Race

[JetPlane]

I would like to bring up true African culture.

No matter how much we've tried to modernize African tribes, we have always hit a dead-end. As a whole, African tribes refuse to accept modernized equipment, medicines, etc.

When the English went through India and other asian countries, the effect was to modernize those countries to standards close to the major powers of today, while all our attempts to improve the lives of African tribes have resulted in near zilch advancement.

African tribes amaze me because they have never truly left their roots of herbal medicines by witch doctors and the idea that a spirit takes their child away, not a disease like AIDS.

How could whites who came into a society which completely refused to modernize to our ways not be seen as just a colony of stupid, ignorant individuals? I mean, who doesn't think that if you tell someone great advice that if they don't listen to it, they're stupid?

[Gunny]

I kinda see what you're getting at, but that's a far cry from the modern African-American culture that uses cars, uses science and chemical medicines, that uses any modern technology and acknowledges that the sun isn't going down because some mystical entity in the shape of a bug is rolling it across the Earth, but because of the Earth's rotation, etc.

[Cain]

Because people never owned white peope in this country. Because you can tell black from white a mile away. Because the experiences, in short, of black Americans are very nearly nothing at all like the experiences of white Americans. To say black poverty has the same causes as white poverty is to overlook the plight of African-Americans in this country for the last 400 years.

You're still apporaching the question from the wrong angle. You're examining African-American poverty, and assuming there are qualitative differences. The better approach is to examine poverty in general, then to see if there are any qualitative differences.

I see poverty stemming from a lack of jobs and education. Both the inner city and rural America have a similar situation, in that regard-- poor schools and relatively few good-paying jobs. The rise of the suburbs has pretty much seen to that. Therefore, anyone who originates from either of those areas is more at risk for poverty than those from the suburban areas.

Trying to link blacks to an similar economic situation as Irish immigrents ignores the rather obvious fact that blacks aren't immigrants, and haven't been 'immigrants' for pretty much the entire life-span of the United States. Pointing out that the Irish were at an economic disadvantage until they were assimilated into the mainstream culture is accurate, but black's have been assimilated into American culture since before there was a USA. Of course, they were assimilated into second-class citizens, but they were assimilated. As a result, blacks are not struggling to be assimilated into mainstream American culture. They already /are/ a part of it. They are struggling to change their place in our society, which is a much more difficult proposition.

A "sceond class" assimilation is not the same thing as a true assimilation. I use the immigrant term, because the first generation has the same rights as any other citizen. Aftican-Americans have not had that opportunity for most of their history in the USA. If we date their "immigration" as the day they recived full civil rights, we'll place it at the time of the civil-rights movement. As such, we're still only looking at about 40 years. Here is an interesting study that measures one of the assimilation factors-- marriage. Here is a study done regarding the issues with cultural assimilation. It's only page one; I personally dislike linking to a pdf. Here's an interesting quote:

In the past couple of years, I have begun to examine the relationship between ethnic identity and social connectedness – an obvious link that surprisingly few researchers have tested empirically. In these studies, I find that ethnic identity is related positively to a sense of connectedness and community for ethnic minorities. Perhaps most interesting, only ethnic minorities who distance themselves from both ethnic and majority cultures appear to be at risk for social marginalization, but ethnic minorities who possess a positive ethnic identity but who do not interact much with the majority culture are not at greater risk for marginalization. It is likely that ethnic minority communities provide sufficient resources and support to sustain a sense of connectedness for these individuals who choose to segregate themselves from the majority culture. Indeed, sociologists refer to ethnically dense communities as unique forms of social capital for immigrants and refugees.

So, those who try and break out of the ethnic areas or stereotypes risks ailienating their existing social support network, and may not be able to find sufficient support outside of it.

[3278]

Because people never owned white peope in this country. Because you can tell black from white a mile away. Because the experiences, in short, of black Americans are very nearly nothing at all like the experiences of white Americans. To say black poverty has the same causes as white poverty is to overlook the plight of African-Americans in this country for the last 400 years.

You're still apporaching the question from the wrong angle. You're examining African-American poverty, and assuming there are qualitative differences. The better approach is to examine poverty in general, then to see if there are any qualitative differences.

I'm not assuming anything. Do you deny that the experiences of black Americans are different from those of white Americans, historically and today?

