• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A perfect example of why some of us say poverty is self-inflicted

I'm still trying to figure out why the poverty numbers don't just drop 75% after 4 years.

Unless poverty exists due to forces outside the control of the people living in poverty, thus when one person rise up, another falls in and the poverty rates fluctuate not based on individual effort, but over all economic health.

We are just one big not-so-happy family. Periodically some of us CHOOSE to stop paying silly mortgage payments and move to a shady location under the freeway on ramp. Never mind...we get tired of it in about four years...then some other dumb cluck CHOOSES to quit his job. Hell! Why not? A fresh place has just opened up under the freeway on ramp. Another guy CHOOSES to quit his cancer treatments and his job....oh well...there is always the off ramp.:rolleyes:
 
I'm still trying to figure out why the poverty numbers don't just drop 75% after 4 years.

Unless poverty exists due to forces outside the control of the people living in poverty, thus when one person rise up, another falls in and the poverty rates fluctuate not based on individual effort, but over all economic health.

We are just one big not-so-happy family. Periodically some of us CHOOSE to stop paying silly mortgage payments and move to a shady location under the freeway on ramp. Never mind...we get tired of it in about four years...then some other dumb cluck CHOOSES to quit his job. Hell! Why not? A fresh place has just opened up under the freeway on ramp. Another guy CHOOSES to quit his cancer treatments and his job....oh well...there is always the off ramp.:rolleyes:

:lol:
 
It doth appear that the perfect example was not so perfect.

Your inability to understand the problem doesn't mean it doesn't illustrate it.

Consider the responses from a board of the financially literate: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1391923/

I have no idea who the people on that board are, but one thing I can say for sure after reading the page to which you linked is that few appear to be functionally literate.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these people are more wealthy than average, I would say that that board is a very good illustration of the fact that wealth and intellect do not exhibit a strong positive correlation.

I see a lot of people who have never struggled patting themselves on the back for their success, and attributing it to their own hard work; But I see no reason at all to believe their bullshit, even if they are very happy to swallow it themselves.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why the poverty numbers don't just drop 75% after 4 years.

Unless poverty exists due to forces outside the control of the people living in poverty, thus when one person rise up, another falls in and the poverty rates fluctuate not based on individual effort, but over all economic health.

Because there are plenty of idiots out there.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why the poverty numbers don't just drop 75% after 4 years.

Unless poverty exists due to forces outside the control of the people living in poverty, thus when one person rise up, another falls in and the poverty rates fluctuate not based on individual effort, but over all economic health.

Because there are plenty of idiots out there.

Like the poverty stricken Paris Hilton, for example.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why the poverty numbers don't just drop 75% after 4 years.

Unless poverty exists due to forces outside the control of the people living in poverty, thus when one person rise up, another falls in and the poverty rates fluctuate not based on individual effort, but over all economic health.

Because there are plenty of idiots out there.
I agree. And they are not confined to the poor. It is idiotic to generalize about poverty and the poor from one person's life, as the "financlially literate" arrogant asses here at http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1391923/ - do.
 
beinghungryisnotasinbutdemonizingthepooris.jpg
 
This article confirms that there is no reason for poverty. These people won't work their way out of poverty. It is obviously distasteful and no one would choose this life. And yet in spite of all of the incentives that poverty provides to not be poor people are still poor.

Obviously our plan to get rid of poverty by increasing the numbers of people who are exposed to the disincentive of being poor isn't having the desired results.

War on poverty liberal policies left us with 11% still living in poverty, down from 19% after ten long years of dramatic failures in social experimenting. Now after four short decades of the noble conservative experiment of expanding the numbers and the depth of poverty we still haven't provided enough people with enough incentives to not be poor.

What can we now do? We could call a stop to a four decade social experiment and instead of hoping that the poor will claw their way into the middle class we could just pay them enough money for their labor that the middle class expands to include the current poor. But no, that would be too easy, we should just stay the course, give it another twenty years or so.

