6 ms·

Provide, provide, provide. Create a higher-wage job. Provide an education. Provide a means to relocate. Is any part of the "running of one's own life" the respo

Provide, provide, provide. Create a higher-wage job. Provide an education. Provide a means to relocate. Is any part of the "running of one's own life" the responsibility of the individual? Is it not the job of one to take advantage of the opportunities that exist? (e.g. schooling, self-education, moving to areas with higher opportunity, etc.)? This is a part of the learned helplessness of poverty - waiting for others to provide.

st3v3r 10y ago
So tell me, where does one get the money to pay for such an education? Where does one get the money to move to places with jobs? Further, where does one get the time to study if they're working two jobs? How does one afford the computer equipment and the internet connection? If you say "use a library", how does one ensure that their two jobs don't take all of the time that the library is open? What if one has children? You can drone on and on about "personal responsibility" all you want if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, that isn't going to do jack shit. We need actual answers to these issues, not some haughty, Captain Hindsight, "well, you should have..." crap designed only to make yourself feel better. It all comes down to, do you actually care about fixing these problems, or not? If you drone on about "personal responsibility", then it's clear you're only interested in assigning blame, and not interested in actually trying to fix things. Go feel superior somewhere else, and get out of the way of people actually trying to fix things.
- mindslight 10y ago
  > you're only interested in assigning blame, and not interested in actually trying to fix things This succinctly sums up your comment. Perhaps if you gave OP the benefit of the doubt, you'd understand he's trying to fix things in a distributed manner, rather than thinking everybody can be rescued with top-down omniscience.
  - mrsharpoblunto 10y ago
    OP is not trying to fix things in a distributed manner. They're saying that the status quo is fine - the solutions are already here and that people aren't taking advantage of them. This is is not a constructive position because, the current status quo clearly doesn't work for many people, so there is scope for making changes and improvements. Like any complex problem, there probably isn't a simple solution. Its not a binary issue of 'personal responsibility' vs 'central government', theres room for central, state & local governments as well as charities, communities, and companies to work together on this.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      I don't see any assertions of the status quo being fine. The issue is with the passivation of individuals, both by themselves and well-meaning others.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        When it's claimed that the jobs are there it's just a matter of taking them then yes it's a claim tha the status quo is being fine.
        mindslight 10y ago
        Would you please point me to exactly where the original blog post, or the above comment by 'jackhack, assert that these jobs are currently available in the US? There's really two independent facets to this subject. One is about the immediate state of things, which in the US is regulation artificially lowering the amount of jobs available (even minimum wage does this). The blog post does a good job exploring this. The second, which you seem more concerned about, is the trends of whether these types of jobs will continue to exist at all in the future. Which I will agree is questionable. The US basically has an accelerated view of the effects of automation, as outsourcing to cheaper countries has identical effects. Furthermore, our poor lack the table stakes for participation in our highly-regulated economy, as explored in the original post. I would point to broken employment and monetary policy that are actively further screwing up the economy and fostering the current go-big-or-stay-home environment. If we really have gotten much more productive, why is the standard "full time" workweek 40+ hours and not 15?
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No, the OP was not trying to fix anything. The OP was complaining about "personal responsibility". They were simply trying to make themselves feel superior for nothing being unlucky enough to get caught in one of those situations.
- nametakenobv 10y ago
