• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Opportunities for success and the poor

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd like to start a discussion the the following topic: Does the fact that children of the poor are more likely to stay poor as adults mean that they do not have the same opportunity to succeed or does it mean that they are just less likely to take advantage of the opportunity that is available? The essential point of this question is to ascertain whether the undeniable fact that it is difficult for subsequent generations to get out of poverty in this country (and everywhere I imagine) is due to the system itself or cultural differences or, as is more likely, some combination of both.

I, and others that are like-minded, have a hard time agreeing with the idea that the educational system itself does not allow the opportunity to succeed despite economical class. We have public school that is entirely free and available to all (even illegal immigrants) all the way to 12th grade in every area of this country to the best of my knowledge. We have federally backed grants and loans so that anyone can go to a college, maybe not any college, but a college that is affordable and will offer a decent education. So I ask this, being that there is truly no way to prevent someone who is more wealthy from having more advantages compared to a poor child since money can procure so many opportunities and there is no way in a capitalist society to not have some wealth disparity, how could any system be designed to that a poor child isn't at least in some way disadvantaged compared to his wealthy counterpart? Is our system not, in truth, already providing for every child the CHANCE to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,462
Reaction score
37,741
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It takes more than a "remote opportunity" to get the required benefit from a decent free K-12 education. Absent an environment that not only allows but encourages taking that opportunity seriously one is likely to take it easy, blow off trying to learn anything and just play. If sitting still, paying attention, obeying authority and accepting that effort on your part is required to succeed at nearly anything then public school may be quite a drastic change from your home environment. Morons beget morons.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
34,874
Reaction score
7,097
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd like to start a discussion the the following topic: Does the fact that children of the poor are more likely to stay poor as adults mean that they do not have the same opportunity to succeed or does it mean that they are just less likely to take advantage of the opportunity that is available? The essential point of this question is to ascertain whether the undeniable fact that it is difficult for subsequent generations to get out of poverty in this country (and everywhere I imagine) is due to the system itself or cultural differences or, as is more likely, some combination of both.

I, and others that are like-minded, have a hard time agreeing with the idea that the educational system itself does not allow the opportunity to succeed despite economical class. We have public school that is entirely free and available to all (even illegal immigrants) all the way to 12th grade in every area of this country to the best of my knowledge. We have federally backed grants and loans so that anyone can go to a college, maybe not any college, but a college that is affordable and will offer a decent education. So I ask this, being that there is truly no way to prevent someone who is more wealthy from having more advantages compared to a poor child since money can procure so many opportunities and there is no way in a capitalist society to not have some wealth disparity, how could any system be designed to that a poor child isn't at least in some way disadvantaged compared to his wealthy counterpart? Is our system not, in truth, already providing for every child the CHANCE to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so?
"The Poor" is such an unclear section of society that it's almost meaningless.

That said, there are jobs that take no experience that pay $50K per year and they are plentiful, but demanding.

What they do require is a willingness to work very hard and work long hours and show up every day.

These are things that many of the poor cannot or will not do.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the problem of poverty begetting poverty is a simple problem without a simple solution. Parents and peers basically teach children everything they know about the world and when a child is raised by parents who's thinking and actions resulted in a life of poverty, the child's life management and decision making skills are going to be less sharp than children with better role models. And since neighborhoods tend to be very homogenous economically, there may not be better role models among their peer groups.

This doesn't mean that children can't snap out of it and take their lives into their own hands and, through sheer will and determination, learn all the things that they should have learned naturally from parents and then start making good decisions and creating opportunities for themselves. They can do this. It's just not as easy as it is for other kids. When you grow up impoverished and in a dysfunctional family, you may have no idea what success is or how it's reached. You can believe it's something only other people are capable of or that "the man" is holding you down. Or you could be one of the whackos believing some mystic group like the illumanati control everyone's future and wouldn't let you into the "big time", anyway.

