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

221–230 of 358 posts

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#221

Post by Broken_Hippo »

wiseowise wrote: post #217
newsclues wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think children don’t represent a lottery ticket? Your son could be strong and able to pole your field? Your daughter could be beautiful and marry into wealth or royalty? Your child could invent something wonderful that makes life easier or more enriching? Or your kid could be a dud unable to grasp concepts of knowledge on hacker news…

Or maybe your kid could grow up a decent human being who sees human life as something more than petty investment and a chance to redeem your poor life choices.

That's not the way it goes, though. For generations, royals (and other wealthy folks) have married their children away as pawns. These aren't/weren't seen as a chance to redeem poor choices, but as a way to keep wealth to a small circle.

People have been seen as monetary items for centuries.

If we want folks to not be used in such ways, we actually have to legislate it. Make sure children have rights and freedoms and that they know about it. Have inheritance laws that make sure each child gets some money from a well-to-do parent, even if they marry someone poor. Make sure farmers worldwide are well-equipped. Educate folks, treat them as equals (which doesn't happen now).

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#222

Post by dijit »

as_i_fall wrote: post #210
dijit wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a harder problem than just "Free Education". I grew up in the UK (in "deprived" areas, to a single parent with no income other than jobseekers allowance and some childcare from the state) and I can formerly attest that my "free education" was atrocious. I am not sure if there was a negative feedback loop involved: School funding was determined by efficacy. How do you measure efficacy of a school? Well, test r…

I mean what's the alternative? I don't think dumping kids out of school is going to improve anything for anyone.

Removing children from the offending environment would be the best alternative I can think of.

But as others have mentioned that has quite a bit of historical baggage, and of course children and parents would both hate it.

It's only hindsight that teaches us valuable lessons about this kind of stuff, sadly.

I wasn't offering better options, I was just opining a lost youth and denigrating a terrible education system.

But it was "free".

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#223

Post by ryan93 »

lucian1900 wrote: post #190
unsigner wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eastern Europe is firmly on this path under the twin depopulation factors of abysmal fertility and powerful brain drain towards the West. Come visit a middle-sized town anywhere in the Three Seas region and you’ll see industry, infrastructure, housing built for a much larger, more successful civilization.

That is due to imposing “shock therapy” and neoliberalism on the populations of the defeated socialist countries as punishment. It has nothing to do with what girls are encouraged to do.

(guy who has read one book)

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#224

Post by olalonde »

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…

It's a common mentality in Quebec too and often attributed to our catholic heritage. Having money was for a long time seen as "taboo" and immoral.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#225

Post by ausbah »

RHSeeger wrote: post #211
vbezhenar wrote: post #191

When I started to pile some cash, so many opportunities opened up to save more money. Like I've got a chance to buy a good car for a good price, but I need money right now. Or I can buy plenty of food at once with a good discount, but I need to have enough money and enough refrigerator space to store it. Poor people who don't have a house, must spend tremendous money to rent it. I'm spending like $20/month to pay for…

> I'm spending like $20/month to pay for house that I own. Even assuming you own the house outright (which is not true for most people that have bought a house less than 30 years ago), that number seems ridiculously low. In every place I've lived, the land taxes alone are an order of magnitude higher than that. And then maintenance for the house is on top of that (something that people renting don't pay directly). I…

aren't things like taxes and maintance passed along to the renters?

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#226

Post by 999900000999 »

vpilcx wrote: post #141
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'm one of those people living in poverty that distrusts school institutions. My main philosophical gripe is that it doesn't seem to really matter what your major is. "Oh, you got a bachelors in Biology? Well, I guess that's fine. Come work at my tech company in a way that is completely unrelated to Biology." In this particular situation, it seems like the only purpose of college is to create arbitrary classist hurdl…

It really doesn't matter what your major is.

I went to college mostly as a means to get some distance from my horrible family, and I advise anyone coming from a rough family to go to college just so you don't need to do with your family as much. You don't need to go to a good one, even with a GED. You can always go down to community college a few cities over.

That can more than be enough.

>Now, obviously, that's not the case with all education, but my next gripe with it is the seemingly insurmountable debt that said education brings. Literally, all of my friends that have gone to college are no where near paying their debt off and I'm in my late 30s.

I will say this generation is all about complaining and less about hard work. It's about going on Twitter to complain about how hard it is to find a job, instead of going on LinkedIn to actually find one.

I can make a single phone call and pay off all my student loan debt today, I just feel no need to since some politician is going to eventually forgive it some of it.

I also use having a degree as a filter for who I associate with. In my current city, except for a single person I've never gone out with anyone not either pursuing, or currently holding at least a four year degree.

If you tell me your 24 or something and you've never gone to college and you've never worked, I know you can bring harm to me. I'm from a very bad background full of these freaks who don't want to do anything except cause chaos.