I see poverty stemming from a lack of jobs and education. Both the inner city and rural America have a similar situation, in that regard-- poor schools and relatively few good-paying jobs. The rise of the suburbs has pretty much seen to that.
Therefore, anyone who originates from either of those areas is more at risk for poverty than those from the suburban areas.

On behalf of those of us from rural schools, we're doing quite nicely, thank you very much, and our schools aren't anything like those in the inner city.

But let's look at the actual declaration: "I see poverty stemming from a lack of jobs and education." We'll ignore, for the moment, the lack of support beyond "I see," and focus instead on a lack of jobs and education. In our search for the prime mover, what causes blacks to have fewer jobs and worse education, and why can't they overcome those conditions?

[Salvation122]

But let's look at the actual declaration: "I see poverty stemming from a lack of jobs and education." We'll ignore, for the moment, the lack of support beyond "I see," and focus instead on a lack of jobs and education. In our search for the prime mover, what causes blacks to have fewer jobs and worse education, and why can't they overcome those conditions?

There are fewer jobs and worse education because inner-city blacks have this annoying tendency to shoot people and be otherwise criminal. Good teachers and good investors - which tends to mean "smart ones" - don't want to go where there's a very real possibillity of dying because they wore a black suit and blue tie, and those are the colors of a rival gang in the area. (Hyperbole. Barely.) They can't overcome these conditions because they keep shooting people. When the crime in the ghettos drops, they'll stop being ghettos.

[Cain]

But let's look at the actual declaration: "I see poverty stemming from a lack of jobs and education." We'll ignore, for the moment, the lack of support beyond "I see," and focus instead on a lack of jobs and education. In our search for the prime mover, what causes blacks to have fewer jobs and worse education, and why can't they overcome those conditions?

Let's start by a general examination of poverty, so we're all on the same page. What causes whites to have fewer jobs and worse education, enough so that they comprise the majority of the poor in the country? Heck, what causes *anyone* to have fewer jobs and worse education?

[3278]

I don't know. You - apparently - do. So why don't you tell us?

[Cain]

Well, I'll preface this by saying it's IMO. Better minds than mine have been trying to pinpoint the causes of poverty for most of human existance. Any prime causes anyone offers are going to be largely opinion; far too many people have disagreed on this subject for too many years for there to be a single definitive answer.

Poverty is caused by a significantly inequal distribution of wealth, combined with a lack of opportunities to improve one's situation. As a historical example, many serfs in the dark ages were very poor, and in fact lived in abject poverty. The lords and monarchy had many times the wealth of the serfs, and there was no opportunities to break out for the serfs (social opportunites were fixed).

In our country, education is the primary opportunity, so lack of education will almost always lead to poverty. What's more, poor areas will not be able to attract high-quality teachers, so the poverty cycle will tend to perpetuate itself. Only with outside influences-- money invested in the area, for example, thereby redistributing some wealth-- will the opportunites improve.

If we look at African-American history, it wasn't until the civil-rights movement that integrated schools were a reality across the nation. Until then, most blacks were relegated to second-rate schools, thereby removing opportunities, thereby setting them up for poverty. Now they had equal opportunities to that of any other immigrant group, most of whom fully broke the cycle of poverty within 50-100 years.

However, that does not mean black poverty is qualitatively any different than white, or most other forms of poverty for that matter. It still stems from the same root causes, and even stems from the same specific ones-- lack of jobs and education.

[3278]

Poverty is caused by a significantly inequal distribution of wealth, combined with a lack of opportunities to improve one's situation. As a historical example, many serfs in the dark ages were very poor, and in fact lived in abject poverty. The lords and monarchy had many times the wealth of the serfs, and there was no opportunities to break out for the serfs (social opportunites were fixed).

And here's where modern urban black culture differs from that of the serfs: social opportunities for blacks are not fixed. While there are social disadvantages to being black - although discrimination is no longer the norm - there is no inherent class structure preventing modern blacks from improving their social opportunity.

Or, perhaps, I'm wrong. So I'll ask the question: what is it that prevents blacks from improving their social opportunities?

[Cain]

So I'll ask the question: what is it that prevents blacks from improving their social opportunities?

Poverty. Hate to be so obtuse, but you're asking the wrong questions.

For example, this statement:

And here's where modern urban black culture differs from that of the serfs: social opportunities for blacks are not fixed. While there are social disadvantages to being black - although discrimination is no longer the norm - there is no inherent class structure preventing modern blacks from improving their social opportunity.

