why do so many people choose to be poor? (middle east, layoffs, vs)

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

Obviously not. I forget that some people require things explained in more detail. Forgive me. [sigh] Not only that, but there isn't always time for the "long version". Ok then. Obviously being poor isn't a choice. That's a fundamentally ignorant (or abusive) remark. For every person who is well nourished several people starve. That isn't an opinion, and I suspect for the people involved it isn't a choice. We live in a nation where the main nutritional problem is obesity, on a planet where the main nutritional problem is starvation. The Neoconservatives have an easy answer for this; "it's their fault for not chosing to be white middle class Americans". The actual answer actually involves brain cells in double digits to understand. If you add up all the food and other goods and services produced on this planet in a year and compare it to the amount consumed its easy to show that the poplulation outgrew the supply of food, water, clothing, etc. in late 1978. Prior to then, any problems of starvation or malnutrition were problems of distribution. Every year the annual "product" of the planet is fully consumed at an earlier date. Usually the Neoconservatives will respond, "that's easy, all "they" have to do is practice responsible birth control like white middle class Americans do" (an idea borrowed from the Communist Chinese). Not so, for several reasons. One, even with zero population growth the consumption of resources is not equal. The obesity/starvation example implies this. The amount of land required to produce everything required for the average person on this planet in an ongoing way is 2.5-3.5 hectares. For a middle class white american it is 6.5-7.5 hectares. An average 3 year old in this country has already consumed more resources than the average Asian or African will in their entire lifetime.

Now clearly the difference can be accounted for by the differences in life style, not some moral defect. It is easy to say they should learn from us and grow more grain, etc. In fact, the policy the USA and Europe (now the EU) have had toward these countries since the late 1800's has been to discourage modern farming both with trade barriers and with grain purchased cheaply on the world market and "dumped" below cost into the markets of these countries. Only now is there talk of a new policy. Consumption of native foods has been similarly discouraged.

Much of the difference in consumption, especially energy is related to our technology, especially digital technology. Because this technology is
entrepreneurial it can be created, rather than being based on a fixed amount. Thus there are no limits. For this reason the gap between the haves and the have-nots continues to widen, both internationally and at home. HDTV's for example consume around $100.00/month more electricity than CRT television.

Poverty in the USA generally reflects the demopgraphics that prevail elsewhere. Next to race, gender plays a major role, at home and abroad. As people try to find a balance on this difficult issue, the emerging nations are surprisingly willing to negotiate compromise, and the established nations unsurprisingly willing to resort to military force.

I agree with some of what you said, except the part about the HDTV... They absolutely do not use $100.00 more electricity a month than a CRT. In fact, the average 42" LCD TV uses about $19 worth of electricity a month, and thats if you have it on for 8 hours a day, and on standby for 16.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html

[highdesertmutz]

I chose to be poor so people like yourself can support me. your query answered plain and simple. have I ever worked a day in my life? yes, many 70 hour weeks went by working, and, am still poor. so, cough up that cash marquise, all us po folks need you rich folks. we're tired of poke n beans, we want to eat steak like you all rich folks do.

Originally Posted by jmarquise

I have always wondered this myself. we all know that poverty is a choice, so why do so many chose to live in it? with all the government grants, educational opportunities, and other government programs out there, why do so many choose to do so little? show me a poor person, and I will show you a reason. unless you are physically or mentally disabled, there is no excuse for being poor.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

I agree with some of what you said, except the part about the HDTV... They absolutely do not use $100.00 more electricity a month than a CRT. In fact, the average 42" LCD TV uses about $19 worth of electricity a month, and thats if you have it on for 8 hours a day, and on standby for 16.

HDTV power consumption compared - TV power consumption - CNET Reviews

I appreciate the correction, thanks. My info came from an interview with the energy star people through Consumer Reports. They said they have only recently begun to evaluate consumer electronics for power consumption. I have never seen comparative figures (including your article)

"CRT models were excluded from this comparison because we haven't tested any recently".

I guess it'll be a moot point soon, but this is still a really nice article, what with people unplugging appliances and things to save every mW.

[chauncy]

Originally Posted by jmarquise

I have always wondered this myself. we all know that poverty is a choice, so why do so many chose to live in it? with all the government grants, educational opportunities, and other government programs out there, why do so many choose to do so little? show me a poor person, and I will show you a reason. unless you are physically or mentally disabled, there is no excuse for being poor.

somebody may have suggested this answer already:

Because they chose to invest with Made-off?

