Average white household 20 times as wealthy as average minority household

[PraXis]

It's a cultural problem. I don't see Asian and Indian immigrants or 1st/2nd gen Americans from these cultures in poverty, nor do I see them bitching about handouts.

[MasterShakezula]

I'd say it's a combination of that, and a combination of white and non-Asian minorities in the school system being mostly double-digit-IQ, worthless, factory fodder who would be starving to death within a couple years of dropping out, had there not been a welfare system for people to unmotivated to want a job/make better effort to find one.  Face it, anyone who isn't motivated enough to do well enough in high school to go to college and do well enough in college to graduate deserves whatever they end up with, in terms of low income job they find, assuming they even bother to find one.  I do not intend to sound like a dick, but I don't see why people should feel sorry for others who are poor as a result of their own choice to not excel.  It's quite simple; most high-paying jobs require some sort of college education.  If you do well enough in high school, you have a good probability of getting into college.  Give a damn about your education and you will prosper.  No mystery there.  

[contest_sanity]

I'd say it's a combination of that, and a combination of white and non-Asian minorities in the school system being mostly double-digit-IQ, worthless, factory fodder who would be starving to death within a couple years of dropping out, had there not been a welfare system for people to unmotivated to want a job/make better effort to find one.  Face it, anyone who isn't motivated enough to do well enough in high school to go to college and do well enough in college to graduate deserves whatever they end up with, in terms of low income job they find, assuming they even bother to find one.  I do not intend to sound like a dick, but I don't see why people should feel sorry for others who are poor as a result of their own choice to not excel.  It's quite simple; most high-paying jobs require some sort of college education.  If you do well enough in high school, you have a good probability of getting into college.  Give a damn about your education and you will prosper.  No mystery there.  

So everyone who is poor is poor because they deserve it? Kids can't help what kind of negative situations they are born into.  Yes, in some cases, maybe their parents are to blame, but that doesn't change the situation itself, nor the fact that many of those kids will have a less than advantageous precursor to public schooling, thereby making them more likely to struggle academically from the very beginning, consistently lose motivation, and end up dropping out or barely graduating.  I, for one, don't think anybody deserves that, and I don't think many students who fit such a description do so because they "chose" that route. 

[MasterShakezula]

I'd say it's a combination of that, and a combination of white and non-Asian minorities in the school system being mostly double-digit-IQ, worthless, factory fodder who would be starving to death within a couple years of dropping out, had there not been a welfare system for people to unmotivated to want a job/make better effort to find one.  Face it, anyone who isn't motivated enough to do well enough in high school to go to college and do well enough in college to graduate deserves whatever they end up with, in terms of low income job they find, assuming they even bother to find one.  I do not intend to sound like a dick, but I don't see why people should feel sorry for others who are poor as a result of their own choice to not excel.  It's quite simple; most high-paying jobs require some sort of college education.  If you do well enough in high school, you have a good probability of getting into college.  Give a damn about your education and you will prosper.  No mystery there.  

So everyone who is poor is poor because they deserve it? Kids can't help what kind of negative situations they are born into.  Yes, in some cases, maybe their parents are to blame, but that doesn't change the situation itself, nor the fact that many of those kids will have a less than advantageous precursor to public schooling, thereby making them more likely to struggle academically from the very beginning, consistently lose motivation, and end up dropping out or barely graduating.  I, for one, don't think anybody deserves that, and I don't think many students who fit such a description do so because they "chose" that route.  

Um, something that I am in the dark about is why should being born into a lower economic class make an individual predisposed to not do well in school?  It doesn't take money for a student's parents to want to put some effort into disciplining them for the academic world, and it certainly doesn't take money for a student to care enough to want to not fail.  There are many underprivileged children in other nations who are extremely driven to elevate themselves through doing well academically for a shot at college and a good career.  Why should it be any different here?

[contest_sanity]

If you take a high school student who ends up dropping out, hates school, is poor, etc., and then imagine that person having a child of his or her own, do you think that child will be raised to love learning, to read and write, to excel academically, in anywhere near the same capacity that a child in a middle or upper-class family will be?  So that achievement gap is already present by the time kids hit preschool or kindergarten, and it just perpetuates itself from there.  What I'm saying is that kids who find themselves caught up in that vicious cycle don't deserve it, even if their parents made terrible choices.  

