[kenberg]

The most important thing about the poor, or about any group, is that they are not all the same. Evereyone's life is a combination of luck, skill, and judgment. Sometimes the trumps split 5-0, sometimes you go down because you play the hand badly. This is just life.

To decline to help on the grounds that it is all their own fault is heartless, to claim that it is always just bad fortune is naive. I bring a fair amount of personal experience, I won't bore you with it. to bear on this.

[mycroft]

Absolutely, if they could suck it up, they'd be ahead.

Of course, they might be ahead because their food requirements have gone down by one person. Or, just maybe, that thing that would have cost the $100 they don't have for a doctor's appointment now costs $10 000. Or the phone service they cut off for the week would have got them that job that would pay $15 000 this year.

So - can you afford to suck it up?

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2014-February-25, 16:45, said:

Absolutely, if they could suck it up, they'd be ahead.

Of course, they might be ahead because their food requirements have gone down by one person. Or, just maybe, that thing that would have cost the $100 they don't have for a doctor's appointment now costs $10 000. Or the phone service they cut off for the week would have got them that job that would pay $15 000 this year.

So - can you afford to suck it up?

You appear (to me) to be sarcastically putting down things that I haven't said.

"To decline to help on the grounds that it is all their own fault is heartless, to claim that it is always just bad fortune is naive." Not a word about sucking.

[mike777]

I thought Ken put it very well.

If the main goal is to help the poor then I recommend we do it with negative interest rates and negative fees.


I don't see any of this making billions for the post office after expenses.-----------------

--------------

I think the title says it all if you believe in a platonic ideal and Ms. Warren as a Philosopher Queen all else derives from that.

[billw55]

Helping the poor? I could get on board with that. But the short term loan industry is definitely not helping them. It is exploiting them.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2014-February-25, 20:34, said:

You appear (to me) to be sarcastically putting down things that I haven't said.

"To decline to help on the grounds that it is all their own fault is heartless, to claim that it is always just bad fortune is naive." Not a word about sucking.

It was me who mentioned sucking it up.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2014-February-26, 07:17, said:

It was me who mentioned sucking it up.

Mea very culpa. Clearly I was too quick on the trigger here. I may try to put together a longer version of my views, but for starters I think that it is highly unproductive to think of the poor as a herd of sacred cows. All of them the same, all of them beyond the reach of criticism.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-February-26, 07:16, said:

Helping the poor? I could get on board with that. But the short term loan industry is definitely not helping them. It is exploiting them.

I agree. But for the most part it is not the decisions made that creates poverty.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-26, 08:28, said:

I agree. But for the most part it is not the decisions made that creates poverty.

Very true. But it is the decisions made, that can get one out of poverty. At least, in most of the developed world, including the USA.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-February-26, 10:32, said:

Very true. But it is the decisions made, that can get one out of poverty. At least, in most of the developed world, including the USA.

Do you genuinely believe that those who live in poverty want to live that way otherwise they would "decide" their way out?

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-26, 11:07, said:

Do you genuinely believe that those who live in poverty want to live that way otherwise they would "decide" their way out?

I have met people from poverty who got out, people who didn't. And the dominant difference, as far as I can tell, is the decisions they made along the way. Work hard. Get educated. Don't have children too young, or outside of marriage. Don't do drugs or drink too much. Don't commit crime. It works, I have seen it.

IMO to effectively treat the poor as is if it is all hopeless, they can't get out, they need our support forever, that their choices don't matter, is condescending, degrading, and elitist. They CAN do it. They ARE capable. Telling them they're not is an insult.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-February-26, 11:18, said:

I have met people from poverty who got out, people who didn't. And the dominant difference, as far as I can tell, is the decisions they made along the way. Work hard. Get educated. Don't have children too young, or outside of marriage. Don't do drugs or drink too much. Don't commit crime. It works, I have seen it.

IMO to effectively treat the poor as is if it is all hopeless, they can't get out, they need our support forever, that their choices don't matter, is condescending, degrading, and elitist. They CAN do it. They ARE capable. Telling them they're not is an insult.

Have you considered that your position calls for nearly perfect decision-making from the poor (with no room for human errors of judgement) while not acknowledging that the better off have the luxury of paying for errors?

I do not believe it is impossible to escape poverty - but I think it ridiculous to reward the wealthiest individuals while not offering as much help as possible to the less fortunate.

At the least, offer everyone some kind of equal footing with guaranteed healthcare, an education and adequate food and housing.

