3 ms·

The US poor have a lot of trinkets and junk food, but can't afford housing in any place worth living in, will go bankrupt if they have any health problems, have

The US poor have a lot of trinkets and junk food, but can't afford housing in any place worth living in, will go bankrupt if they have any health problems, have shitty jobs and no chance of advancement.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Real poor people (c.f. India, China, Africa, the US in the past) don't have a lot of "trinkets" (like cell phones, cable TV, AC, refrigerator, flush toilets, a car or a house), are typically skinny due to lack of food, can't afford housing in any place worth living in and will likely die if they have any health problems. Last I checked, death is much worse than having your debts discharged but losing some of your assets. A place not worth living in: http://i.pbase.com/o6/54/380754/1/73947048.Hk41wYFV.Bombayslum.jpg http://i.pbase.com/o6/54/380754/1/73947048.Hk41wYFV.Bombaysl... My neighborhood in the USA, which is full of poor people: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Journal_Square_Station.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Journal_S... Dude, get a clue.
- Snoddas 17y ago
  FYI: first link 404
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  It's obviously better to be poor in the US than to be poor in sub-Saharan Africa or rural China. I will grant you that. This is like arguing that, because Northern coal miners in 1840 were treated marginally better than Southern slaves, describing the miners as oppressed and downtrodden would be somehow inaccurate because someone is worse off. American poverty is physically a lot better than in much of the world, but the ennui and inability to advance are the same, and the conditions for the American poor are getting worse right now and will reach a state of true poverty if we don't intervene.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    The American poor overeat, work very little (80% of the poor have no job and are not looking for one, only 10% work full time), and still have all their material needs met. This is not a life of poverty, it is a life of leisure. Fun fact: the term "ennui" historically described the boredom suffered by idle women from rich families during Victorian times.
    - pw0ncakes 17y ago
      The American poor overeat, work very little (80% of the poor have no job and are not looking for one, only 10% work full time), and still have all their material needs met. A lot of them aren't working "full time" because, in retail, it's common to have people working 39-hour weeks so they don't receive benefits and can have their hours cut without paperwork. Their "material needs" aren't met. They can't get education or jobs that will put them forward in society. They can't get health care. If they choose to be lazy and do nothing, that's regrettable but also rational on their part. Since they have no hope of advancement, why should they work? Their life is not "of leisure" but of despair and barriers.
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Involuntary part time employment is a problem for 1.5% of the poor. 89.8% of the poor do not work full time and are not seeking full time work. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf We don't know if they can't get jobs, all we can do is speculate about what might happen if they looked. Health care is also available, it's called medicaid. So basically, your only correct complaint is that our educational system is broken.
        pw0ncakes 17y ago
        You seem to suspect that poor people are lazy to the point of being irrational. I disagree. If there were sufficient rewards for them to work-- a way out of poverty would be a huge reward-- then they would. However, there is no such work available to them. Otherwise, they'd be likely to take it.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Real poor people (c.f. India, China, Africa, the US in the past) don't have a lot of "trinkets" (like cell phones, cable TV, AC, refrigerator, flush toilets, a car or a house), are typically skinny due to lack of food, can't afford housing in any place worth living in and will likely die if they have any health problems. Last I checked, death is much worse than having your debts discharged but losing some of your assets. A place not worth living in: http://i.pbase.com/o6/54/380754/1/73947048.Hk41wYFV.Bombayslum.jpg http://i.pbase.com/o6/54/380754/1/73947048.Hk41wYFV.Bombaysl... My neighborhood in the USA, which is full of poor people: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Journal_Square_Station.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Journal_S... Dude, get a clue.

Snoddas 17y ago
FYI: first link 404
pw0ncakes 17y ago
It's obviously better to be poor in the US than to be poor in sub-Saharan Africa or rural China. I will grant you that. This is like arguing that, because Northern coal miners in 1840 were treated marginally better than Southern slaves, describing the miners as oppressed and downtrodden would be somehow inaccurate because someone is worse off. American poverty is physically a lot better than in much of the world, but the ennui and inability to advance are the same, and the conditions for the American poor are getting worse right now and will reach a state of true poverty if we don't intervene.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  The American poor overeat, work very little (80% of the poor have no job and are not looking for one, only 10% work full time), and still have all their material needs met. This is not a life of poverty, it is a life of leisure. Fun fact: the term "ennui" historically described the boredom suffered by idle women from rich families during Victorian times.
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    The American poor overeat, work very little (80% of the poor have no job and are not looking for one, only 10% work full time), and still have all their material needs met. A lot of them aren't working "full time" because, in retail, it's common to have people working 39-hour weeks so they don't receive benefits and can have their hours cut without paperwork. Their "material needs" aren't met. They can't get education or jobs that will put them forward in society. They can't get health care. If they choose to be lazy and do nothing, that's regrettable but also rational on their part. Since they have no hope of advancement, why should they work? Their life is not "of leisure" but of despair and barriers.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Involuntary part time employment is a problem for 1.5% of the poor. 89.8% of the poor do not work full time and are not seeking full time work. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf We don't know if they can't get jobs, all we can do is speculate about what might happen if they looked. Health care is also available, it's called medicaid. So basically, your only correct complaint is that our educational system is broken.
      - pw0ncakes 17y ago
        You seem to suspect that poor people are lazy to the point of being irrational. I disagree. If there were sufficient rewards for them to work-- a way out of poverty would be a huge reward-- then they would. However, there is no such work available to them. Otherwise, they'd be likely to take it.