4 ms·

The thing is, there's a difference between the poverty of a hunter-gatherer and the poverty of an urban family. Some of it is being barefoot in a paved world c

The thing is, there's a difference between the poverty of a hunter-gatherer and the poverty of an urban family. Some of it is being barefoot in a paved world covered with broken glass, but a lot more is connected to the enduring effects of poverty. A child raised in poverty then has fewer barriers to overcome- in fat times, even the worst hunter could be eating as well as the best. To say they're both in poverty because they lack shoes and clothing they don't need is missing the point. Today, you have a huge number of knock on effects from e.g., lack of good schooling and "poverty decreasing" social networks that practically turn poverty into a personal attribute rather than a temporary state.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
None of that bears on the point. By referring to "the cause of poverty", the OP makes it seem that each of us is destined to riches and luxury, unless something goes wrong and condemns us to poverty. What I'm trying to illustrate is that this is actually the opposite of the truth: each of us has a lifetime of poverty in front of us, unless we do something to ensure that we do not. Granted, it's easier for some of us than others: the "silver spoon" thing. But the fact remains that riches are not the default state, at least for the vast majority of us. We are destined to be poor unless we take steps to avoid it.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  There's a difference between not having riches, and being in poverty. There's even a huge difference between being poor, and being in poverty. Nobody needs riches, but everybody needs food, trees, clothes, shelter, medicine, and books. Poor people can often have these things - but people in poverty struggle even for those basics. I don't agree with the author of the posted essay but nevertheless.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I take issue with your use of the term "struggle". "Struggle" implies the poor are actively trying to improve their situation. In reality, 80% of the poor are sitting around on the couch hoping for someone else to solve their problems. I wouldn't describe that as "struggling" so much as "loafing". http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
    - ahoyhere 16y ago
      There is this scientific concept of "learned helplessness" - it applies to fleas, and it definitely applies to humans. If you've ever watched an upper-middle class housewife crumble in the wake of a divorce, you know it's true. If we are the average of our 5 closest friends/family members, that we spend the most time with, then kids born in poverty are born DOOMED. Unless something intercedes. "Something" must be more than just giving them money, by the way. Two married friends of mine met in Teach for America. Unlike just about everyone else, they kept doing it. She taught in a public school in DC, he taught in a charter. (Charter schools are drastically better than the public ones, but still horrendous by any lower-middle-class bar.) Her classroom didn't just not have books... it didn't have power. That's right: no lights. There was enough electricity between two adjourning classrooms to power ONE box fan in the summer. That means only one classroom could have a 60-watt lightbulb or a fan. If that is the situation you grew up in, if that is the situation you saw at school, do you really think you would believe the crazy skinny white lady up front telling you that if you stayed in school, you could succeed? No. You wouldn't. You'd have to be stupid to believe one woman against everything your experience, and your eyes, tells you: that you are doomed. That the only people you know who make any money, who have any chance, are drug dealers. The teacher telling you this can't be trusted - she's poor, too, and stupid maybe, if she's stuck trying to teach a bunch of wasted, doomed kids like you. You can quote studies all you like that show that people in poverty aren't trying hard enough. But they mean nothing without the context of the rest of their lives.
- crystalis 16y ago
  ahoyhere covers my point. In the modern world, medicine, refrigeration, education, electricity and so on are all essential, but they do not contribute to prehistoric poverty. If you don't need shoes, you can't say poverty is not having shoes. (On the other hand, perhaps you could convince me. Are we in poverty now? After all, we lack universal cancer cures, Dyson spheres, and sexiness epidemics.)
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    It sounds like these arguments don't concern poverty as such, but rather inequality. If that's the case, then I think we have to restate the OP as "the poor are paralyzed by envy".
    - crystalis 16y ago
      I was simply trying for some precision in terminology, and I think we're mostly there, but your politics might be showing.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

None of that bears on the point. By referring to "the cause of poverty", the OP makes it seem that each of us is destined to riches and luxury, unless something goes wrong and condemns us to poverty. What I'm trying to illustrate is that this is actually the opposite of the truth: each of us has a lifetime of poverty in front of us, unless we do something to ensure that we do not. Granted, it's easier for some of us than others: the "silver spoon" thing. But the fact remains that riches are not the default state, at least for the vast majority of us. We are destined to be poor unless we take steps to avoid it.

ahoyhere 16y ago
There's a difference between not having riches, and being in poverty. There's even a huge difference between being poor, and being in poverty. Nobody needs riches, but everybody needs food, trees, clothes, shelter, medicine, and books. Poor people can often have these things - but people in poverty struggle even for those basics. I don't agree with the author of the posted essay but nevertheless.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I take issue with your use of the term "struggle". "Struggle" implies the poor are actively trying to improve their situation. In reality, 80% of the poor are sitting around on the couch hoping for someone else to solve their problems. I wouldn't describe that as "struggling" so much as "loafing". http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    There is this scientific concept of "learned helplessness" - it applies to fleas, and it definitely applies to humans. If you've ever watched an upper-middle class housewife crumble in the wake of a divorce, you know it's true. If we are the average of our 5 closest friends/family members, that we spend the most time with, then kids born in poverty are born DOOMED. Unless something intercedes. "Something" must be more than just giving them money, by the way. Two married friends of mine met in Teach for America. Unlike just about everyone else, they kept doing it. She taught in a public school in DC, he taught in a charter. (Charter schools are drastically better than the public ones, but still horrendous by any lower-middle-class bar.) Her classroom didn't just not have books... it didn't have power. That's right: no lights. There was enough electricity between two adjourning classrooms to power ONE box fan in the summer. That means only one classroom could have a 60-watt lightbulb or a fan. If that is the situation you grew up in, if that is the situation you saw at school, do you really think you would believe the crazy skinny white lady up front telling you that if you stayed in school, you could succeed? No. You wouldn't. You'd have to be stupid to believe one woman against everything your experience, and your eyes, tells you: that you are doomed. That the only people you know who make any money, who have any chance, are drug dealers. The teacher telling you this can't be trusted - she's poor, too, and stupid maybe, if she's stuck trying to teach a bunch of wasted, doomed kids like you. You can quote studies all you like that show that people in poverty aren't trying hard enough. But they mean nothing without the context of the rest of their lives.
crystalis 16y ago
ahoyhere covers my point. In the modern world, medicine, refrigeration, education, electricity and so on are all essential, but they do not contribute to prehistoric poverty. If you don't need shoes, you can't say poverty is not having shoes. (On the other hand, perhaps you could convince me. Are we in poverty now? After all, we lack universal cancer cures, Dyson spheres, and sexiness epidemics.)
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  It sounds like these arguments don't concern poverty as such, but rather inequality. If that's the case, then I think we have to restate the OP as "the poor are paralyzed by envy".
  - crystalis 16y ago
    I was simply trying for some precision in terminology, and I think we're mostly there, but your politics might be showing.