[MasterShakezula]

You present a solid point, there, about the parents.  As much as I feel the students are at fault for their own destinies, I suppose their parents do play a role, as well.  And in most cases, the parents are just as horrendous as the children they've spit out.  Which sounds like there ought to be harsher laws placed upon parents, in regards to giving their children some form of adequate upbringing, so that at least the children have some desire to at least attempt to be of use to society.

[7StringedBeast]

I say this in every education type thread.  Watch the documentary Waiting for Superman.  It explains a lot.  Trust me, if you haven't seen it, see it.

[j]

You present a solid point, there, about the parents.  As much as I feel the students are at fault for their own destinies, I suppose their parents do play a role, as well.  And in most cases, the parents are just as horrendous as the children they've spit out.  Which sounds like there ought to be harsher laws placed upon parents, in regards to giving their children some form of adequate upbringing, so that at least the children have some desire to at least attempt to be of use to society.

Contest sanity is dead on, unfortunately.  Don't underestimate the HUGE role parents play in this scenario.  Of course at some point, the kid becomes responsible for himself/herself, but by that time, the parents and family situation may have seriously, seriously crippled the kid's chances of being successful in school and life.

-J

[MetropolisxPt1]

I say this in every education type thread.  Watch the documentary Waiting for Superman.  It explains a lot.  Trust me, if you haven't seen it, see it.

this, the problem is that many of the youth nowadays do not value education and hard work.

[Super Dude]

I say this in every education type thread.  Watch the documentary Waiting for Superman.  It explains a lot.  Trust me, if you haven't seen it, see it.

this, the problem is that many of the youth nowadays do not value education and hard work.

And to add to that, this is because it's hard to see when you're young what the benefits of said education and hard work are, even if your parents push you into it, and in some cases I'd say especially so; I didn't seriously become interested in higher learning for its own sake and my future career until I was in college.  My parents always emphasized how important a good degree and hard work are, but it took for me to be on the path and to see how much harder a dismal economy would make my future in order for me to realize how important commitment of that kind was.

In a sense it's also embedded into our American culture; movies like Ferris Bueller and other films that glorify slackers, ditchers, and the like don't come out of thin air.  I think sticking it to "adults and all their rules" was good at one time, but it's become something more and rather damaging at that, in that it's beginning to cut into those parts of adult responsibility that are necessary for survival and success in the real world.

[Scheavo]

I say this in every education type thread.  Watch the documentary Waiting for Superman.  It explains a lot.  Trust me, if you haven't seen it, see it.

this, the problem is that many of the youth nowadays do not value education and hard work.

And in some cases, becuase they've seen it fail too many times.

[7StringedBeast]

A lot of kills just aren't instilled with the idea they can be whatever they want to be if they work hard enough.  Some of them just never get the chance to even have high reaching goals and they feel like its useless. 

[lordxizor]

they can be whatever they want to be if they work hard enough.

This is bullshit and should never be told to kids. They can't be whatever they want to be. I would love to be a rockstar, but I suck at guitar and can't sing. If I had worked really hard to be a rockstar, I'd be living on the street. Kids need to be taught that everyone is good at some things and bad at others and there's no shame in that. They should find something that they are good at and enjoy doing and work hard at it to turn it into a career.

[7StringedBeast]

Don't get hung up on those words.  It's more about the implication.  Like, telling kids, if you work hard in school, you can get a scholarship and go to college.  A lot of kids don't even have that kind of idea in their head ever.  They just grow up assuming they won't be able to leave whatever condition they are raised in.

[Scheavo]

Don't get hung up on those words.  It's more about the implication.  Like, telling kids, if you work hard in school, you can get a scholarship and go to college.  A lot of kids don't even have that kind of idea in their head ever.  They just grow up assuming they won't be able to leave whatever condition they are raised in.

It's a vicious circle. One begets the other. The fact that it's very vrey very unlikely that you will leave the conditions you are raised in breeds a pessimistic attitude which only makes it less likely.

Also, what you say isn't appliable to our society. If every minority highschooler got a 4.0, not all of them would get scholarships. Some, who got their education, would be shit out of luck.

[7StringedBeast]

Yeah but just finishing high school alone already puts people ahead once you get down to the bottom of the socio-economic scale.  If schools improve, so will the students.  Hope has to come from somewhere.