Gets more to the heart of the matter. I already said that, to my view, education is the key to opportunites in modern society. Social barriers are much less of an obstacle now than they were in the dark ages, and certainly much less for blacks than it was 40 years ago. However, while educational standards have improved, they haven't caught up yet. Social opporunties are not fixed, but educational ones are.

We also need to give a reasonable amount of time for the cultures to fully assimilate. That generally takes between 50 to 100 years. Since we're only really 40 years into it, to expect the problem to have gone away by now is, at best, optimistic.

[Anguirel]

Opportunities continue to increase (due to outside pressure). Education efforts such as Teach For America (which I'd encourage people here looking for jobs who meet the requirements to join) are helping to improve the education in poverty-stricken regions. Affirmitive Action served it's purpose in getting a critical core of people out of the hole and into positions where they can help to more-or-less pull up others from the same conditions (and should now be aboloished, since it's now helping people who are no longer in need of it -- rich blacks). So -- I think we've reached a concordance here. The environment is getting better and fewer blacks are remaining in poverty (comparison to 40, 20 and 10 years ago -- shorter time spans are difficult to gauge as this is essentially a generational issue and needs to account for overall trends as well as culture-specific ones).

[JetPlane]

I kinda see what you're getting at, but that's a far cry from the modern African-American culture that uses cars, uses science and chemical medicines, that uses any modern technology and acknowledges that the sun isn't going down because some mystical entity in the shape of a bug is rolling it across the Earth, but because of the Earth's rotation, etc.

There is no "modern African-American culture". Is there a "modern American Caucasian culture"? No, of course not.

But, stemming back to roots, our own prejudices could run that deep. I, personally, look down on all tribes in southern Africa that refuse to use contraceptives because they view them as being against their religion, so therefore, people keep dying of AIDS. That choice is ignorant, fatal, and stupid.

But, I do find it so very interesting that African tribes have chosen to stick so closely to their old ways. Every culture must make changes when something awful happens. A plague, a famine, et cetera, but most African tribes have done little to "flow with the tide". They don't use contraceptives. They don't use modern irrigation systems to help them feed their starving children when the technology is right in front of them.

I'm surprised that natural selection wouldn't have wiped these tribes completely out by now.

But, maybe, they're not ever going to be wiped out. Because, frankly, we did all come from Africa, didn't we? That's where the first and oldest skeletal remains of homo sapiens were found.

Another thought: Maybe they have existed thing long because they have chosen one succinct pattern and refused to change it. Ants haven't changed over the centuries, but humans as a whole have changed a million times over. Yet ants still survive. So do we, but we may be on the edge of wiping ourselves out, and ants are still a far-throw from that concept.

[WillyGilligan]

I don't know about that, Jet. There's a colony of ants constantly trying to infest my house and I'm certain that I hear them late at night having meetings about aquiring uranium from the wasps up the street. Or maybe they're just on the verge of wiping me out...

[Salvation122]

I'm surprised that natural selection wouldn't have wiped these tribes completely out by now.

We keep feeding them and giving them medical care. Otherwise I'm sure they would be.

[JetPlane]

We keep feeding them and giving them medical care. Otherwise I'm sure they would be.

But, hey, there are some tribes that when a famine hit, they'd just sit around and assume that the Gods were angry and pray until they either starved to death, or the famine stopped.

They weren't completely wiped out.

I don't know about that, Jet. There's a colony of ants constantly trying to infest my house and I'm certain that I hear them late at night having meetings about aquiring uranium from the wasps up the street. Or maybe they're just on the verge of wiping me out...

Who cares if ants have uranium? What are they going to do? Chuck some at each other? They need a lot more than just uranium to wipe all dem ants out.

[Cain]

Ang has hit my points. The situation is clearly beginning to change, it's simply a matter of how long it will take until it does. My best guess is another 50 years or so.

I'll also add that cultural traditions are obscenely hard to get rid of. Take a look at our marriage customs-- why do half of them even exist? Tradition, for the most part. But try and bend even a few, and you get all kinds of ruckus. For example, if a couple has cohabitated for a while, and the bride chooses to wear white, I guarantee you someone will be raising a fit.

[3278]

So I'll ask the question: what is it that prevents blacks from improving their social opportunities?

