Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Once poor, always poor?

stearsng.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 358 posts

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#131

Post by Broken_Hippo »

wiseowise wrote: post #120
curiousgal wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a Catch 22. Are they poor because they have too many children or are they having too many children beacsue they are poor?

Are you implying that having many children might lead to better outcome financially?

Sometimes that is exactly the case For example, farmers. Farming families have traditionally had more children, and children were able to help with farm duties. We don't see as much of this in a lot of areas anymore because farming doesn't take as many people as it used to - at least in areas with machinery.

In some traditional areas, it probably depends on the gender of your children too.

Additionally, there are 'soft' benefits, like older children providing child care or adult children taking care of their parents or in-laws.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#132

Post by WalterBright »

dredmorbius wrote: post #103
WalterBright wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with your family in the background Many conferencing programs allow you to set the background. Use a photo of a bookshelf and you're good to go!

Given two scenarios: A: An affluent individual with a dedicated home working space, high-speed and reliable broadband provider, and high-quality computer, video, and audio gear B: A poor individual in a multigenerational household sharing working space with other household members on an ongoing basis and connectivity over flaky mobile service using a cheap Android device. Which do you suppose might have an inherent a…

I was responding to:

"your family in the background"

It's an easily resolved problem. I do it myself, as my office is a mess. I've used a photo of a bookshelf, too :-)

I've also had many business zoom meetings with people with their kid in their lap, or their pets demanding attention, etc. It's not a problem.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#133

Post by johnchristopher »

algo646464 wrote: post #102
duxup wrote: post #14

> Cultural norms can also encourage poverty cycles. I often wonder about these. Growing up I watched friends whose families had what you might describe as a cultural distrust of institutions, including schools, or even anyone who seemed to “think they’re better than us” (translation anyone who did well in school or a career). They constantly made self defeating choices and seemed destined to have the same problems/ p…

I sometimes think, one way to break this cycle is to send the all the kids to boarding school or military school. It could put them in an environment free from their background circumstances. It is of course a harsh thing to do, but I think maybe it could work.

> send the all the kids to boarding school or military school. It could put them in an environment free from their background circumstances.

It is a common meme in some circles that sending (problematic) kids to boarding or military school will "set them straight". To me, it's basically just hope that a bit more violence will work.

Also, after 6 years spent in an environment where you are told what to do every minutes, where rules are clear and mostly non-negotiable, bed and meal times always the same... what happens when you are put back in the regular world ? I exaggerate things to make a point, it's not black and white but still.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#134

Post by dragonwriter »

johnebgd wrote: post #113
algo646464 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes think, one way to break this cycle is to send the all the kids to boarding school or military school. It could put them in an environment free from their background circumstances. It is of course a harsh thing to do, but I think maybe it could work.

Microsoft introduced the School of the Future that had incredible results. https://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-039-School-of-the-... I’m surprised it didn’t catch on more. Maybe others on here were involved and can shed some light on why this initiative stalled?

> Microsoft introduced the School of the Future that had incredible results.

Your article cites no actual results.

In reality, the problems it seems to have had is that the basic idea just doesn't work: the first years were plain rocky. [0] When it dealt with some of the early problems, it got good results, to the extent it did (and certainly some measures were quite good), largely by costing more, even though the fundamental concept was to prove a scalable, efficient model by requiring no additional funding (so it had to try to close the gap by aggressive outside fundraising to meet the additional costs.) [1] When the baseline funding for public schools dropped, the extra cost of SoF’s original model became even less sustainable. [2]

The school still exists, but I can't find anything after 2014 even treating it as a particularly interesting thing.

[0] https://www.eschoolnews.com/2009/06/01/school-of-the-future-...

[1] https://technical.ly/philly/2012/11/12/high-school-of-the-fu...

[2] https://www.phillytrib.com/news/past-problems-saddle-school-...

