3 ms·

I think we're saying basically the same thing. My point was more that a given person is not poor because they are lazy (necessarily), because even if they are

I think we're saying basically the same thing. My point was more that a given person is not poor because they are lazy (necessarily), because even if they are not lazy, if the system is totally stacked against them, they are screwed. The cycle continues forever and in that sense yes the system being stacked against them made them poor.

dragonwriter 13y ago
I read your post as saying -- or at least, suggesting -- that the system maintained but did not originally produce poverty for particular individuals, I was pointing out that maintaining poverty for particular individuals in one generation implies causing poverty for particular individuals in the next generation. I didn't see it as a fundamental disagreement so much as highlighting an implication which seemed to be downplayed in your post.
- ZenoArrow 13y ago
  The point ITendToDisagree was making is that the causality between starting poor and ending poor is not direct, i.e. starting poor = ending poor is too simplistic. The truth is there are a myriad of factors at play, but what we can say is that starting poor ends up being a big disadvantage to overcoming poverty in our current system. It's not about downplaying this factor, it's about recognising there are other factors at play, including factors that can tip the odds in someone's favour, the main one being education (and an enriching social life, but that's harder to mandate). Look at countries like India, they still have huge issues with poverty, but it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income. The issue with countries like the US is coupling poverty with a system that does not have the same broad level of commitment to education. The situation will continue to get worse, but it doesn't have to, that's the real tragedy.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    ...it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income... Is it clear? The general opinion I see over here is that most education (beyond primary school) is useless, but you can't get hired without it anyway. I'm also not sure why you'd characterize India as having a "commitment to education" greater than the US - education is far more available and far more common in the US. For example, while I'm harshly critical of the lack of accountability surrounding teaching in the US, teachers are at least required to show up to work. As far as I'm aware, the general economic consensus about India is that economic liberalization is what has led the growth in income.
    - ZenoArrow 13y ago
      Perhaps you're right about India's education system.
  - solutionyogi 13y ago
    I am from India, born in 1980 and saw first hand how fast things changed from 1991 onwards when economy was opened up [See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Indi...] Yes, Indian parents focus on education but that is not what lead to growth in personal income. My father did not finish high school nor did he go to a college but we saw remarkable improvement in our life style thanks to overall economy improvement as there was more demand for his work. I know many people who are completely illiterate but were able to grow their business as there was no more red-tape by government. In 1991, government allowed private banks to open (before that all banks were state owned) which lead to better access to capital allowing tons of businesses to flourish. Reliance Industries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries] is the the largest private sector company by revenue and ranks 107 in Fortune 500. The company was started by Dhirubhai Ambani who did not go to college but was able to grow his company many fold after economy was opened up.

dragonwriter 13y ago

I read your post as saying -- or at least, suggesting -- that the system maintained but did not originally produce poverty for particular individuals, I was pointing out that maintaining poverty for particular individuals in one generation implies causing poverty for particular individuals in the next generation. I didn't see it as a fundamental disagreement so much as highlighting an implication which seemed to be downplayed in your post.

ZenoArrow 13y ago
The point ITendToDisagree was making is that the causality between starting poor and ending poor is not direct, i.e. starting poor = ending poor is too simplistic. The truth is there are a myriad of factors at play, but what we can say is that starting poor ends up being a big disadvantage to overcoming poverty in our current system. It's not about downplaying this factor, it's about recognising there are other factors at play, including factors that can tip the odds in someone's favour, the main one being education (and an enriching social life, but that's harder to mandate). Look at countries like India, they still have huge issues with poverty, but it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income. The issue with countries like the US is coupling poverty with a system that does not have the same broad level of commitment to education. The situation will continue to get worse, but it doesn't have to, that's the real tragedy.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  ...it's also clear that the focus on education has been instrumental in their growth in personal income... Is it clear? The general opinion I see over here is that most education (beyond primary school) is useless, but you can't get hired without it anyway. I'm also not sure why you'd characterize India as having a "commitment to education" greater than the US - education is far more available and far more common in the US. For example, while I'm harshly critical of the lack of accountability surrounding teaching in the US, teachers are at least required to show up to work. As far as I'm aware, the general economic consensus about India is that economic liberalization is what has led the growth in income.
  - ZenoArrow 13y ago
    Perhaps you're right about India's education system.
- solutionyogi 13y ago
  I am from India, born in 1980 and saw first hand how fast things changed from 1991 onwards when economy was opened up [See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_Indi...] Yes, Indian parents focus on education but that is not what lead to growth in personal income. My father did not finish high school nor did he go to a college but we saw remarkable improvement in our life style thanks to overall economy improvement as there was more demand for his work. I know many people who are completely illiterate but were able to grow their business as there was no more red-tape by government. In 1991, government allowed private banks to open (before that all banks were state owned) which lead to better access to capital allowing tons of businesses to flourish. Reliance Industries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries] is the the largest private sector company by revenue and ranks 107 in Fortune 500. The company was started by Dhirubhai Ambani who did not go to college but was able to grow his company many fold after economy was opened up.