Poverty. Hate to be so obtuse, but you're asking the wrong questions.

And you're walking around in circles.

According to you, poverty causes poverty, time passes, people get out of poverty. But this system has no place for free will, no place for personal responsibility. Blacks are doomed to be poor until enough time has passed, and apparently they can do nothing about it. I don't buy that.

And here's where modern urban black culture differs from that of the serfs: social opportunities for blacks are not fixed. While there are social disadvantages to being black - although discrimination is no longer the norm - there is no inherent class structure preventing modern blacks from improving their social opportunity.

Gets more to the heart of the matter. I already said that, to my view, education is the key to opportunites in modern society. Social barriers are much less of an obstacle now than they were in the dark ages, and certainly much less for blacks than it was 40 years ago. However, while educational standards have improved, they haven't caught up yet. Social opporunties are not fixed, but educational ones are.

Then blacks have no control at all over their educational opportunities? They can't choose to move somewhere else, to learn outside of school, to go to better colleges? They're just trapped in this mechanistic system until it grinds on them for another 50-100 years?

[Anguirel]

But this system has no place for free will...

Well, that's ok. You don't believe in Free Will anyways.

Then blacks have no control at all over their educational opportunities? They can't choose to move somewhere else, to learn outside of school, to go to better colleges? They're just trapped in this mechanistic system until it grinds on them for another 50-100 years?

Of course not. That's why some are getting out. But not everyone will realize that those sorts of opportunities exist, or take them when they are offered (for a variety of reasons). In fact, in general a certain percentage will take those opportunities, leading to a 50-100 year function where the numbers approach some sort of an asymptote.

[Cain]

According to you, poverty causes poverty, time passes, people get out of poverty. But this system has no place for free will, no place for personal responsibility.

Strictly speaking, on the extreme end, there is no room for personal responsibility or free will. If the opportunites do not exist, no amout of free will or personal responsibility can enable you to succeed. If we took one of the African tribesmen, who have never seen anything more modern than an axe, no amount of free will or personal responsibility can turn him into a major corporate CEO.

Then blacks have no control at all over their educational opportunities? They can't choose to move somewhere else, to learn outside of school, to go to better colleges? They're just trapped in this mechanistic system until it grinds on them for another 50-100 years?

How much control does any first-grader have over his or her education? How many first graders can simply choose to move somewhere else? The problem starts fairly early, and education starts in childhood. Once a flawed education has set, it's very difficult to alter. Now, as Ang pointed out, as opportunities have improved so has the general status of blacks. However, it's not an instant fix.

But yes, without outside influences (generally, wealth being redistributed) those who are born poor will likely remain poor, and pass the poverty onto their children ad infinitum. Once the base situation is changed, the opportunity to break out exists. And, in fact, is generally taken-- history is proof enough of that. It simply takes time, and 50 years is actually very optimistic, historically speaking.

[mrmooky]

They can't choose to move somewhere else, to learn outside of school, to go to better colleges?

How many opportunities are there for most people to be taught outside of school? Seriously.

[3278]

According to you, poverty causes poverty, time passes, people get out of poverty. But this system has no place for free will, no place for personal responsibility.

Strictly speaking, on the extreme end, there is no room for personal responsibility or free will. If the opportunites do not exist, no amout of free will or personal responsibility can enable you to succeed. If we took one of the African tribesmen, who have never seen anything more modern than an axe, no amount of free will or personal responsibility can turn him into a major corporate CEO.

But opportunities /do/ exist for the modern black person. Jobs, school, higher education, it's all there to be taken advantage of. Comparing a modern American black person to an African tribesman who's never seen anything more modern than an axe is like comparing apples to oranges; sure, they're both fruit, but that's where the similarities end.

Then blacks have no control at all over their educational opportunities? They can't choose to move somewhere else, to learn outside of school, to go to better colleges? They're just trapped in this mechanistic system until it grinds on them for another 50-100 years?

How much control does any first-grader have over his or her education? How many first graders can simply choose to move somewhere else?

They can't, but their /parents/ can. Why do you think it's impossible for a black family to get out of poverty, get out of the crime-ridden inner city?

[FlameBlade]

Ah but however, the question is...

Is amount of opportunities available for modern black people same as amount of opportunities available for modern white people?

Ponder on that.

