Opportunities for success and the poor

[Papa bull]

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?

I think you're confusing "opportunity" with "likelihood". The opportunity is absolutely there for them. The likelihood that they will make the right decisions to avail themselves of many opportunities is the problem. I agree that field trips and counseling services would help. Counseling and field trips and special programs can't make up for good parenting but they do at least expose a child to alternative thinking. They may or may not embrace the alternative to "ghetto-think" but at least they've been exposed to alternatives.

 

[jmotivator]

Just browse Youtube for a while and you will realize that there are a lot of people wasting their lives trying to get rich doing things they have no appreciable skill at.

 

[vash1012]

I think you're confusing "opportunity" with "likelihood". The opportunity is absolutely there for them. The likelihood that they will make the right decisions to avail themselves of many opportunities is the problem. I agree that field trips and counseling services would help. Counseling and field trips and special programs can't make up for good parenting but they do at least expose a child to alternative thinking. They may or may not embrace the alternative to "ghetto-think" but at least they've been exposed to alternatives.

I'm not confusing the two. In fact, that is essential the premise of this entire post. I'm just using the words in the context that my debate partner here is using so we don't continue to argue semantics. I hear people who side with the belief that impoverished people are impoverished due to circumstance, but I just don't see it. I dealt with the poor almost exclusively in my last job. I will never disagree that their path to a successful, easier life is not harder. It most certainly is. The children of poor parents have challenges that most people will never understand and I don't expect a child to make good decisions on their own..but when you start getting old enough to know better.. I stop letting things slide because they are challenging.

 

[vash1012]

Oh and lets legalize marijuana so we can stop putting poor kids in jail for crimes we invented.

 

[trfjr]

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.

the only variable in the equation is the person not the system
stop blaming the system and start looking at the individual

I want you to compare a person who successfully made it out of poverty and one who didn't and look for the differences between the two. if you do you will find it is the attitude and work ethics is the difference

 

[windowdressing]

compared to Sweden, France, Japan, Canada, and Australia, we have more poverty ... Anyone know why that is?

 

[Cephus]

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.

It doesn't even need to be parents with degrees. Neither of my parents had a college degree. My mother decided not to go to college to get married and my father was in the military. However, they raised two kids who did go to college and got multiple degrees. They had the expectation that their kids would go and held them to those standards regardless.

 

[Cephus]

They don't have the opportunity.

Sure they do. Whether or not they take advantage of the opportunity is their own problem.

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.

Then you need to take that up with their parents and the culture in which they live. That's what kills their chances.

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."

That's not the job of the system, that's the job of the parents.

 

[Cephus]

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.

It's a liberal thing. :roll:

 

[Cephus]

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.

It's not just that they can't get ahead, but they're taught that getting ahead is pointless because if they just sit back, the government will send them a check anyhow. Those who do try to get ahead are often seen as race traitors.

 

[Cephus]

Oh and lets legalize marijuana so we can stop putting poor kids in jail for crimes we invented.

Or they could just... you know, stop using drugs?

Nah... can't expect responsibility, can we? :roll:

 

[Fenton]

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.

A majority of Americans ?

Is that your opinion or can you quantify that ? Because as the Liberals continue to push their failed narratives and and ignore or overlook such obvious realities like money actually has less to do with a persons success than morality and ethics the "majority" of Americans will be witness to the continued failure of inner city neighborhoods and their children.

It's so extremely short sighted to define down the failurss of a sub-culture to dollars and cents.

Nearly 5 years of a failed experiment with a unqualified empty suite, 5 years of worsening economic indicators and tricky accounting from the FED and instead of admitting your failures and the failures of your ideology you construct a new narrative.

It's the rich guys fault.

How desperately pathetic. The condition of inner city neighborhoods and schools are the direct result of left wing policies and the "us vs them " narrative.

I don't remember all of this nonsense going on when Clintons tech bubble was creating new millionaires at a ever increasing rate.

 

[Diving Mullah]

compared to Sweden, France, Japan, Canada, and Australia, we have more poverty ... Anyone know why that is?

Less Social Safety Nets.

