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.
Massive inflation is a byproduct of endless money printing and 17 billion in debt. Inflation = higher cost of living. Oh and you wanna see a what a low wage economy is, look at where all the "stuff" is made and then get back to me... The poor here have AC, smartphones, clean water, mostly fair police/justice system.... The poor here live better than 75% of the world.
It is so funny you mention this. I just read this article a few minutes ago.
We like to say that since poor people have cell phones they are living well. Meanwhile housing costs and transportation are increasing in cost faster than wages and inflation. Which are the stepping stones to moving up the economic ladder. Not having a tv isn't going to impact your spending money significantly enough to. Get out of poverty. It is very hard to move these days, even if you have a smartphone. Also poorer people are less likely to have a computer. And these days all job applications are online. Even for McDonalds.
How about move to a cheaper area? I lived in a cheap area and paid a whopping $530 for a two bedroom.
I do not get where people think they are entitled to live in an expensive area.
Moving isn't free. It takes a lot of money to get started even in a low cost place. If you are struggling to make ends meet, the deposit on a new apartment is impossible. And how do you suggest getting you and your stuff to said low cost area.
How about a job? This move to somewhere cheaper argument assumes you have enough resources to make the move in the first place.
If they need a baby sitter, they perhaps should have thought of the impact of decisions like having a kid. Yes, suffer the consequences of your decision.
Are you objecting to that phrasing? or the idea behind it?
If the first... get over it.
If the second... you represent the root of the problem.
Well, I'm sure you'll win plenty of friends with that comment.
I won't speak for other posters, but the thing that absolutely grates on me is how it's always viewed in terms of the personal responsibility of the parent. Well, what about the kid? The kid does nothing to deserve being born into a poor household, do they? We know for a fact that growing up in poverty and/or to low-education parents severely alters how a child grows up as well as determines a great deal of the likelihood they will be poor adults or commit crimes.
So, why is the focus on the parents and not on the cycle of poverty that gets passed on to the undeserving children!? It's so utterly weird (and somewhat terrifying) that the child is consistently viewed as a sad circumstance or a victim until age 12 or 13, but suddenly when they drop out of school or commit crimes at age 14 or 15 it becomes a matter of that child's personal responsibility. There is no sudden transition to adulthood where the knowledge and morals of the universe are downloaded into that kid's brain; they are a product of their circumstances.
But hey, the fact-free worship of personal responsibility and "economic freedom" will continue to plague this country because we have a mythology of rugged individualism that is impervious to attack.
Some thoughts brought to mind by this thread: people value hard work until they have to pay for it. Americans love their country but despise their countrymen. People demand personal responsibility of workers but not of investors.
... So here we have it. Able-bodied people with jobs ... using government programs to make ends meet.
These anecdotes illustrate the evidence that far too many people are on the dole, feeding at the public trough.
I could cite anecdotes of able-bodied people in very high cost of living areas (say, Laguna Niguel/Dana Point, CA) who are on the public dole -- but if they instead moved to low-cost of living areas they could support themselves. But they prefer to live in Laguna Beach and have their lifestyle supported by other people. It is a lifestyle choice for them.
50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson launched the "War on Poverty" as part of his "Great Society" campaign.
The objective of the effort was to end poverty through a combination of education reforms, social welfare reforms, and wealth transfer programs.
50 years of evidence clearly shows these programs are a complete & total failure. They have not achieved their objective of ending poverty.
Thy may have a support system in place that helps them stay (barely) above water. Low cost areas are no bargain if mom isn't there to babysit.
So you're saying they are irresponsible parent(s) -- they made a bad personal choice to have children without having a plan in place to have the financial & other resources in place to raise a child.
I agree with you -- they are irresponsible parents and I feel sorry for the kid.
... So, why is the focus on the parents and not on the cycle of poverty that gets passed on to the undeserving children!? ...
It isn't. The past 50 years, the focus has been (and continues to be) on those undeserving children.
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.
