Why the poor aren't getting ahead.

[Non sequitur]

I think it's best to address bad choices first, then we can deal with the nuances (which are often used to excuse bad choices).

Seeing how nobody on here disagrees with bad choices and the affects of them, I don't see the point of this.

I'd assume addressing things that are more not commonly known as more of a useful post.

*shrugs*

 

[majj27]

Yeah, this is too personal for me to debate, honestly. I'm going to bow out. Apologies for the crankiness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, you have your opinion, I guess.

I was told I lacked "a work ethic" when I was working 3 jobs and my days consisted of 10-12 hours at work.
I was told I "must be lazy if I choose to live THERE" when I gave them a home address in the bad part of town.
I was told to "get an education" when I was doing this work in the vain hopes of finishing my degree.
I was told to "get my homeless [phrase for someone's hiney] out of the house of God" when I stepped in between jobs because hearing the choir was the only music I could afford.
I was told "you're such a worthless piece of homeless {another swear word}" by people I biked past on my rush between jobs because I was riding a bike with my multiple uniforms in a tied bag in winter.

I lived in that world for four years. Day in, day out. I heard this sort of thing on a daily basis. Which of these messengers was just "telling me like it is"? Which of them should I have stopped and debated with?

You know what DID help? 2 completely random acts of generosity from POOR people. One gave me a broken bicycle, and another had his apartment-mate die of an infection and offered me the couch for what I could afford to pay.

You know what didn't help? Being told by the society I was so longing to rejoin that I was unwelcome. And yes, they did that. Constantly.

One of the rules for success is to ignore the negativity of others.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Seeing how nobody on here disagrees with bad choices and the affects of them, I don't see the point of this.

I'd assume addressing things that are more not commonly known as more of a useful post.

*shrugs*

I just don't see making a problem more complicated than it needs to be.

"There's lion in the street" seems to be a good example of nuance.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Whose would be they be?

I am assuming that by education you mean a government approved institution. I cannot provide that sort of education but it is there for free for 12 years or more and on loan and scholarship or for money for even more years afterwards so I do not see the need for me to do personally provide that even if I had the resources to do so. I could certainly help another educate him/herself which is what I would consider to be a true education i.e. the endeavor of the individual to learn. I do not consider that being taught is education, I consider learning is education. If one is taught but does not learn education does not take place. I did assume you were not using my definition and that you meant going to an institution of learning and I am not federally approved as an institution of learning. So for what i assumed your definition of education, I would say that the person seeking such education will have to find a way to take advantage of government , loans or some rich benefactor or a combination of all. But I am simply not able to provide that. Nor would i recommend that as a way to get ahead to a poor person beyond the 12 free years unless through some full scholarship or benefactor or full government subsidy. No loans, please, no matter what source. The trend seems to be heading in the direction of it being less and less beneficial financially over the course of a lifetime for those taking such loans. Removing unfair restrictions and hurdles would be something the legal system would have to handle. I am not sure which unfair restriction and hurdles are faced by people to cause them to be poor so if there are any that are within my power to remove I ought to remove them and not use lack of action by legal system as an excuse to do nothing. Emergency help I could do if I' m right there but being right there is the problem. Whoever is right there would be responsible for providing that.


.

 

[Non sequitur]

I just don't see making a problem more complicated than it needs to be.

"There's lion in the street" seems to be a good example of nuance.

The poor and poverty is an inherently complicated problem. Certain subsets under it are simple and others are not.

So stating the undeniably obvious is the goal?

 

[SolomonVII]

Too many are,

Undereducated
Under motivated
Unwilling to plan
Unwilling to sacrifice
Unwilling to work hard
Unwilling to obey the law
Unwilling to care for their health
Unwilling to abstain from drugs and alcohol
Unwilling to remain unmarried until they can afford it.
Unwilling to present themselves to an employer properly.

The positive message to read from this is that being poor need not be a life sentence.
To make people responsible for their own failures is to give hope that there is something that they can do to succeed in life.

The alternative is to tell people that there is nothing that they can do, and that the best that can happen to them is that the system gives them a living at something a little bit above subsistence.

Compassion ought to be more than making people members of a permament underclass. It is not as if liberal reflexes are not compassionate; it is just that for the most part liberals have not really thought things through to a point where their solutions will actually be of transcending benefit to people who are struggling.

 

[brinny]

The best thing that can happen to our long-term economy is to stop allowing cheap foreign goods and cheap foreign labor into the country.

We could set up camps for the poor to live in while they pick fruits and vegetables or do other infrastructure labor. I've lived in 'tent cities' in the army. It's not so bad once you get used to it. This was done during the depression in the WPA programs. They built a lot of great things.