[Major Thirteenth]

I think this arguemnt detract from the importance of the issue: just how fucking poor so many people are. Poverty is a vicious cycle, it's an unrealistic ideal to think that people can just pull themselves up from their bootstraps. I think this shows that our countries educational system is failing those who need it the most.

Poverty is an individual problem. Our attempts to socialize it have created a pantheon of false victims. If one is poor, and one does not like it, one must change it for himself, not seek a solution rooted in theft from others who are not poor.

[MasterShakezula]

I think this arguemnt detract from the importance of the issue: just how fucking poor so many people are. Poverty is a vicious cycle, it's an unrealistic ideal to think that people can just pull themselves up from their bootstraps. I think this shows that our countries educational system is failing those who need it the most.

Poverty is an individual problem. Our attempts to socialize it have created a pantheon of false victims. If one is poor, and one does not like it, one must change it for himself, not seek a solution rooted in theft from others who are not poor.

I must say, I agree with you completely, M13. 

[Scheavo]

I think this arguemnt detract from the importance of the issue: just how fucking poor so many people are. Poverty is a vicious cycle, it's an unrealistic ideal to think that people can just pull themselves up from their bootstraps. I think this shows that our countries educational system is failing those who need it the most.

Poverty is an individual problem. Our attempts to socialize it have created a pantheon of false victims. If one is poor, and one does not like it, one must change it for himself, not seek a solution rooted in theft from others who are not poor.

Ya, this is 100% pure idealism. You've obviously never been unemployed, searching for a job, and not being able to get one because people aren't hiring, or there's a huge influx of unemployed. There's even companies who discriminate based upon unemployment - they don't even allow them to apply.

The issue comes over how you defined who earned what, and why they earned it. Just becuase someone has money does not mean they earned it. A greedy person taking more out of the pot than is his fair share, becuase he is in a position of power to do so, does not mean that that person has earned that money.

[bosk1]

There's even companies who discriminate based upon unemployment - they don't even allow them to apply.

What makes you think that?

[Scheavo]

There's even companies who discriminate based upon unemployment - they don't even allow them to apply.

What makes you think that?

https://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm

Numerous other articles like that.

[bosk1]

Hmm...Interesting.  I'm a bit skeptical that is happening on any kind of mass basis.  But interesting.

[Major Thirteenth]

Ya, this is 100% pure idealism. You've obviously never been unemployed, searching for a job, and not being able to get one because people aren't hiring, or there's a huge influx of unemployed. There's even companies who discriminate based upon unemployment - they don't even allow them to apply.

The issue comes over how you defined who earned what, and why they earned it. Just becuase someone has money does not mean they earned it. A greedy person taking more out of the pot than is his fair share, becuase he is in a position of power to do so, does not mean that that person has earned that money.

There is no pot. There is no fair share. There is no fairness. There is no equality. Each individual has the right to look for a job. No individual has the right to demand a job. Each individual has the right to pursue activities and skills that lead to elimination of poverty in their life. It is not that difficult. There is always a job. I do not accept the "unemployment rate". The unempoyment rate is zero. Anyone who wants a job can find a job. Always. In any economy. It may be a shit job that is temporary. It may be starting a house or office cleaning business for low rates. It may be going back to school and changing a skill set. Or it may be playing keyboards and getting wedding gigs.

Where it all goes to hell is when someone thinks they are entitled to something and fails to act. Like people who are used to making $125,000 and are not willing to work for $50,000. So they go on unemployment and sign up for extension after extension unable to find a job in "their field". By the way, at what point do endless unemployment benefits become simple welfare? 20 weeks? 50 weeks? 99 weeks!!!!???.

Making money and determining a proper income level is a personal and private decision. It has nothing to do with society, and I will not accept taxation and controls to allow individuals to socialize their laziness.

[Scheavo]

Ya, this is 100% pure idealism. You've obviously never been unemployed, searching for a job, and not being able to get one because people aren't hiring, or there's a huge influx of unemployed. There's even companies who discriminate based upon unemployment - they don't even allow them to apply.

The issue comes over how you defined who earned what, and why they earned it. Just becuase someone has money does not mean they earned it. A greedy person taking more out of the pot than is his fair share, becuase he is in a position of power to do so, does not mean that that person has earned that money.