Besides, the top 50% earn a paltry 85% of the the nation's income. It would take an infinite pool of profits to provide enough income to do this.
 
It's no surprise that lots of people dip into poverty--you're describing the typical college student.

They make do, they climb out as soon as they have money. It doesn't cripple them.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.
I think you're shifting verbs, here.
It says that 75% COME out of poverty, without saying whether or not the recovery depends on their personal actions. Which also means that the 25% who remain in poverty may or may not have a hand in being stuck.
You changed it to most people CLIMB out of poverty, making it a matter of their personal choice.
So you're using inappropriate evidence to support the conclusion you held before reading the research.

The 75% that climb out have no more external aid than those who remain. <snip>

Yeah, right. Consider middle class kids who are out of money after they finish college and temporarily move back in with their parents until they find their first proper job. There's a whole lot of infrastructure they have, and that people with a family background of poverty don't. It starts with being able to write a sort-of-posh address on their application letters, which we know from studies makes a big difference in the return call rates, and doesn't end with being able to borrow daddy's car and suit when going to an interview.
 
Actually, maybe it is a social disease, Officer Kropke.

“BRAC tackles the causes of poverty, hunger and hopelessness at the root, and plants trees of hope.”
- Wangari Maathai, Nobel Peace Prize laureate

Who We Are
BRAC is a development organisation dedicated to alleviate poverty by empowering the poor, and helping them to bring about positive changes in their lives by creating opportunities for the poor.

Our journey began in 1972 in the newly sovereign Bangladesh, and over the course of our evolution, we have been playing a role of recognising and tackling the many different realities of poverty. We believe that there is no single cause of poverty; hence we attempt tackling poverty on multiple fronts.


Our priorities
Focus on women - BRAC places special emphasis on the social and financial empowerment of women. The vast majority of its microloans go to women, while a gender justice programme addresses discrimination and exploitation.

Grassroots Empowerment - BRAC’s legal rights, community empowerment and advocacy programmes organise the poor at the grassroots level, with ‘barefoot lawyers’ delivering legal services to the doorsteps of the poor.

Health and Education - BRAC provides healthcare and education to millions. Our 97,000 community health workers offer doorstep deliveries of vital medicines and health services to their neighbours. BRAC also runs the world’s largest private, secular education system, with 38,000 schools worldwide.

Empowering farmers - Operating in eight countries, BRAC’s agriculture programmes work with the governments to achieve and sustain food security. This is ensured by producing, distributing and marketing quality seeds at fair prices, conducting research to develop better varieties, offering credit support to poor farmers and using environmentally sustainable practices.

Inclusive Financial Services - BRAC attempts to alleviate poverty by providing the services of its community empowerment programme and targeting the ultra poor programme. BRAC's cumulative disbursement is of almost 10 billion dollars in microloans annually, augmenting microfinance with additional services like livelihood and financial literacy training. Farmers get access to seasonal loans, high quality seeds and technical assistance. Millions now have the freedom to take control of their lives.

Self-Sustaining Solutions - BRAC’s enterprises and investments generate a financial surplus that is reinvested in various development programmes subjected to poverty alleviation.


Our strengths
Thinking local, acting global – Besides Bangladesh, BRAC spreads antipoverty solutions to 10 other developing countries, which are Uganda, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.

Unprecedented scale and reach - Today, BRAC reaches an estimated 135 million people with over 100,000 employees worldwide.


What Others Say About BRAC
"BRAC in Bangladesh is the best aid group you've never heard of." —Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist

“By most measures the largest, fastest growing non-governmental organisation in the world – and one of the most businesslike.” —The Economist

“BRAC has done what few others have. They have achieved success on a massive scale, bringing life-saving health programmes to millions of the world’s poorest people.” —Bill Gates, co-chair, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

“[Sir Fazle Hasan] Abed’s story proves just how much people with vision and commitment can change the world.” —Bill Clinton, former president of the United States

“BRAC is the most astounding social enterprise in the world.” —Paul Collier, author of The Bottom Billion

“The billion dollars in microloans that BRAC extends each year to poor people is just the beginning of the story of this remarkable organisation.” —George Soros, chairman of the Open Society Institute

“Through its visionary moves, BRAC has made a huge contribution to social change in Bangladesh and abroad.” —Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate in economics

http://www.brac.net/content/who-we-are#.VCQT7kt3UYU

Sometimes I wonder if people have ever heard of systems and systems analysis.
 
