Why are poor people poor?

[John Dibble]

Really, like most big issues, there is no one, simple answer.

Some are poor because they are too lazy to do anything about it.
Some are poor because they have mental problems.
Some are poor because they were born poor and never had the resources to get out of being poor.
Some are poor because they are genuinely just down on their luck(got fired and regardless of best effort, couldn't find a new job, something like that).
Some are poor because they can't get over their addictions(alcohol, gambling, crack, whatever).

Of course, there's also this conception that the poor are all miserable. This isn't true. Many are happy, or at the very least content, with their lives - sure they might like a little extra money, but money doesn't buy happiness(if it did there'd be no miserable rich people). Some are indeed miserable. Some are happy in some ways and miserable in others.

Ultimately though, there will always be poor people - as long as there are those that are better off than others, the people with the least will always be considered 'poor'. Even if you elevated everyone's standard of living to the point where the poor live like rich people do now, and rich people live even more luxuriously, the poor will still be considered the poor and the rich the rich.

[John Dibble]

If you're born to parents who aren't very educated or capable of doing much, you'll probably be poor until you're 18. After that, it depends on how educated you are, and what you're capable of doing.

It is quite improbable that the children of poor people will be very educated at all.  Even if their public school was capable of providing an education (highly unlikely), how could they attend college?

Scholarships. That and having high enough SAT scores.

[John Dibble]

If you're born to parents who aren't very educated or capable of doing much, you'll probably be poor until you're 18. After that, it depends on how educated you are, and what you're capable of doing.

It is quite improbable that the children of poor people will be very educated at all.  Even if their public school was capable of providing an education (highly unlikely), how could they attend college?

Scholarships. That and having high enough SAT scores.

sheesh!  You're only talking about maybe 1-2% of the poor then.  Not a very demographically meaningful method of bootstrapping.

Well, you have to consider a couple things - how many are capable of it, and how many want it? A capable student can learn enough in almost any public school, and there's a lot of people who don't even plan on going to college. That changes the numbers quite a bit, doesn't it?

[John Dibble]

I disagree that only 1-2% of poor people can get scholarships - you are more able to get a scholarship if you are poor, black, hispanic, ect. I'm an intelligent white male with a mother who makes 80k a year - my chances of attaining scholarships aren't great at all. And I am paying my own way through college. Most scholarships are designed for those who need them.

Now, on widening the scholarship programs, I think Georgia has it right - the HOPE scholarship pays tuition for students who stay in state for college. It's funded completely by the lottery - a nice private sectorish solution - and it applies equally to all students who have a 3.0(B) average or higher on graduating high school. Rich, middle class, or poor - everyone can get it, so it ensures that those with the ability and work ethic to get a 3.0 in high school(which in almost any public school is easy) can afford to go to college.

[John Dibble]

Avelaval - I think the question really is meant in terms of poor people who stay poor the majority of their lives. If you have a good work ethic and a good head on your shoulders chances are you won't remain poor.

Attitude does have a lot to do with it for many people. Refuse to give up and you'll prosper in the long run.

[John Dibble]

I just got back from doing my Christmas shopping, and I saw this beat up old car with the greatest vanity plate I've ever seen. It said

I FIGHT POVERTY
      I WORK

[John Dibble]

I just got back from doing my Christmas shopping, and I saw this beat up old car with the greatest vanity plate I've ever seen. It said

I FIGHT POVERTY
      I WORK

Two paychecks away from the poor house.

You of course know this being the ultimate manager of money and knowing every aspect of the person's life.

[John Dibble]

If you're born to parents who aren't very educated or capable of doing much, you'll probably be poor until you're 18. After that, it depends on how educated you are, and what you're capable of doing.

It is quite improbable that the children of poor people will be very educated at all.  Even if their public school was capable of providing an education (highly unlikely), how could they attend college?

Scholarships. That and having high enough SAT scores.

sheesh!  You're only talking about maybe 1-2% of the poor then.  Not a very demographically meaningful method of bootstrapping.

Well, you have to consider a couple things - how many are capable of it, and how many want it? A capable student can learn enough in almost any public school, and there's a lot of people who don't even plan on going to college. That changes the numbers quite a bit, doesn't it?

But they can't if they have to drop out and work to help support their family. (Not sure if this had already been said).

How many poor kids actually work to support their families?

[John Dibble]

Maybe in whatever paradise you live in.  What exactly do you think people do when they drop of school?

The people I know who dropped out were irresponsible good-for-nothings, and if they did get a job they did so only to support themselves, not their families.

[John Dibble]

I just got back from doing my Christmas shopping, and I saw this beat up old car with the greatest vanity plate I've ever seen. It said

I FIGHT POVERTY
      I WORK

Two paychecks away from the poor house.

You of course know this being the ultimate manager of money and knowing every aspect of the person's life.

I don't think its much of a stretch to assume most working people are depending on that next paycheck.  After all, if they didn't need it desperately, why would they be working?

Worst of all of course, a very significant percentge of people are poor even if they *keep* the job - making $7-8 an hour leaves you poor every week, not two paychecks away.  The two paycheck away thing is to remind the 'middle class' that they're really no different from the working poor.

My point was you assumed that the person had no savings for a rainy day. I also think you don't know how to be effectively frugal with money(many people don't, which worsen's their own situation), in your case due to probable lack of experience how to.

