Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea is focused on generational poverty but we have no way to effectively follow up or follow through and if children already exist they will probably have their own kids before deciding to do this themselves. New, non generational poverty types will always crop up and it's often only after the kids are born that people fall into poverty.
I do agree that ending generational poverty will require something drastic but until we all agree on what that is it's not going to end.
My father grew up in poverty in Milwaukee with holes in the bottom of his shoes, no winter coats, and many days going hungry. You speak out of pure ignorance. Oprah Winfrey herself grew up with no running water and no electricity in what was not uncommon in the South back then.
Albeit, my father's situation was to do with his gambling addicted, alcoholic, womanizing father never or rarely bringing his paycheck home. And my grandfather was getting a middle-class income from a Milwaukee beer factory.
You could always expend energy and time studying economics and financing and obtaining a doctoral degree in those subjects. If you truly wanted to solve poverty (albeit, relative poverty will always exist). But then that would take hard work. And we a know most of us hate hard work. Easier to project our ignorance and sloth on to a vulnerable class held in low esteem.
Ok, I'll accept the accusation that I'm lazy.
There have been many people with doctoral degrees on economics trying to solve the problem of poverty. The US has instituted thousands of programs and spent trillions of dollars over the past 5 decades to tackle poverty. And yet, we still have generational poverty virtually everywhere.
The idea is focused on generational poverty but we have no way to effectively follow up or follow through and if children already exist they will probably have their own kids before deciding to do this themselves. New, non generational poverty types will always crop up and it's often only after the kids are born that people fall into poverty.
I do agree that ending generational poverty will require something drastic but until we all agree on what that is it's not going to end.
How about we entice them with the promise that the younger they get on the program the more money they will get?
Also, what if one of the conditions to getting the basic income is they have to give up whatever children they already have up for adoption immediately.
Again, I'm not against people having children. I'm trying to find a solution to generational poverty. I firmly believe generational poverty stems from the passing on of the human mental and psychological condition of learned helplessness from one generation to the next.
Well, if I keep having to answer these kneejerk reactions, I may actually go nuts
I'm not suggesting poverty is a genetic trait that gets passed from generation to generation. I've explained in at least 3 other posts in this thread already that the psychological condition of poverty, mainly learned helplessness, gets passed from generation to generation. This is why we have generational poverty. Also why 5 decades of throwing hundreds and hudreds of billions of dollars at the problem of poverty has done nothing but create more and more people dependent on the system.
So your solution is to try and convince the poor that their lives would be much better if they didn't pass down their genes, while at the same time condemning potential future generations for lives they haven't even had the chance to live. What about kids who overcome poverty to accomplish great things? How does that inconvenient detail fit into your plan?
In another thread, someone suggested the following solution to poverty. I can't remember who this person was, so if you think this was your idea please speak up.
Here's the solution. Basic income for life of about ~$2000/month to anyone with one condition: voluntarily submit oneself to sterilization. Within a generation or so, the problem of poverty will be solved.
This suggestion was written on here a few weeks ago. On the outside, it sounds horrid, doesn't it? But I cannot find anything logically wrong with this policy. Put aside political correctness for a moment. What exactly is wrong with this solution?
Offering financial incentive to people if they sell their kids to the government? Maybe just clear out the homeless animals in the SPCA and stash the kids in there while they wait to be adopted?
Originally Posted by katzpaw Poverty is not a gene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord
No, but the attitude of poverty gets passed from generation to generation. Impoverished people also have a much higher fertility rate than everybody else.
And it isn't just about attitudes and upbringing. Poverty is very likely also a function of behavioral tendencies and inabilities that have a genetic basis. Some people are simply born with brains and bodies that function in a way as to make it more difficult for them to be successful. Incentivizing such people to have fewer kids makes sense.
So your solution is to try and convince the poor that their lives would be much better if they didn't pass down their genes,
How is this any worse than convincing poor people the more kids they have out of wedlock the more money they will get from welfare?
The difference between paying people to have more kids and paying people not to have more kids is paying people to have more kids would see an exponential expansion of the number of people in the same condition. Whereas paying people not to have more kids would ensure the reduction of that human condition.
Quote:
while at the same time condemning potential future generations for lives they haven't even had the chance to live.
So... life starts at the point of just imagining there's a potential future child?
Quote:
What about kids who overcome poverty to accomplish great things? How does that inconvenient detail fit into your plan?
I'm not dealing with individual basis here. I'm dealing with statistics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
