I was born in poverty.
I was raised in poverty.
I did not like poverty.
So I left poverty.......................
Do these impoverished have $100 shoes? color TV’s? cable? microwave ovens? What is their definition of “poverty”?
Socio-economic status is one of the prime predictors of IQ.
The behaviors associated with lower IQ are those that tend to promote and sustain poverty.
Particularly with a statist support system that removes the necessity of one being at all responsible for one’s basic survival.
I think the persistence of government intervention, instead of charitable private sectors (like the church), cause poverty’s persistence. To oversimplify, charitable private sector entities would teach a man to fish and give him a few fish to get him started, whereas the government just delivers them for free without any helpful lesson attached. The real problem, then, is the inactivity of the non-poverty stricken in those charitable entities that would help. If it’s Uncle Sam’s job, why should the even bother?
Welfare is a drug that is more addictive than meth.
some figure there is no way out
some are just plain lazy
some dont know any better
some just blame others
I find my tagline is the best answer to this question.
IMAGINE GETTING A bee sting; then imagine getting six more.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Imagine standing there and continuing to allow yourself to be stung.
Imagine running away as fast as you can after the first time you were stung.
The poor are usually troubled by lower IQ’s, lower impulse control and, well, after those two burdens they are also born into a lousy neighborhood where everyone they know is a lowlife and that becomes the accepted way to live.
Let's see. I'm not an expert but I'm guessing that if poor people stayed in school, refrained from having children while in their teens, steered clear of drugs, didn't break the law, saved extra money and went to work, they'd probably move out of poverty.
In short, poverty exists because of the choices made by those who are poor. As has been said, the rich could give all their money to the poor and in ten years the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor.
Overall, the article read well - until the end.
He’s got recommendations, but where are the metrics by which we can judge success?
We need metric descriptions, along with a baseline by which we can judge the effects of changes.
Usually, when I do not see metrics discussed, my “liberal warning” light goes on. Libs don’t like numbers, unless they fake things (aka climate change).
Here’s my thought, although it’s aimed more at the working poor I think.
Poverty and the inherent chronic stress associated with it cause the brain’s wetware to change significantly. Similar to abuse, I think it leads to learned helplessness, which I see as similar to my biological idea. Countless studies have backed up the effects of stress on the brain.
The good news is that the brain is quite resilient and none of the changes are permanent. One write-up (on rats, but still) found that chronically stressed rats (who were acting out in inappropriate ways) had their behavior change in as little as four weeks.
This of course all interacts with general temperament and outlook, as well as other environmental factors.
So, now my very personal take on the above... I believe that given the mix I noted in the previous paragraph, it is hard to determine what, if anything at all would at all work for most people.
Perhaps some are helped by good role models, others by a lucky break, others by a caring person, etc. I do think that what is needed cannot be provided by government, but rather by society. Can we as a society do it? I’m not really sure.
I found the best reason for this disparity, believe it or not, just yesterday in an Op-Ed. I've not had a chance to chase down the study and see if it's valid. Makes as much sense as anything, though. In a nutshell, much of the issues in society today stem from a lack of two-parent households.
The money quote in the Op-Ed is thus: "In (Ann Coulter's) latest book, "Guilty," she writes that, "Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers." Coulter cites a 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute which found that, "after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared."
That's a pretty amazing statistic, and I'm unsure why more people haven't chased it down. Of course, it would skewer a couple of sacred cows - namely race and single mothers - so that might be why. Wouldn't want to risk the wrath of the Great Oprah.
OpEd is here. http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/08/20/article/charles_davenport_too_many_fatherless_children
Poverty in the US means you have (on average): two color TVs, a home with heat, phone, cable, electricity and hot and cold running water, two cars (per family), and food on the table every day.
Yes, one of the best indicators of individual intelligence is economic status; however, the democrats in the House and Senate appear to be blowing the curve.
Are they sitting outside their mudhut, face covered with flies, no power, no running water, no food, waiting for a truck to come by to throw them a bag of corn?
Or do they have a Section-8 apartment, utility stipend, food stamps, new shoes, x-box, cable tv?
There will always be a bottom 10% and none of them live in America
Sorry. I could only read the first page.
To read any more from these Ivy League idiots who know NOTHING about why the poor are poor would make me puke.
My grandparents believed that hard work and education (even self-education) would take them and their children out of poverty. They never believed they were victims (”stop your bloody blubbering” was the family catch phrase), and they believed that anything was possible in America.
Today, kids are told to feel sorry for themselves, that the deck is stacked against them, that America is a place filled with discrimination that only affords breaks to the rich. With such loser mentality preached at them from the cradle, what hope do they have to advance? With no hope, drugs, sex and gangs are what they turn to.
I think in some cases, it’s a “beat a dog down enough and he’ll stay down”. I don’t know why exactly it happens, but it does happen. I have an aunt in this situation - always has the “what’s the use in trying?” attitude.
It’s an old theory, I’ve seen it efore, can’t say where.
the writer has no statistics and no proof tyo back up anything he says.
the more of a painful...thing one has the less likely to do anything about any one problem...’
No proof to back that up. It’s just a statement of theory. Not even theory -— a random thought.
Also says, ‘the more we have of (something) the less any additional unit means...’ Not true. Author has no statistics and no proof.
We are in a serious drought here and I have two horses and a stack of hay bales and every one of those bales means a lot to me.
At any rate, it’s just a poke at conservatives saying people should work for their welfare...or just work.
People can get out of poverty by being surrounded by others, and a culture, of a work ethic.
Another point -— what’s poverty? I know a lot of people who romanticize the Native Americans, but look at how they lived on the plains for instance. Open fires to cook on, made their own clothes, no air conditioning, walked or rode everywhere, etc. etc. Young men were encouraged to endure cold, hunger and thirst. We would call that extreme poverty.
My answer would be, culture is everything. Short of outright starvation, your culture rewards or discourages all you do.