[John Dibble]

Frugality benefits you only if you have an income.

So if I have a thousand bucks in the bank, but no income, it's not beneficial for me to be frugal? Bull. Being frugal especially benefits you when you have no income. Maybe if you have no money, sure, it wouldn't benefit you - but anyone can beg, and even the homeless can benefit from getting the most from the few measly dollars they might have. Your statement above shows just how ignorant you are of the world of the working class.

[John Dibble]

Religion causes more poverty than there should be.

And what logical or scientific basis does this observation of yours have? Heck, I remember a study showing that countries where the majority of people believed in hell were more industrious than ones that didn't.

And we all know that the secular USSR, who forced people not to be religious, wasn't a poor nation or anything.

[John Dibble]

It gives poor people hope in something that doesn't exist. It's sad, when you're hopeless and you're putting all your hopes in something that doesn't exist, that's cruel. Pray to something that doesn't exist, that's a cruel game. Making fun of suffering of millions of people.

What's better - having false hope that allows you to go on, or having no hope at all and giving up. And I really hate the people who say that a religion is definitively wrong - you can't prove it. Sure, they can't prove it either. That's why I'm an agnostic. Atheism is just as arrogant as any religion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You hate organized religion. Religion itself is not bad. Organized religion, like any form of power structure, is corruptable - just like government, corporations, and various other groups where there is a hierarchy. But each of these entities must be judged seperately - if they are not then it is just as ignorant as judging people because they are of a certain race. You present a single case of a single preacher, yet there are thousands of other preachers who would say very different things, but you judge them out of the acts of a single man - how enlightened of you.

[John Dibble]

As I said, I'm agnostic. I feel atheism is arrogant - it assumes there is no god without any proof whatsoever. The thinking behind it is just as simplistic as that of the religious. Agnostics admit their ignorance, and are comfortable with it - atheists profess to know something that they can't possibly prove, they can't be comfortable with the idea that they are ignorant. If arrogance makes you comfortable, then fine, it's not my business.

I still maintain my original stance - you have absolutely no proof that a world without religion would be less poor. I'll easily admit that religion is often used to control people - once again that requires an organized religion to work. If religion didn't exist, those that currently use it to control people would simply find another system of control. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, you're quite correct that the religious probably tend to work harder, but of course this doesn't particulaly benefit them - it benefits their bosses.

In the grand scheme of things, it does. Nations that are more productive are generally more prosperous, and have an all around higher standard of living.

[John Dibble]

I'm not convinced that public schools are declining in quality because of poor funding. I think the system itself is generally flawed - too much input from the federal government, not enough from the local governments. Local governments that make education their first concern generally produce better school systems.

[John Dibble]

I'm not convinced that public schools are declining in quality because of poor funding. I think the system itself is generally flawed - too much input from the federal government, not enough from the local governments. Local governments that make education their first concern generally produce better school systems.

It could not be more obvious - look at any public school in a rich or upper-middle-class neighborhood.   It will be top-notch.  Now go to a poor neighborhood - the public schools will be terrible.  I'd say the determining factor in the quality of education one will get is the economic class of one's parents.

Remember - people are part of the system. People who are educated generally care more about their own children's education than the uneducated do(not that there aren't exceptions). More than economic class of one's parents, it's the attitude of one's parents that really matters.

Seriously - look at Paris Hilton. Her parents were clearly in the owning class. Rich as hell. She can be summed up in three words - stupid spoiled whore. She's one of the most idiotic, uneducated people I know of. It's quite clear to me that her parents really didn't care about having her be educated.

Now, if a kid born in a poor family is being pushed to excel, in all likeliness he'll get himself out of poverty. I've met a few people like this.

Once again, attitude has a lot to do with people being poor - including parental attitude.

[John Dibble]

Paris Hilton is a great example of the owning class, and an object lesson in how they transcend education or personal achievment.  She can be as ignorant as she likes, and it will have no ill effect - she will always be rich, as will her descendants.

It's my theory that her bloodline will be poor white trash(well, they already are white trash) in no less than three more generationsl

[John Dibble]

Paris Hilton is a great example of the owning class, and an object lesson in how they transcend education or personal achievment.  She can be as ignorant as she likes, and it will have no ill effect - she will always be rich, as will her descendants.

It's my theory that her bloodline will be poor white trash(well, they already are white trash) in no less than three more generationsl

How?  Its my understanding that the family fortune is of that size which has a life of its own.  I genuinely believe that she is smart enough to understand the one injunction placed upon the wealthy - 'Don't spend the Principle', but if she isn't they could simply preserve the wealth through administered trust funds.  Wealth need never go away, as long as the economy doesn't totally collapse, and barring a revolution.

I think you overestimate how smart she is. If her descendants are as stupid as she is, they'll fetter away that wealth.

EDIT - In all likeliness, I see her marrying a golddigger, who may well end up divorcing her, getting quite a bit of her riches. She'll probably abort her first few kids, though after she has one I imagine she'll pop out at least two more. That'll divide up the riches. Excluding the off chance one or more of them actually becomes a decent human being that will put that wealth to good use and sustain it, they will more than likely be spoiled rotten brats just like her, if not worse, probably get addicted to crack since they'll have a lousy mother. And the cycle will continue, unless, as I said there is the off chance someone in that line will actually restore some dignity to the Hilton name.