Hold high standards for both yourself, and anyone else you surround yourself with. For example, on the Tinder TOS thread, I saw a minor debate over if it's okay to exclude people who don't have jobs from your dating pool.

I wasn't going to argue with anyone directly, but if you tell me your unemployed and you're still spending all day on match or Tinder, I don't want to be around you. Where I'm from, if someone doesn't have a job particularly they aren't even trying to find one, bad things tend to happen.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#227

Post by refurb »

arcticbull wrote: post #144
rsj_hn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a long history of marxist groups trying to destroy the family by forcibly removing children and making them live in various communal camps. For example this was done in forced collectivization projects in the USSR and China, and also by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. I really recommend watching the film "The Killing Fields", in order to see this in action. Both the USSR and China ended up abandoning these effo…

Hardly just the Marxists - the Nazis gave it a go, the Danes gave it a go and so did the Canadians [1]. This idea spans the political spectrum, and it tends to go, er, predictably. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/06...

Meh… the Canadian example is more complex than the article infers. The idea is that all children should be educated in the public system. (we still do it today - education is mandatory). For First Nations in remote communities, those children would be required to attend residential schools since no local school existed.

If anything the mentality has more similarities to race relations today - “the White Man’s burden” of helping these cultures “bring themselves up”. Back then they took kids from parents and gave them a European education, and told them their current culture should be forgotten.

Today we just get rid of failing grades, calculus in high school, and standardized testing and implement racial quotas. In the end it’s the same - assuming we know best for other groups even if in the end it harms them.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#228

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #174
kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because I'm living in poverty. People who live in poverty don't have money to invest." You have your time and energy to invest, and you can get an educational loan. " then work at your job for 5-10 years to pay that debt off" I don't think all of your money goes into paying off the debt during that time. "I'm philosophically opposed to getting a piece of paper for a job that I could do just as easily without a colle…

You don't address the concern here "Well if you don't need it and don't want it, obviously don't get that degree." The concern is that, according to parent, and I believe parent, is that the system requires a useless piece of paper. The degree is more an economic hurdle than a proof of capacity. That merit is a social construct.

But the parent also claimed he can make the same money without the degree. Both things can not be true at the same time ("you need the useless paper", "you can make the same money without it").

Apart from that, while the usefulness of some degrees can be questioned, there is a general concept called "signalling" which has actual value. That is you demonstrate certain qualities in a way that are difficult to fake (usually by doing something costly, like getting a degree, or carrying around a huge tail if you are a parrot).

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#229

Post by refurb »

inglor_cz wrote: post #181
sh4un wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people are used to being victims so it's hard to trust other people. When you look at it deeper, if these are poor minorities in a white mans world, no matter what there will never be trust. Hard to trust the same people who are oppressing you. Many policy maker are born well off, so it's hard to relate. When the social workers are driving in BMW's and talking to you like you're retarded... It's ongoing. I have…

As usual in the American racial discourse, this argument entirely ignores the huge gaping hole in its side that is the Asian community. Casual racism against Asians is pretty strong, not just in the US, in Europe, too. (My own country has a significant Vietnamese community and casual racism against them was absolutely shocking in the 1990s. It has since become less pronounced, but is still there.) And yet they thrive…

Indeed. And these are communities that were banned from immigrating at one point, put in camps and their assets stolen during WW2.

Clearly poverty and even oppression doesn’t explain a groups eventual standing.

Re: Once poor, always poor?

#230

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

bko wrote: post #150
vpilcx wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people living in poverty that distrusts school institutions. My main philosophical gripe is that it doesn't seem to really matter what your major is. "Oh, you got a bachelors in Biology? Well, I guess that's fine. Come work at my tech company in a way that is completely unrelated to Biology." In this particular situation, it seems like the only purpose of college is to create arbitrary classist hurdl…

> My main philosophical gripe is that it doesn't seem to really matter what your major is. Can't you just hack this by going to school for pretty much anything you're interested in and being able to work in an unrelated field? > my next gripe with it is the seemingly insurmountable debt that said education brings You've established that education is a good investment. So why not find an affordable college? It's not a…

I think their point (which i agree with) is why do you need a college degree just to get a basic entry level job with a career path. You're delaying entering the workforce for 4+ years ($100k+ at minimum wage, minus some if you work during college) with ~30k debt (with your example tuition/costs not sure if it include room & board) so they should get a similar output from that education.

This probably wasn't the situation prior to the USA population tripling over the last 70-80 years while tech/automation has acted as a limiting force to job growth. It's easy to say the cost of college has skyrocketed because of cheap non-discharable debt but it's pusdo-requirement has also caused demand to skyrocket too.

Post reply on HN