> imagine if the poor simply refuse work that's available (i.e. the kind of jobs that Mexicans do), choose to have children outside of wedlock, do lots of drugs

> imagine if the poor simply refuse work that's available (i.e. the kind of jobs that Mexicans do), choose to have children outside of wedlock, do lots of drugs and commit lots of crime, they will likely remain poor. I'm from a relatively poor family (food stamps, free lunches) and have always been a believer in "where there's a will, there's a way," but this comment has a definite bias. You could have put in more "positive" choices that would have been completely realistic. Perhaps they choose to spend more time with their children instead of 100 hours a week in the office or at two or three jobs, or they choose to live in a small town near family despite limited upward growth opportunities. Many people I went to high school with are "poor" because of the latter choice. When you grow up with a local supportive network and everyone helps everyone else out (say, driving someone to work because their car broke down, watching someone else's kids because their mother is sick, passing on hand-me-downs), it's very hard to leave that network -- not only because of the loss of safety, but because of the social aspect of betrayal; leaving the network represents a loss of resources for everyone in the network and can be seen as a selfish behavior. There are more reasons to "stay poor" than "looking down on work, too much sex, drugs, and crime."