealthy people, and their children, believe they are superior because of their hard work and never stop to understand that they are where they are for reasons unfolding throughout the ages. Few families gradually grow wealth over time, and surely haven't done so in the recent past of the US. The situation is set up for these people to succeed. They go to the better schools, many have better genes, and when they are not doing well Mom and Dad hire all the best tutors. Just looking as the SAT test alone as an indicator of wealth controlling the ability for someone to better themselves in a marked way tells us a lot.

Sally is from an upper-middle, to lower upper middle class family. She has a great environment, intelligent parents who have spoken with her and challenged her to think since before primary school. The crime in her town is limited to kids throwing eggs at cars. Sally has traveled around the world and seen great art, music, and dancing. Sally had visited NYC for plays, operas, etc. As she grows her parents are able to challenge her intellectually. She goes to sleepover camps for student government, etc.

Karina if from the projects uptown in the Bronx. Their socioeconomic status is "dead broke." Her school is run down and the heat barely works. Her teachers are working their butts off to help her, but her environment doesn't allow for her to take after school activities. She has to work to help pay rent and feed the family. All around her is ignorance and violence. You call that shit equal and a level playing ground? I feel like I have to explain reality to children who have been reading PC garbage in high school textbooks. The "tools" of learning history don't teach you anything except the archetype they want you to believe. "Everyone has the same chance in America. America is a meritocracy where the ones with skills, brains, and hard work rise to the top." Go back and read your history to tell this is all Bullshit. For every one "rags to riches" story about Canegie there are millions about people who never made it alive. Or instead they chose to be poor.

It means no such thing.

Anyone who can buy a ticket can be a multi-millionaire. You were right the first time.



Irrevelent. Winning the lottery is not a choice. For most people in poverty, even participating is ill-advised, and far more likely to do harm than good.

Your advice for escaping poverty is 'win the lottery'? Thanks. Your seat is behind you. Yes, that's it. Be careful as you sit back down.

There are choices the poor can make that will greatly increase their chances of escaping poverty.

Yeah. Like choosing better parents, choosing where you were born, choosing the quality of public education available.

Isn't there some law against people like you continuing to post the same, tired, irrational and previously refuted arguments again and again in the thread? I mean can't you just flip back to like the first page and see how they didn't work the first time? You could, but it's as if you continue to make the wrong choice based simply on your own biases and habits. The choice is there, the thread is here, that argument is there, the rebuttal has already been stated and you add nothing new. Yet you make the wrong choice and just make us all go through the same cycle of refuting the same fallacies.

Now if you can't be arsed to make the right choice in such a simple matter as reading a thread you're debating in, on what ground do you get off acting high and mighty about how the poor can make some easy choices and escape poverty, if only they'd get off their lazy asses and do it?

Think about it.

Your advice for escaping poverty is 'win the lottery'? Thanks. Your seat is behind you. Yes, that's it. Be careful as you sit back down.
No, that was not my advice. I was responding to a semantic point.

But the fact remains that as long as some poor people can escape poverty without relying on characteristics that are lacking in other poor people, then those other people can also escape poverty.

Almost anyone can escape poverty. It is not the case, however, that everyone can escape poverty. That's a very different standard.
Yeah. Like choosing better parents, choosing where you were born, choosing the quality of public education available.
Your position only makes sense if you contend that no one in those circumstances ever escapes poverty. Certainly those are obstacles, but some people DO escape poverty despite a starting point much like you describe. So unless they have inherent characteristics unique to them, and not held by the other poor people, then anyone could do it. It just so happens that most don't.

No, that was not my advice. I was responding to a semantic point.

But the fact remains that as long as some poor people can escape poverty without relying on characteristics that are lacking in other poor people, then those other people can also escape poverty.

Almost anyone can escape poverty. It is not the case, however, that everyone can escape poverty. That's a very different standard.



A very different standard, and utterly irrelevent.

We already ascertained anyone can get out of poverty - the issue is - whether it is anything that is their CHOICE. Really, do try to keep up.

We already ascertained anyone can get out of poverty - the issue is - whether it is anything that is their CHOICE. Really, do try to keep up.
Well clearly their choices can impact that. Poor people who live austerely would have a better shot at escaping poverty (see the MTAE example some months ago). Poor people who waste money on things like tobacco or overeating (I don't understand how fat people can be poor) would have a lesser chance.

Well clearly their choices can impact that. Poor people who live austerely would have a better shot at escaping poverty (see the MTAE example some months ago). Poor people who waste money on things like tobacco or overeating (I don't understand how fat people can be poor) would have a lesser chance.