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

I appreciate the correction, thanks. My info came from an interview with the energy star people through Consumer Reports. They said they have only recently begun to evaluate consumer electronics for power consumption. I have never seen comparative figures (including your article)

"CRT models were excluded from this comparison because we haven't tested any recently".

I guess it'll be a moot point soon, but this is still a really nice article, what with people unplugging appliances and things to save every mW.

Yeah, it's a sore spot for me. Me and my boyfriend got a 42" LCD in July and our electricity bill spiked. My roommates blamed us, and we researched it and found it shouldn't be costing us any more. We later found out that one roommate had an window air conditioner plugged in 24/7 which doubled our bill....

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by jmarquise

I have always wondered this myself. we all know that poverty is a choice....

Ms Paris Hilton, is that you?

[think.reciprocity]

Originally Posted by TKramar

There's another point or two I'd like to make.

If you're hit by a car (and live), should someone pay you for the REST of your life? How do you expect to work if you're paralyzed? Should you be allowed to continue living? Or get disabiliity payments from the government?

The other thing is welfare. How many MEN are there on welfare? Why does your welfare recipient tend to be a single woman with kids? Isn't that discriminatory?

I cannot believe I am even doing this - but alas I am...

If you're hit by a car (and live), should someone pay you for the REST of your life?

If that accident causes a person to no longer be able to work to earn an income, yes. Is that "fair"? No. Is it fair they were injured permanently in an "accident"? No!

Secondly, many of us carry short & long term disability insurance for just this reason (and more). We put in so that, god forbid, if we need it - we are able to collect on our insurance. Assuming, of course, that company will not play dirty & refuse to pay out (oh, that would never happen would it?). Additionally, for those of us who have enough work credits through Social Security - we are able to collect Social Security Disability Insurance - again, something we paid into in the event that we'd be unfortunate enough to need to collect. All who work & pay in contribute to that fund... just as all who pay insurance premiums pay in... all systems count on the majority never collecting so the minority of us can - due to unfortunate & unforseen circumstances. This is not welfare. No one is actually paying for me for the rest of my life but I am collecting on something I paid into.

For those who didn't have insurance or enough work credits there is still SSI - essentially welfare payments for the disabled. If you don't like that the government has set up a system by which we all can be covered if, by the wisdom of god we are someone NOT spared tragedy, I suggest you stop whining here & begin figuring out how to change the way this works... Well, & pray that misfortune never befalls you or someone you love.

How do you expect to work if you're paralyzed?

Many people work & contribute in countless ways if they are paralyzed. Visit a Brain / Spinal Cord Injury Center in your area - often times they have art exhibits where they display art done by people who create amazingly beautiful works of art by using a paintbrush with their teeth. There are many who suffer MS or other neurological disorders that leave their healthy vibrant brains intact but render them nearly completely immobile - many of whom are able to use technology that is activated by the blinking of their eyes & all sorts of interesting things. There are people who you'd euthenize out of ignorance who contribute immensely in ways that are clearly far beyond your limited scope.

Should you be allowed to continue living?

The day our creator steps in front of me & tells me that I have no place or purpose left on this earth - no one will have to euthenize me - I'll take myself out. I'll pray you're never faced with a situation where someone is asking this very question about your right to life.

Or get disabiliity payments from the government?

Again, as addressed before - you seem to be ill informed about how this system works. Enough said.

The other thing is welfare. How many MEN are there on welfare?

Which welfare are we talking about? Corporate welfare? Government bailouts? Tax shelters & tax breaks for the rich & corporate? Hmmm? Why is so much attention always paid on those who are costing "society" the least financially? You fall into the same ole trap / way of thinking that most do. Point the finger at those who have zero political, economic, social power rather than seeing the full picture. It would be futile to point the finger where it belongs - because THEY are the ones with all the power & making all the rules.

As for how many men are on "welfare" - assuming you are talking about AFDC, MFIP, TANF, etc... these programs were originally set up to assist struggling farm FAMILIES - MEN, women, & children. Last I checked (which, admittedly was several years ago), men still were a decent percentage of "welfare" recipients & "white" people were the majority recipients - because, again, we easily see the poverty in the inner city but forget about the fact that there are multitudes in outlying & rural areas who are "white" & needing assistance. Most people on welfare stay on no longer than either 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 years & never go back on. Most have no more children than the national average. I could go on - but you get where I am going with this...

