The poor don't deserve to be poor. And they don't deserve to not be poor. The whole concept, applied at a global level, is nothing more than yet another example of our need to wrap everything we see in pretty stories.
I wish we had a more equal world, but I don't see why should I believe this to be anything more than a personal preference.
Friend, everything in this world can be said to discriminate against the poor. What do you propose? That being poor legitimizes breaking the rules that protect all of us?
If I have one complaint about the article, it's that his idea of poor, and my idea of poor seem very far apart. My idea of poor makes his idea of poor look like a lavish paradise.
This has "don't feel bad for poor people" written all over it. People just don't have the kind of options he's saying they do and I don't appreciate him creating classes of people, some deserving and some underserving of comfort.
"The poor are poor because all of their choices in life suck."
There are of course two completely different ways to read that. I find that the first interpretation that jumps out at people speaks volumes about their world-view.
I don't think I owe the poor anything for existing, I think they should be taken care of as fellow humans. We live in a society, we should take care of each other.
I look at their complaints in light of what someone in poverty deals with everyday and their complaints are pitiful.
I agree with the need for perspective. The well off really need to know what the rest of the world is like, so they make decisions that take their effects on others into account. The disadvantaged really need to know what the path to being well off looks like, so they can apply their voices and efforts to the places that will make a difference. I've been in that place where a rise in the price of ramen or gasoline could make it impossible to pay rent. I've also been fortunate to find myself in a much better place.
However, we don't gain much by forbidding any displeasure for all but the worst sufferers. Failing to get a job at FAANG doesn't magically move that money into the hands of people who desperately need it. Being set back in one's own fortunate life still sucks.
We all need empathy at times, nobody should have a monopoly on empathy. Mutual empathy builds bridges, monopolized empathy builds resentment.
The motivations of moneyed interests are obvious. But the contempt the working and middle classes have for the poor is something I'll never understand.
I've often been obliged to pay for something I've seen others acquire freely and I say good for them. I wouldn't exchange places with them for a moment. It seems the pettiest of all things to begrudge someone whose life is a disater, even in the rare cases when it is of their own making.
Ok, now I don’t understand what your point is at all. I know all of these words, but I can’t combine them into a coherent thought when arranged in this sequence.
The best I can figure out is, we’re not supposed to call people “poor” just because they live in bad conditions and have little money, because that is somehow imposing our values on a culture that doesn’t share them?
The article doesn't seem to have any real substance. Poor people have an inherent incentive to agree with you that "Yeah, dude, it sucks to be me and life is unfair and I get nothing but shafted! I need relief!"
And they aren't wrong to do that. Plenty of people were willing to take advantage of me and get free benefits from my knowledge, expertise etc when I was literally homeless and going hungry regularly while they did nothing for me. I still go hungry regularly and still add value and still can't figure out how to get my fair share.
I don't know what the solution is for me and I don't know what the truth is about cities, but I'm wholly unimpressed with this piece.
> "impoverishing them" doesn't seem like the right goal
I don't think anyone should be impoverished, and indeed I'm not a supporter of the idea of "meritocracy", but I think it's fair to take the arguments for it to their logical and abhorrent conclusion. After all, the supporters seem perfectly content to allow the non-wealthy (and assumed non-meritorious) to become impoverished.
That ungrateful poor people are the best poor people?
The best among the poor are ungrateful because they don't want to have to rely on charity; they want to be self-reliant, to work and earn and not need charity in the first place. Rather than being grateful for charity they want a society where they don't end up in a situation where charity is necessary.
In a just society people would have equality, equity, and opportunity to provide for themselves, and support from the community if they're unlucky enough not to be able to. No one should have to be grateful for someone else's help because no one should need someone else's help. Needing to rely on the charity of another person is an indignity that drives home how unequal two people are.
I think this is a strawman argument. I really don't believe there are a significant number of people that would rather have everyone be poor so long as they're equally poor.
I wish we had a more equal world, but I don't see why should I believe this to be anything more than a personal preference.
reply