[onoway]

billw55, on 2014-February-26, 11:18, said:

I have met people from poverty who got out, people who didn't. And the dominant difference, as far as I can tell, is the decisions they made along the way. Work hard. Get educated. Don't have children too young, or outside of marriage. Don't do drugs or drink too much. Don't commit crime. It works, I have seen it.

IMO to effectively treat the poor as is if it is all hopeless, they can't get out, they need our support forever, that their choices don't matter, is condescending, degrading, and elitist. They CAN do it. They ARE capable. Telling them they're not is an insult.

Some bad decisions are easier to overcome than others. A bad decision about having a (usually unexpected) child too young is a whole different kettle of fish than dropping out of school, although one often leads to the other. And sometimes no matter how hard people work and how carefully they follow all your rules, stuff simply happens, as Ken said.

Sometimes the choices people make are the right ones at the time but circumstances change Most of us get away with the occassional bad decision, nobody is right all the time, but the one a person didn't get away with might have totally unforeseen circumstances. People do not live in a vacuum, what other people do has an impact. It may have been a bad decision to get gas at that particular service station where you got shot and ended up paralyzed, but hardly one you could be held responsible for not anticipating.

Automatically telling people who are struggling that in effect, you made your bed, now you deal with while I stand by and tell you you can do better is not only blaming the victim but adding to their burden with guilt and shame. There but for the grace of god, as the expression goes....go any one of us. Don't think it can't happen. It's happened to a whole lot of people who had reason to think that they were "secure".

I know people who have as their mantra, tell me your troubles, it will lighten your burden. Well, no it won't if what is needed is tangible help, it simply smacks of a sort of voyeuristic sadism and a self congratulatory satisfaction at not having those problems. Telling someone you're sure they can figure it out when they are having to decide between paying for such things as insulin or food isn't a lot of help.

OTOH cheering people on as they are trying to do better as well as giving whatever tangible help is necessary to make their efforts bear fruit is likely enormously helpful.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-26, 15:00, said:

At the least, offer everyone some kind of equal footing with guaranteed healthcare, an education and adequate food and housing.

Indeed, equal opportunity is a principle that most value, including myself. We are already offering education, and getting close on healthcare. Housing is supported to some extent, although the quality is inconsistent. Food aid is provided, if not always effectively used. So how about basic banking services? I guess it's not necessarily a bad idea on principle.

onoway, on 2014-February-26, 15:12, said:

Some bad decisions are easier to overcome than others.

True enough I suppose. Although, the young unwed mother can make the responsible decision to surrender the child for adoption, and to get her life on track and not do it again. A lifetime of poverty, with more kids born into poverty, is not the only option. She can choose.

Other things like permanent disabilities, which are usually through no fault of the victim, are a different matter. We can, should, and do aid such individuals.

[barmar]

From the Wikipedia article on Economic Mobility, citing a 2007 study:

Quote

"contrary to American beliefs about equality of opportunity, a child’s economic position is heavily influenced by that of his or her parents." 42% of children born to parents in the bottom fifth of the income distribution ("quintile") remain in the bottom, while 39% born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top. Only half of the generation studied exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles.

I think it's unlikely that this is because most poor children are resigned to staying that way, I believe that there are inherent obstacles that make it difficult for them to move up. Therefore, it's incumbent on society to try to help them overcome these obstacles.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-February-26, 16:40, said:

From the Wikipedia article on Economic Mobility, citing a 2007 study:

I think it's unlikely that this is because most poor children are resigned to staying that way, I believe that there are inherent obstacles that make it difficult for them to move up. Therefore, it's incumbent on society to try to help them overcome these obstacles.

As far as I can tell no one is opposed to offering opportunity. It seems to be something of an automatic response that if someone says that a person's life is partly the result of the choices that he or she makes, then that person is opposed to offering opportunity or doesn't understand poverty or thinks that people live in pverty because they want to. No. Not so.
What we think is what we say. Choices matter. Not always, but often.

I mentioned a while back that I had tutored a guy who couldn't read. We started with the sounds of letters. But his life had gone pretty well. Problems were developing, however. Money was disappearing, and it turned out his wife was going with a woman friend off to the local gambling spot. That's trouble my friend, right here in River City.

No one I know is opposed to helping. No one. But if someone takes a hundred bucks to the casino and blows it, I won't be helping if I give him or her another hundred. It is not all that easy to actually help people. Some are a tough case.

I am an adopted child, my biological mother was a young unmarried farm girl, so intervention and help for me goes way, way back. But I am pleased to say my life has gone reasonably well, the mistakes are my own, and my biological mother died in her nineties a while back after having, as far as I know, a good life. Getting pregnant when you are young, undereducated, and unmarried is a mistake, and I gather that she did not repeat this mistake.

