posted
Rabbit -- I taught such a lesson two weeks ago and while we spent a lot of time discussing who needs help, and opportunities to serve others in the community that we might have been unaware of, not one person said anything along the lines of what you're describing.
I have heard similar sentiments in the past, though.
I also think it's a mistake to try to judge how important something is to people by how vocal they are about it. By that metric, Charlie Sheen is terribly important in a lot of people's lives.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it applies to all conservatives - nor do I think that allconservatives are hell bent on making the US a third world country.
To be honest, I don't think any conservatives actually want to make the US a third world country. I do think that the policies that conservatives support ARE making the US into a third world country, but I don't think that's their actual goal.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not equating them; I am saying that they are connected. That the seeds of one are in the other.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're saying that one idea that some people do believe, a belief that is quite pervasive in our culture, either can or does lead to another belief which grotesque and despicable.
Do you believe that it is inevitable that the first leads to the second? If you believe the first, do you automatically believe the second?
Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So, you're saying that one idea that some people do believe, a belief that is quite pervasive in our culture, either can or does lead to another belief which grotesque and despicable.
Do you believe that it is inevitable that the first leads to the second? If you believe the first, do you automatically believe the second?
Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough? And if working hard is a virtue, are they not virtuous enough?
ETA: And even if you can, do you think that most people will?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
Is it possible to be more outraged by freeloaders than by starving people, and yet believe its better for someone to get handouts they don't deserve than for them to starve to death?
Is it possible to be more outraged by starvation than freeloading, yet more vocally outraged about freeloading?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think that the policies that conservatives support ARE making the US into a third world country, but I don't think that's their actual goal.
This. To the jillionth power. This is something I can agree with as being a fair-minded statement, though I disagree that these policies would make us into a Third World country-that's just hyperbole, though the policies are badly regressive.
But what I quoted above is radically different than saying 'prosperity theology conservatives would rather people starve than people get what they don't deserve'. That's inaccurate (again). Prosperity theology conservatives think the act of giving people what they don't deserve leads, in the long run, to more people starving.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough?
Yes.
Now, please answer my question.
Okay. I am curious as to how.
I don't think it is inevitable. I do think that it creates a climate where such sentiments flourish and thus it becomes "morally acceptable" to cut assistance to poor and elderly. It makes such questions as whether they deserve it or whether it is "fair" to give them something they haven't earned part of the equation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But what I quoted above is radically different than saying 'prosperity theology conservatives would rather people starve than people get what they don't deserve'. That's inaccurate (again). Prosperity theology conservatives think the act of giving people what they don't deserve leads, in the long run, to more people starving.
Because they believe in prosperity theology. That if people are good enough or saved enough they will be prosperous. And that if they are not it is because they are not saved.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
I think the belief that the virtuous will prosper leads inevitably to a condemnation of those who do not prosper. I think when people see poverty as evidence of moral failing, they feel less compassion for the poor.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Might it be possible for someone to believe that industriousness is a virtue, and that if you work hard you'll prosper, and not think that it's better to see somebody starve than to see them receive an undeserved handout?
I think the belief that the virtuous will prosper leads inevitably to a condemnation of those who do not prosper. I think when people see poverty as evidence of moral failing, they feel less compassion for the poor.
Or if not less compassion, less compulsion to do something about it and more justification for not helping.
Mucus, I think that the just world idea is part of this as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because they believe in prosperity theology. That if people are good enough or saved enough they will be prosperous. And that if they are not it is because they are not saved.
I understand prosperity theology, and the conclusions you're drawing about them from their belief in it. The conclusion I take issue with is the one that has been quoted at least half a dozen times now, "They are less outraged by someone starving then they are by someone getting something he doesn't 'deserve'." They are outraged by people starving. They're also outraged by people getting something they don't deserve. They think the solution to both problems is the same. For them, it's a pretty nifty problem because it's so easily solved. Two birds, one stone.
And, lest I be misconstrued, I think they're quite mistaken, and personally I think one's material wealth in the world isn't a crappy indicator of one's standing with eternity, it's not relevant to those questions at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure I understand your last sentence.
Why do you think that they think the solution to both problems is the same?
Because kate, they believe (as did Ben Franklin) that giving stuff to poor people actually causes more poverty.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for answering the question and admitting that, thank you.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted byr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can you believe that if you work hard you will prosper without thinking that if someone is not prospering then they aren't working hard enough?
