I disagree that the original commenter is a likely cynic.
I think the most likely belief set here is that it's possible for any poor person to escape poverty through hard work and tenacity. This belief (though arguably incorrect) is supported by his personal experience. Furthermore, because he's proud of his struggle and achievement, the idea of someone 'pitying' or feeling 'guilt' for someone in his former position is detestable because it suggests that they think they're better than him.
In this light, he is not a cynic. Rather, in a sense, he is an extreme optimist and someone who is very proud of where he came from.
This is ALL speculation. My main point is that we should remain open minded in discussion and not make moral judgements on others when they are unsubstantiated (e.g. you "should really" assess your own inner self) i.e. i really think something is fundamentally wrong with you.
Saying that "maybe I was just luckier" at the end is a pretty lame cop-out after spending the remaining 90% of the comment belittling the person for not being so lucky.
Personally, I see someone who is constantly applying to jobs and working as much as they can in the jobs they are able to get as having hoisted their bootstraps as high as they can reach.
Frankly, if you're looking for mean posts, look at those belittling people in dire straits before blasting those that have the temerity to rise to defend them.
There might be many more success stories if children growing up closer to the poverty line were able to do so in more nourishing environments. However, discouragement, lack of confidence, anxiety are things not restricted to any racial or economic background. Not having a silver spoon is in many ways a better environment in which to be raised.
The OP does not say that his parents didn't show him any love, which is more important for the development of a person than any economic status. Many of the other struggles might be used as fuel for building positive character traits, unless one doesn't let it.
Having read through the post, it doesn't appear that he's actually arrived at a valid point, and is just trying to brand himself as being underprivileged through the telling of his life story, which has turned out to be successful by most standards. He uses the argument that "mindset inequality" gave him a chip on his shoulder so he was able to succeed, and therefore others fail because of it, which seems contradictory.
The flip side of this is privilege mindset: you have success in your life? Your upper middle class upbringing, social safety net, financial security and financially successful peer group played no part in it, it's all because you worked hard (or smart) and now enjoy your just desserts, might as well kick down the ladder behind you so those lazy bums don't get a leg up.
Arguably this is more common among privileged folks (including those fleetingly getting a whiff of privilege, aka "temporarily embarrassed billionaires") than "poverty mindset" is among poor folks. And of course the accusation of "poverty mindset" usually isn't what you hear from the kinds like the author who actively take time and money out of their meagerly successful lives to help those worse off than them. It's instead something you're far more likely to hear from those who "made it out" (often "against all odds" without any consideration what the idea of "odds" means in this context) and incidentally don't believe they "owe" anything to those they "left behind".
I'm not sure about that, the trouble is if you flip it around you end up saying people are poor because of their own failings.
Modern society looks down on poor people, labelling them as losers when they are really a product of unfortunate circumstances. Unfortunate because they had no books in their house, unfortunate because they were surrounded by family who derided learning, unfortunate because they had the wrong colour skin or wrong gender for the career they wanted.
I'm not even sure I buy your argument that they feel better about themselves. Being constantly reminded of your supposed failings isn't a great place to be.
The worst part of "work hard and you may become a millionaire" is for the majority it is a lie.
One more thing I want to comment on that you wrote:
> From my own experience, the whole thing tends to dull the mind to an extent where opportunities are no longer so obvious - or so easy to pursue
The way that is written shows a huge problem in peoples' perception - why do we assume the poor can only get by if opportunities are "obvious" or "easy to pursue"? Working your way up society's ladder is HARD, but people are capable of amazing things when it's their only way out. Throwing scraps to the guys at the bottom of the ladder will only take away motivation to make the long and difficult climb. Don't we want people to look back on their lives with pride on what they accomplished, in the face of difficult odds, rather than disappointment that their lives were spent living off of others' charity?
It seemed that he was talking about himself or his own family. So I took that as an anecdote. I doubt he relishes bashing his own family but called it like he believes he sees it.
My stance is close to what you're getting at. I don't think they're purposefully lazy most of the time. Though I agree with the OP that some have to be, there's no way. I'm intellectually lazy oftentimes, why wouldn't a discouraged, down on their luck poor person be? Makes zero sense that they wouldn't.
Being paid less and less in my life, while others around me make more, has been extremely demotivating. I can't imagine how the life gets sucked out of people with lesser will-power than others have.
I think it's not a claim that some people simply can't be bothered to go to school and better themselves. They just don't care. It's either stemming from their psychological profile, childhood abuse, or other factors that took down their motivation and self-esteem. They're giving themselves what they deserve, in their mind, accepted their social status.
Many of us do it. I accepted that I'm "working class" long ago and strongly identify with it. Even forgoing clothing that is outside of my class status. I'm a sturdy rural guy that even though I live in one of the largest cities in the US, prefer my blue jeans and work shirts (old fashioned Scottish plaid button ups for a country boy like myself) with work boots (think a black pair of Doc Martens). So I can completely see how others adopt their possibly lower socio-economic status as well. I like mine, it's part of my identity and I'm comfortable in my own skin that way. Maybe they are too, even if it doesn't benefit them.
