Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

Yup, that is indeed a problem. 'Race' in the U.S. is, I believe, really a cypher for class, and where in other countries someone born to a lower-class can learn to fit in among a better class, it's impossible to change one's race.

This also hurts immigrants from other countries: they may be well-educated but on first sight they appear to belong to a lower class. It's very unfortunate.

There's also the reverse effect, notably lampooned in the film Love, Actually: if you've a British accent, Americans will assume you're posh.

Yes, all that is good, but sounds more like concern trolling rather than actual suggestions.

Do you have actual economic policies that will result in better outcomes for the poor?

Speaking of ordering a pizza, I remember visiting a very cheap pizza place in my home town. It was during a year I earned around $200k, and the pizza over there was around $4 (whole pizza, not just a piece).

While I was waiting in line, an elderly couple entered. It looked like it was a big event for them - average earnings in Poland are around $10k/yr, for them it was probably a half of that.

They looked at the prices, I think they asked about something cheaper, or sth.. I don't remember the details, but I remember them leaving because it seemed it was too expensive for them.

If I had more wit, I would just buy them dinner, and make up some kind of a story of me celebrating or sth, so it wouldn't look like a charity. I didn't, because I seriously didn't know how to react...

Some other time, I remember getting into an argument with a bum a Warsaw city center. Bums in Warsaw are much cleaner than the ones in SF or in States in general. I don't know why...

Anyway, I had a good day, so I told him I will buy him a warm sandwich. He followed me to the shop, and I told him to pick the biggest and best one he wants (biggest one being $5 vs. $2 smallest, again, pocket change in US).

The guy was literally unable to make any kind of a choice. The lady at the counter asked him for a kind of meat, and he couldn't choose which one he wanted. My bet was that he was unused to a situation of abundance of anything...

Anyway, he finally managed to make the choice, with my help. I remember how grateful he was. He ended by shaking my hand, and saying something about having a dark past, being a part of SB (kind of like polish KGB) and doing a ton of bad things to people before 1989...

That's some of my recent memories. I still remember reading menus from right to left, and I try to buy people food whenever I can, and whenever it won't make things awkward...

You resent my tone. I resent your implicit dismissal that I have a point at all. That is something routinely done to people who are "the wrong kind of people," whether it is their gender, sexual orientation, social class or some other Othering category.

Calling it a hack that you are suggesting is an extremely different idea from your initial framing. I am someone who focuses a lot on what the disadvantaged individual can do for themselves in the here and now, in spite of the system being broken. I have learned to be more careful about how I speak of such things because if you aren't careful, it absolutely reads as blaming the victim and dismissing the idea that the system itself needs to change.

Your initial framing of "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is an incredibly problematic framing. It implies that you don't really need to study or make an effort or have ambition. That works for the rich kids, as this article suggests. If you are poor and trying to find a hack to get ahead, you better be smart, knowledgeable, hard working and ambitious and have a plan. Then finding the right person to connect with might open doors for you. But when a poor person hears It's not what you know, it's who you know, there is the danger that they will interpret that to mean that they just need to find a rich person to latch onto and take advantage of. It also is very disrespectful of the few who do make it that way, like their sorry ass got saved, not that they succeeded against long odds, in part due to using a social hack.

Some of your implicit assumptions seem to be that we are talking about people with entrepreneurial ambitions. Not everyone has that. Furthermore, my mom and aunt used to work dinner parties at rich folks' houses. Most folks at those parties are pretty well heeled. Most poor people at such events are serving the food and cleaning up, not hobnobbing with the rich.

I suggest you seriously rethink your dismissal of the value of meeting people online. Plenty of people make that work and it has the potential to bring down social barriers and allow poor folks to make connections and further plans in spite of not dressing right, not being able to get an invite to a cocktail party, etc. But one of the problems is that if people online learn you are poor, they turn a deaf ear to your efforts to further your entrepreunerial plans and dismis you as someone trying to hit them up for money rather than recognizing that your goal is to make money online -- just like a lot of them are currently doing.