So fixing it would require changing minds. That makes it damned near impossible because people are stubborn and many cling to ignorance like a security blanket. How do you provide an antidote to the intellectual poison these children are being fed? That's the real challenge.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the problem of poverty begetting poverty is a simple problem without a
simple solution. Parents and peers basically teach children everything they know about the world and when a child is raised by parents who's thinking and actions resulted in a life of poverty, the child's life management and decision making skills are going to be less sharp than children with better role models. And since neighborhoods tend to be very homogenous economically, there may not be better role models among their peer groups.

This doesn't mean that children can't snap out of it and take their lives into their own hands and, through sheer will and determination, learn all the things that they should have learned naturally from parents and then start making good decisions and creating opportunities for themselves. They can do this. It's just not as easy as it is for other kids. When you grow up impoverished and in a dysfunctional family, you may have no idea what success is or how it's reached. You can believe it's something only other people are capable of or that "the man" is holding you down. Or you could be one of the whackos believing some mystic group like the illumanati control everyone's future and wouldn't let you into the "big time", anyway.

So fixing it would require changing minds. That makes it damned near impossible because people are stubborn and many cling to ignorance like a security blanket. How do you provide an antidote to the intellectual poison these children are being fed? That's the real challenge.
Agreed.

It's not just money that the more economically stable families have to offer as a advantage.

In fact I would say money isn't even the primary advantage offered.

Parents with degrees raise children with higher standards who have the benefit of wisdom passed on.

When I was growing up it was understood I would maintain a certain GPA and it was understood my education wasn't goimg to stop at High School.

To the point of having my Parents start the discussion of University Choices when I was a Sophmore in High School.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does the fact that children of the poor are more likely to stay poor as adults mean that they do not have the same opportunity to succeed or does it mean that they are just less likely to take advantage of the opportunity that is available?
They don't have the opportunity.

So I ask this, being that there is truly no way to prevent someone who is more wealthy from having more advantages compared to a poor child since money can procure so many opportunities and there is no way in a capitalist society to not have some wealth disparity, how could any system be designed to that a poor child isn't at least in some way disadvantaged compared to his wealthy counterpart?
I don't know that such a system can be designed or should be designed. The "system" should level the playing field enough to give as many poor kids as possible a real shot at success.

Is our system not, in truth, already providing for every child the CHANCE to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so?
No, our system is not already providing for every child the chance to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so. Our education system does not, as a whole, adequately address the disadvantages that poor students tend to come to school with. There are not nearly enough reading specialists to work with students who enter school with less experience being read to and practicing at home. There are not nearly enough counseling programs to deal with kids who grow up seeing violence, drug use/deals, prostitution and other issues. There is just not enough for many poor students to make their success or failure merely a product of their "will" or "merits."
 

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, our system is not already providing for every child the chance to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so. Our education system does not, as a whole, adequately address the disadvantages that poor students tend to come to school with. There are not nearly enough reading specialists to work with students who enter school with less experience being read to and practicing at home. There are not nearly enough counseling programs to deal with kids who grow up seeing violence, drug use/deals, prostitution and other issues. There is just not enough for many poor students to make their success or failure merely a product of their "will" or "merits."
Well, when I think of a system that is "fair", I don't think of one that levels the playing field in the sense that it makes up for one's disadvantages and tempers the advantages of another. I see it as a system that allows for any individual to attain the same result as any other which I think we have. I don't discount anything that you say to be true. I agree 100% minus the fact that every child does not have the chance to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so. Even if a person is less likely to succeed because of his socioeconomic background, it does not mean he does not have the CHANCE to succeed. Do the poor tend to have more challenges? Of course. No one is disputing that, but as to whether they have the CHANCE to succeed in our system? I don't think that is arguable. The question of whether we can do a better job of giving them better odds at succeeding is also, I believe, not arguable. So I guess the point we must see if we can agree on is whether a playing field is "level" if it all people in it can achieve the same result or if they must have equal or close to equal probability of success for it to be "level". Once that point is agreed upon, I will endeavor to address whether it is then right or even possible to try to make the odds of success close to equal between the poor and the wealthy.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
They don't have the opportunity.
I think it should be obvious at face value that this statement cannot be true. There are too many examples of people growing up in poverty and making something of themselves to glibly claim that the impoverished don't have the opportunity.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think it should be obvious at face value that this statement cannot be true. There are too many examples of people growing up in poverty and making something of themselves to glibly claim that the impoverished don't have the opportunity.
You're talking about exceptions to the rule. I'm talking about the rule. In my opinion, the rule is that the reason such children are more likely to stay in poverty is because they have less opportunity. The children who do have the opportunity are exceptions.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're talking about exceptions to the rule. I'm talking about the rule. In my opinion, the rule is that the reason such children are more likely to stay in poverty is because they have less opportunity. The children who do have the opportunity are exceptions.
Let me try this from another angle, then, since the head-on approach didn't work with you. What, precisely, accounts for this "opportunity void"?