> You say that as though it's a moral argument independent of other factors.
No, actually it's the fruit of some thinking the structure of our ageing western societies, and the fact that the most egalitarian societies are the happiest.
> Do you really believe that to be the case?
More than ever.
> If so, why should you disregard other factors like why people got into debt in the first place or how much savers had to sacrifice in their own lives to achieve their savings?
You know, I'm part of the 0.1% richest people on this planet (and you too, I suppose). However, I don't like to comfort myself thinking that I worked hard and deserved it, because I'm perfectly conscious that I never did work that hard (like digging shit in some hole) and I didn't really deserve it because my parents, and their parents before were doing pretty well already. I was lifted with the flow and not much else.
It's pretty easy to be under the illusion that as you didn't need that much effort to be what you are, whoever is below you must be a lazy ass, or stupid as a brick. Most of the time, however, they were just less lucky (OK they may be less gifted, or less intelligent, but that shouldn't make anyone deserving a lesser part of it all).
I've heard this song before of "lazy poor" and "hard working risk taking rich", about 1 billion times, and it always comes from people who had it easy. I don't really feel like beating this old horse more.
Edit: re-reading the nlavezzo's comment, it really isn't as dismissive as I had initially read it, and the reply below is more because this topic really touches a nerve for me. I'm leaving it here because I don't want it un-said, but I don't want to target someone who doesn't deserve it. Sorry.
This encompasses a lot of my reaction when I first read this article a few years back, and before I spent some time volunteering with charities in the US. I was, frankly, angry. Most of the time, being poor in the US is not a matter of sheer survival (except for health care), but simply a very deep hole which is hard to climb out of. But possible, right? So why not just do it?
But these days, this reaction is what really angers me. It's still a fucking deep hole. And the psychological effect of being raised in these circumstances is what doesn't get acknowledged a lot. A lot of the time you have to be taught that it's even possible to dig out of it, let alone how. This is especially true if you were raised in poverty, by parents who were also raised in poverty, in a place where the schools are a joke and you don't know anyone who has been successful. It's very easy to simply despair in these conditions, and not even realize it might be possible for things to change, because as far as you know it's not. And while the rare person might be able to summon the willpower to escape this, I'd like to know how many people truly think they could if they had never even seen what success looked like, except on TV.
Hell, I was raised in an area which was simply rural middle class, not poor by any definition; and almost no one there could imagine that good schools, good health care, or a substantially better life were in reach. The idea of attending any private university, let alone an Ivy, was a joke. And we were luckier than 99% of the world, and knew it! For some... I simply can't imagine.
The dismissive attitude exhibited in so many tech forums towards the poor is just infuriating, both in the "lazy poor" category and the "it's not as bad as elsewhere!" type. If you're in that situation, it doesn't matter that there's someone out there worse-off. What does matter is if you were brought up to think success isn't possible, you despair of making anything better, and you've lost hope. I won't argue back and forth about "handouts" because a lot of the time that's used to be dismissive too. But making it known that it's actually possible to have a better life--that is what needs to be done.
(Tangentially, it's worth pointing out that Scalzi acknowledges the difference between being poor in the US and in the Third World, as in his followup post here: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/04/quick-followups/ .)
I only think of it as “failure is understandable and doesn’t reflect on you as a person” - but you bring up a good point. I have no patience for people who say “because I made it everyone else can too” which is a really common attitude. People play up their adversity (understandable; it’s the adversity one has had) and downplay their advantages. Lack of empathy and help for those struggling is unacceptable to me. As people succeed they tend to stop congregating around those that don’t, and I think that’s fine but to sit around those successful and vote against policies to help those not succeeding is to me a moral failing.
For those struggling through poverty - one must know that one CAN succeed, or else you end up in a psychological hole waiting for the next nibble of luck. A tempered balance of both optimism and also a real social safety net seems like the best of both worlds to me.
I think I did. That person was dealt bad cards (assuming they are sufficiently motivated and getting the most out of their set of circumstances), and their mission in life now is to overcome whatever challenges are currently preventing them from having a higher paying job (of which there are plenty).
Sure, he and his wife clearly worked for what they have. Doesn't mean there isn't survivor bias (luck) and privilege at work. For example, anybody who can pay for their own college from jobs they worked as a teenager is privileged.
He doesn't say he grew up in a family without a ton of money. He grew up in a frugal family. In Canada, with a number of social support systems that simply don't exist elsewhere. He could attend a local University on his teenager job savings and had a good job waiting for him upon graduation. He and his wife found a fixer-upper they could afford to fix up. And so on. These aren't things that happen to or for most people. The suggestion that his experience generalizes is terrible.
I don't think the point is to belittle their accomplishments, but rather a realistic take on poverty. A lot of people try really hard, and still cannot get out of poverty.