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#135

Post by dredmorbius »

WalterBright wrote: post #132
dredmorbius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given two scenarios: A: An affluent individual with a dedicated home working space, high-speed and reliable broadband provider, and high-quality computer, video, and audio gear B: A poor individual in a multigenerational household sharing working space with other household members on an ongoing basis and connectivity over flaky mobile service using a cheap Android device. Which do you suppose might have an inherent a…

I was responding to: "your family in the background" It's an easily resolved problem. I do it myself, as my office is a mess. I've used a photo of a bookshelf, too :-) I've also had many business zoom meetings with people with their kid in their lap, or their pets demanding attention, etc. It's not a problem.

What you responded to is a small subset of the original framing: "Remote work requires an investment in space and equipment that can be quite expensive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29698736

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#136

Post by andrewjl »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #34
ivanmontillam wrote: post #24

It's true that culture can make you poor, by the means of setting your mindset. I've seen people in the towns of South America (i.e. not the main cities) whose family traditions set them on a path of "wait to be given" instead of "go and get it" mentality. Of course, this never materializes, and the person lives their life impoverished. Money is such a taboo in these families, that you end up thinking it's dirty unti…

> if you're a teenage girl, depending on your culture, your family seems to be peer pressuring you to be a mother Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just the law of nature.

> It's just the law of nature.

Not really, societies aren't natural because they are human constructs.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#137

Post by WalterBright »

dredmorbius wrote: post #135
WalterBright wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was responding to: "your family in the background" It's an easily resolved problem. I do it myself, as my office is a mess. I've used a photo of a bookshelf, too :-) I've also had many business zoom meetings with people with their kid in their lap, or their pets demanding attention, etc. It's not a problem.

What you responded to is a small subset of the original framing: "Remote work requires an investment in space and equipment that can be quite expensive." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29698736

I quoted what I was responding to. That's why I quoted it. It's the point of quoting. And my response was clearly to what I quoted.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#138

Post by TheGigaChad »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #34
ivanmontillam wrote: post #24

It's true that culture can make you poor, by the means of setting your mindset. I've seen people in the towns of South America (i.e. not the main cities) whose family traditions set them on a path of "wait to be given" instead of "go and get it" mentality. Of course, this never materializes, and the person lives their life impoverished. Money is such a taboo in these families, that you end up thinking it's dirty unti…

> if you're a teenage girl, depending on your culture, your family seems to be peer pressuring you to be a mother Ironically, societies that do not steer girls to parenthood are subject to extinction. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just the law of nature.

No post body was provided.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#139

Post by TheGigaChad »

amcoastal wrote: post #41
b9a2cab5 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the fact that 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth within 3 generations gel with wealth being lost to other rich people? That doesn't logically make sense. If that was the case then there would slowly be ever fewer rich people who become ever richer. But if you look at the richest people in the world that isn't the case.

Because the rich that arent losing their wealth are getting richer at ridiculous rates? And where is that money coming from?

No post body was provided.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#140

Post by arcticbull »

algo646464 wrote: post #107
dustintrex wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Breaking the cycle by sending the kids away" has a long history of well-intentioned attempts nearly always leading to disastrous outcomes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55238090 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi...

That is a good point. But all these had racist reasons at their core. Can this be better implemented today? With extensive supervision and scrutiny. For example, teenagers routinely join the army, and spend time learning and training at what is essentially a boarding school. It seems to work quite well.

In a some cases they had racism at their core - but that's a step removed.

They thought that the parents were (for whatever reason) incapable of raising their children appropriately and that the best way to properly raise the children was away from their homes, their cultures and their problems. They may even have thought their goals were noble and justified - as most folks tend to.

I cannot see a meaningful difference between taking kids away from their parents for racial reasons, for class reasons or really any other reason.

The issue isn't necessarily why they saw them as inferior, it's that they saw them as inferior.

> For example, teenagers routinely join the army, and spend time learning and training at what is essentially a boarding school.

This choice is made by the family and the individual. This is not the same thing. A meaningful harm vector is the removal of autonomy.

Post reply on HN