Yes.
Okay. I am curious as to how.
How is it possible? Many ways. The two aren't contradictory at all.
I believe that hard work and industry are virtues. I believe that if I work hard, I will likely prosper. I have been blessed with relatively good health, with an above-average intellect, with the opportunity to get a good education, and a good job. Barring tragedy, I expect to do well for myself and my family. This prosperity is dependent both on the aforementioned blessings and on my own hard work. If I had not worked as hard as I did in the past, I would not be as prosperous today.
I believe that there are people who fail to prosper because they are lazy. I believe that this is a character flaw.
There are also those who are incredibly rich and who are equally lazy. This too is a character flaw.
I believe that there are many reasons that people are poor that have nothing to do with their personal work ethic. Life is not a level playing field, and not everybody has the same opportunities. Some people get a raw deal, and no amount of personal industry will reverse that.
This makes it so that you cannot know how hard somebody works based solely on how prosperous they are.
But as a general rule, I think that if you work hard, you will prosper more than you would otherwise. It doesn't mean that you'll prosper more than others prosper, just more than you would have if you didn't work hard.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* That's technically accurate but stated in such a way as to be misleading. (Not sayin' that was your intent, though.)
"They believe (as did Ben Franklin) that giving stuff to poor people actually causes more poverty in the long run, because it cannot be sustained over time." There are of course a few problems with this belief, not least of which is its inherent misstatement of the application and intent of welfare-that it's just 'giving' poor people stuff.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you are virtuous you will prosper. You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached. That is a difference between you and many of our founding fathers and was clearly disputed by evidence. You seem to believe that all thing being equal, working leads to more prosperity than otherwise. But when since the dawn of history have all things been equal?
The Rabbit, I know why they thought giving stuff to poor people causes more poverty. Rakeesh, I am not even sure why you are arguing with me anymore.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. I lost track of which point we were talking about. It was an error rather than a deliberate change. I should have written "work hard" instead of "are virtuous" in that last post. It should read like this:
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper. You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached. That is a difference between you and many of our founding fathers and was clearly disputed by evidence. You seem to believe that all thing being equal, working leads to more prosperity than otherwise. But when since the dawn of history have all things been equal?
Does that make more sense?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the belief that the virtuous will prosper leads inevitably to a condemnation of those who do not prosper. I think when people see poverty as evidence of moral failing, they feel less compassion for the poor.
This is how I was raised. I was taught that the poor are poor because they choose it, and they have the opportunity to get out of poverty anytime they want to but they choose not to.
As I got older I began to view things a little differently. As mph stated, hard work will generally make you more successful than not working, but there are plenty of people who are rich but lazy, and people who work very hard yet remain poor.
Then I took classes in my education study that focused on the effects of generational poverty, and what happens to people raised in it - what their worldview is, etc. And I said "Oh, okay, I see. that's why the cycle of poverty is so hard to break. They don't view money the same way I do. They don't value the same things I do...and I don't value the same things they value. My middle class protestant worldview is not the same as theirs."
So I went into my teaching positions at urban, primarily high poverty schools thinking I had the information I needed to make an impact. I could help students, education was the way out, I could make an do something and I understood the barrier, so now I can break through it.
Two years later I am almost exactly back where I started. I'm jaded, cynical, and ready to ascribe everything to the laziness of those in poverty.
Why? Because I've given all I have to my job, as do most of the teachers I know (not all, certainly, but most). I offer students ways out - I teach content they need to know to be successful on college entrance exams. I use projects in my class that focus on their futures and their opportunities - we examine careers, we focus on ways to get funding for college even if your parents can't help you, etc., etc. Our counselors spend long hours helping students - they are very good at getting them into college.
But most of the students that leave our high school and enter college drop out in the first year.
There's a reason there is high burnout among urgan teachers, social workers, counselors and others that work with people in poverty. You feel you like you have done your best, worked your hardest, and the people you are trying to help don't seem to care. I offer my students a way out of their life, but they would rather deal drugs and live a life of crime, poverty, and an almost guarantee of an early, violent death.
When you see that day after day it's easy to say "they have a chance out, but they don't want to do it."
