3 ms·

> Who is to blame if you are only working a low paying job I'd argue that it doesn't matter. Whether you take the position that it's the fault of parents/colle

> Who is to blame if you are only working a low paying job I'd argue that it doesn't matter. Whether you take the position that it's the fault of parents/colleges/the education system/predatory lenders/politicians, or the position that it's primarily the fault of the individual, the reality remains that most people are staggeringly unable to change their circumstances. In general, income/class mobility in the US remains extremely low, especially when someone's first jobs are low income and they have no secondary assets. This is a life-long condition for many (and, arguably, often a multi-generational condition). Anecdotes to the contrary are a favorite conversation topic, but the lack of mobility remains. What (precious little) applicable information is present in up-by-your-bootstraps stories is either not actionable or not acted upon. I'd argue that "what if someone is to blame for their circumstances?" and "if I/$self_made_person_of_the_week got out of poverty, why can't you?" are both pointless questions. They attempt to find root causes for a symptom which, when addressed, makes discovery of the root cause a moot endeavor. People overwhelmingly don't get out of poverty. With a very few ascetic exceptions, there is not an affirmative choice being made to be poor--even in the most conservative interpretation, people are "irresponsible" rather than pro-poverty. Poverty causes suffering (to poor people and to many other layers of the social fabric, including non-poor people). Alleviating or removing suffering is within the power of the state and affluent people as a whole (from donations to social welfare/education programs to moonshots like UBI and a million other proven or plausible strategies). Who is culpable is not pertinent to the removal of the proximate suffering of poverty, and I suspect that after removing that proximate suffering, the culpability question would no longer be as relevant/interesting (historically/sociologically, maybe, but not as an answer to a widespread social need). To be clear, mobility (and the severity of poverty) used to be much, much worse in the US (and is still quite bad in many places). But the suffering remains. "You make your own problems" is as useless to point out to financially suffering people as "you just eat too much" is to point out to someone who has been 100kg overweight for 30 years. Solving the immediate suffering has an effect.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
If I was in poverty and I wanted to get out of it, I'd go get 2 jobs and make a lot of sacrifices. It wouldn't be pretty, it wouldn't be fair, it wouldn't be fun. But it's not impossible. Not everybody gets to be healthy, naturally beautiful, natively speak English, work 40 hours a week with full benefits, and get paid thousands/tens of thousands/millions of dollars a month. I'm sorry that people dealt the worst card in life in terms of net worth (those in poverty) are staring up at a proverbial mountain to climb, but I don't really see another solution other than work + sacrifice. Wealth and opportunity aren't going to fall from the sky for them. > "if I/$self_made_person_of_the_week got out of poverty, why can't you?" are both pointless questions. Are they though? There's a recipe to get out of poverty. Start exchanging as much of your time/mental health as you can for more money, and don't inflate your lifestyle. Why can't people in poverty be bothered to have to sacrifice more than those that are wealthy? I have no idea. Why do 18 year old supermodels get to date and live off of millionaires while I have to work for a living? Life isn't fair.
- zbentley 7y ago
  > If I was in poverty and I wanted to get out of it, I'd go get 2 jobs and make a lot of sacrifices. It wouldn't be pretty, it wouldn't be fair, it wouldn't be fun. But it's not impossible. Overwhelmingly that seems not to be occurring. It either does not work as well as you think it does or is not undertaken. People, as I said, do not want to suffer economic hardships. This isn't an appeal to fairness or egalitarianism, but to the reality that intense suffering is endured by the poor, and that it can be alleviated from the outside regardless of whether or not you think they are responsible for their own suffering. This is an obvious thing to want if you don't like others suffering and acknowledge that most people, no matter how much they want to, do not leave poverty on their own. > Why can't people in poverty be bothered to have to sacrifice more than those that are wealthy? That's . . . incredibly insensitive. I understand that ad-hominems are frowned upon here, but that statement is both callous and makes some seriously flawed assumptions about who is sacrificing/suffering, and how much. It also reflects a very "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality, which is not conducive to the formation of functional, compassionate, good-to-inhabit communities at any scale.
  - watwut 7y ago
    One reason for why it does not happen is that two full time jobs are possible only if st least one of them allows you slacking. The issue is not just lack of fun, but being too tired to function properly. And also when you have no outside of job duties.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Jobs that don’t allow slacking pay well because otherwise they have comically high turnover. I worked night shift in one service station and a day shift in another one for over six months and I’ve worker bar with a day job in a supermarket. Working 60 hours a week is easily within reach for any able bodied person under 40, even on a construction site. Over 60 hours or once your body starts to go you’ll be more restricted but once you have a few years in any job you can do the average work that you do on autopilot basically in your sleep.
- 7y ago

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

If I was in poverty and I wanted to get out of it, I'd go get 2 jobs and make a lot of sacrifices. It wouldn't be pretty, it wouldn't be fair, it wouldn't be fun. But it's not impossible. Not everybody gets to be healthy, naturally beautiful, natively speak English, work 40 hours a week with full benefits, and get paid thousands/tens of thousands/millions of dollars a month. I'm sorry that people dealt the worst card in life in terms of net worth (those in poverty) are staring up at a proverbial mountain to climb, but I don't really see another solution other than work + sacrifice. Wealth and opportunity aren't going to fall from the sky for them. > "if I/$self_made_person_of_the_week got out of poverty, why can't you?" are both pointless questions. Are they though? There's a recipe to get out of poverty. Start exchanging as much of your time/mental health as you can for more money, and don't inflate your lifestyle. Why can't people in poverty be bothered to have to sacrifice more than those that are wealthy? I have no idea. Why do 18 year old supermodels get to date and live off of millionaires while I have to work for a living? Life isn't fair.

zbentley 7y ago
> If I was in poverty and I wanted to get out of it, I'd go get 2 jobs and make a lot of sacrifices. It wouldn't be pretty, it wouldn't be fair, it wouldn't be fun. But it's not impossible. Overwhelmingly that seems not to be occurring. It either does not work as well as you think it does or is not undertaken. People, as I said, do not want to suffer economic hardships. This isn't an appeal to fairness or egalitarianism, but to the reality that intense suffering is endured by the poor, and that it can be alleviated from the outside regardless of whether or not you think they are responsible for their own suffering. This is an obvious thing to want if you don't like others suffering and acknowledge that most people, no matter how much they want to, do not leave poverty on their own. > Why can't people in poverty be bothered to have to sacrifice more than those that are wealthy? That's . . . incredibly insensitive. I understand that ad-hominems are frowned upon here, but that statement is both callous and makes some seriously flawed assumptions about who is sacrificing/suffering, and how much. It also reflects a very "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality, which is not conducive to the formation of functional, compassionate, good-to-inhabit communities at any scale.
- watwut 7y ago
  One reason for why it does not happen is that two full time jobs are possible only if st least one of them allows you slacking. The issue is not just lack of fun, but being too tired to function properly. And also when you have no outside of job duties.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Jobs that don’t allow slacking pay well because otherwise they have comically high turnover. I worked night shift in one service station and a day shift in another one for over six months and I’ve worker bar with a day job in a supermarket. Working 60 hours a week is easily within reach for any able bodied person under 40, even on a construction site. Over 60 hours or once your body starts to go you’ll be more restricted but once you have a few years in any job you can do the average work that you do on autopilot basically in your sleep.
7y ago