Choices matter. We are saying no more than that, and no less.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2014-February-26, 15:44, said:

True enough I suppose. Although, the young unwed mother can make the responsible decision to surrender the child for adoption, and to get her life on track and not do it again. A lifetime of poverty, with more kids born into poverty, is not the only option. She can choose.

Hope you don't mind me reducing your comment to that part I wish to address.

The above comment makes me wonder about your (and my) sources of information. Your comment reminds me of what has been described in my reading as a fictional "welfare queen" used by the Reagan political machine in his run for President. I obviously tend to accept my sources more readily than other sources - but I am willing to change my mind if data can support one view above another.

My reading and my own experience is that if there are "welfare queens" who only have kids and live off the government, they are few and far between to such an extent as to be unimportant to even consider. My own experience with low income individuals is that they mostly work at low-paying jobs and try to have some kind of life, but have no excess cash or time to help themselves improve their station in life.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-27, 09:55, said:

My reading and my own experience is that if there are "welfare queens" who only have kids and live off the government, they are few and far between to such an extent as to be unimportant to even consider. My own experience with low income individuals is that they mostly work at low-paying jobs and try to have some kind of life, but have no excess cash or time to help themselves improve their station in life.

I've lived in several places including (for 20 years) Atlanta. My experience is the same as yours.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-27, 09:55, said:

Hope you don't mind me reducing your comment to that part I wish to address.

The above comment makes me wonder about your (and my) sources of information. Your comment reminds me of what has been described in my reading as a fictional "welfare queen" used by the Reagan political machine in his run for President. I obviously tend to accept my sources more readily than other sources - but I am willing to change my mind if data can support one view above another.

My reading and my own experience is that if there are "welfare queens" who only have kids and live off the government, they are few and far between to such an extent as to be unimportant to even consider. My own experience with low income individuals is that they mostly work at low-paying jobs and try to have some kind of life, but have no excess cash or time to help themselves improve their station in life.

Winston, no one except you has brought up welfare queens. Let us, instead, look at what Bill actually said and discuss whether it is credible. My source of information is my own childhood.

Quote

Although, the young unwed mother can make the responsible decision to surrender the child for adoption, and to get her life on track and not do it again. A lifetime of poverty, with more kids born into poverty, is not the only option. She can choose.

My first example of course is my biological mother, she did exactly what Bill suggests can be done./ But let us move slightly forward in time. i grew up in a fairly small house, very small by modern standards. Sometime near the end of the war there was a housing shortage and my parents rented out the top floor to Art, Marie, and their daughter Norma. Very cramped, surely illegal again by modern standards and they soon moved, I suppose to better accommodations. A few years later, Marie is back with Norma and another daughter Jeannie. No Art, and there were seriously good reasons for this. Marie got a job, she and the girls lived in the cramped upstairs quarters, and she developed a relationship with Eddie. Eddie was a good guy, treated her well, treated the girls well, sometimes included me in their family activities. She and the girls stayed for maybe three years. All this time she was seeing one guy, Eddie, a good guy who, among other differences from her ex-husband Art, didn't beat her.

Did they get married and live happily ever after? I can't tell you if they did or didn't. She and the kids moved out, i wish them well. The time they spent with us I saw very difficult circumstances, a relationship with one guy, a good guy, a working woman taking care of her kids, and no out of wedlock additions. Good luck to them, i hope it went well.


My childhood provided all the examples I need. Read whatever sources you want, but if they say that those on the edge have no opportubity to choose, what you are reading is every bit as much of a fantasy as the idea that everyone on welfare is a cheat.

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2014-February-27, 09:55, said:

Hope you don't mind me reducing your comment to that part I wish to address.

The above comment makes me wonder about your (and my) sources of information. Your comment reminds me of what has been described in my reading as a fictional "welfare queen" used by the Reagan political machine in his run for President. I obviously tend to accept my sources more readily than other sources - but I am willing to change my mind if data can support one view above another.

My reading and my own experience is that if there are "welfare queens" who only have kids and live off the government, they are few and far between to such an extent as to be unimportant to even consider. My own experience with low income individuals is that they mostly work at low-paying jobs and try to have some kind of life, but have no excess cash or time to help themselves improve their station in life.

I understand that the "welfare queen", occurring in large numbers, is a myth and a political tactic. In my post, I was responding to onoway's example of an unplanned pregnancy. Since I did not quote her, that was perhaps easy to misunderstand.

See also Ken's very personal example on this topic.