Why does your welfare recipient tend to be a single woman with kids?

I'm stunned at the question - as if the answer is not glaring. Well, of course it is multi-dimensional.

First, single women & children would not be on welfare if those married or single men who fathered those children on welfare by those single women on welfare would just pay to support their children who are now on welfare so that other people who actually support their own children don't have to go to work 40 or more hours a week to pay to support those other men's children on welfare? Understand?

Next, of course, is the fact that we've lost our minds in this society. Men don't take responsibility for reproductive choices (not to mention STD prevention) & neither do women (yes, I am generalizing to make a point). Both blame the other.

Men claim the woman trapped them. Interesting because if I knew I was going to become a parent in 9 months if I had sex with someone - I'd be on self lockdown until we came up with a cure for that ailment.

Women claim they either used protection & it failed or that they had no idea what a "deadbeat" the man was & it's not her fault because there was no way for her to have known better. IT'S NOT MY FAULT.

Also, neither men nor women seem to think that children need two active responsible parents anymore. Men throw their sperm around anywhere they can & women go looking for love in all the wrong places. God, I hear women all the time saying that "I don't need a man" - great - don't have one then... But your child needs a father for goodness sake.

Men, hell, they just walk away - "ain't my problem" - it's as if we have an entire generation of children growing up with only one parent.

Personally, I would do anything to provide for my child. I cannot imagine walking away from the responsibilty - the honour, really, of being there in every way for another human being - my child.

My son is 20 years old. I have just now begun to collect a few pennies here or there from his father. He started & stopped jobs continually for 20 years - I suppose he thought he wouldn't have to pay after our son turned 18. He was wrong. He did this & refused to file taxes (despite paying in - just doing it to be spiteful) so that I couldn't collect.

I chose poorly. I accept that. I married too young. Became a mother too young. Our son deserved better. I worked my butt off, went to college, gave plasma when necessary to make ends meet, & for a good few years was making no more than 6 dollars an hour - it was all the greater my earning power was at the time.

I received some money from "welfare" - money I wouldn't have needed if my son's father - a man - would have paid his fair share. (and, admittedly, if I had chosen better & not had a child before I had proper means to support him on my own - without taxpayer assistance - I could have then taken on the added financial responsibility myself) Instead, taxpayers (including me - through my taxes - interestingly enough) foot the bill.

Dayum lucky women on welfare - I just looked and as of 2004 - the maximum TANF payment for a family of 3 in the state of Illinois was $396. I will take a hard day's work & a salary I earned myself ($65,000 a year before misfortune struck) any day over trying to survive on that. Back in the day the maximum AFDC (now MFIP) payment for an adult & one child was $437 in the state of MN - I don't think it's gone up much, if at all. Don't assume that because that's what "they get" they also get other subsidies - sometimes that's true - many others it is not. There is also a nationwide cap on "welfare" payments of 60 months. There are exceptions due to health & other things - but getting those exceptions are not easy.

I'd say there is enough blame (although I prefer to think of it as "responsibility") to go around when accounting for this alleged dilemma.

Isn't that discriminatory?

Isn't that just silly? The question, I mean!?

[artsyguy]

Ever heard of "white privilege" or "glass ceiling" ? Ok case closed.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by jmarquise

I have always wondered this myself. we all know that poverty is a choice, so why do so many chose to live in it? with all the government grants, educational opportunities, and other government programs out there, why do so many choose to do so little? show me a poor person, and I will show you a reason. unless you are physically or mentally disabled, there is no excuse for being poor.

Yes, yes, yes...

Of course!

Wealth and poverty are simply choices, not conditions. We all have the same resources and opportunities. Everyone knows that.

If everyone just had the common sense to be born into families that have wealth and connections, then poverty would just disappear!

You and Phil Gramm have the exact same economic viewpoint. All of America's economic woes are the fault of the working class. Both of you worship at the altar of Ayn Rand, no doubt.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by think.reciprocity

Why does your welfare recipient tend to be a single woman with kids?

I'm stunned at the question - as if the answer is not glaring. Well, of course it is multi-dimensional.

Might I add that this is how the system was structured from the very inception of Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) and in good part acted as a incentive for men to abandon their families?