A discussion about poverty

[jasoncyrus]

In all honesty a lot of "Poverty" is people who A) refuse to do demeaning worse B) Junkies C) Junkies (yes needed to be said twice since they all need to die) D) mentally disabled people who more vegetable than person (pointless drains on the economy) E) Alcoholics F) Other non classified addicts/lazy people.

 

[JemJar]

The left wing response I expect to this is, "there's much room for improvement". Yes there is, but I think it makes little sense to feel sorry for people who have running water, electricity and often enough food to get fat.

The question is, can they afford the quality of food to not get fat?

But that poverty threshold is a really weird measure described pretty well with the assistance of a nice Flash "game" in this article. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8177864.stm]

On the basis of which it technically can be eradicated.

And one thing you're missing is that access to free health care is getting harder and harder and is more and more defined by what in the UK is becoming referred to as "the post-code lottery". Good doctors (and nurses, teachers etc. etc.) want to live in "good" areas and work near their home, so the nicer areas of the country often have the best facilities whilst the inner city, low quality housing estates and dangerous areas see worse education and healthcare. Chances of survival (let alone contraction rates) from some illnesses are significantly different in different regions.

But I do see and agree with some of your argument - even a homeless person in England has a vastly better life expectancy and opportunity than a homeless person in, say, Uganda.

 

[jasoncyrus]

snip

In all honesty a homeless person in the UK has a better life expectancy than a homed person in Uganda.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

So OP's thesis is that people who will never have a dream in their lives should just suck it up because at least they're not Cambodian peasants?

Write this message using a stolen Sharpie on the wall of a truckstop bathroom stall instead of a site catering to people who can afford both video games and a computer with which to read about video games, OP. That way you can reach your intended audience.

 

[Woem]

One of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals] is eliminating extreme poverty and halving the people who suffer from hunger by half. These goals were agreed upon to be reached by 2015. That means we're more than halfway through the 15 year period and it doesn't feel like much has changed. I'm pretty sure that in 2015 people will blame the current financial and economical crisis but that means nothing for the past 8 years.

 

[Lord George]

Oh its easy to judge people in your white middle class lifestyle where mummy and daddy can pay for everything, but I imagine you'd sing a different tune if you were stuck with no future and no prospects simply because you couldn't afford to go to uni to better your situation.

I myself am endlessly thankful I was born into a lower middle class family and so can afford to go to uni and try to get a good job afterwards, unlike many of my friends who can't afford it even though lot of them are highly intelligent and could do a lot better then some rich twit if they actually had the opportunity too.

 

[Kermi]

You want to know how "the left" defines poverty?

Lifted from John Scalzi [http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/]:

-snip-

-- Alex

The sad part is, I've experienced at least half of those.

I've been there too. There have been low points where I just can't imagine how I'm going to make it through the next day. The sad thing is the the fact that even when we're experiencing those low points there are people in the world who wish they were as lucky as us.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

I'm speaking from a council estate in England here and here's my view on the whole thing.

When people talk about poverty here people are talking about the working class and underclass. Now, while what you said about everyone having running water, electricity, ect is correct, I think that the main 'poverty' problem here is with the infrastructure of the places people in 'poverty' in the UK have no choice but to live in.

There is no reason for anyone to want to visit my neighbourhood (besides to score some drugs), so there is about 2 bus routes to services the population of about 2,500 people. Now, consider that most of the parents here can't(don't want to) find work, it means that when it comes to buying groceries they can not visit Tesco and purchase decent quality food at affordable prices, they have to visit the local corner shop in which everything is naturally much higher priced, what with it being a small most likely family run shop, which means they have to buy extremely poor quality food for their children to eat, which will lead to health problems, trouble concetraiting in school and slowed development.

Now, as I said previously, it is very true that a number of people on benefits just don't want to find work, the reason being is that in a place where there is only 2 bus routes it really is alot of effort for them to get a job without owning a car, especially when you also consider that they are trying to raise kids (alot of them as single parents) along with it. The reason it is so hard for them to find work without a car is due to the fact that there is no supermarkets/factorys/fast food joints/complexs within an easy walking distance for them to work at, and as mentioned before, the buses in this place are terrible.

Now, you may think, well that's their own fault, they didn't try hard enough and aren't putting enough effort in. But if you actually want to make progress these people need to be helped along for their childrens sake, because it is a vicious circle that I think sped up tenfold thanks to the help of Maggie Thatcher. The circle goes like this...

Parents sit at home doing drugs infront of the telly all day collecting benefits

Parents then struggle to be beneficial to their kids

Kids become unhappy due to their fucked up home life

Kids do worse at school due to this

Kids can't get into college or uni due to messing up their school life, so crushing any slight hopes they might have had

Kids become adults, have kids of their own, and believe like their parents, that it is acceptable for them to sit at home collecting benefits and wasting away

Rinse and repeat

I've seen it happen. It's really a problem worth sorting out, because all of it leads to more crime and unhappiness.