So I have no answers, but just wanted to talk from the perspective of someone who is tired. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are wealthy and powerful (and want to stay that way), you need to convince lots of other people that they want you to stay wealthy and powerful. This is why in every era of the world, the ruling class has promoted a belief system that said it was moral for them to remain the ruling class. In ancient Egypt, the Pharoah was a God. In feudal times, Kings and noblemen ruled by "divine right". When the Feudalism gave way to mercantilism, a new dogma was needed to explain why merchants who were able to amass great wealth had the moral right to that wealth and power. Calvinism provided that moral justification. The basic underlying idea, that wealth makes right is a pervasive part of our culture. Even though few people believe it when spoken in those terms, it's influence is pervasive in our laws, culture and attitudes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, would that you (and others like you) were enough. I taught in an inner city school and had a sort-of opposite response. I was teaching younger children, though, and didn't do it long enough for the kids to burn me out. I was burned out by the system.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
M_P_H, you don't actually believe that if you work hard you will prosper.
Yes I do.
quote:You only believe it with a lot of conditions attached.
Yeah, I don't believe that it's an absolute truth, that it trumps everything else in the universe.
But I still believe it.
It is an "if/then" statement. Do you believe that a slave will prosper if he works hard? Putting a "sometimes" in there changes it. You even gave examples where it wasn't true at all.
ETA: How do you makes sense of, "Some people get a raw deal, and no amount of personal industry will reverse that" but if you work hard you will prosper. Do you mean in the next life or something else I am not getting?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have a friend who studied to be a teacher in urban schools. She originally was in a program (City Year) being something like a student-teacher to elementary school kids. She found that experience rewarding. She didn't necessarily reach everyone, but she reached a few individuals. She's continued to try and be involved in their lives since. (It was obvious that their parents were doing a horrible job, and without some kind of continuous mentor they'd be completely lost)
Later on she got an actual job teaching in middle school, and her experience was essentially Belle's. She quit a few months ago due to the endless stress and lack of anything to make her feel like it was worthwhile.
Generalizing from those (hers, boots' and Belle's) examples, I'd guess that the biggest problem is bad parental role models, and you can only really address that problem when the kids are young enough that they haven't fully absorbed their parent's worldview. And you need to be involved enough with individual kids long enough to make a difference. Essentially you need to be willing to be a parent, or close to , which is one of the hardest jobs out there.
I'm sure this isn't exactly a new idea for Belle or anyone else. But it seems like trying to fix things through the existing system is basically hopeless, but if you're able to tutor individual kids, you might make a difference (not in the overarching problem, perhaps, but at least in individual kid's lives).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a reason there is high burnout among urgan teachers, social workers, counselors and others that work with people in poverty. You feel you like you have done your best, worked your hardest, and the people you are trying to help don't seem to care. I offer my students a way out of their life, but they would rather deal drugs and live a life of crime, poverty, and an almost guarantee of an early, violent death.
When you see that day after day it's easy to say "they have a chance out, but they don't want to do it."
So I have no answers, but just wanted to talk from the perspective of someone who is tired.
My experience is quite different from yours and yet there are similarities. I'm currently teaching at a University in a developing country so I'm dealing with poverty issues from a different angle. Like you, I had came hear with a lot of idealism and hope. After 3 years, I'm tired and demoralized. There are just so many cultural and systemic issues that prevent real change.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Like I already said, I believe that it's a general rule. It is not without exceptions.
And, barring tragedy in my future, I believe that I am not one of those exceptions.
If you believed you would be one of those exceptions, that no matter how hard you worked you weren't going to be able to make ends meet, what would it change.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Start a foundation to raise money to be given to elderly or poor who can't afford medical care. If everyone who is so eager to force others to pay would work to raise the money without force, I bet they'd have some good results.
That's the moral hazard in having the government do it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have no idea what you're looking for.
An honest answer.
Do you work hard primarily because you believe you will be rewarded financially for doing so, or would you work hard even if you had little to no hope for financial reward?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think you completely misread my tone on that. I did not mean to imply that you don't normally give honest answers. You said you didn't know what I was looking for with my quesiont. I was trying to say that question wasn't fishing for anything in particular or trying to catch you in some corner, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the question.