There is no pot. There is no fair share. There is no fairness. There is no equality. Each individual has the right to look for a job. No individual has the right to demand a job. Each individual has the right to pursue activities and skills that lead to elimination of poverty in their life. It is not that difficult. There is always a job. I do not accept the "unemployment rate". The unempoyment rate is zero. Anyone who wants a job can find a job. Always. In any economy. It may be a shit job that is temporary. It may be starting a house or office cleaning business for low rates. It may be going back to school and changing a skill set. Or it may be playing keyboards and getting wedding gigs.

Again, you''ve obviously never had to try what you're saying is so easy, so certain, so chosen. How are you going to go back to school if you don't have money to do so? How are you going to clean businesses or houses if no one feels like they can trust you, you don't have references, etc? Being very poor comes with stigmas that make it even harder to get a job, to be trusted, etc, to make money, to get yourself out of poverty. You also fail to address the fact that a job does not mean one is not in poverty; try raising a family by playing keyboards at a wedding.

Hmm...Interesting.  I'm a bit skeptical that is happening on any kind of mass basis.  But interesting.

It obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but it does do a great job of highlighting the stigma of being poor and trying to get a job. Imagine you're homeless, and all the hardships that come along with maintaining your appearance while homeless; that is going to make it harder for you to get a job. You won't "look" trustworthy, respectable, you'll look lazy and a whole other bunch of things.... even if you, were say, a former engineer or scientist.

[bosk1]

Hmm...Interesting.  I'm a bit skeptical that is happening on any kind of mass basis.  But interesting.

It obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but it does do a great job of highlighting the stigma of being poor and trying to get a job. Imagine you're homeless, and all the hardships that come along with maintaining your appearance while homeless; that is going to make it harder for you to get a job. You won't "look" trustworthy, respectable, you'll look lazy and a whole other bunch of things.... even if you, were say, a former engineer or scientist.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen--I'm sure it does.  But that article implies it is a common, widespread practice.  Given my profession, it is highly unlikely such a phenomenon would be wisespread without me having heard about it.

[Scheavo]

Hmm...Interesting.  I'm a bit skeptical that is happening on any kind of mass basis.  But interesting.

It obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but it does do a great job of highlighting the stigma of being poor and trying to get a job. Imagine you're homeless, and all the hardships that come along with maintaining your appearance while homeless; that is going to make it harder for you to get a job. You won't "look" trustworthy, respectable, you'll look lazy and a whole other bunch of things.... even if you, were say, a former engineer or scientist.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen--I'm sure it does.  But that article implies it is a common, widespread practice.  Given my profession, it is highly unlikely such a phenomenon would be wisespread without me having heard about it.

I have no idea regarding how widespread such cases are, but I'm not using it in a way where it needs to be extremely common. It's one example of how hard it can be for some people to find a job, and how people can face systemic issues in trying to get a job, and stay out of poverty.

[slycordinator]

As a .serious comment....do poorer families have more children than wealthier families?  That would explain a lot.

Probably.  The poorer people are usually rather uneducated and may not know about birth control.  Or can't afford it.

Poor people may be uneducated/poorly educated, but I doubt any of them would not know the idea of birth control. And they don't need to afford it. They can get it for free from Planned Parenthood. Now, it's true that with them being uneducated they might not realize they can get it for free...

[j]

As a .serious comment....do poorer families have more children than wealthier families?  That would explain a lot.

Probably.  The poorer people are usually rather uneducated and may not know about birth control.  Or can't afford it.

Poor people may be uneducated/poorly educated, but I doubt any of them would not know the idea of birth control.

You would be surprised.

-J

[Cool Chris]

Where it all goes to hell is when someone thinks they are entitled to something and fails to act. Like people who are used to making $125,000 and are not willing to work for $50,000. So they go on unemployment and sign up for extension after extension unable to find a job in "their field".

Taking this bit of argument has always been something I have struggled with. I know people who were doing much better financially than me, who got laid off, and got unemployment benefits. I don't know the $$ amount of those benefits, but I do know the feelings on the part of those people were that they couldn't find a job comparable to the one they lost. My inclination was to suggest any job was better than no job, but maybe that wasn't the case, due to the size of their unemployment check, their pride, or some combination of them both. I do agree with M13 that no one is entitled to the job the feel they are entitled to, because of their training, background, education, whatever. And if that means they need to downsize their lifestyle, is that so wrong?