They have school grades 1-12 available for free.

They can seek scholarships and grants and shool loans for college.

There is no place on any application I've ever seen that says "state your parents' income when you were growing up.

I grew up in poverty and I still don't get the notion that growing up in poverty means you have no opportunity. So please explain that to me.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, when I think of a system that is "fair", I don't think of one that levels the playing field in the sense that it makes up for one's disadvantages and tempers the advantages of another.
I don't think anybody's advantages should be "tempered", but I certainly think a system should make up for certain disadvantages. When poor students are more likely to come into school with less experience reading, then the system needs to make up for that deficiency. When poor students come into school with psychological issues that result from being around violence, drugs and prostitution, counseling services need to be there to help them so that they can focus in school. When poor students come into school unaware of the opportunities that exist for them outside their neighborhood, then field trips need to be organized to give them something to look forward too outside the limited opportunities in their areas.

I see it as a system that allows for any individual to attain the same result as any other which I think we have.
No, we don't have that system. Come to Chicago and do a thorough study of how its poor schools are treated in comparison to rich kid schools and you'll understand. That said, it's not really possible to have that system completely allows everyone to attain the same results because people - no matter how many advantages they have - are different and thus aren't all capable of attaining the same results.

I don't discount anything that you say to be true. I agree 100% minus the fact that every child does not have the chance to succeed if he has the will and merits to do so. Even if a person is less likely to succeed because of his socioeconomic background, it does not mean he does not have the CHANCE to succeed.
Nobody succeeds because of one chance so one chance isn't going to do much for anybody. People succeed because a variety of influences in the life come together to lead them to success. Rich people are most likely to have those influences - then middle class people - then poor people.

Do the poor tend to have more challenges? Of course. No one is disputing that, but as to whether they have the CHANCE to succeed in our system? I don't think that is arguable.
It is arguable for many, if not most, poor people.

The question of whether we can do a better job of giving them better odds at succeeding is also, I believe, not arguable. So I guess the point we must see if we can agree on is whether a playing field is "level" if it all people in it can achieve the same result or if they must have equal or close to equal probability of success for it to be "level". Once that point is agreed upon, I will endeavor to address whether it is then right or even possible to try to make the odds of success close to equal between the poor and the wealthy.
When poor people are just as likely to succeed as rich people, then the playing field will have been leveled.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me try this from another angle, then, since the head-on approach didn't work with you.
Actually, what's happening is that we're disagreeing. It's not that something "didn't work with me." Learn how to respect disagreement and then come back, but I'm not going to debate someone who thinks that me thinking differently than him is a symptom of something not "working." That's a brick wall.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually, what's happening is that we're disagreeing. It's not that something "didn't work with me." Learn how to respect disagreement and then come back, but I'm not going to debate someone who thinks that me thinking differently than him is a symptom of something not "working." That's a brick wall.
You made a statement. I asked you to explain how it could be true by offering you examples to prove it wasn't. You are sticking to your statement, anyway, even though there is no factual basis for it...

Yep, that's a disagreement of the brick wall variety. OK. I can accept that.
 

