4 ms·

Just because they cannot find jobs, does not mean they prefer not having jobs.

• yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The fact that they are not even looking does, however. Or at the very least, it means they are completely ambivalent about whether they have a job.
  • wazoox 16y ago
    When your choice is between having a shitty job and no job, maybe staying at home simply is the easiest. Or sometimes your choice is working late and letting your children alone, wandering the streets. You apparently still live in the wonderful lalaland, where human beings are perfectly rational and do not suffer from segregation, humiliation and other social problems. I'll suggest that you try to see life from a less privileged person point of view from time to time, instead of the Chicago school of economics only. That may make you a slightly more charitable person.
    • yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Citing facts == "Chicago school of economics only"? You are correct - I did assume poor people avoid work out of rational utility maximization (i.e., I assumed poor people's choices revealed their preferences). You may be right - poverty might be caused by irrationality. I made no claim whatsoever about segregation, humiliation or other social problems. Come to think of it, if the poor are irrational, that might also explain why their children do not become as intelligent as the children of the rich.
      • TimJYoung 16y ago
        No one "becomes" intelligent. Intelligence is the capacity for learning and understanding concepts, and a lot of children go on to live their entire lives without getting anywhere near that capacity due to a lack of access to educational opportunities in an environment, both at home and at school, that is conducive to learning and advancing. The fact that we accept this as normal is disgraceful, especially when any one of these children could potentially become the adult that makes a major technological breakthrough that benefits us all.
      • wazoox 16y ago
        > I did assume poor people avoid work out of rational utility maximization. I don't think anybody in their right mind believes seriously this to be true, nowadays. I mean out of the crazy free-market fanatics and maybe Goldman-Sachs bankers. I'm clearly not interested in proving you wrong, I've got way better fish to fry than convincing wingnuts.
        • neworbit 16y ago
          Seems like there's SOME element of truth to this, if probably not as rationally analyzed as one might surmise from this comment. It tends to be more "oh why would I work harder at this dead end job, I'm gonna go home and have a drink and play World of Warcraft"
          • wazoox 16y ago
            Of course, because obviously this won't imply starving to death. So the choice is : working an incredibly shitty job for little money, or staying at home for little money, which is quite obviously the most rational choice. The fact is that despite that, a very large number of people accept the burden of terrible low wage jobs, for different and largely non economic reasons; so instead of being lazy that's the other way around, the working poor are indeed courageous.