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?
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.
They don't have the opportunity.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?
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.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?
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."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."
They 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.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.
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.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.
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 see it as a system that allows for any individual to attain the same result as any other which I think we have.
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.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.
It is arguable for many, if not most, 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.
When poor people are just as likely to succeed as rich people, then the playing field will have been leveled.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rags to riches stories are exceptions. Exceptions do not explain the rule. I'm talking about the role.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
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.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 don't absolve anybody of being responsible for the things they have control over so this doesn't apply to my argument.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.
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.That is PRECISELY why some people are successful and others are not. Successful people take responsibility for their lives, no matter the circumstances.
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.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.
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..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?
It is possible. That's what's happening with all those exceptions you and others keep talking about.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?