Quote:
Originally Posted by Minte
I know that's not what you asked. It was a loaded question. My answer is in line with the original topic. The failure of a 50 year multi-trillion dollar war on poverty in America
|
It's not really a loaded question. I'm not asking for a statistical analysis.
What does your gut tell you? 1% of them? 5%, 15%, 50%, 100%? If you want to win the war on poverty you have to believe poor people are capable of more than being poor. The ones who are poor due to laziness can't be helped.
My view is that a very high percentage of poor people have lazy parents and become lazier as they get older and remain poor to complete the cycle from one generation to the next, but only a tiny fraction (less than 5%) of people who are poor start out poor primarily due to their own laziness. That is the crux of the problem with fixing the war on poverty....
Things that break the cycle of poverty matter most. It is unlikely we would ever be able to help poor people over the age of 30 or 40 in any way beyond social safetynet programs. You can give them fish but only a tiny fraction can be taught to fish at that point.
What would we do if we wanted to teach younger poor people to fish? Apprenticeship programs, civics courses, public preschool, tradeschools, reconfigure education costs and student debts, enact the 30 day draft rule, provide single payer basic health care, end the drug war, provide serious tax benefits to people who put in time as qualified mentors, massive prison system reform and so on... all the things that allow someone with lazy parents to choose a different path and safeguards to prevent them from being derailed (by unnecessary wars or selective enforcement) if they are otherwise headed in the right direction.
If you think they are genetically lazy nothing will help. I think it's a learned behavior and you can intercede as a society if you want the next generation to be better than the prior generation. Over 10 years the results will be minimal, over 3 generations they would be enormous.
