4 ms·

With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some. As one r

With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some. As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1] "don't mistake those living on the street for the poor" Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically signiﬁcant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2] So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result. [1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010 [2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
Your logic is flawed here. You're basically saying the author's statement that the "poor are blessed in industrialized nations" is incorrect because of people who are not blessed for reasons other than simply being poor. By that same logic we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions with their wealthy parents. That's why we use generalizations in theoretical discussions. The author uses the generalization of "the poor" as people who are poor but have no other serious problems or benefits. In that context he's right. And my experience confirms that because the aide was there and available to anyone who wanted it. I wasn't special. As I said just the opposite was true. My Mom squandered much of the Aide given to us and we STILL got by. So in a general sense others should be able to as well. Finally as others have pointed out here the author's point is wealth is relative. Even those living on the street of the United States are tons better than many of the people living in third world countries.
- boredguy8 16y ago
  You were poor with privilege (according to your "about me" blog page). Others are poor without it. My response was not to the author, but rather to your response to someone saying that "poor" is always contextualized and there are poor today that are not at all well off. Your counter was "I was poor and I had things OK." That's not a compelling rejoinder. There are many poor that don't have that same experience. My point regarding variable isolation (which you call 'flawed logic') is to highlight that there are lots of kinds of poor people: there is no such thing as "simply being poor". This is why the true logical flaw is when you say things like "we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions". No, you can't. You can't speak of "the poor" as a monolithic entity, period. Yes, some poor today have it better than some wealthy of the past. But there are poor today that have it worse than people in the past. Which brings me, I suppose, to the point the author of the linked article makes: the poor on skid row do not, in point of fact, have "possession of consumer durables". That is the point the author of the post you replied to was trying to make. And while possibly most poor in rich-world nations are better off than most poor in rich nations of the past, that's not the original author's claim. The claim is that the poor of today are "the blessed of history." I see no reasons presented as to why that's true, and my knowledge of both history and the current world leads me to disagree (though again, that's beyond the point I was making).

TomOfTTB 16y ago

Your logic is flawed here. You're basically saying the author's statement that the "poor are blessed in industrialized nations" is incorrect because of people who are not blessed for reasons other than simply being poor. By that same logic we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions with their wealthy parents. That's why we use generalizations in theoretical discussions. The author uses the generalization of "the poor" as people who are poor but have no other serious problems or benefits. In that context he's right. And my experience confirms that because the aide was there and available to anyone who wanted it. I wasn't special. As I said just the opposite was true. My Mom squandered much of the Aide given to us and we STILL got by. So in a general sense others should be able to as well. Finally as others have pointed out here the author's point is wealth is relative. Even those living on the street of the United States are tons better than many of the people living in third world countries.

boredguy8 16y ago
You were poor with privilege (according to your "about me" blog page). Others are poor without it. My response was not to the author, but rather to your response to someone saying that "poor" is always contextualized and there are poor today that are not at all well off. Your counter was "I was poor and I had things OK." That's not a compelling rejoinder. There are many poor that don't have that same experience. My point regarding variable isolation (which you call 'flawed logic') is to highlight that there are lots of kinds of poor people: there is no such thing as "simply being poor". This is why the true logical flaw is when you say things like "we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions". No, you can't. You can't speak of "the poor" as a monolithic entity, period. Yes, some poor today have it better than some wealthy of the past. But there are poor today that have it worse than people in the past. Which brings me, I suppose, to the point the author of the linked article makes: the poor on skid row do not, in point of fact, have "possession of consumer durables". That is the point the author of the post you replied to was trying to make. And while possibly most poor in rich-world nations are better off than most poor in rich nations of the past, that's not the original author's claim. The claim is that the poor of today are "the blessed of history." I see no reasons presented as to why that's true, and my knowledge of both history and the current world leads me to disagree (though again, that's beyond the point I was making).