Well poor people spend more money on tobacco and food because it's a social norm for them to do, (with smoking it's less so nowadays).
As for over eating well, with reducing amount of time to consider better possible foods due to stress, or job, or working too many hours, or even depresssion cheap fast-food would be bought, which although faster cooked is pretty bad for you. Also with both of these products they can be used as an escape mechanism.
The feel-good factor from eating, to avoid stress and the same for tobacco.
It is strange eating these items, if they learned to cook better foods they could improve their standard of lives.
So both these examples show that as a knock on effect of being poor they are making themselves poorer by being poor, this shows that poverty is again difficult to get out of and can take many generations. As typically social mobility in a society is measured through life cycles.

No, that was not my advice. I was responding to a semantic point.

But the fact remains that as long as some poor people can escape poverty without relying on characteristics that are lacking in other poor people, then those other people can also escape poverty.

Almost anyone can escape poverty. It is not the case, however, that everyone can escape poverty. That's a very different standard.

Your position only makes sense if you contend that no one in those circumstances ever escapes poverty. Certainly those are obstacles, but some people DO escape poverty despite a starting point much like you describe. So unless they have inherent characteristics unique to them, and not held by the other poor people, then anyone could do it. It just so happens that most don't.

See, you're painting a false dichotomy, another fallacy. Some people in those circumstances escape poverty and are lucky. You act like if you and I start in the same circumstances and make the same choices the outcomes would be the same. The idea is ludicrous. There are lots of factors that affect such things. Broken pipes, broken down cars, broken arms, broken teeth, downsizing, gunshots, earthquakes, floods, sick children, stolen credit, etc.

Yes, some people actually get hit by some of those things and manage to recover, but you oversimplify to make your point and that is what is nonsense. The fact that you ignore a million factors that affect outcome doesn't make them cease to exist.

I'm also amused that your argument against GnI is to claim that because some poor make a particular choice (smoking and overeating, not to mention the idiocy of claiming that being fat is just a function of overeating), that it somehow makes a point about poor people in general.

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?

By that logic, people choose to have traffic accidents.

Your position only makes sense if you contend that no one in those circumstances ever escapes poverty.

No, it makes sense even if one doesn't assume set up a stupid strawman argument.

Certainly those are obstacles, but some people DO escape poverty despite a starting point much like you describe.

You saying that unless it is absolutely true that 100% of all people in that position cannot escape poverty, 100% of all people in that position can escape poverty easily and if they don't it's because of bad decision making.

That's like saying that unless no one can possibly escape the force of gravity on the earth's surface, gravity doesn't exist and if people can't seem to fly into orbit at command it's because of poor decision making.

So unless they have inherent characteristics unique to them, and not held by the other poor people, then anyone could do it. It just so happens that most don't.

Yeah you know, there are would-be rape victims who fought off their attackers and/or escaped.

So, unless they had inherent characteristics unique to them and not held by other targets of rape, then anyone can do it. It just so happens that most don't. (They probably like being raped and were asking for it.)

Well clearly their choices can impact that. Poor people who live austerely would have a better shot at escaping poverty (see the MTAE example some months ago). Poor people who waste money on things like tobacco or overeating (I don't understand how fat people can be poor) would have a lesser chance.

And this connects with the 'winning the lottery' redherrring... how?

(I'm assuming you were being sarcastic about the 'fat' thing... even the basest research would easily satisfy your curiousity if you were for real.)

it is of course about collective "choice" of cultural values. a "choice" seldom made conscously by anybody. that's just about the only real 'choice' about which it really is. other then that it is more about chance and statistics.

it is also about policies at decision making levels that are what create conditions. though again, even those are motivated by cultural values, which in turn result from the statistical concensus of how EVERYBODY singly of course, but everybody statisticly added togather, actually lives.

the old voting at the cash register bit, and or natural and moral equivelent thereof. but again, NOT just the choices of individuals on any end of it, but the stitistical combing of all them, all of everyone's choices adding up togather.

=^^=
.../\...

always a consiquence of a series of poor choices, yes, but of EVERYBODY; NOT, of only those who are a victum of them.

=^^=
.../\...

See, you're painting a false dichotomy, another fallacy. Some people in those circumstances escape poverty and are lucky. You act like if you and I start in the same circumstances and make the same choices the outcomes would be the same.
I said nothing of the sort.
Yes, some people actually get hit by some of those things and manage to recover, but you oversimplify to make your point and that is what is nonsense. The fact that you ignore a million factors that affect outcome doesn't make them cease to exist.
Now you're conflating "anyone can" with "anyone will".
I'm also amused that your argument against GnI is to claim that because some poor make a particular choice (smoking and overeating, not to mention the idiocy of claiming that being fat is just a function of overeating), that it somehow makes a point about poor people in general.
That simply demonstrates that choices matter. Many poor people make choices that prevent them from excaping poverty. Opportunities may arise of which they cannot take advantage, because they've made bad choices like spending too much money on tobacco, alcohol, or food.

