4 ms·

So your thesis is simply "Poor people are lazy. If they worked harder they wouldn't be poor"? You're right that the difference between the middle class and the

So your thesis is simply "Poor people are lazy. If they worked harder they wouldn't be poor"? You're right that the difference between the middle class and the poor isn't luck. The difference between the poor and the middle class is poverty. Poverty isn't just about being poor. It's about being poor BECAUSE you're poor. It's generally cyclical, it can span generations, and is very difficult to break out of. People don't get ahead when they can't afford to eat. People don't get ahead when they can't afford to go to a school in a better neighborhood. People don't get ahead when they get sick and can't afford health care. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding about why people are poor, and remain poor. The idea that poor people have 'equality of opportunity' in any practical way is not based in reality.

bluGill 7y ago
In the US, as well as most of Europe (this list is not complete): there are essentially zero poor. What well call poor are really lower middle class. Even the bad schools are good enough to break out of - it might not get one generation from poverty to rich, but it can get to middle class. I wouldn't pin remaining in lower middle class (which we consider poor) on just lazy though. Some are, but I've also met poor people who are not lazy, they just don't see how their hard work isn't in the right areas to get out. There is a lack of examples, and parents often don't teach their the basics of how to get ahead (in part because they don't know). The opportunity to get out of those bad neighborhoods exists for anybody. (Note that systematic racism in previous generations is mostly gone, but the after effects are still with us) The poor elsewhere do lack opportunities and so cannot break out. I will grant that.