People in poverty make bad decisions because that's what people do when they become hopeless. Blaming them for it is just like blaming people who do irrational things because they were abused as a child. Obviously, their attitudes aren't helping their situation, but the fact that money alone won't solve the problem means society has to take MORE action, not less.
You make your choices from the options presented. Poverty provides poor options.

DUH!
Which is why I asked: does it draw a distinction between bad outcomes and bad decisions?
 
You make your choices from the options presented. Poverty provides poor options.

DUH!
Which is why I asked: does it draw a distinction between bad outcomes and bad decisions?

The two feed into each other. It's a snowball effect. Being in poverty limits your options and creates a sense of futility and desperation. That leads to less long-term thinking, greater emphasis on meeting basic physical and emotional needs, and therefore a weak foundation for escaping poverty (especially if you don't have a support network like college kids often do). In turn, you're deeper into poverty than before, and it's even harder to plan a way out, because now you have even fewer options, even more urgent immediate physical needs, and so on. The carpet keeps getting pulled out from under you at each stage. Pretty soon, you have been effectively conditioned to believe that no amount of effort you expend will even make a dent in your predicament, so you might as well be drunk all the time. It's Martin Seligman's "learned helplessness."
 
Thank you for the synopsis. I admit that I will probably not read this, nor participate much in this thread because of it. I have my own views on this topic, and generally end up arguing myself to exhaustion.

The short version is that that we should focus first on teaching people how to make good decisions. Not just the poor, because most people are bad at it. Good decision-making doesn't guarantee good outcomes, but it does significantly reduce the likelihood of bad outcomes. It also helps immensely when one is faced with a selection of limited or otherwise bad options, in that it will help in choosing the least bad option.

Once people know how to make good decisions, then we can work on improving the options available to them.

I present it in this order, because it is impossible to ensure that only good options are available. There will always be bad options on the slate. In order for a net positive outcome balance to occur, consistently good decisions need to be made. If the decisions being made are consistently neutral or bad, then there will be no improvement.

I can't personally come up with any other reasonable way to combat the emotional exhaustion and sense of futility. I think that only good outcomes, and feeling of control over one's own life can do that. And that will only happen with good decision making.
 
Sometimes there are no good options.

I have a way of combating the emotional exhaustion and sense of futility: give them cash.
 
Once people know how to make good decisions, then we can work on improving the options available to them.

I fear that this would end up being an excuse for never improving the options available, as teaching people to make good decisions is a never ending task.
 
Sometimes there are no good options.

I have a way of combating the emotional exhaustion and sense of futility: give them cash.

Cash helps, but if it's just enough to keep them from descending into further poverty, they'll use it like the person in the article would: to satisfy immediate physical needs, to seek out pleasurable distractions from the futility of everything else they do, to "treat themselves" to luxuries they used to take for granted... all of which are completely understandable given their position and mindset. I think there should be other mechanisms available, positive incentives to get these people functioning in society again. I think that once many of them get a taste of what it's like to be respectable, in charge of their own destiny, they could turn themselves around pretty fast (but you're right, money is the central missing component in all this).
 
Hey PyramidHead, I just noticed your avatar.

Have you played the P.T. yet?
 
So let me see if I get this straight.

We shouldn't provide assistance to people in need, because people choose to be poor.

Loren posts a link to a study showing that the majority of people are in poverty only temporarily, and uses that as justification for not helping people when they're down on their luck?

Even if we assume that the 25% are people who simply "choose" to live in desperate poverty, we shouldn't help the 75% for whom poverty is just a temporary setback because of the 25%? How does that even make sense?
 
Back
Top Bottom