People (specially those on the right) are under assumption that providing Social safety nets is waste of tax dollars and it only perpetuates sloth and laziness. It is funny that these ides are most propagated by the Paul Ryan and Mitt Romany's of the world which in turn did use Government handouts to help them get back on their feet(It's often a repeating pattern for conservatives and GOPs crowed that all these programs are bad and a waste unless it helps them or they need it). Regardless data has shown the exact opposite.,.. for every dollar spent of social handouts we are getting $1.35 back which is actually much better investment than Stocks.

One of the underlying assumption is that people on Welfare don't wanne work. However welfare system in US is designed baby, that any work with cut the welfare. . however a single mother on Welfare working minimum job (often in big cities) won't be able to pay for child care and living expenses and work at a minimum or sub minimum pay job. So she has a choice. Get a minimum pay job and be more in debt lose her house, and be prosecuted for child endangerment or not take the minimum pay job and be on Welfare. There is no OR here!


Reagan is another great example.. At one time he decided that we should not be paying for State Own mental institutions because it cost too much, so he decided to close many and let loose the mentally ill on the public. With it, he tripled the homeless populations and with it Crimes, murder, prostitution, and crippled the Emergency facilities not to mention pandemic spread of SDs. So it ended up costing states both at federal and local level 4 to 5 times more money dealing with these problems. In a sense we burned hundreds of dollars to save a buck!


Diving Mullah

 

[vash1012]

Less Social Safety Nets.

People (specially those on the right) are under assumption that providing Social safety nets is waste of tax dollars and it only perpetuates sloth and laziness. It is funny that these ides are most propagated by the Paul Ryan and Mitt Romany's of the world which in turn did use Government handouts to help them get back on their feet(It's often a repeating pattern for conservatives and GOPs crowed that all these programs are bad and a waste unless it helps them or they need it). Regardless data has shown the exact opposite.,.. for every dollar spent of social handouts we are getting $1.35 back which is actually much better investment than Stocks.

One of the underlying assumption is that people on Welfare don't wanne work. However welfare system in US is designed baby, that any work with cut the welfare. . however a single mother on Welfare working minimum job (often in big cities) won't be able to pay for child care and living expenses and work at a minimum or sub minimum pay job. So she has a choice. Get a minimum pay job and be more in debt lose her house, and be prosecuted for child endangerment or not take the minimum pay job and be on Welfare. There is no OR here!


Reagan is another great example.. At one time he decided that we should not be paying for State Own mental institutions because it cost too much, so he decided to close many and let loose the mentally ill on the public. With it, he tripled the homeless populations and with it Crimes, murder, prostitution, and crippled the Emergency facilities not to mention pandemic spread of SDs. So it ended up costing states both at federal and local level 4 to 5 times more money dealing with these problems. In a sense we burned hundreds of dollars to save a buck!


Diving Mullah

Could you please reference this research about social hand outs for us please? I'm curious how they got those numbers and who "we" are. I 100% agree with your other two paragraphs. I don't have a problem with welfare as a system except that it discourages all the behaviors that are statistically linked to getting out of poverty (Having full time employment, marrying, and not having babies at a young age). The mental institution thing is dead on. I across the hall from my areas "mental ward" which is a few rooms in the ER that do a piss poor job helping the mentally ill. The same goes for cutting payments to primary care doctors from Medicaid. Many doctors have chosen to not see Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is so low so instead they come to the ER and we pay 5 times as much for them to have much worse care. ER doctors are not primary care doctors. They shouldn't be managing on going issues. Its not what they are trained for.

 

[vash1012]

Or they could just... you know, stop using drugs?

Nah... can't expect responsibility, can we? :roll:

You associate smoking with marijuana with being irresponsible. I don't in and of itself though doing it in public or when you have a job you might lose by smoking it it does become irresponsible. In a recent poll, 70% of people said smoking marijuana is not wrong so I don't think the public is on your side on this one. Why is smoking marijuana in and of itself irresponsible? Do you assert that smoking it when done in your own home so you can't hurt anyone else is irresponsible?

 

[Cephus]

You associate smoking with marijuana with being irresponsible. I don't in and of itself though doing it in public or when you have a job you might lose by smoking it it does become irresponsible. In a recent poll, 70% of people said smoking marijuana is not wrong so I don't think the public is on your side on this one. Why is smoking marijuana in and of itself irresponsible? Do you assert that smoking it when done in your own home so you can't hurt anyone else is irresponsible?

