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.
One nitpick: Currently, there is a high need for skilled labor, but the needed pool of skilled labor isn't for college educated positions. It's more a need of skilled trade positions. The pool of jobs needing the college educated is actually oversaturated at the moment, and by a wide margin. The high wage earning jobs for average folks nowadays is more with electricians, HVAC specialists and welders.
That said, women typically don't like to date "below their station." So college educated women tend not to like to date those who aren't college educated. So it's more and more likely that, if you're a college educated woman, you're more and more likely need to be in the workplace along with your spouse, especially when considering the debt involved. If a woman is willing to go for such trade jobs instead of college or marry someone who does, it's much more likely the family will be able to live off one breadwinner. And the education for that isn't that expensive.
Oh, balderdash. Plenty of women date men who are not college educated. Now yes, a college educated woman might choose a college educated mate, as I did over 50 years ago. But not all women are college educated, and some women will choose whomever they please.
What I find interesting is, not yet another "poverty, what's up with that?" thread.... But the fact that it focused initially on URBAN poverty and no one even questioned this.
What about rural poverty?
Do folks think that it's less common? Less of a problem? I'm curious.
It isn't less common. 16% of people in rural areas are on welfare, and 13% of people in urban ones. If you live in the country, you're actually more likely to be poor enough to need, and get, assistance.
Is it maybe less of a "problem"...? Perhaps because the rural poor are out of sight and out of mind?
Or is it something else? I saw something very enlightening recently (actually I think I came across this notion first on the British quiz show, QI...) where they talked about attempts to measure the "happiness" of various populations of people. And it's not so much how rich or poor they all were that affected that, as how much contrast there is. The wider the gap between the richest, and the poorest, the more unhappy the people in general were. If everybody is poor, then poor is normal. If you live in the country, you might not know a lot of people who are much more well off than you are. If you live in the city, you see everything from the bottom to the top, and just how huge a difference it is.
It seems that we mostly feel disturbed by extremes.
I'm going to disagree with you, and obviously I wouldn't be a very good candidate to be a school principal, that I will admit.
I do think kids/adults need to suck it up. Sounds like you are a good principal that cares for their students. Bravo to that!!! But at the end of the day, we are all captains of our own ship. We all need to suck it up and pull ourselves up by your bootstraps because nobody else will be there to ensure that we flourish. "Suck it up" is exactly what is needed sometimes.
The opposite of sucking it up is wallowing in your current situation, playing the victim, blaming everybody else for your current station in life and then expecting others/government to bail you out. Sorry, in my book, this dog don't hunt.
Tired of being impoverished? Do something about it. Plenty of opportunities out there for everybody to succeed. How bad do you want it?
It seems to me you're taking the concept to extremes. Sure, sometimes we have to just give into the reality of life. But again, to go back to my earlier statement, if we can make a difference -- and there are times we can't (as in the example I gave about my sister) -- we should. Particularly if we (as in this nation) want to brag about being "a christian nation" (and I've heard that so often over my life).
When I was living in Falls Church, Virginia, I would often take the subway down into DC. There were always these two men with signs begging for money. One man's sign said: "Tools stolen. Can't work. Need $$$ to buy new tools". That would seem like a guy you could help. But no, he had that same sign at the subway station for about 7 years. It was just a way to beg. The other man's sign said: "Will work for food". One year I had broken my shoulder and couldn't rake the leaves that fall in my rather small townhouse front and back yards. So I offered that guy $20 for what would have amounted to about 2 hours of fairly light work. All I got for my offer was loud expletives. Clearly another guy you can't really help. BUT, another night I was at a small local mall on a winter evening when the forecast was calling for below zero temperatures. This guy came up to me and asked for money to get a motel room. I don't know exactly why...just a hunch...but I gave him $40. About a month or so later I was at the same mall, and this guy I didn't recognize saw me on the escalator (going in opposite directions), and he said meet me at the bottom. It was right in front of the security office, so I thought it seemed pretty safe to see what he wanted. It was the guy I had given the $40 to. He recognized me and had $40 to pay me back. Said he had gotten a jog shortly after that cold night and was now back on his feet...and that I may have saved his life with that $40.
This nation likes to pat itself on the back about being "the most generous nation in the world" and being a "christian nation". Well?
Opening Posts & Thread Titles are often failed by thinly considered and insipid phrasing ...
which should NEVER be seen as the limit of what the poster actually means.
As for me, I read the topic to be about the underlying issues that exacerbate underlying truths
that the observations of the OP was attempting to draw out: The Current Excess.
To wit: 1) Too many people generally. 2) Too many unable to provide decently for themselves.
I've gone on about the issues in these forums many, many times.
Here are the numbers. Open and read the attached single sheet. Dwell on them a bit.
A person should NEVER assume that because they read the topic of discussion and understood it a certain way, that it can ONLY be discussed along the parameters of how they personally view it.
Nope, I meant it as plainly as I stated it and as you quoted it. And, then I stated the reasons why I take this stance in body of my post below. You are free to disagree of course, but your characterization of my statement is short-sighted at best. Poverty will never end until civilization ceases to exist, that is my argument which is backed up by about five thousand years of Archeology, History (including primary sources), and Anthropology.