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Nobody succeeds because of one chance so one chance isn't going to do much for anybody. People succeed because a variety of influences in the life come together to lead them to success. Rich people are most likely to have those influences - then middle class people - then poor people.


It is arguable for many, if not most, poor people.


When poor people are just as likely to succeed as rich people, then the playing field will have been leveled.
Okay. So we have established that we disagree on the definition of a level playing field. That is fine. I understand your point of view. Now, we will move on to the question of if we can or if we should make it a goal for poor people to be just as likely to succeed as the rich. I will emphatically state that it is absolutely impossible to create such a system. As you have stated the disadvantages of the poor goes far beyond a lack of money. If this is true, then logically, the reverse must also be true. The advantages of the affluent go far beyond their financial resources. You will agree with this, I'm sure. Given this disparity, how then could it be possible to level the playing field, in your definition? Counseling services will not make up for good parenting and role models or alleviate the stress of being in dangerous or unfit homes. Field trips will not make up for having an expectation of attaining education and independence that goes back generations. Why set unattainable goals? As is typically the case with people who advocate personal responsibility arguing with people who advocate social responsibility (not saying one is more right than another, lets not start that debate all over;) ), we just fundamentally disagree about what "fair" means. When it comes to poor people being at a disadvantage as far as likeliness to succeed goes, I feel that falls under the category of "life is not fair". Now, though I may not believe it is possible or necessarily a responsibility of society to level the playing field in your definition, I do agree we could and should do more to make sure the poor have an easier path out of poverty. I think this is both a moral and a pragmatic aim, but a very tough one to achieve.
 

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You're talking about exceptions to the rule. I'm talking about the rule. In my opinion, the rule is that the reason such children are more likely to stay in poverty is because they have less opportunity. The children who do have the opportunity are exceptions.
The saying the exception that proves the rule is a platitude often misused. If there are children who against all the odds succeed, then the only "rule" that exists is that the opportunity exists for people to make their way out of poverty in our current system. I only wish to make this point because I think it is imperative, if we are to improve the chances of the poor to make their way out of poverty, we cannot keep absolving them of responsibility for their own lives. That is PRECISELY why some people are successful and others are not. Successful people take responsibility for their lives, no matter the circumstances. You can't help who your parents are or where you are born, but you can help how you take advantage of the resources that are in your control and, in our system, completely available to everyone. I think telling poor children that they CAN'T make it out of poverty in our system is part of the problem, do you not? We need to be telling them that they CAN if they do the things required of them.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The saying the exception that proves the rule is a platitude often misused. If there are children who against all the odds succeed, then the only "rule" that exists is that the opportunity exists for people to make their way out of poverty in our current system. I only wish to make this point because I think it is imperative, if we are to improve the chances of the poor to make their way out of poverty, we cannot keep absolving them of responsibility for their own lives. That is PRECISELY why some people are successful and others are not. Successful people take responsibility for their lives, no matter the circumstances. You can't help who your parents are or where you are born, but you can help how you take advantage of the resources that are in your control and, in our system, completely available to everyone. I think telling poor children that they CAN'T make it out of poverty in our system is part of the problem, do you not? We need to be telling them that they CAN if they do the things required of them.

I agree completely with this. I think the biggest thing holding "the impoverished" back is the fact that they bought into the meme that they can't get ahead no matter how hard they try and so don't try. And people that feed this meme are guilty of helping to hold them back.

Those that do try find that they have the opportunity to pursue any goal. Sports star, actor, computer programmer, president of the United States, Lawyer, Doctor, Scientist..... Many people rose from poverty to these positions in this country. But if you believe it's not possible to the point where you won't even try, your negative prophecy is one that is self-fulfilled.
 
Last edited:

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
34,874
Reaction score
7,097
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You're talking about exceptions to the rule. I'm talking about the rule. In my opinion, the rule is that the reason such children are more likely to stay in poverty is because they have less opportunity. The children who do have the opportunity are exceptions.