The desire to smoke, snort, inject or ingest any illicit substance into your body so you can feel good about yourself is inherently irresponsible. If you can't be happy without the use of drugs, you have issues.

 

[vash1012]

The desire to smoke, snort, inject or ingest any illicit substance into your body so you can feel good about yourself is inherently irresponsible. If you can't be happy without the use of drugs, you have issues.

Who says I can't be happy without the use of drugs? Did I say that somewhere? For the record, I don't use any drugs currently except alcohol. Does your argument apply to alcohol and if not, why? Would you apply your argument to antidepressants? I suppose you wouldn't take antidepressants unless you had "issues", but do you think people who do are irresponsible? Why do you draw a line at illicit substances? Do you expressly equate illegality with immorality in all situations? I draw a line at heroin, cocaine, and meth because I believe its always irresponsible to toy around with things that are physically addictive the way that those drugs are.. but when I did smoke marijuana, it certainly wasn't because I wasn't happy. I did it because it feels good. I didn't smoke it at work or while driving. I didn't do it instead of going to school. I have a doctorate and make a very nice salary in a career I intended to work in before I smoked marijuana so it certainly didn't affect my potential so what pragmatic reason do you have for your reproach? Can I inquire about your age if we are to continue this debate, just out of curiosity? To be fair, I'm 27. I've grown up in a generation that is entirely comfortable with marijuana. I can state truthfully I have met less than 5 people in the last 10 years who haven't smoked marijuana. I can also truthfully state most of the people I call my friends now only smoke marijuana occasionally since our careers usually have repercussions for doing so and the desire to smoke it in my experience wanes with age. So my experience fails to match up with your response. I see people who are quite responsible who also have smoked and occasionally still smoke marijuana. I would then conclude that, while it is possible to smoke marijuana irresponsibly, I do not believe it is inherently irresponsible or responsible to do so since it is an action done by responsible or irresponsible people alike.

 

[Cephus]

Who says I can't be happy without the use of drugs? Did I say that somewhere? For the record, I don't use any drugs currently except alcohol. Does your argument apply to alcohol and if not, why? Would you apply your argument to antidepressants? I suppose you wouldn't take antidepressants unless you had "issues", but do you think people who do are irresponsible? Why do you draw a line at illicit substances? Do you expressly equate illegality with immorality in all situations? I draw a line at heroin, cocaine, and meth because I believe its always irresponsible to toy around with things that are physically addictive the way that those drugs are.. but when I did smoke marijuana, it certainly wasn't because I wasn't happy. I did it because it feels good. I didn't smoke it at work or while driving. I didn't do it instead of going to school. I have a doctorate and make a very nice salary in a career I intended to work in before I smoked marijuana so it certainly didn't affect my potential so what pragmatic reason do you have for your reproach? Can I inquire about your age if we are to continue this debate, just out of curiosity? To be fair, I'm 27. I've grown up in a generation that is entirely comfortable with marijuana. I can state truthfully I have met less than 5 people in the last 10 years who haven't smoked marijuana. I can also truthfully state most of the people I call my friends now only smoke marijuana occasionally since our careers usually have repercussions for doing so and the desire to smoke it in my experience wanes with age. So my experience fails to match up with your response. I see people who are quite responsible who also have smoked and occasionally still smoke marijuana. I would then conclude that, while it is possible to smoke marijuana irresponsibly, I do not believe it is inherently irresponsible or responsible to do so since it is an action done by responsible or irresponsible people alike.

Actually, I would include things like alcohol and tobacco and antidepressants, mostly because we've developed an unfortunate habit in this country that if anyone ever feels down, drug the crap out of them. It's not being limited to people who are so depressed they cannot function, pretty much anyone who feels down at any point during the day can get a prescription for happy pills, pushed by the pharmaceutical companies.

Whether your experiences match mine or not is really irrelevant. I think people need to be held accountable for their actions and need to be responsible for their lives. Taking actions which try to get around those responsibilities, I'm going to see as a negative. This is especially bad if what you do has negative health and behavior repercussions, particularly if you're expecting others to pay, in full or in part, for any health treatment you require because of your choices. Then again, I never said you had to agree with me, these are just the standards that I think would vastly improve the quality of life for everyone in the U.S. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Campbell]

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.