So I'll summrise it this way, to anwser your original question about poverty in the first world - It's not so much that we need to give the working class and underclass money, it's not the poverty of money that is the problem, it's the poverty of hope and society in these communities. I mean, what else can someone be when all that's around them is negativity?

One more thing, I know it's not impossible to escape the circle, I certainly know some that have come from the most messed up homes and escaped, but it's not easy and the majority of people just aren't strong enough to overcome that sort of thing.

I hope that makes sense and reads smoothly enough, also I hope someone actually does read it.

As for the original poster - call your local social services office and find out how much welfare you'd get if:
1. it was just you.
2. You and a spouse.
3. You and 2 kids.

Now go and draw up a budget. Include everything - food, shelter, utilities, transportation, health care, clothing. *Everything.*

Then ask yourself why anyone would *choose* to live on that amount.

Seriously. My father was made redundant afew months back when his firm went under, he got £60 a week benefits, that's £60 between me, him and my mother. He got a new job fairly quickly though, so it's alright now.

For any other reason, it's their fault. They don't have my sympathy.

If someone rides their bike to fast, crashes into the side of a car and breaks their leg, it's their fault, doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped.

The only difference between helping the dude who broke his leg and helping poor people is that helping poor people actually benefits as society as a whole. Although I doubt you have to avoid walking through your neighbourhood after 6 o'clock because it's just to dodgey, so nevermind, just close your eyes and pretend it isn't happening.

EDIT: Messed up the quoting there for a minute.

 

[Agema]

I'm speaking from a council estate in England here and here's my view on the whole thing.

..etc.

I agree hugely. Great post.

 

[Space Spoons]

You realize that there are families living in true poverty right here in the United States, don't you? American children starve to death. American citizens regularly die out there on the streets, killed by sickness, exposure to the elements, hunger, or some combination of the three.

Yes, it's true that families with less are better off than families in third world countries that have, quite literally, nothing... But that isn't to say that true poverty doesn't exist right here in our own back yard. Personally, I think it's irresponsible and morally reprehensible to focus our attention on other nations when our countrymen are dying here. Don't jump down my throat, I'm not saying those nations don't deserve help... I'm just saying that the government of the US should be doing something about it's own citizens before looking outward.

That said, from the way you wrote your opening post, this sounds less like a frank debate on poverty and more like an attack on "bleeding heart lib'ruls".

 

[kawligia]

Today's poor people in 1st world nations live better than Kings in the middle ages. They had no A/C, no decent healthcare (medicare/medicaid), no running water, no TV, no internet, etc.

"Poor" will always be a comparative thing. It will be people who have less than others, no matter how much they DO have already. It's entirely possible that in 300 years, "poor" people will have luxuries and advantages that today's rich people don't have.

Because poverty is comparative, it can never be eliminated as long as there is free will. If everyone in the world had all possessions taken from them, all those possessions redistributed equally to everyone, and all their memories erased such that there was NO advantage given to anyone of any sort, there would still be poor people within a few days.

That's because some people would make wise decisions while other people made poor ones. Some people would save their money and make investments in a business that will wind up bringing them much more money in the future. They are trading immediate gratification for a greater amount of future happiness. Other people would gamble their money away, some would spend it on drugs, or just spend it on stuff in general. Then those people wouldn't have any more money and would instantly become "poor."

Someone actually did something like that a while back. I think it was Oprah. Whoever it was gave a shitload of money to a homeless man. He could have made that money work for him and become successful but he chose not to. He pissed it away and was right back begging on the street within a couple weeks.

How can you eliminate poverty when you give someone money and he pisses it away on blackjack and hookers? You can give him MORE money, but what happens when you blows THAT money away on blackjack and hookers too? Even if you give him food, water, and everything else he needs, he will still have less in comparison than others because he is not making wise use of what he has. He will always be "poor," comparatively speaking.

 

[Nimbus]

Why are they poor in the first place? Is it...
-Their location (war, invasion, etc.) / Government (oppressive?) / inability to get a good education due to previous lack of funds? Then they have my sympathy.
-For any other reason, it's their fault. They don't have my sympathy.

Don't be stupid. You can't sum up every reason for being poor that isn't your fault in one sentence.

What about this example; You spend all your money and rack up huge student loans to get qualifications in Subject X. Industry X then collapses nationwide. You are epically screwed unless the industry picks up again. You are poor.

 

[sneakypenguin]

snip

Pretty much what kawligia said, you can't eliminate something that people don't want to be saved from. Some people have the know how the will, and the skill to elevate themselves. But the poverty issue as a whole has created a whole new class of people, those who willingly accept it. They get government housing, foodstamps, and usually some medicade or state HC. This is even greater if you have kids. I worked at a small grocery outlet for 3 years as my first job, we had people quit because as they made more money their benefits were cut. My 2nd best friend works 4 weeks a year for UPS gets laid off after the holidays then gets unemployment for the rest of the time. He WONT get a job because he makes enough on unemployment to live (and he's a lazy sob).

