The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
Shakesthecoffecan:
(I'm sorry I am more of a smart ass than usual today)
Because they don't have money?
:-X
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: shakestheground on April 30, 2008, 03:43:57 pm ---(I'm sorry I am more of a smart ass than usual today)
Because they don't have money?
:-X
--- End quote ---
Sorta like why what's-his-name robbed banks? 'Cause that's where the money is? ;D
serious crayons:
I notice that a lot of people who criticize the poor and say they should work harder and be more responsible seem to assume that middle- and upper-class people are where they are because they work hard and are responsible. The fact is, many middle- and upper-middle class people are there for the same reason the poor are: because that's where they were born. And middle- and upper-middle-class lives come with privileges we often don't notice.
Take me, for example. Both my parents majored in journalism and became advertising writers. My grandfather was the editor of a medium-sized newspaper. So I became ... a writer! Based on a journalism degree ... that my dad paid for!
I grew up in a nice safe pleasant neighborhood, ate reasonably healthy food, was raised by college-educated parents who weren't unduly stressed, had free time to care for me, could afford to take me on trips and buy me books and art supplies. I attended some of the country's best public schools, was expected to go on to college and get a good job because ... well, because in my family and my community that's just what you did.
There was also room for error. In high school, a nearby teen clinic dispensed birth control to girls my age. We got there by driving there in our parents' cars that they let us use. Some girls got pregnant anyway, but I don't remember anyone in high school carrying a baby to term. They got abortions, I guess, because having babies would have interfered with their plans to graduate and, in most cases, go on to college and get good jobs. In high school and college, I partied and took drugs and skipped school and bad stuff like that. I could afford to break some rules, because I had the safety net of money and security and high expectations.
So suppose my background had been different. Suppose instead of being surrounded by educated middle-class people, I grew up surrounded by undereducated people who didn't work, had babies as teenagers, sold drugs, etc. Well, then I'd probably do all those things.
Of course, there are people who transcend such hardships and go on to great achievements. But many, perhaps most, people are simply not that ambitious or smart or strong-willed or confident or rebellious or whatever it would take to rise above the environment in which they're immersed. I don't think I necessarily would have.
Kelda:
Do you know what broketrash - I come from a single parent family.
My mother was married twice - my elder sister has a different dad from me.
My mum was for a while on welfare. She was a school cook but did her back in, so couldn't lift the pots.
She went to college and became a nursery nurse (a pre school kids teacher). She worked harder than a lot of 'real' teachers I know.
And she still was on almost minimum wage, earning less than many on wlefare.
My mum was medicaly retired a few ywars before her real retiral date due to M.E.
She relies on the state pension to get by now.
You know what - I'm proud of where I come from.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: broketrash on April 30, 2008, 01:22:00 pm ---While the rich pay little and the poor pay nothing into the system.
--- End quote ---
Which means the rich are getting welfare, too. They may not need help paying for their food and medical care and education. But the rest of us are paying disproportionately for the roads, bridges, parks, beaches, lakes, police, military and fire protection that they use.
--- Quote ---You consistently reject church and private charities and do not acknowledge the inequity of making middle class families pay to feed, clothe, medicate, and educate the poor.
--- End quote ---
All this blaming poor people seems a little silly, to me. Whether or not they should work harder and lift themselves out of poverty, whether they should have fewer children or not watch Oprah or whatever ... it's all moot. They do what they do because the majority of people stay in the class they were born into and behave the way the people around them behave. Simple as that. You can tsk-tsk all you want, but that's basic sociology.
But working to change their situation isn't just about feeling sorry for them. Even if you don't feel any sympathy for poor people, you have an interest in helping them. Society is better functioning with citizens who are productive and self-supporting. Not to mention safer.
That's why I'm curious, broketrash, why you would include education among the things you object to the poor getting help paying for. Education would seem to me to be the most effective way -- heck, almost the only way these days -- to turn poor people into middle-class or upper-class people. All those hypothetical poor people who could be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps can't do it without education. So to eliminate their financial aid (which of course middle-class students also receive) seems counter-productive.
To me, this isn't about pity or blame. It's about finding solutions that benefit everyone.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version