In the US, conversations about poverty frequently appear to depict poverty as a choice, i.e. people bear moral responsibility for their poverty because their de

In the US, conversations about poverty frequently appear to depict poverty as a choice, i.e. people bear moral responsibility for their poverty because their decisions ostensibly produced it. In this thread, multiple comments take this assumption for granted and embrace the goal of reducing poverty primarily for the sake of impoverished children - who bear no responsibility for their position. This approach seems incredibly primitive to me for a number of reasons. First of all, show me an adult that wants to live in poverty. Secondly, where do we draw the line between childhood and adulthood? Does an impoverished 17 year old assume responsibility for their poverty on their 18th birthday? What about their 20th? 25th? At what age can we expect their lifetime of accumulated knowledge, experience, habits, etc. to deliver them from poverty? Is it simply the age when they decide that they no longer want to be poor and, thus, take the requisite actions to ensure their escape from poverty? Instead of basing our (American) assumptions about moral responsibility, as it relates to poverty, on our religious heritage (i.e. the atavistic Protestant ethic), why don’t we abandon our assumptions altogether and simply consult the data (as the author of the linked book excerpt suggests)? Emergent fields of research such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, and so forth offer a far different perspective than the simplistic view I alluded to above. It’s understandable that some might prefer a worldview that justifies the status quo and assuages the cognitive dissonance associated with life in a highly stratified society, but that’s no longer an empirically-defensible position. We should all work to make that fact known, as is the OP’s source.