3 ms·

Yes, the reason that poor people are poor is that they're lazy. And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving. It has noth

Yes, the reason that poor people are poor is that they're lazy. And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving. It has nothing to do with educational opportunities, wealthy parents, or anything like that. That 50-year-old housekeeper who almost graduated from high school, but couldn't because she had to work after her mother lost one of her two jobs? She's poor because SHE'S LAZY, never mind that she spends 9 hours a day scrubbing toilets. And the CEO who got the job because his father is a Senator and works about 10 hours a week? He's rich because HE DESERVES IT. > http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.) It shows nothing of the sort. The word "leisure" isn't even in that report. In fact the report says that the working poor are usually screwed by circumstances beyond their control - layoffs, involuntary part-time work, pay that is illegally below minimum wage.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
If you bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs of the report, it would tell you that most of the poor are not working poor (by choice). If you skipped ahead to the tables, you'd realize it also tells you that only 12% of the poor work full time for at least 27 weeks/year. You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement. If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day. Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

If you bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs of the report, it would tell you that most of the poor are not working poor (by choice). If you skipped ahead to the tables, you'd realize it also tells you that only 12% of the poor work full time for at least 27 weeks/year. You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement. If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day. Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.