This is something we as a society need to deal with, and not disregard a systematic problem with anecdotal success stories and saying "You can too!"
Sorry, but no, I will comment my views as I please, whether they support the status quo or not. As this is a public forum, you'd do well to find a way to cope with differing views.
I was poor. I improved my situation. I didn't spend much time complaining about rich people on the internet, because that would have detracted from the time I taught myself marketable skills for 8 hours a day, every day, for 7 months, while delivering pizzas and living in a shithole with 3 other people. You're right though, complaining would have been much easier, but somehow I don't think I'd still be making a quarter mil if I had taken that route.
"Pathetic" to recommend people work hard and fix their life? That sentiment itself is what's pathetic. The world doesn't owe you shit.
Oh, for sure. Had I been born somewhere else I’m not sure these traits would have resulted in the same outcome.
I guess people don’t feel the need to comment on circumstances beyond their control exactly because they can’t do anything about them though. Saying you worked hard is nice, appending “and I’m still only here because I started 2 leagues behind” is not.
Neither is “but I’m here mostly because I was born in the first world to a fairly well off family”.
People bitch and moan about how unfair everything is and while it is unfair the wealth the poorest individual has in the united states is light years ahead of what kings had in the middle ages.
Throughout history poor people were happy because they believed they were born to that life so they didn't have the stress or jealousy of believing life was unfair to them. If you read any old philosophy book it's all lessons about being happy with what you have.
Believing you can raise yourself up and improve your life is a relatively new phenomenon, and society stopping people doing that leads to unhappiness.
Claiming to be "self-made" isn't directly advocating that the poor need only pull harder on their bootstraps, but it's only a few steps apart.
If someone believes you can be "self-made" without also necessarily also having a substantial amount of luck, that someone can't explain the gap between success and mere subsistence as anything but "lack of determination", often with a moralistic tone.
The very successful shape our society with their influence, which they wield in advancement of their beliefs. If those beliefs are incomplete, or lack empathy, it affects all of us.
I didn't say that. This is why it's hard to have civil discussion online because people take words out of context and use whatever interpretation they have.
If you are one of the people who are in unfortunate situations, you can choose to live two different lives: either believe that you're done for and live a loser life, or try hard to get out of it.
It's your choice, but there's plenty of evidence where people who came from the bottom rose to the top by working hard (and I mean "top" as in someone who's made world-changing achievements)
You're misinterpreting the discussion, I think. I can't tell if it's intentional or not.
Nobody was coming down on anyone for their accomplishments.
My intended contribution was that some (or in my experience, many) people in already achieved positions, regardless of how they arrived in their materially advanced station, might mistake the circumstances of another who is less materially fortunate as being so because it's a product of the less fortunate person's intrinsic inner worth.
And when someone, who is trying to breach those meritocratic strata for financial or other material rewards, encounters that kind of mindset in their superiors it can be terribly inhibiting—like trying to climb a hill of ice that refuses to believe it's slippery of its own accord and that the continual flailing of the climber is a failing of the climber alone. Or sometimes that would-be climber prefers to stick around the plains and enjoy the views. Neither of those situations makes the would-be climber a less-capable, less whole person—even if the would-be climber cannot see the icy hill for what it is.
("Why not pick a better hill" is about as controllable as "why not be born into a more materially advanced family")
[facepalm] This retort about social equality & justice is not something anyone should take seriously. It is a very one-sided, reductive rebuttal of the issue. If nothing else, this comment is a good example of the projection mentality on display in folk of a "progressive" bent: long on cynical rhetoric about "those people" while short on understanding the underlying differences in axioms (ex.: "compassion for fellow human beings" does not involve gov't confiscation of one's income for redistribution to those able-bodied who complain sufficiently).
Long story short, some people question the idea that people who are successful deserve what they have because others agreed to give them it, and that those who are unsuccessful deserve to be poor because, in a word, they didn't earn what they don't have. Furthermore, some people want society at large to acknowledge that chance and circumstance are unfair and nobody's "fault", and the rewards of success should not be forcibly redistributed just because chance favored a ready mind.
Your post is so common it's a cliche.
We'd get somewhere in this discussion if we could discuss differences in underlying axioms, rather than hurtling insults at those with diverse views.
I think the most likely belief set here is that it's possible for any poor person to escape poverty through hard work and tenacity. This belief (though arguably incorrect) is supported by his personal experience. Furthermore, because he's proud of his struggle and achievement, the idea of someone 'pitying' or feeling 'guilt' for someone in his former position is detestable because it suggests that they think they're better than him.
In this light, he is not a cynic. Rather, in a sense, he is an extreme optimist and someone who is very proud of where he came from.
This is ALL speculation. My main point is that we should remain open minded in discussion and not make moral judgements on others when they are unsubstantiated (e.g. you "should really" assess your own inner self) i.e. i really think something is fundamentally wrong with you.
reply