Why are poor people poor?

[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.

[gumbiegirl007]

poverty has many causes obviously, but the sad part is that it's hard to break the cycle.  if you grow up poor it's easy for you to remain poor because you don't know any better.  with a minimum wage of $5.15, declining quality of public schooling because of poor funding, and an increase in costs for obtaining college/vocational degrees it's easy to see why the bootstrap theory doesn't stand a chance.  in addition, mental illness is a major cause of poverty as well.  depending on what you read, between 33-50% of people living below the poverty line suffer from some kind of mental illness, which often times could be treated with medication IF they had access to affordable healthcare and medications.  i guess i have a hard time dropping millions on bombs, then rebuilding what we destroy; when the money could be refocused into training, education and healthcare for our own citizens, which could possibly help to break the cycle.

[A18]

What poor funding of public schools?! Education spending has skyrocketed in the last 4 years!

[phk]

HECK YES SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE FOR REDNECKS OMG.

[A18]

HECK YES SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE FOR REDNECKS OMG.

What the  are you talking about?

[gumbiegirl007]

What poor funding of public schools?! Education spending has skyrocketed in the last 4 years!

apparently you have no interaction with any public school systems then.  the cut backs that are being made are quite phenomenal....less teachers, supplies, etc...

[A18]

Education spending has skyrocketed. That much is a fact. How it's being spent, I don't know, and that decision is made by the states.

[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.

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[opebo]

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.

Attitude is almost entirely determined by ones class.  Those upper-middle-class schools not only have more money, they do , as you say, have parents that drive their children to excel.  However this is because of their class identity.  Poor people obviously have no experience of personal development paying off, and more importantly lack the resources to undertake this project.

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.

[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

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[Democratic Hawk]

Mostly due to minimal opportunities caussed by limited life chances. It's hard to escape the "poverty trap" (though it can be done). However, there's no guarantee that you will improve your status even if you work hard

Dave

[opebo]

Mostly due to minimal opportunities caussed by limited life chances. It's hard to escape the "poverty trap" (though it can be done). However, there's no guarantee that you will improve your status even if you work hard

Dave

Most poor people work a lot more and a lot harder than their 'betters'.

[Confabulator]

A poor child with average intelligence has no chance to make anything of himself.  Everyone pulls these great examples out about kids who worked their way out of poverty-but those kids are probably extremely intelligent.  A child of average intelligence in the upper class is virtually guarranteed a place in college.

I'm not advocating redistributing wealth or anything, but public schools should be funded equally everywhere, OR we should completely cut public schooling and privatize everything.  One less thing to tax on.

[dazzleman]

A poor child with average intelligence has no chance to make anything of himself.  Everyone pulls these great examples out about kids who worked their way out of poverty-but those kids are probably extremely intelligent.  A child of average intelligence in the upper class is virtually guarranteed a place in college.

I'm not advocating redistributing wealth or anything, but public schools should be funded equally everywhere, OR we should completely cut public schooling and privatize everything.  One less thing to tax on.

I wish the answer to good education were as easy as equal funding.  In my liberal state (Connecticut), the state gives massive amounts of money to poor districts.  The city of Hartford spends more per student on education than most of the wealthy towns in the state.

And yet the results are absolutely dismal.  There is a lot more at work here than just money.  Dysfunctional or non-existent family structure, which is prevalent in the urban areas particularly, takes a huge toll on education.  The schools cannot function without some support from the home, and this is just not forthcoming in many of the poor communities.

The answer is to provide an alternative to poor children living in areas with failing schools.  The only thing that can work is to remove them from the toxic environment in which they live, but to do this it will be necessary to separate the kids in poor communities who want an education, and whose families are supportive of education, from those who aren't interested in education and only go to school to cause problems.  This will require abandoning some of our politically correct notions about the poor, so I don't expect to see it happen soon.