And regarding being fat, it's basic thermodynamics that you gain weight if and only if you consume more calories than you expend. And if you're doing that, you could save money by consuming fewer calories.

If you're not so poor that you can't overeat, you're not that poor.

You saying that unless it is absolutely true that 100% of all people in that position cannot escape poverty, 100% of all people in that position can escape poverty easily and if they don't it's because of bad decision making.
I didn't say it would be easy.

I said nothing of the sort.

Now you're conflating "anyone can" with "anyone will".

That simply demonstrates that choices matter. Many poor people make choices that prevent them from excaping poverty. Opportunities may arise of which they cannot take advantage, because they've made bad choices like spending too much money on tobacco, alcohol, or food.

And regarding being fat, it's basic thermodynamics that you gain weight if and only if you consume more calories than you expend. And if you're doing that, you could save money by consuming fewer calories.

If you're not so poor that you can't overeat, you're not that poor.

Yes. Let's pretend all foods are equal. Calories. That's it. We can also ignore the fact that, those foods that are least metabolisable to effective products, are often those that are also cheapest or most easily available.

If you don't know what you're talking about, feel free to shut the fuck up.

The whole point here is that if poor people invested more time in getting out of poverty instead of complaining of it to the government, their lives could change.

The government isn't reliable enough nor capable of relieving everyone of their poverty. The best it could do is funding some reintegration schools to capacitate people in a skill to do a job, and hope the people themselves do the rest. Everyone wins this way.

The whole point here is that if poor people invested more time in getting out of poverty instead of complaining of it to the government, their lives could change.


Because that's what they do, right? They spend all their time complaining, those lazy whining poor people. Right? That's why they don't get out of poverty... it's much for fun to not have enough to eat, so long as you get to bitch about it.


The government isn't reliable enough nor capable of relieving everyone of their poverty. The best it could do is funding some reintegration schools to capacitate people in a skill to do a job, and hope the people themselves do the rest. Everyone wins this way.

Do you not realise you just contradicted yourself? The government is capable of relieving everyone of poverty, by just the system you just mentioned - by making people employable in useful functions, and then seeing them employed.

Yes. Let's pretend all foods are equal. Calories. That's it. We can also ignore the fact that, those foods that are least metabolisable to effective products, are often those that are also cheapest or most easily available.
True, but beside the point. The fact remains that if you're gaining weight you're consuming more calories than you need to. It's the second law of thermodynamics.

You're not going to be able to refute that, no matter how hard you try.

True, but beside the point. The fact remains that if you're gaining weight you're consuming more calories than you need to. It's the second law of thermodynamics.

You're not going to be able to refute that, no matter how hard you try.

Err...yes he is. Easily in fact. He's a fucking Chemist.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only holds for closed systems. No energy in, no energy out. The human body, as you just pointed out, is NOT a closed system. Energy, in the form of food, is constantly entering the system, and leaving in the form of body heat. In fact, the very building of proteins and other biochemical systems from basic sugars and molecules VIOLATES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

You either need to take a few collegiate level thermodynamics courses, or at the very least stop failing so hard long enough to actually look up what you're talking about.

If you don't know what you're talking about, feel free to shut the fuck up.

ouch, i'd agree with your point about the fat food, often poor people don't have as great choices as richer ones so are more likely to buy stuff that's bad for them.
As for losing wieght it's easier said than done, i imagine it's as hard as giving up cigarettes. Thats why there's loads of groups you can join to lose weight or drop the ciggies.
It's actually quite a complex thing being fat, to try to stop yourself, with so many media images of skinny people you're more likely to lose confidence, and thus eat more.
You can be poor and buy fatty food.

True, but beside the point. The fact remains that if you're gaining weight you're consuming more calories than you need to. It's the second law of thermodynamics.

You're not going to be able to refute that, no matter how hard you try.

Maybe I can't refute it to you....

Imagine for a second that a food source can be metabolised into two basic products - one which can be used, and one which is a form of 'junk' material that will simply accumulate.

Further: imagine that some food sources yield higher proportions of one than the other.

Further: imagine that the cheapest and most available food sources, are heavily inclined to produce the latter product. Junk that accumulates and provides no value to the metabolism. Indeed - it acts as ballast.

All of a sudden, calorific values are irrelevent - because we aren't discussing equally metabolisable products. The only impact of calorific value, is if the energy is USED, which our 'junk material'... isn't.