A cousin of mine went to Greenland as a heavy equipment operator when the air base at Thule was built. He lived in a quonset hut for year, with nothing to do but work. When he returned he bought the local taxi cab company. He had been a long-haul trucker but wanted to be home more. He made enough money to leave his small house in town and buy a nice home on a big lake. This when he was fifty-some years old.

Brilliant

 

[brinny]

The poor and poverty is an inherently complicated problem. Certain subsets under it are simple and others are not.

So stating the undeniably obvious is the goal?

I've BEEN ultra-poor and under-privileged.

i challenge you to listen to Dave Ramsey, my friend.

 

[brinny]

The positive message to read from this is that being poor need not be a life sentence.
To make people responsible for their own failures is to give hope that there is something that they can do to succeed in life.

The alternative is to tell people that there is nothing that they can do, and that the best that can happen to them is that the system gives them a living at something a little bit above subsistence.

Compassion ought to be more than making people members of a permament underclass. It is not as if liberal reflexes are not compassionate; it is just that for the most part liberals have not really thought things through to a point where their solutions will actually be of transcending benefit to people who are struggling.

Exactly.

 

[SolomonVII]

Perhaps the defining reason that 'the poor' can't get ahead is because as soon as they even start to get ahead they are no longer 'the poor'.

Exactly.
Social mobility exists, and it is a good thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The positive message to read from this is that being poor need not be a life sentence.
To make people responsible for their own failures is to give hope that there is something that they can do to succeed in life.

The alternative is to tell people that there is nothing that they can do, and that the best that can happen to them is that the system gives them a living at something a little bit above subsistence.

Compassion ought to be more than making people members of a permament underclass. It is not as if liberal reflexes are not compassionate; it is just that for the most part liberals have not really thought things through to a point where their solutions will actually be of transcending benefit to people who are struggling.

The biggest problem liberals have (generally speaking) in addressing the condition of the poor is their near universal disdain for physical work of any kind (in terms of employment that is).

 

[brinny]

Yeah, this is too personal for me to debate, honestly. I'm going to bow out. Apologies for the crankiness.

Awwwww i hope you come back. I'm sorry it's too personal (((hug)))

 

[OldWiseGuy]

. I do not consider that being taught is education, I consider learning is education.

Well said.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

I once knew a guy, age 28, married with two kids, a dairy route driver (back in the day). He was still delivering newspapers on a small morning route that he had from junior high school. He loved doing it and saw no reason to quit. It didn't pay much, but enough to make his monthly car payment.

 

[brinny]

grasping the after wind said: ↑
. I do not consider that being taught is education, I consider learning is education.

Well said.

Mike Rowe would agree with both of you.

 

[brinny]

Yeah, this is too personal for me to debate, honestly. I'm going to bow out. Apologies for the crankiness.

I'm sorry (((hug)))

 

[KWCrazy]

It seems like you are saying that the only reason poor people are poor is bad choices. It's a little bit more nuanced than that.

It's not the only reason but it's the primary reason. I might point out that Moynihan was a Democrat as well as a sociologist. One major factor in poverty is the illegitimacy rate. Among some groups of inner city residents upwards of 70% of babies are born out of wedlock and by consequence most of those are born into poverty. The structure of the welfare system makes it disadvantageous for the father to be in the home and so young girls raise children on their own with nobody to help but Uncle Sam. Then to find the family they never had the kids end up joining gangs. True, some exceptional children escape the future killing cycle of poverty, but not enough. Charter schools and vouchers could help them get a better education. With many, perhaps the solution is to take them out of that environment altogether and put them in a situation where they could learn to improve their status through their own actions.

 

[Hank77]

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

I once knew a guy, age 28, married with two kids, a dairy route driver (back in the day). He was still delivering newspapers on a small morning route that he had from junior high school. He loved doing it and saw no reason to quit. It didn't pay much, but enough to make his monthly car payment.

It must not have been a very big car payment. I made $9 a wk. delivering newspapers in 1966 - 1968.

 

[Non sequitur]

It's not the only reason but it's the primary reason. I might point out that Moynihan was a Democrat as well as a sociologist. One major factor in poverty is the illegitimacy rate. Among some groups of inner city residents upwards of 70% of babies are born out of wedlock and by consequence most of those are born into poverty. The structure of the welfare system makes it disadvantageous for the father to be in the home and so young girls raise children on their own with nobody to help but Uncle Sam. Then to find the family they never had the kids end up joining gangs. True, some exceptional children escape the future killing cycle of poverty, but not enough. Charter schools and vouchers could help them get a better education. With many, perhaps the solution is to take them out of that environment altogether and put them in a situation where they could learn to improve their status through their own actions.

Which has been my point. I don't see the value in pointing out the obvious.