[Major Thirteenth]

Where it all goes to hell is when someone thinks they are entitled to something and fails to act. Like people who are used to making $125,000 and are not willing to work for $50,000. So they go on unemployment and sign up for extension after extension unable to find a job in "their field".

Taking this bit of argument has always been something I have struggled with. I know people who were doing much better financially than me, who got laid off, and got unemployment benefits. I don't know the $$ amount of those benefits, but I do know the feelings on the part of those people were that they couldn't find a job comparable to the one they lost. My inclination was to suggest any job was better than no job, but maybe that wasn't the case, due to the size of their unemployment check, their pride, or some combination of them both. I do agree with M13 that no one is entitled to the job the feel they are entitled to, because of their training, background, education, whatever. And if that means they need to downsize their lifestyle, is that so wrong?

I've had to "downsize my lifestyle" several times so far. And I'm pretty sure it will happen again. Nobody owes me anything and I do not have a right to take from others simply because I have "need". Ask for help? Yes. Demand it? Never. If it ever were to get truly hopeless, I would report to my nearest church or temple, and offer to volunteer doing anything for food and a bed. That is the proper moral alternative for those that are down on their luck. Ask, do not steal. Robin Hood is the Devil.

As far as diseases, there are presently voluntary foundations for nearly every known disease and deficiency, so I do not want to hear the Straw Man to the effect that we will have Down's Syndrome babies lying in the street. That will never happen. Especially since having repealed redistribution and social programs, individuals will be so flush with cash that they have earned and will now be able to keep and/or dispose of as they see fit. Charities will have an absolute field day in a free economy.

[slycordinator]

Well, I would throw it off for several reasons:
1.  I'm mixed "white" and "hispanic."  Which race shall I take?

It might not throw it off as much as you think. I recall reading where they had a national survey that showed that at least half (and if memory serves correctly, it was more like 2/3) of Hispanics in the US self-identify as Caucasian as well. Granted, depending on how they conducted the survey, it could've left out some of the poorer ones who would be less likely to be Caucasian...

[lordxizor]

Charities will have an absolute field day in a free economy.

I think you overestimate the generosity of many Americans.

[Scheavo]

Charities will have an absolute field day in a free economy.

I think you overestimate the generosity of many Americans.

Here's what I don't get about libertarian thought: Humans are so greedy that they hate tax dollars, and that paying taxes means less productivity and desire to to live, or something.Yet at the same time, they're so generous, that sans government, we would have numerous charities to look after people. If people don't mind giving up their money for a good cause, then they won't be dismayed by taxes.

[bosk1]

I can't speak for anyone else in the thread, but as for me, there's a huge difference between (1) having the government take money from me in the form of taxes¹ and use it for what I would consider charitable pursuits, on one hand, verses (2) me giving directly to charities, on the other.²  If I am in control of my own giving, I can give where I see the need and am reasonably confident my money is going to a cause I feel should be supported because it is doing good work.  If the government does my giving for me, I have no such confidence.  Additionally, the government tends to be incredibly wasteful and inefficient for many, many reasons, not the least of which is that, as a body, it is not in the business of charity and has no idea what it is doing.  So, yes, there is a huge difference in my mind.


^1.  For the record, I am not against taxes, in principle.  I believe the governement should tax us as little and as reasonably as possible and should use tax money responsible, but that even if it doesn't do either of those, we are obligated as citizens to pay our taxes regardless.

^2.  Or, better still, that we give directly to those who need it, since a lot of charities themselves often have huge bureaucracies that waste a good portion of money that is donated.

[Scheavo]

I think the issue is in your footnote on number 1, becuase it shows how much we agree. I by no means want to take money from people in the form of taxes for no reason, and I by no means think I should be excluded.  However, I think on the issues where I do want government, I want it because it brings something to the table that the free-market cannot, and what my personal choice cannot. The collective power of 300,000,000 people can sometimes bring something important, and otherwise lacking in the discussion. Most importantly, where I do favor government is to assist people in having freedom in their lives - freedoms are taken by your fellow man as much as they are by government - so I never see why the argument always makes it out to be "freedom" or "no freedom," when it's a question regarding freedom itself.

Oh, and thanks for answering the question. I mean, I get the distinction, it just seems so narrow a distinction in the end (at least considering my position above).