Conclusion - eating even small amounts of the 'poor qaulity food' will do what? It won't increase the energy yield, allow you to do more work, or provide benefits - it will, indeed, gradually ballast the machinery. You could, effectively, starve to death on a high calorie diet.

I think poverty is a combination of factors. The most important to me is personal choice, because even if bad things happen most circumstances are escapable, or would have been if better choices had been made earlier. As others have pointed out, some poor people make alot of bad choices (dropping out, drugs, overeating (?), poor work ethic, etc.). Sometimes, shit does happen though, you get sick or something along those lines.

I think poverty is a combination of factors. The most important to me is personal choice, because even if bad things happen most circumstances are escapable, or would have been if better choices had been made earlier. As others have pointed out, some poor people make alot of bad choices (dropping out, drugs, overeating (?), poor work ethic, etc.). Sometimes, shit does happen though, you get sick or something along those lines.

Not necessarily, poverty is a combination of factors. Most of which are used to oppress them.
I'd say some circumstances are escapable, but does that happen to the higher classes? i don't think so, it seems people lower down get harsher choices, and less chance to make up if they make a bad one. Some people don't have any choice at all, well none they can see, if they were better educated then maybe, but as we know poorer people generally have poorer education, but not always.
I know it paints a daunting picture for the lower classes but that's because someone else nicked all the good paint.
It's true society today is indeed more democratic and engineered towards lower classes, have more rights etc. But one thing that's unlikely to change is where the money goes, usually if you have money you don't give it away.

Not necessarily, poverty is a combination of factors. Most of which are used to oppress them.
I'd say some circumstances are escapable, but does that happen to the higher classes? i don't think so, it seems people lower down get harsher choices, and less chance to make up if they make a bad one. Some people don't have any choice at all, well none they can see, if they were better educated then maybe, but as we know poorer people generally have poorer education, but not always.
I know it paints a daunting picture for the lower classes but that's because someone else nicked all the good paint.
It's true society today is indeed more democratic and engineered towards lower classes, have more rights etc. But one thing that's unlikely to change is where the money goes, usually if you have money you don't give it away.

I realize they often have harder choices to make, I never said the circumstances weren't more difficult, they are. But you're wrong about one thing, its about "where the money goes" most of today's rich were born to middle class or poor people. Since this thread is all about social mobility, I'd assume thats what you meant, not just that rich people don't decide to give all their money away.

I realize they often have harder choices to make, I never said the circumstances weren't more difficult, they are. But you're wrong about one thing, its about "where the money goes" most of today's rich were born to middle class or poor people. Since this thread is all about social mobility, I'd assume thats what you meant, not just that rich people don't decide to give all their money away.

Is it true? that most of today's rich people were middle class or poor people?
yes i imagine with celebrities it is true (but they are often too stupid to know what to do with money), here's some examples;
The royal family in the UK, Rupert Murdock (practically runs the media), some landowners, arms traders.

Well in western society's there is some social mobility (ability to move through the class system, via occupation), however there isn't total social mobility ie you wouldn't see a homeless man drive a BMW, legally.
Despite what many movies make out poor people don't allways move up social classes, again there can be some dispute as to how to measure social class, typically it's done with a survey, however these survey's can only be done on middle and working classes, for a number of reasons.
The "rich" don't work, and don't need to work, they can live off the interest, also they don't want lower/middle classes to know what they do, they shut out the outside world, (that's why you see paparattzi pestering celebrities to see what they do.)



There are according to Savage, Barlow, Dickens and Fielding 1992 different groups in middle classes as follows:
The professionals-acquire knowledge identity from education. Education underpins their values: knowledge, qualifications, lifestyle, values are needed to pass on to children.
Managers in Private Business- their success is deined by their standard of living and leisure activities. They may have high pay and the status but their job may be more insecure due to takeovers etc. They encourage their children to use education for a professional career not managerial as the professional career has status, good pay nad often a great deal more job security.
The self employed- small business owners-have often operated as individuals, but insecurity in the economy have created collective action e.g. farmers, frieght haulers etc.
Entrepeneurial Group- Often in the city or media. Status is important to them. Their values tend to be a mix of high or popular culture e.g. they will go to the opera, premier football, clubbing - 'big' consumers as lifestyle and image are important.
Of course as will all studies this has a few flaws, like it's a little simplistic in regards to divisions, doesn't focus on white collar workers, or higher groups in middle class.

To be honest there is rather alot of information that study was just a little demonstration, here's some more links to sociology sites, which focus on social divisions amonst many other issues involving society.
http://www.le.ac.uk/education/centres/ATSS/sites.html
http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/soc/class/class.htm