I will also note generally that you are not the first person to dismiss out of hand the idea that me having a few thousand karma on HN should mean something. I don't know if it is classism or sexism or what, but that is an example of "the rules are differemt for some folks, and not in a good way." Because when men here have several thousand karma points, it absolutely does get cited by people as evidence of their intelligence and the value they have to offer. (Recent example : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12775170) But if I say I have inordinately high amounts of karma for a woman here, that is routinely dismissed as not meaningful in any way, shape or form.

Also, I am not "starting from homelessness." I was 46 when I ended up on the street. I am noting that as a PSA. People who are homeless routinely get treated like they were born homeless and never had a life. Their educational background and other relevant life experiences get completely dismissed. This is a significant social barrier for those who are homeless and would like to actually solve their problems.

Best. Thanks for replying.

> Culture is learned behaviour that is transmitted from one person to another.

Essentially yes, though I don't mean to say that some religion or some culture in the sense of history, music, food and arts is lesser than others. All I'm saying is that some cultures strongly reinforce certain qualities that help children being successful. I'm not a Jew or an Asian, but I do try to learn what is useful about these cultures so I can apply it myself.

> If your parents don't know elite cultural norms and your schoolmates don't know elite cultural norms, then how exactly is a child supposed to learn elite accents and elite cultural norms?

I did exactly that which you seem to believe is impossible or very hard. I'm from a immigrant family that started with nothing in a western EU country and I became part of the top 1%.

What I can tell you about my experience is that I did not know the elite accents but some universal qualities like strong discipline (I never did any kind of drug), dedication to work hard and the wish to compete (I'm not the kind of guy that uses his elbows to get in front) were reinforced by my parents. I also tried (not always successful) to keep away from people who act destructive or totally lack focus in life.

Now about the part with the struggling parents and hungry children:

First of all I believe it is an extreme exaggeration to say that half the children need to starve, I actually believe that no child needs to starve in the US or go to school hungry.

All kinds of welfare institutions are in place that would prevent that from happening. But we still both know that it does happen, even though everyone gets the necessary resources from the government to prevent that from happening. (at least here in the EU)

I'm willing to bet that in most cases it is caused by bad decisions of the parents. Decisions like abusing alcohol, drugs or wasting money. (gambling, buying products they can't afford)

The question is if it is even possible to prevent this from happening, even if you expand the welfare state. I doubt it. I believe this issue will always exist as there'll always be people that make lots of very bad decisions because they have the freedom to do so. (I assume you don't want to take everyones freedom in the process of achieving equal outcomes)

On the other hand the welfare state incentivises those who are dependant to stay dependant (a job would have to be really well paid to offset the tax punishment and very safe as well because if they are fired early they will often disqualify for welfare payments for a few months - could be fatal for many) and this situation also wears these people mentally down and causes divorces, which leads to a further breakdown of society as a whole. (see divorce rate today - or see birth rates in the EU which is in the process of going full Socialist)

And then there are tons of regulations that make it very expensive to hire someone for businesses (minimum wage, bureaucratic red tape) which further worsens the situation for poor people. A hundred years ago anyone with two arms and two legs could find a job in the US, even if it was only day - to - day. We certainly do not want that everyone stays in low pay jobs, but starting doing _something_ would change the life of most persons who are dependant on welfare today. Chances are they'd learn new skills and become more valuable as an employee over time and it would on top of that improve their sense of being in control of their own life.

But the way it is now you can't ever find a job if you have no skills whatsoever. How could a business pay an Afghan guy who barely speaks English the government mandated $15 minimum wage without going broke? The business wont and the Afghan guy will stay dependant and will have to live in a depressing situation.

If you are interested I can recommend the Milton Friedman series "Free to Choose" (from the 1980s), in specific Part 5 which is all about the welfare state:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRLAKD-Vuvk

Even if you reject his ideas I feel there's a great debate after the first 30 minutes with great persons representing each side of the argument.