  I'm absolutely sure that the bolsheviks felt the same way. Or are you one yourself?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Given that most poor Americans don't work [1] and yet have more money than 95% of Indians [2], you'd expect these problems to be solved in the US. Particularly since Americans also have free libraries, free schools where teachers show up, and internet access is a tiny fraction of the consumption available to poor Americans. So are these problems solved there? Since education is available to Americans, why haven't they all used it and acquired higher wage jobs? [1] See table 3, http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... [2] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... THESE NUMBERS ARE ADUSTED FOR PURCHASING POWER PARITY
  - b3550943 10y ago
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/63-of-americans-cant-afford-500-car-repair-or-1000-emergency-room-visit-300200097.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/63-of-americans-cant... Ironically I have enough cash to outright buy a new car and I only earn 8k/year.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    You honestly did not read my comment, did you? Tell me, when are you going to find the time to visit the library or these free schools (which do not exist everywhere, only in a few places) when you're working two jobs trying to make ends meet? Further, the amount of money an American has compared to an Indian IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE SLIGHTEST. It's called "cost of living". Look it up. $15k buys you a fuckload of stuff in India. Look at how much it buys you in the US. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about. A high school education is available to all Americans. That's it. And high school education does not translate to high wage jobs. One needs higher education for that, which is not available to all Americans.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      It's called "cost of living". Did you somehow miss the sentence in all capital letters that I put right after my second reference? Not to mention the axis labels in my second source, as well as all the text in my second source addressing this point?
lbebber 10y ago
When the maximum wage one can get is below their living costs, let alone saving for studying etc., yes someone needs to provide for them. Sometimes one is able to get out of poverty on their own, but that often requires, besides hard work, plenty of luck. Many people end up pennyless or homeless trying to move to areas with higher opportunity, for example.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I've spent lots of time in India, surrounded by people earning far less than what American hipsters call a "living wage". Yet these folks weren't dead! Key graph: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... (THESE NUMBERS ARE ADJUSTED FOR PURCHASING POWER.) Sometimes one is able to get out of poverty on their own, but that often requires, besides hard work, plenty of luck. The role of luck is overstated. Here's a thought experiment. Suppose we import 1 million Gujuratis, all of whom have income below the 95'th percentile of India. Fast forward 20-30 years. Do you still think that this group of a million people - having an average level of luck due to the law of large numbers - will have the same level of income as a similar group of American poor people? Actually it's not a thought experiment. http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683983-secrets-worlds-best-businesspeople-going-global http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683983-se... We've done this experiment with Chinese, Gujuratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, and all sorts of other folks. Mostly they don't stay poor.
  - sp332 10y ago
    1. Survivorship bias. The ones who don't do well are more likely to be dead (edit: or to have left) and aren't counted in your average. 2. Self-selection bias. The ones who import themselves are not a random sample, they move because they see an advantage for themselves. 3. From your link: "Furthermore, this was achieved mostly by just one group, essentially an extended family, the Patels" and "Traditionally, most of the finance to start a business comes from within the family, or at least the community." Most poor people do not have such good connections or ability to borrow money.
antisthenes 10y ago
It's very strange that was your only takeaway from my post. Perhaps you don't understand the terms I've used? It is not the responsibility of the individual to work when such work is disadvantageous to their overall well being. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with helplessness, and everything to do with them making the optimal choice. > Is it not the job of one to take advantage of the opportunities that exist? (e.g. schooling, self-education, moving to areas with higher opportunity, etc.)? Everything you've listed has a non-zero cost to the individual. And the only affordable thing out of those listed to someone subsisting on welfare is self-education.

