4 ms·

You sound like a typical middle class person who doesn't get out much in an urban area or have had to struggle. Bill Gates isn't a rags to riches tale -- he had

by Duff 16y ago

You sound like a typical middle class person who doesn't get out much in an urban area or have had to struggle. Bill Gates isn't a rags to riches tale -- he had every advantage. The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. The welfare state destroyed the notion of an intact family completely -- to the point that a household with a father present is an unusual event. People need dignity and a purpose. If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago, you could get a job in a factory or get into a union and support a family. Life was hard, but you had a purpose. Picture yourself as a 12 year old in the hood: - You can barely read. Your teacher doesn't know your name - You have a single parent who may or may not be present. She's 27 - You probably don't have a computer - There's a 1 in 5 chance that your father is in prison. - Of the adults that you are acquainted with 80% are not employed. - You live in decrepit housing in an area with high crime. You're literally surrounded by violent criminals, molesters and misery. How would you do?

cletus 16y ago
> The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. Which makes them better off than previous generations, right? > The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. Sure but what's that got to do with poverty? If you're not poor you don't necessarily have purpose either. The world is full of idle, clueless rich people who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing. Just look at Paris Hilton. Oh and my point wasn't that Bill Gates wasn't rags to riches: but he has accumulated wealth in his lifetime many orders of magnitude to what he had when he started. That's the point. What we take for granted today didn't exist centuries ago in an era of the birthright aristocracy and serfdom little different to slavery. > If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago 100 years ago, relatively speaking, that would've been a lot better education than a 6th grade education is in today's terms. > How would you do? It's hard to say because that's a life story I simply don't have. Statistically speaking however, pretty poorly would be the answer. Like I said: the circumstances you're born to (parent's education and so on) correlate positively to the choices the children make. But in all honesty your post reads like a "bleeding heart" infomercial (and a request for donations). The sad truth is that many are poor because they make poor choices. It's just unfortunate that their offspring tend to be detrimentally affected by that. Let's also consider that the definition of poverty is extremely political. What is poverty? In the developing world, being largely disease free (to the extent the developed world is) and having shelter, food and a clean drinking water would mean a lot. Here? There is a subjective definition covering far more than that. Consider: 91% of Americans use cell phones [1] but 12.7% of Americans are below the poverty line [2]. So at least one quarter of all those deemed poor use cell phones, which can still be considered a discretionary expenditure. Add in other discretionary behaviour like alcohol, tobacco and even drugs and what you see is a pattern of people making poor choices. Not in all cases but certainly a lot. Look there are genuine social problems in America. Health care is almost inextricably tied to employment. Insurers can dump you over trivial terms like being two cents short on your payment [3]. The war on poverty has had many detrimental effects such as Section 8 Housing [4] creating ghettoes. Quality of education seems to largely be a factor of how wealthy your district is. The powerful educational unions stifle any attempt at teacher and school accountability. The list goes on. But if you think the poor of 100+ years ago didn't have problems--problems of life and death, forced servitude, disease, etc--and that those problems aren't relatively speaking worse than those of the so-called poor in the developed world, you're kidding yourself. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-91-of-americans-have-cell-phones.ars http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-... [2]: http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp [3]: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flanagan-loses-insurance/story?id=12768088 http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flan... [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
- Duff 16y ago
  How is someone stuck in the poverty cycle different than a serf? Read about how difficult it is to break the $40,000/year barrier if you have children due to the escalation of taxes and scaling back of tax and other incentives. How is someone with the good luck of having parents who are attorneys or accountants different than a minor noble in 16th century France? My father worked in public housing projects, and I used to go along with him to block parties and sometimes hang out with him at work in the summertime when I was young. I'd play with the kids hanging around who were 8 or 10 years old. You know what? They were all the same as my friends at home -- just kids. I didn't understand then that they were poor and I wasn't. Those same kids a few years later would have a harsher introduction to the world than I would. It's amazing to me that you'd equate my perspective to an infomercial, than proceed to castigate people who dare to have a cheap telephone or complain about their miserable condition because they have water and foodstamps. I'm not a proponent of the welfare state. I drive around my city past the idle factories and dilapidated relics of the prosperity of ages long past and get angry. Then I drive outside the city, away from the "welfare state" and past the new prosperity: sprawl shopping centers and subdivisions -- all artifacts of tax policy, loan guarantees and subsidy of infrastructure and get angry. (You probably wouldn't call that "welfare" though.)
- cma 16y ago
  http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/ http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
wisty 16y ago
Another question is, what can the state do to help that kind of person? I know the Ayn Rand fans won't accept it, but there are cheaper (and more humane) options than just locking them up after they've commit a few crimes. Free internet cafes (with locked-down linux boxes, and no flash, to discourage most games), nutrition programs, public libraries ... but I'm thinking like a 30-year-old geek who would actually like those things. What kind of services, that kids actually want, should we be providing? Sports clubs? Music clubs? Just something to teach them a few moral lessons - work in a team, follow reasonable instructions, look after the facilties, work hard, try to learn new things, short term pain for long term gain ... those kinda lessons.

