“Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

It is unfair. France, and Europe in general, is completely different when it comes to public transport. France also happens to have a much, much more solid 'social infrastructure' for those who are poor. Surely you understand that especially when we talk about poverty, 'socialist' France is very different from the USA?

> As I said before, you got your friends with phones and internet connection. You can get free internet connection in many places anyway, and use phone box. But you do realize people had job before we had cellphones and internet ?

Some people, especially among the poor don't really have friends (or no 'active' or nearby ones). Many places don't have phone boxes or free internet. And cellphones and internet changed a lot of things, so comparing our current world to a pre-internet, pre-cellphone world doesn't really make sense.

> Use your social skills. We are a human society, we are supposed to help each others. You are not alone.

Sadly, many people are alone. And social skills are partly acquired and perhaps even, to a degree, a luxury. I've worked jobs with people who were so busy that they didn't have time to practice their social skills or maintain friendships. In fact, the article touches on this too!

> Yes you can. It's not the big deal everybody says it is. I changed countried. I changed language. Again, it beats staying in a place you can't afford. This idea you should die where you are born is not sane.

Again, you're applying your personal experience to others. That's unavoidable to a degree, but assigning judgment based on personal experience is, in my view, one of the primary causes of suffering in the world. If what you're saying is true, the only conclusion is that you are a smart, crafty person and all those people who 'choose' to live in favelas or poor areas are idiots. Surely you don't really believe that?

> Again, extrem case. Be honest, most people in debt are not legless.

I've spent some time in areas where walking is outright dangerous, and walking to the nearest 'job' location would take about half a day. This it not uncommon in the USA. Nobody would hire you in such a situation.

> Again, you chose to have kids without creating any kind of buffer in case you have problems. It should not be done. People have kids like it's the "ok thing to do when you are in your 2O'". No, it's not. We are overpopulated, times are hard. Don't make kids until you are sure you can sustain them in the next 20 years, including if you have problems. Your society don't need more kids. Kids are a luxury. I understand you want to have them, but if you do, then get in trouble, you are responsible.

I agree in the abstract, but even just consider people who are born and raised in a setting where having kids is considered a 'duty' of sorts, which is pretty common. You can blame their environment or belief system, but can you blame them for not having the means, time, capacity, or influential people who make them change their beliefs?

> > Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part. > Difficult ? Try most universities. Done.

Did you even read the article?

> Indeed. Society should be organised to prevent this to happend, then help when it failed. It's not incompatible with my personnal feeling about it as an individual.

That's fair enough (seriously). I just hope you're open to the idea that perhaps you might be wrong in your assessment. Because, honestly, most of what you say scares me, as I think beliefs like yours play a significant role in the ever-increasing hardness, selfishness, and smugness of society in regards its weakest members. I'm not saying you play an active role in this, don't get me wrong, but beliefs like the ones you express seem very harmful to me (even if they were true, and I don't think they are).

> I think all the poeple that downvoted my were more privileged that I was.

I think you should not assume such things.

> I'm not against helping people. I want people to take responsibility for their situtation. You are not a aids infected legless orphan in Senegal.

And you are not the standard by which we judge everyone else. It is a good thing that we don't have legless aids-infected orphans 'here'. And the reason why we don't have those is not because our legless, aids-infected orphans or their parents have chosen to better themselves. The reason why we don't have those is in part because we realize that people are not in full control of their situation, and through education, social 'security' (of various types) and such, we can improve things.

Suffering is a relative thing. I do not want to diminish your hardships, but I also don't see the point in judging the poor in our society based on the level of poverty in other societies.

Let me switch gears for a bit, as I think I'm not too interested in further discussing these specifics. We might just disagree on them, and it might not be all that productive to continue down this line.

The main reason I'm engaging with you is that I'm honestly curious why you feel a strong need to react against this article in the first place. Isn't it a good thing that we're trying to understand the difficulties and plight of the poor in our society? Isn't that generally a benefit? Shouldn't we do more of that? You even seem to agree that a big part of the problem is structural and societal, rather than personal.

I really mean it when I say that I'd like to understand. Personally, I've noticed that spending time 'immersed' in poverty has often caused me to actually dislike the poor. To feel that they're stupid. Perhaps that is why you feel this way, or perhaps not. But what I also noticed is that as I spent more time away from outright poverty and the 'stupidity' that seems to be part of it, my views would mellow a bit more, and as I studied the underlying reasons and mechanisms my sympathy would come back.

Yes, a lot of poor people do infuriatingly stupid things. In fact, my time among 'the poor' has made me often feel like I'm dealing with particularly stubbornly stupid children. And the fact that there is no 'inherent' sympathy (by blood or other ties) makes is difficult to deal with that sometimes. But I try my hardest these days to realize that if it is in fact true that these poor are 'grown children', then it should lead me to sympathize more, not less. And it makes me respect all the more people who do manage to climb out of poverty despite this fact. And it makes me respect people who try to change things both up close and from a distance. Because dear lord is it easier to sympathize with the poor if you don't have to be around them!

But that said, the one thing that I think is not really a good idea in any way, is to openly rail against children for being children. That seems rather pointless.

(not that I'm saying the poor are 'stubborn, stupid, children', by the way. I don't know if they are, and I think it's mostly irrelevant to our sympathies)

The counterpoint I would offer to your statement about the "left wing" analysis of such situations is that, to use similarly broad strokes, the "right" has a tendency, quite strong at times, to completely dismiss the importance, or even existence, of "self-fulfilling beliefs", and correspondingly prescribes exactly the kind of "just get on with it" solutions that I mentioned before. Their political opponents, still observing the problem, are then bound to highlight that, given that the problem does still exist, and that obvious direct causes can be ruled out (assuming they can), then the "self-fulfilling beliefs" must be important.

Although you seem to hold similar opinions to me regarding the importance of understanding these effects and addressing them if they are found to be important, I would suggest that your instincts appear to question whether or not these effects even exist at all. Taking your first paragraph:

> It is very typical on the left for a personal account of the experience and psychology of being X to also be a political argument. Even if the author didn't intend it that way, it's certainly being used in the context of a political argument now. Note the replies by monk_e_boy and rayiner who take the statement on face value and argue that the payoff to education/savings is very small for poor people.

This, to me, looks like an implicit rejection of the importance of these "self-fulfilling effects". By claiming it is political, or is being used in a political way, you appear to be suggesting that her experience is either not real, or is unrepresentative, and is simply being isolated to gain traction for some policy or other. Most importantly, this suggestion appears to be made on the basis that it is unquantifiable experience, rather than from the actual content.

Rejecting anecdotal claims is unscientific is reasonable, and you grant that she may not be directly making "claims" herself. What I would caution against is your (apparent) assumption that the use of her experience to highlight an issue (by the editors of the guardian) can be quite safely rejected simply by virtue of the fact that her experience is difficult to quantify. The most appropriate response, it seems to me, is to demand rigorous research on the subject. If, however, I have misunderstood you, and this wasn't your intention, then please accept my apology in advance.

Getting a boost mobile iphone 6 is ridiculous though.