The opportunity you say they do not have is actually just missed opportunity.

The kids who miss this opportunity due to to having been born in the wrong place at the wrong time are just plain screwed and no amount of help from outside will ever make it inside.

They have a better chance than the kids born in Somalia who live at the pleasure of the local warlord and walk barefoot across the desolate desert to find meager rations on which to subsist.

However, they are raised to despise and suspect anyone who could help them out of poverty and are not equipped to find the opportunity that is before them. For this pursuit, they might as well be in Somalia.

It is a tragedy that their lives are wasted, in most cases, before they ever get started. Unless and until they are taught from birth that they can do it, they will always accept their from birth teachings that they cannot.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't think anybody's advantages should be "tempered", but I certainly think a system should make up for certain disadvantages. When poor students are more likely to come into school with less experience reading, then the system needs to make up for that deficiency. When poor students come into school with psychological issues that result from being around violence, drugs and prostitution, counseling services need to be there to help them so that they can focus in school. When poor students come into school unaware of the opportunities that exist for them outside their neighborhood, then field trips need to be organized to give them something to look forward too outside the limited opportunities in their areas.


No, we don't have that system. Come to Chicago and do a thorough study of how its poor schools are treated in comparison to rich kid schools and you'll understand. That said, it's not really possible to have that system completely allows everyone to attain the same results because people - no matter how many advantages they have - are different and thus aren't all capable of attaining the same results.


Nobody succeeds because of one chance so one chance isn't going to do much for anybody. People succeed because a variety of influences in the life come together to lead them to success. Rich people are most likely to have those influences - then middle class people - then poor people.


It is arguable for many, if not most, poor people.


When poor people are just as likely to succeed as rich people, then the playing field will have been leveled.

there are to many examples of rags to riches stories out there to discredit all of your arguments. just this morning a segment on a morning news show was about a fellow who started out as a Dominos Pizza delivery man and now owns over a Dozen Dominos Pizza restaurants, It wasn't because of his education it was because he saw what he wanted worked hard and saved to buy his first franchise he tolled the dice he took chance and he succeeded. Most if not all self made millionaires didn't become that way because of a higher education that got where they are because they had the right work ethics they saved their money took a chance and rolled the dice

Liberalism teaches kids to just hold their hand out and expect for it to be filled.

I will give you an example where i worked we hired a group of young students during the summer and most didn't work worth a dam. i confronted one and asked why his production sucked and his reply was "if you paid me more i would work harder" i told him "you have it all wrong it is the other way around. you show me you can work hard make the company some money and then you would earn more". this attitude is what liberalism has taught kids these days
 

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
To say that all kids need to do is to buck up and work is the same as pretending that economic conditions don't even factor into success and opportunity. That view is exactly what's making conservatives so utterly laughable in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans who actually do struggle for a living--you might as well saying there's no such thing as an economy.

Not that that makes their observations completely wrong. It's mostly a generational issue. Parents in the current generation grew up in economic prosperity, and then raising their kids told them to follow their dreams, that they could do anything. The culture of success that grew up in the previous generation, combined with deteriorating public school standards, has made the current generation less suited for success when the going actually gets tough--which in our current economy, it certainly has.

The exception? All the chinese and japanese families I know has their kids through college and now working high-paying jobs. Some cultures never forgot what it meant to work.