If you did not believe you would be rewarded financially for working industriously, would you keep doing it? I find it a thought provoking question myself and I'm interested in hearing other peoples response.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll tell you this -- if I were independently wealthy, I certainly wouldn't keep my current job. It's a good job, but I'm definitely in it for the money.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots, going back to what we were talking about earlier:
Yeah, my position on the matter isn't absolute. It's got a little bit of nuance. It's not a blind reiteration of what I've heard from others. I'm not a moron or a monster. I think that's true of most of the people you demonize.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I am interested in the studies you mentioned on the last page. My basically entire experience comes from my mission (experience in this area). I dealt with (as in was in contact with for multiple days) several hundred people who were on welfare or something similar while serving there (Spokane, WA mission). My experience was almost unilaterally that of the conservative argument, that those who were on welfare were not looking for work, had no ambitions to rise out of the situation they were in or get off of whatever form of welfare they were in. This same group also shared a lack of desire to improve in any other area of their lives. In fact, in my albeit limited experience there the only other social force that was as destructive to individuals was drugs (part of why I don't find jokes about meth to be funny, ever). I have never, and am no now, claiming that my experiences are proof of anything, nor have I advocated destroying the welfare system. Yet I am curious as to explanations and I'm supportive of what I would term "progressive reform" (a term that means something specific to me, not a general term) for welfare.
All of which I add in the hopes of, in some way, contributing to the discussion as well as explain why I'd be interested in studies on this.
[As a side note, not meant as a put-down on anyone here but more as a fyi, one of the reasons I rarely participate in these discussion is that I'm pretty sure that if I do it at the beginning of the discussion someone will call me heartless and accuse me of wanting to either destroy the country or kill helpless thousands. Which I've discovered hurts, even when I don't know who the heck someone is posting here, so I've stopped. At least at the beginning of threads].
posted
Hobbes, The specific claim I was referring to is this one.
quote:I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Now I have no idea what Franklin did or did not observe in his travels, but this is certainly not true to day. Those countries with the best social welfare systems also have the least poverty. They have also experienced the greatest decrease in poverty over the past 50 years.
I know that there are many poor people that have no motivation to work or improve their lot. The question is whether welfare and other social program are the cause of this lack of motivation and I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion.
[ April 07, 2011, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ignore for the moment the fact that Franklin's observation is contradicted by every study of poverty I've ever seen.
I read your links. Well the second one anyways, the first was a link to a one page document (the rest wasn't viewable without subscription) on "Antipov's Nikiforov Syndrome: The Embedded Novel in Trifonov's Time and Place". I have to admit I was throughly unconvinced by it [the second one, not the first of course ]. The point seems to be two: after distributing more wealth from up to down there's more wealth down. And two, this clearly isn't having a negative impact on economic growth because the economies of these nations show no statistical correlation to their welfare program. The first point is hardly surprising (and the paper admits that, thus the inclusion of the second point), the second point is very poorly supported. Also, how well the economy grows as a result of welfare isn't my primary concern, my primary concern is that those on welfare long term seem to be generally de-motivated for life in all aspects.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: [QB] I see. I was referring to this:
[QUOTE]Ignore for the moment the fact that Franklin's observation is contradicted by every study of poverty I've ever seen.
Yes, and I was clarifying that by "Franklin's observation" I meant his observation that in countries where more aid was given to the poor, the poor faired worse than in countries where less aid was given.
That is the observation which is contradicted by studies. I think the data in the two studies I linked to is fairly unequivacal on this sole point. Countries with stronger social welfare programs (like Norway, Germany and Sweden) do not have more poverty than countries like the US with weaker social welfare programs. Those same countries have also seen a greater decline in poverty over the past 50 years than the US.
Whether or not the studies support or contradict any broader contentions about the benefits of welfare is perhaps debatable, but they do very clearly contradict the observation that countries that give more assistance to their poor have more problems with persistent poverty. If you disagree, please explain why?
[ April 07, 2011, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, I don't think and have not ever said that I think you are a monster or a moron. Nor do I think that Hobbes is heartless. And though I think that just reading stories from the forum communities that we share would be enough to disabuse you of the notion that hard work is any guarantee of prosperity, I certainly hope that nothing happens to change your mind about your own prosperity.
Let's say for argument's sake that the poor are poor because they are lazy. They could work but are unwilling and that is not going to change. Should we feed, cloth, and provide them with a place to live and necessities for life?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]. The point seems to be two: after distributing more wealth from up to down there's more wealth down. And two, this clearly isn't having a negative impact on economic growth because the economies of these nations show no statistical correlation to their welfare program. The first point is hardly surprising (and the paper admits that, thus the inclusion of the second point), the second point is very poorly supported. Also, how well the economy grows as a result of welfare isn't my primary concern, my primary concern is that those on welfare long term seem to be generally de-motivated for life in all aspects.