The “underlying issues that exacerbate underlying truths” as you interpreted the OP to want to talk about are: scarcity (imbalance) in the supply of resources, competition for said resources, the natural individual differences in the ability acquire this wealth of resources, and most importantly the human factor… the propensity of people to be greedy and hoard the resources they DO acquire. And that greed, in my opinion, is really based on a trait going back to our prehistoric past not to mention the famines that were recorded in modern history.
Last edited by SerlingHitchcockJPeele; 02-09-2022 at 01:01 PM..
Whoa. I posted this and didn’t expect all these thought out answers. I guess the question “will poverty every end?” is far too vague. I should have been more specific. What I really am asking is the mindset, the state of mind and limiting beliefs of those impoverished, will that ever end?
On a global scale, millions and millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the past few decades. Especially in India and China. Our guide in China was talking about how her grandparents had literally had to survive on tree roots in the cultural revolution.
But the thread is obviously addressing the US problem and the massive differences in wealth in the country.
It seems to me that because the US is such a capitalistic and individualistic society the wealth gap is inevitable.
Australia and most other western countries have a more systematic safety net to deal with wealth inequality. Most of our income support is federal, as is the basis of Medicare though the states run the health system. Our immigration program (which seems to be hated by the United Nations) is designed to minimise the number of people coming into the country who are likely to need permanent support. Support for single parents is tapered off when children become school age and income support for the unemployed, again a federal matter, is hardly enough for people to live on.
Obviously many of you would regard this all as socialist but in some ways it is simply more efficient, using economies of scale. Also having a high minimum wage reduces the number of working poor.
You're right, life isn't fair or equal. But that doesn't mean that we can't intervene and improve things for at least some people.
How do you think I would have fared as a principal if every time a parent came in to complain about how their child was being treated by either other students or a teacher if I just said, "Life isn't fair or equal. Your kid will just have to suck it up". I'd have been fired, and rightly so.
Who says supposed to be fair or equal - intervening is just another name for wealth transfer - that will not improve things, people should work for gain otherwise it has little worth.
I was reading about an interview with a "permanent homeless" person from the book "“San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities” - the guy just moved from TX to CA and getting $820/month, enough in assistance to eat, have a new phone and an Amazon Prime and Netflix account - no desire to change. Just giving him more will just add to amount that is spent on drugs.
The “underlying issues that exacerbate underlying truths” as you interpreted ...
Then we agree. Largely.
No need to get anyone's panties in a wad because of a differing emphasis.
Quoting you was just convenient and an example of the need to get past the limits of a poor opening post.
No need to get anyone's panties in a wad because of a differing emphasis.
Quoting you was just convenient and an example of the need to get past the limits of a poor opening post.
I agree that you read it and responded your way, and I read my way. The only example of an “insipid” post of poor quality I saw, was your quote of mine which began our discourse.
Feel free to get back on topic, rather than responding with childish rhetoric about lady’s undergarments.
Last edited by SerlingHitchcockJPeele; 02-10-2022 at 03:08 AM..
Whoa. I posted this and didn’t expect all these thought out answers. I guess the question “will poverty every end?” is far too vague. I should have been more specific.
"Thought out answers" are what people give in Great Debates, as this is a debate forum, after all. While debaters here attempt to remain civil, they can also get intense at times in regard to how arguments are presented.
To be fair to you, globetrekker96, your topic had been moved by another moderator to Great Debates from a different forum, in the belief that it was more suited for Great Debates.
Perhaps if you had originally planned your topic for Great Debates, you might have been expecting all the "thought out answers" you are receiving here. You might even have had the opportunity to present your topic with the usual debate premise, and worded your opening post differently.
Our debaters here do examine debate premises from various angles -- even when the premise has not been clearly stated.
The word "premise" comes from the medieval Latin word premissa, meaning "set before" -- that which has already been established. That which is viewed as being "common knowledge" or perhaps even as fact.
We debate either the truth or falsity of the premise generally by presenting arguments that support our views. For those of us who enjoy playing devil's advocate, we may also present arguments that don't necessarily support our own views, but can still be useful in determining the validity of the subject under discussion.
For the purpose of this debate, we will presume that your premise is this: Poverty, with its attendant criminal desperation, exists within areas of our major American cities, even as these urban areas themselves exist within larger, more affluent areas. Your original question is this: Why can't resources be more evenly distributed? Your original argument appeared to be this: A better distribution of these resources may solve the problem of poverty with its attendant criminal desperation.
Various participants in this debate have answered your question and argument in various and interesting ways. One participant (Sonic_Spork) even brought up the problem of rural poverty to illustrate that poverty in the U.S. is not just an urban problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrekker96
What I really am asking is the mindset, the state of mind and limiting beliefs of those impoverished, will that ever end?
With this question of yours, shall we presume that the premise of your debate is now: Poverty is the result of a certain limiting mindset, rather than the result of limiting economic factors, or absence of opportunity? I'm sure there will be many who will be prepared to argue either in agreement or disagreement with such a premise.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 02-10-2022 at 06:19 AM..
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.
While debaters here attempt to remain civil, they can also get intense at times in regard to how arguments are presented.