[Cain]

They can't, but their /parents/ can. Why do you think it's impossible for a black family to get out of poverty, get out of the crime-ridden inner city?

You're contradicting yourself. Personal responsibility is responsibility for your own situation, and not that of your parents. How can kids have any personal responsibilty for what their parents did?

But to answer your question-- why is it impossible for a white family to get out of poverty, to get out of the jobless rural backwaters?

[Anguirel]

Poverty-related culture point: if your parents (who are poor and have a very limited world view) are telling you that high school is a waste of time and are encouraging you to become a hair-dresser or an auto mechanic (because they make money -- they've never needed to go to a physicist and don't think such a person will ever earn anything) and further they have no desire to move in order to get their children better educational opportunities, it is difficult for any given member of such a group to escape poverty. That's a poverty-related cultural issue, not a racially-related cultural issue. And it is less of an issue in modern times when large portions of culture have been homogonized by television.

[Cain]

Point. However, as I pointed out earlier, cultures take a great deal of time to change. I'd give it several generations at the minimum. Take a look at our marriage customs, and how little they've changed over the last century, despite the massive societal changes that have occured.

[FlameBlade]

and I'd like to point out that in conjunction to Anguirel that...there are more poor black people than poor white people to begin with...

In other words, it will take a while before poverty is eradicated...

[Cain]

Actually, Flame, you're wrong on that count. 50% of all people in poverty in the US are white. Both numerically and by percentages, white people comprise the vast majority of the poor in this country. That's one reason why 32's arguments that poverty is somehow a "black thing" is so off base, far more whites than blacks are in poverty.

[FlameBlade]

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

[3278]

They can't, but their /parents/ can. Why do you think it's impossible for a black family to get out of poverty, get out of the crime-ridden inner city?

You're contradicting yourself. Personal responsibility is responsibility for your own situation, and not that of your parents. How can kids have any personal responsibilty for what their parents did?

...what? Black parents need to be responsible for getting good jobs and making sure their children get good educations. Their children are responsible for making the most of that. And neither group is making the most of the situations available to them.

But to answer your question-- why is it impossible for a white family to get out of poverty, to get out of the jobless rural backwaters?

Is that a trick question? It's not.

50% of all people in poverty in the US are white. Both numerically and by percentages, white people comprise the vast majority of the poor in this country. That's one reason why 32's arguments that poverty is somehow a "black thing" is so off base, far more whites than blacks are in poverty.

Whoa, hey, let's stop just making things up, particularly when we've already discussed the correct statistics. 77.1 percent of the population is white, 12.9 percent of the population is black. Whites make up 55 percent of those living below the poverty line, blacks 20.3 percent. So while whites in poverty numerically outnumber blacks in poverty, blacks are proportionately more likely to live in poverty. In fact, that's been a core point of your argument, so I'm not sure why you're changing horses in midstream.

It's important to note that I have neither said nor implied that poverty is a "black thing." But blacks are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty, despite the fact that opportunities are available to them that would allow them to get out of poverty, which blacks are disproportionately less likely to take advantage of, because of the attitudes fostered by modern black culture, which encourages the entitlement mentality, glorifies criminality and reckless immorality, and rewards conspicuous and counterproductive consumption.

[Cain]

Black parents need to be responsible for getting good jobs and making sure their children get good educations. Their children are responsible for making the most of that. And neither group is making the most of the situations available to them.

You were talking about personal responsibility. Assuming the parents lived in poverty, how can children-- particularily young children, particularily elementary school children-- make the most out of a mediocre educational system? You're no longer discussing personal responsibility, if you're saying the children can be blamed for the actions of their parents.

Whoa, hey, let's stop just making things up, particularly when we've already discussed the correct statistics. 77.1 percent of the population is white, 12.9 percent of the population is black. Whites make up 55 percent of those living below the poverty line, blacks 20.3 percent. So while whites in poverty numerically outnumber blacks in poverty, blacks are proportionately more likely to live in poverty. In fact, that's been a core point of your argument, so I'm not sure why you're changing horses in midstream.

Actually, I'm discussing the many possible views of statistics. If you are poor, you're more than twice as likely to be white as black. That's what I meant by percentages-- within the poor, whites not only have the highest raw numbers, but the highest percentage.

