Posted on 11/22/2004 5:48:16 AM PST by 68skylark
Really cool idea. It really matters where you "dump" the person for starters. Playing the game in NYC is a whole other story from playing it in St. Louis.
In real life, though, very few people start out literally with *nothing.* People in high school can start working when they're 16 (if they can stay off drugs, keep their jeans zipped, and get up in the morning.) That gives them two years to save money. Even if they only save $500, that's enough to get them moved in to a cheap and humble living situation.
Besides, people who are truly *that* poor in real life are eligible for a *host* of bennies our kids aren't - like free college, grants, low-cost loans, etc.
But the game does sound like a good idea. Those who spend the least money are going to win - and it takes some skill to know how to do that. What it comes down to is culture. It always does.
It can also mean living at home with your parents for a few years while saving money.
It depends on the city, of course. In a medium or low cost of living city like St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City, etc. it is eminently do-able.
Remember what Hobbes said to Calvin:
"Don't take it so hard. Humans provide some very important protein."
I recall Dinesh D'Sousa's book "Letters to a Young Republican" where he mentions a very similar statement. D'Sousa attributes it to someone from his country of India remarking to him in a letter why he wanted to come to America; because he always wanted to see fat poor people.
I'd be curious to see which was attributed first.
Poverty statistics are a sham. What qualifies as "poor" in the USA is considered solidly middle class in Europe, and wealthy in many other parts of the world. Nobody starves to death in the USA, except in cases of extreme parental neglect.
On a side note, whose responsibility is it to help the poor? If they truly can't help themselves, private charities are infinitely better equipped to address the problem than the public sector. Certainly the trillions of dollars thrown at the problem by the government have yielded little tangible result. As P.J. O'Rourke might say "It's the wrong tool for the job. You're trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball-pein hammer."
Exactly - and why thinking people on the left can't see the obvious correlations really frustrates me. If you line up a list that ranks the countries on this planet by their level of economic freedom and lowest tax burdens, there is almost a direct one-to-one correlation with a list that ranks countries by highest standard of living and lowest poverty rates.
Just look at Ireland. Almost immediately after instituting true free market reforms and massive tax relief it has become one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and their poverty rate is dropping exactly as you'd expect.
Or to go even further back, just look at the controlled scienific experiments of East and West Germany, or North and South Korea. What wonders the benevolence of "the state" has wrought...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287451/posts
I don't know why the left hates freedom and prosperity so much. (Well, I got a few hunches.) I'm just thankful that 51% of the voters don't seem to agree with them -- for now.
That really is amazing. I had never heard that version of Pilgrim history. Learn something new every day on Free Republic...
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.