Economic issues are a matter of proper governance. Cultural issues are a lesson for the next generation of parents. I'm certainly not going to let my kids off as easy as I got it, but to say it's all the fault of those who can't cut it is completely lacking any sense of reality. Anyone who claims there's as much opportunity as there was 30, 20, 10, or even 6 years ago is nothing but willfully ignorant.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It depends on the individual. Time for another true story. I had an employee once, a black woman, who was born and raised in abject poverty at Cabrini Green, a rough and tumble Chicago housing project. She attended inner city public schools. But unlike most of those with whom she grew up, she wanted more and she sent herself to college and evenutally earned an MS degree in mechanical engineering. I don't know what the odds are of that happening. Probably they are slim but this woman beat those odds through pure will and hard work. I became godfather to her son. I don't know of anyone I've ever met that I admire more. It can be done. It may take an exceptional person but it can be done.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
there are to many examples of rags to riches stories out there to discredit all of your arguments. just this morning a segment on a morning news show was about a fellow who started out as a Dominos Pizza delivery man and now owns over a Dozen Dominos Pizza restaurants, It wasn't because of his education it was because he saw what he wanted worked hard and saved to buy his first franchise he tolled the dice he took chance and he succeeded. Most if not all self made millionaires didn't become that way because of a higher education that got where they are because they had the right work ethics they saved their money took a chance and rolled the dice

Liberalism teaches kids to just hold their hand out and expect for it to be filled.

I will give you an example where i worked we hired a group of young students during the summer and most didn't work worth a dam. i confronted one and asked why his production sucked and his reply was "if you paid me more i would work harder" i told him "you have it all wrong it is the other way around. you show me you can work hard make the company some money and then you would earn more". this attitude is what liberalism has taught kids these days
Rags to riches stories are exceptions. Exceptions do not explain the rule. I'm talking about the role.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The saying the exception that proves the rule is a platitude often misused. If there are children who against all the odds succeed, then the only "rule" that exists is that the opportunity exists for people to make their way out of poverty in our current system.
No, exceptions do not explain patterns. Exceptions happen when an element that isn't present in the pattern influences the person to succeed. The rule is that poor kids don't have the opportunities. Kids who make it out of poverty break the rule because they get the opportunities that kids who don't make it out poverty didn't get.

I only wish to make this point because I think it is imperative, if we are to improve the chances of the poor to make their way out of poverty, we cannot keep absolving them of responsibility for their own lives.
I don't absolve anybody of being responsible for the things they have control over so this doesn't apply to my argument.

That is PRECISELY why some people are successful and others are not. Successful people take responsibility for their lives, no matter the circumstances.
Plenty of poor people "take responsibility for their lives" so if you're equating being poor with not having personal responsibility all you're doing is perpetuating stale stereotypes about people in poverty.

You can't help who your parents are or where you are born, but you can help how you take advantage of the resources that are in your control and, in our system, completely available to everyone. I think telling poor children that they CAN'T make it out of poverty in our system is part of the problem, do you not? We need to be telling them that they CAN if they do the things required of them.
1. How do you know that kids born into poverty who stay in poverty didn't take advantage of the resources they knew about? You're making a lot of assumptions.
2. I'm not telling anybody they can't make it out of poverty.
3. Actually, we need to give them the opportunities they need to succeed. Words are meaningless. Telling people "you can do it" is a lazy person's approach to dealing with kids in poverty.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Given this disparity, how then could it be possible to level the playing field, in your definition? Counseling services will not make up for good parenting and role models or alleviate the stress of being in dangerous or unfit homes. Field trips will not make up for having an expectation of attaining education and independence that goes back generations. Why set unattainable goals?
Counseling services aren't supposed to make up for good parenting, et al.. Field trips are not supposed to make up for having an expectation of attaining education, et al..

As is typically the case with people who advocate personal responsibility arguing with people who advocate social responsibility (not saying one is more right than another, lets not start that debate all over;) ), we just fundamentally disagree about what "fair" means. When it comes to poor people being at a disadvantage as far as likeliness to succeed goes, I feel that falls under the category of "life is not fair". Now, though I may not believe it is possible or necessarily a responsibility of society to level the playing field in your definition, I do agree we could and should do more to make sure the poor have an easier path out of poverty. I think this is both a moral and a pragmatic aim, but a very tough one to achieve.
It is possible. That's what's happening with all those exceptions you and others keep talking about.
 

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, exceptions do not explain patterns. Exceptions happen when an element that isn't present in the pattern influences the person to succeed. The rule is that poor kids don't have the opportunities. Kids who make it out of poverty break the rule because they get the opportunities that kids who don't make it out poverty didn't get.


