<
Posted on 12/26/2013 6:46:14 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On Thanksgiving eve, a Nicholas Kristof editorial instructed us on how to think about poverty in The New York Times. The main reason there is poverty, he tells us, is bad luck.
We don’t choose our parents, after all. Or the household or neighborhood we are born into. Here are a few of his observations, with my emphasis added:
“As Warren Buffett puts it, our life outcomes often depend on the ‘ovarian lottery.‘
[T]he difference between being surrounded by a loving family or being homeless on the street is determined not just by our own level of virtue or self-discipline, but also by an inextricable mix of luck, biography, brain chemistry and genetics.
[S]uccess in life is a reflection not only of enterprise and willpower, but also of random chance and early upbringing.”
So what’s the solution to this problem? It is apparently very simple: All we need is love. (Kristof’s column is actually titled “Where Is the Love?”) And just in case you are not motivated in that way, Kristof draws on the work of Harvard professor John Rawls to give a rational philosophical reason to spend more on welfare programs.
But before getting into that let’s pause for a moment. Is being born really a matter of luck? Doesn’t that take willful activity on the part of two parents? And is the inability of parents to support their children really a matter of luck? Or is it the result of bad habits and undisciplined behavior?
Let’s grant that some people do have bad luck. But bad luck usually strikes randomly. Absent hurricanes and tornados, we don’t expect misfortune to befall entire neighborhoods ― to say nothing of entire cities.
Kristof’s particular focus is on Food Stamps, given the debate in Congress over whether to cut spending on the program. So let’s concede that misfortune can cause some people to be hungry.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Poor people make poor choices...and it is nothing following the 10 Commandments can’t solve
My parents both grew up with poverty such as few in modern America can imagine - but they grew up in families, were raised with discipline and taught to work. None of the kids lived in poverty as adults.
My wife was born in the Philippines, and knew poverty greater than any American I’ve met - but she also grew up in a family. Some of her brothers are alcoholics who continue to live in poverty. If you send them money, they buy booze. But she and several of her sisters grew up as hard workers, and those sisters have all done well. A couple of brothers have also done well for themselves in the Philippines.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."
To this nation's "poor" I say (paraphrasing Sgt Barnes's great line in Full Metal Jacket) "Poverty? What do y'all know about poverty?"
I was born dirt poor in Kansas to a father who drug himself out of poor status. I did the same.
There are a lot of factors in this equations of which luck is a large one. However, I believe the main factor is education of the child. That includes parenting and schooling.
Poverty in many places is due to bad economic systems of government, or to a society where access to education or advancement is denied. My grandparents were dirt poor during the depression. One grandfather was lazy, but the other was not. Both grandmothers were hard workers. All the kids learned to work hard. The lazy grandfather also drank, but discretely - his kids usually didn’t figure it out until in their teens.
I’ve never met anyone who knew my grandparents on my Dad’s side who didn’t like and admire them. Every one of their kids grew up successful, and all of them adored their parents. But they were poor, and their Dad struggled to find work during the Great Depression. After one of my uncles died, the oldest brother felt free from his promise of silence and told the younger kids that the now-dead brother sent most of what he made during the depression years home to support his siblings getting an education. Only the parents and oldest brother knew of his sacrifice, and they all had promised not to tell.
A lot of modern poor are poor due to sin, but I’ve also hired guy to do work around my place who worked darn hard for minimal pay. They just didn’t have the skills to make more money. They are not bad guys, just guys who lack skills that will allow them to make more.
You know how schools have "foreign exchange" students? I propose "foreign exchange poor people." We bring some of those malnourished kids and families over for a year and we send them some of our fat poor for a year. Wouldn't that be interesting?
A single black mother has two children. One says she wants to do more, doesn’t get knocked up, finishes high school, moves on to college, becomes a professional. Sister gets knocked up at 16, keeps it, has another kid by 18 to get her own apartment.
One breaks the cycle of poverty, though probably helps out her mother and sister and sister’s kids. The other perpetuates the cycle of poverty.
Same womb, different outcomes because of different choices.
Two boys act up and act out as tweens. Given the choice of jail and military school, one goes to school and the other joins the military. From military school to military, one gets a good course correction and moves on to employment and a chance at a decent life. The other goes from jail to living with friends to jail to infrequent minimum wage jobs. Different choices, different outcomes.
Poor choices, amplified by laziness and lack of self-respect.
Yes.
However, my point is that, although some have more opportunity than others, that opportunity usually is accompanied by higher expectations, both internal and external.
And I don’t feel the need to wipe out “poverty”. Rather, I feel the need to wipe out hunger and disease. There are some very happy poor people and very miserable rich people.
By today’s standards, Laura Ingles’ family (Little House on the Prarie) was destitute. They wouldn’t describe it that way, though.
I was born into a family with two parents who had a "drug" problem.....................They "drug" my sorry butt to church every Sunday. (And I thank them for it.)
<
btt
really the way I see it, it’s a total crap shoot.
I have seen people born into rich families acting like complete monsters or hapless; on our block we have a daughter who inherited the house, which was formerly nice and now it is not obvious from the outside but inside is trashed.
I am familiar with people born into southern pverty, you could see through the cracks to the dirt below, who have worked their way into the upper middle class.
I have seen the daughter of a multimillionaire flake out and need electroshock therapy for mental health issues.
I have seen liars and thieves prosper and good people get ripped off.
Who knows?
Short term poverty can be bad luck, long term poverty is bad decisions.
I completely agree with your point about happiness having an inverse relationship with wealth. That has, with very few exceptions, been my observation with the humans I have known.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.