by Duff 16y ago

cletus 16y ago

> The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. Which makes them better off than previous generations, right? > The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. Sure but what's that got to do with poverty? If you're not poor you don't necessarily have purpose either. The world is full of idle, clueless rich people who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing. Just look at Paris Hilton. Oh and my point wasn't that Bill Gates wasn't rags to riches: but he has accumulated wealth in his lifetime many orders of magnitude to what he had when he started. That's the point. What we take for granted today didn't exist centuries ago in an era of the birthright aristocracy and serfdom little different to slavery. > If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago 100 years ago, relatively speaking, that would've been a lot better education than a 6th grade education is in today's terms. > How would you do? It's hard to say because that's a life story I simply don't have. Statistically speaking however, pretty poorly would be the answer. Like I said: the circumstances you're born to (parent's education and so on) correlate positively to the choices the children make. But in all honesty your post reads like a "bleeding heart" infomercial (and a request for donations). The sad truth is that many are poor because they make poor choices. It's just unfortunate that their offspring tend to be detrimentally affected by that. Let's also consider that the definition of poverty is extremely political. What is poverty? In the developing world, being largely disease free (to the extent the developed world is) and having shelter, food and a clean drinking water would mean a lot. Here? There is a subjective definition covering far more than that. Consider: 91% of Americans use cell phones [1] but 12.7% of Americans are below the poverty line [2]. So at least one quarter of all those deemed poor use cell phones, which can still be considered a discretionary expenditure. Add in other discretionary behaviour like alcohol, tobacco and even drugs and what you see is a pattern of people making poor choices. Not in all cases but certainly a lot. Look there are genuine social problems in America. Health care is almost inextricably tied to employment. Insurers can dump you over trivial terms like being two cents short on your payment [3]. The war on poverty has had many detrimental effects such as Section 8 Housing [4] creating ghettoes. Quality of education seems to largely be a factor of how wealthy your district is. The powerful educational unions stifle any attempt at teacher and school accountability. The list goes on. But if you think the poor of 100+ years ago didn't have problems--problems of life and death, forced servitude, disease, etc--and that those problems aren't relatively speaking worse than those of the so-called poor in the developed world, you're kidding yourself. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-91-of-americans-have-cell-phones.ars http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-... [2]: http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp [3]: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flanagan-loses-insurance/story?id=12768088 http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flan... [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)

Duff 16y ago
How is someone stuck in the poverty cycle different than a serf? Read about how difficult it is to break the $40,000/year barrier if you have children due to the escalation of taxes and scaling back of tax and other incentives. How is someone with the good luck of having parents who are attorneys or accountants different than a minor noble in 16th century France? My father worked in public housing projects, and I used to go along with him to block parties and sometimes hang out with him at work in the summertime when I was young. I'd play with the kids hanging around who were 8 or 10 years old. You know what? They were all the same as my friends at home -- just kids. I didn't understand then that they were poor and I wasn't. Those same kids a few years later would have a harsher introduction to the world than I would. It's amazing to me that you'd equate my perspective to an infomercial, than proceed to castigate people who dare to have a cheap telephone or complain about their miserable condition because they have water and foodstamps. I'm not a proponent of the welfare state. I drive around my city past the idle factories and dilapidated relics of the prosperity of ages long past and get angry. Then I drive outside the city, away from the "welfare state" and past the new prosperity: sprawl shopping centers and subdivisions -- all artifacts of tax policy, loan guarantees and subsidy of infrastructure and get angry. (You probably wouldn't call that "welfare" though.)
cma 16y ago
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/ http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

wisty 16y ago

Another question is, what can the state do to help that kind of person? I know the Ayn Rand fans won't accept it, but there are cheaper (and more humane) options than just locking them up after they've commit a few crimes. Free internet cafes (with locked-down linux boxes, and no flash, to discourage most games), nutrition programs, public libraries ... but I'm thinking like a 30-year-old geek who would actually like those things. What kind of services, that kids actually want, should we be providing? Sports clubs? Music clubs? Just something to teach them a few moral lessons - work in a team, follow reasonable instructions, look after the facilties, work hard, try to learn new things, short term pain for long term gain ... those kinda lessons.