st3v3r 10y ago

So tell me, where does one get the money to pay for such an education? Where does one get the money to move to places with jobs? Further, where does one get the time to study if they're working two jobs? How does one afford the computer equipment and the internet connection? If you say "use a library", how does one ensure that their two jobs don't take all of the time that the library is open? What if one has children? You can drone on and on about "personal responsibility" all you want if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, that isn't going to do jack shit. We need actual answers to these issues, not some haughty, Captain Hindsight, "well, you should have..." crap designed only to make yourself feel better. It all comes down to, do you actually care about fixing these problems, or not? If you drone on about "personal responsibility", then it's clear you're only interested in assigning blame, and not interested in actually trying to fix things. Go feel superior somewhere else, and get out of the way of people actually trying to fix things.

mindslight 10y ago
> you're only interested in assigning blame, and not interested in actually trying to fix things This succinctly sums up your comment. Perhaps if you gave OP the benefit of the doubt, you'd understand he's trying to fix things in a distributed manner, rather than thinking everybody can be rescued with top-down omniscience.
- mrsharpoblunto 10y ago
  OP is not trying to fix things in a distributed manner. They're saying that the status quo is fine - the solutions are already here and that people aren't taking advantage of them. This is is not a constructive position because, the current status quo clearly doesn't work for many people, so there is scope for making changes and improvements. Like any complex problem, there probably isn't a simple solution. Its not a binary issue of 'personal responsibility' vs 'central government', theres room for central, state & local governments as well as charities, communities, and companies to work together on this.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    I don't see any assertions of the status quo being fine. The issue is with the passivation of individuals, both by themselves and well-meaning others.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      When it's claimed that the jobs are there it's just a matter of taking them then yes it's a claim tha the status quo is being fine.
      - mindslight 10y ago
        Would you please point me to exactly where the original blog post, or the above comment by 'jackhack, assert that these jobs are currently available in the US? There's really two independent facets to this subject. One is about the immediate state of things, which in the US is regulation artificially lowering the amount of jobs available (even minimum wage does this). The blog post does a good job exploring this. The second, which you seem more concerned about, is the trends of whether these types of jobs will continue to exist at all in the future. Which I will agree is questionable. The US basically has an accelerated view of the effects of automation, as outsourcing to cheaper countries has identical effects. Furthermore, our poor lack the table stakes for participation in our highly-regulated economy, as explored in the original post. I would point to broken employment and monetary policy that are actively further screwing up the economy and fostering the current go-big-or-stay-home environment. If we really have gotten much more productive, why is the standard "full time" workweek 40+ hours and not 15?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, the OP was not trying to fix anything. The OP was complaining about "personal responsibility". They were simply trying to make themselves feel superior for nothing being unlucky enough to get caught in one of those situations.
nametakenobv 10y ago
I'm absolutely sure that the bolsheviks felt the same way. Or are you one yourself?
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Given that most poor Americans don't work [1] and yet have more money than 95% of Indians [2], you'd expect these problems to be solved in the US. Particularly since Americans also have free libraries, free schools where teachers show up, and internet access is a tiny fraction of the consumption available to poor Americans. So are these problems solved there? Since education is available to Americans, why haven't they all used it and acquired higher wage jobs? [1] See table 3, http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... [2] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... THESE NUMBERS ARE ADUSTED FOR PURCHASING POWER PARITY
- b3550943 10y ago
  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/63-of-americans-cant-afford-500-car-repair-or-1000-emergency-room-visit-300200097.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/63-of-americans-cant... Ironically I have enough cash to outright buy a new car and I only earn 8k/year.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  You honestly did not read my comment, did you? Tell me, when are you going to find the time to visit the library or these free schools (which do not exist everywhere, only in a few places) when you're working two jobs trying to make ends meet? Further, the amount of money an American has compared to an Indian IS NOT RELEVANT IN THE SLIGHTEST. It's called "cost of living". Look it up. $15k buys you a fuckload of stuff in India. Look at how much it buys you in the US. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about. A high school education is available to all Americans. That's it. And high school education does not translate to high wage jobs. One needs higher education for that, which is not available to all Americans.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    It's called "cost of living". Did you somehow miss the sentence in all capital letters that I put right after my second reference? Not to mention the axis labels in my second source, as well as all the text in my second source addressing this point?

lbebber 10y ago

When the maximum wage one can get is below their living costs, let alone saving for studying etc., yes someone needs to provide for them. Sometimes one is able to get out of poverty on their own, but that often requires, besides hard work, plenty of luck. Many people end up pennyless or homeless trying to move to areas with higher opportunity, for example.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I've spent lots of time in India, surrounded by people earning far less than what American hipsters call a "living wage". Yet these folks weren't dead! Key graph: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... (THESE NUMBERS ARE ADJUSTED FOR PURCHASING POWER.) Sometimes one is able to get out of poverty on their own, but that often requires, besides hard work, plenty of luck. The role of luck is overstated. Here's a thought experiment. Suppose we import 1 million Gujuratis, all of whom have income below the 95'th percentile of India. Fast forward 20-30 years. Do you still think that this group of a million people - having an average level of luck due to the law of large numbers - will have the same level of income as a similar group of American poor people? Actually it's not a thought experiment. http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683983-secrets-worlds-best-businesspeople-going-global http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683983-se... We've done this experiment with Chinese, Gujuratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, and all sorts of other folks. Mostly they don't stay poor.
- sp332 10y ago
  1. Survivorship bias. The ones who don't do well are more likely to be dead (edit: or to have left) and aren't counted in your average. 2. Self-selection bias. The ones who import themselves are not a random sample, they move because they see an advantage for themselves. 3. From your link: "Furthermore, this was achieved mostly by just one group, essentially an extended family, the Patels" and "Traditionally, most of the finance to start a business comes from within the family, or at least the community." Most poor people do not have such good connections or ability to borrow money.

antisthenes 10y ago

It's very strange that was your only takeaway from my post. Perhaps you don't understand the terms I've used? It is not the responsibility of the individual to work when such work is disadvantageous to their overall well being. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with helplessness, and everything to do with them making the optimal choice. > Is it not the job of one to take advantage of the opportunities that exist? (e.g. schooling, self-education, moving to areas with higher opportunity, etc.)? Everything you've listed has a non-zero cost to the individual. And the only affordable thing out of those listed to someone subsisting on welfare is self-education.