I don't absolve anybody of being responsible for the things they have control over so this doesn't apply to my argument.

Plenty of poor people "take responsibility for their lives" so if you're equating being poor with not having personal responsibility all you're doing is perpetuating stale stereotypes about people in poverty.


1. How do you know that kids born into poverty who stay in poverty didn't take advantage of the resources they knew about? You're making a lot of assumptions.
2. I'm not telling anybody they can't make it out of poverty.
3. Actually, we need to give them the opportunities they need to succeed. Words are meaningless. Telling people "you can do it" is a lazy person's approach to dealing with kids in poverty.
1. How do I know that they don't take advantage of the resources available to them? Because of high school drop out rates, college attendance rates, teenage pregnancy rates, and crime rates of impoverished youth. Taking advantage of them means using them and using them means GOING TO SCHOOL and not doing something like have a baby (which is voluntary) or committing crimes (which is, though I imagine you'll disagree) voluntary unless you are starving to death. How do I know? Because I have cousins who are teachers in destitute areas who
2. How are you not telling anyone they can't make it out of poverty when you say the rule is that poor kids don't have opportunities to make it out of poverty not 50 words before? And how do you see this as more helpful than telling them they CAN make it out of poverty.
3. How do you give someone opportunities to succeed when you already give them access to high school, after school development programs, free breakfast and lunches, grants and loans for college, and access to social workers? When are you going to understand that you can't always get more by doing more? At some point, its up to the individual to help himself. I'm trying not to argue with you from an ideological standpoint, but from a pragmatic one. You can't force a child to learn no matter what you believe. We have "standards" in place that are supposed to prevent people from ending up in high school illiterate and unable to do math but it still happens A LOT. Please tell me in specifics how you would improve their chance at getting out of poverty. I think we've debated ideology long enough.

Also, I hope you can understand the difference between advocating a person take personal responsibility for their actions and ME blaming them for their actions. In advocating a person to take responsibility for their lives, I do not myself blame them for anything. I am asking them to look at their own actions and see that they have control over what they are doing. Some things they may be able to blame themselves for, but in the same vane, if it can be your fault, it means its something you can change through your actions.

Heres how I would hope to address this problems:

1. Make a work OPTION (not requirement) for welfare that progressively scales out with a higher income so that a person taking a job or getting a better paying job NEVER results in them effectually having less money. I would even venture to say we should provide jobs for people who truly wish to work but cannot find it, but this is a completely separate debate on that issue alone.

2. Change the earned income tax credit so it doesn't again penalize people for getting better paying jobs and so it also ENCOURAGES marriage, not discourages it.

3. Provide low income earners access to either subsidized or government provided child care. If its government provided, teach the kids to read while you have them.

4. Lets add something to social studies in the 7th or 8th grade that teaches kids the statistics on how important education is to future success. Show them how x % of people who get college degrees make it into the middle class and how y % of people who drop out of high school or have babies at 15 stay or become impoverished.

5. I would love it if we could adopt a system like Germany has where you have your college tract in high school and, if you know you aren't going to college, you can opt to start learning a trade. What use is trigonometry to someone whos going to be a manual laborer all his life?

I believe solving the problem of the children begins with encouraging the parent to be more self sufficient. I do not at all oppose a little wealth redistribution given the huge wealth disparity in this country if it is done so that it DISCOURAGES and not, as it does now, ENCOURAGES the kind of behaviors that guarantee someone will stay in poverty the rest of their lives like having babies, never marrying, and not trying to attain higher paying work.
 

vash1012

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Counseling services aren't supposed to make up for good parenting, et al.. Field trips are not supposed to make up for having an expectation of attaining education, et al..


It is possible. That's what's happening with all those exceptions you and others keep talking about.
Again, I am trying to speak to you pragmatically, not ideologically. If services you can offer to impoverished children can't make up for the advantages given to affluent students, how then is it possible to give them the same opportunity to succeed?
 
Top Bottom