Those that need help I'm glad to help, local rescue ministries and whatnot. But the guy/gal who dropped out of HS, and is just working the system I despise.

But the fact is there are those that just don't have the will when you give them a way. Or they are happy living on the governments handouts. So there will always be poverty.

 

[JRslinger]

You want to know how "the left" defines poverty?

Your list is intended to draw a strong emotional reaction. After examining it I found only a couple things that are serious problems. Most of what's listed are "I feel sorry for myself" or otherwise minor complaints. I can't feel sorry for someone who eats cheap cereal and ramen noodles.

Being poor is not taking the job because you can't find someone you trust to watch your kids.
Being poor is deciding that it's all right to base a relationship on shelter.

These are more serious issues, though it begs the questions of why some people decide to have kids they can't afford.

The most important thing for us "leftists" (or, at least, for me) is that everybody has the same chances. That means healthcare and a basic standard of living and, most importantly, education (not only school but university, too) based on your actual achievements, not on money or connections.

The problem with this idea is that it's impossible for everyone to start at the same level to have the same chances. It may seem unfair, but that's how life is. How can the government make up for lousy parenting, a lack of ambition and self destructive behaviors? It really can't.
The government can give people public schools, but some people still drop out.

The best way I can see would be to stop subsidizing poverty and stop rewarding bad behaviors with a welfare state. Lower taxes so the private charities will have more money to help people on a more effective individual basis.

 

[Skeleon]

The problem with this idea is that it's impossible for everyone to start at the same level to have the same chances.

Of coure it can never be fully equal, but there are several things that can be done to make chances at least as similar as possible.

One of the major issues are tuition fees they introduced a short while ago here in Germany. They seriously hamper lower class students to attend university and, understandably, there were a lot of protests to fight this. A buddy of mine studies at the university and has to work several hours per work in addition to his university stuff just so he can afford shelter. His grades are also worse than mine, though I doubt it's because of a lack of intelligence. It's because of a lack of time for studying.

Other things the government can do is provide day-care centres for the younger kids, increase child benefits while reducing marriage tax-benefits, increase the educational budget for more full-time schools (including homework-assistance for those who need it) and subsidize university student dorms so they're more affordable.

And there are many other things politicians should start spending money on.
The skilled worker- and university graduate-shortage is already being felt by our industries (they need to bring foreigners in to fill high qualification jobs because there's such a lack) and this trend will only intensify over the next couple of years and decades (especially considering that the birthrate is going down in Western countries).

The best way I can see would be to stop subsidizing poverty and stop rewarding bad behaviors with a welfare state.

I don't know how it is where you live, but here they aren't rewarded. There's a short-term welfare for unemployed (to help them while trying to look for a new job) and there's a long-term welfare at a much lower level (which provides a very basic standard of living for those who can't or won't look for jobs - note that the latter is very rare in reality and simply a populist argument often used by right-wing politicians to garner support).

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

These are more serious issues, though it begs the questions of why some people decide to have kids they can't afford.

Because they're retards, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make it so their kids don't do the same thing.

'But that's the parents job', someone replies

But we've already established the parents are retarded, it's not gunna happen, but it is worth putting in the effort to help the kids, society will benefit from it in the long run with less crime and what not.

Sitting round tossing the blame isn't gunna do anything, people need to grow some balls and sort shit out, instead of sitting there going 'Well, they brought it upon themselves', really? Great! But I don't really care if they brought it upon themselves or if the Queen of England brought it upon them, I just want it sorted so that people will stop robbing my fucking house.

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

You know what? You're right: the American Democrats and various European "leftist" movements have certainly relied on the underprivileged for electoral capital.

The "right" does it, too, though.

The "Southern strategy" that's been driving America's Republican party for something like forty years now is all about finding people who feel left behind by American privilege and prosperity and playing to their fading hopes and deepest fears. During the civil rights era, a lot of economically disadvantaged people stood behind the GOP because they felt threatened by oppressed blacks gaining new rights and opportunities. Nowadays, the anti-immigrant furor is based on exploiting the same feelings of being supplanted by people who are "supposed to" be beneath you.

And all that stuff with deathers and birthers and teabaggers, what's that all about? The exact same thing: "Oh, you've been left behind! You could be well-off if not for all these other people! Let us create a cult of victimhood that exults in exclusionary American purity and pursues internal cleansing by any means necessary!"

Democrats offer handouts to the poor. Republicans offer them scapegoats. Which is better?

-- Alex

I will partially agree with your comments about Republicans. While today's GOP has essentially been described as "The Wal-Mart Party", it is only because they're so badly fragmented they have no direction and a lot of actual conservatives (not neo-cons) have simply left the party out of disillusionment. This leaves only the low-brow "those damn foreigners are taking our jobs". However, I agree with what a lot of these "teabaggers" preach and that is financial responsibility, as in we shouldn't be spending money that we don't have.

I'll also agree with both sides playing off of people's victim mentalities, which is why I've chosen neither.

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.