And make no mistake about it...the inept, wealthy elite want to keep it that way so their offspring can continue to never be troubled with military service, pick the best colleges and hit the ground running. If ordinary folks with some sense and gumption ever get to play on a level playing field those folks will wilt like the last rose of summer.....and they know it.

 

[Muhammed]

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 would add that a low IQ leads to less opportunity for financial success. And that problem can only be solved with a government enforced eugenics program. However that would be ethically unacceptable in today's society.

 

[vash1012]

Actually, I would include things like alcohol and tobacco and antidepressants, mostly because we've developed an unfortunate habit in this country that if anyone ever feels down, drug the crap out of them. It's not being limited to people who are so depressed they cannot function, pretty much anyone who feels down at any point during the day can get a prescription for happy pills, pushed by the pharmaceutical companies.

Whether your experiences match mine or not is really irrelevant. I think people need to be held accountable for their actions and need to be responsible for their lives. Taking actions which try to get around those responsibilities, I'm going to see as a negative. This is especially bad if what you do has negative health and behavior repercussions, particularly if you're expecting others to pay, in full or in part, for any health treatment you require because of your choices. Then again, I never said you had to agree with me, these are just the standards that I think would vastly improve the quality of life for everyone in the U.S. Your mileage may vary.

To your first paragraph, as a pharmacist, I can emphatically state I completely agree with you though I will add that the extent to which we are "overmedicating" people with antidepressants is not as dramatic is sometimes suggested. We have an institutional and culture bias in this country towards doing SOMETHING even if it isn't rational or pragmatic. I am speaking, at this time, about medicine, but I believe this maxim applies to how we view government and policies decisions as well. We overvalue action and undervalue lifestyle changes and "wait and see" approach.

To your second paragraph, I would not disagree with a word you said. We will just have to respectfully disagree on whether it applies inherently to marijuana.

 

[Campbell]

I would add that a low IQ leads to less opportunity for financial success. And that problem can only be solved with a government enforced eugenics program. However that would be ethically unacceptable in today's society.

The average IQ is 100. There are as many born below that level as there are above. The Republicans appear to have made up their minds to ignore those under 100 and give tax breaks to the ones above. Keep on losing elections....I love it.

 

[Papa bull]

The average IQ is 100. There are as many born below that level as there are above. The Republicans appear to have made up their minds to ignore those under 100 and give tax breaks to the ones above. Keep on losing elections....I love it.

I've said for years that the democrats have a winning strategy by going after the dumbest 50 percent of the country. You can tell them anything and as long as it sounds good, you've got them eating out of your hand.

 

[fmw]

I've said for years that the democrats have a winning strategy by going after the dumbest 50 percent of the country. You can tell them anything and as long as it sounds good, you've got them eating out of your hand.

The ultimate winning strategy was exempting half the people from income tax. That was brilliant.

 

[windowdressing]

Less Social Safety Nets.

People (specially those on the right) are under assumption that providing Social safety nets is waste of tax dollars and it only perpetuates sloth and laziness. It is funny that these ides are most propagated by the Paul Ryan and Mitt Romany's of the world which in turn did use Government handouts to help them get back on their feet(It's often a repeating pattern for conservatives and GOPs crowed that all these programs are bad and a waste unless it helps them or they need it). Regardless data has shown the exact opposite.,.. for every dollar spent of social handouts we are getting $1.35 back which is actually much better investment than Stocks.

One of the underlying assumption is that people on Welfare don't wanne work. However welfare system in US is designed baby, that any work with cut the welfare. . however a single mother on Welfare working minimum job (often in big cities) won't be able to pay for child care and living expenses and work at a minimum or sub minimum pay job. So she has a choice. Get a minimum pay job and be more in debt lose her house, and be prosecuted for child endangerment or not take the minimum pay job and be on Welfare. There is no OR here!


Reagan is another great example.. At one time he decided that we should not be paying for State Own mental institutions because it cost too much, so he decided to close many and let loose the mentally ill on the public. With it, he tripled the homeless populations and with it Crimes, murder, prostitution, and crippled the Emergency facilities not to mention pandemic spread of SDs. So it ended up costing states both at federal and local level 4 to 5 times more money dealing with these problems. In a sense we burned hundreds of dollars to save a buck!


Diving Mullah

thank you ... it was a rhetorical question, but I'm very glad you responded ...