It's important to note that I have neither said nor implied that poverty is a "black thing." But blacks are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty, despite the fact that opportunities are available to them that would allow them to get out of poverty, which blacks are disproportionately less likely to take advantage of, because of the attitudes fostered by modern black culture, which encourages the entitlement mentality, glorifies criminality and reckless immorality, and rewards conspicuous and counterproductive consumption.

This is where I ask you to prove it. Please demonstrate how "modern black culture" is responsible for poverty, in a fashion that is distinct from that of any other culture. I'm sure you can come up with any number of arguments, but I'd wager most of them can be equally applied to anyone who is poor.

Also, since blacks in this country have a history of poverty, how can "modern culture" have caused it?

[FlameBlade]

Ok...

Numerically, more white people are in poverty...

BUT HOWEVER...

Most important factor in equality..is to look at proportions. We are talking about equality, right? Are we?

If we are looking at 100% equality between both races, then the statistics should be like this:

White people make up of 77.1% of population, Black people make up 12.9% of population. Population in poverty by percentage: 77.1% white, Black: 12.9%.

But however, this is not case because we are looking at 55% of population in poverty are white, and 20% of population in poverty are black. This clearly shows that there are some kind of inequality in some areas.

Cain, as a mathematician, and looking at what is being discussed...proportion-wise, your argument below

Actually, I'm discussing the many possible views of statistics. If you are poor, you're more than twice as likely to be white as black. That's what I meant by percentages-- within the poor, whites not only have the highest raw numbers, but the highest percentage.

Is irrevelent to the point of subject at the hand. proportion is more important than how many from each group, especially when it comes to radically different percentage of population that is white and black. It's proportions that really counts.

[Cain]

*shrug* I apologize, then. However, the point that the vast majority of the poor are not black does stand. There are fewer poor black people than white; since we haven't been able to eradicate white poverty for the history of this country, expecting black poverty to have vanished within the last 40 years is quite silly.

[ratlaw]

It's important to note that I have neither said nor implied that poverty is a "black thing." But blacks are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty, despite the fact that opportunities are available to them that would allow them to get out of poverty, which blacks are disproportionately less likely to take advantage of, because of the attitudes fostered by modern black culture, which encourages the entitlement mentality, glorifies criminality and reckless immorality, and rewards conspicuous and counterproductive consumption.

Could it possibly be because blacks have historically been disproporionately more poor than whites in this country, and therefore have disproportionately less opportunities and more stumbling blocks in their way? While you can blame the rate at which blacks have caught up with whites on black culture, you can't blame it for historically holding them in a socially inferior status. What we really need to examine is how has the percentages of blacks in poverty changed over time. Are modern blacks more or less disproportionately poor? Has the rate at which blacks have moved out of poverty changed since "modern black culture" could be said to exist? You're looking at the current numbers with out examining where blacks were 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago.

[3278]

Black parents need to be responsible for getting good jobs and making sure their children get good educations. Their children are responsible for making the most of that. And neither group is making the most of the situations available to them.

You were talking about personal responsibility. Assuming the parents lived in poverty, how can children-- particularily young children, particularily elementary school children-- make the most out of a mediocre educational system? You're no longer discussing personal responsibility, if you're saying the children can be blamed for the actions of their parents.

Cain, if you're actually interested of the reality of what I'm saying, don't get hung up on the semantics of "personal." I believe that one takes personal responsibility for oneself, one's spouse, and one's minor children. That includes working hard enough to not live in poverty. No one in this country is forced to live in poverty on a long-term basis. Anyone, over the course of their lives, is capable of escaping it, and of making sure their children escape it - provided the children are also responsible, which is always a bit of a gamble.

Whoa, hey, let's stop just making things up, particularly when we've already discussed the correct statistics. 77.1 percent of the population is white, 12.9 percent of the population is black. Whites make up 55 percent of those living below the poverty line, blacks 20.3 percent. So while whites in poverty numerically outnumber blacks in poverty, blacks are proportionately more likely to live in poverty. In fact, that's been a core point of your argument, so I'm not sure why you're changing horses in midstream.

Actually, I'm discussing the many possible views of statistics. If you are poor, you're more than twice as likely to be white as black. That's what I meant by percentages-- within the poor, whites not only have the highest raw numbers, but the highest percentage.

Uh-huh. Well, that view of statistics would be redundant; within any group, if that group is more numerically represented than another, it will also always have a higher percentage of representation. I don't believe that you bothered to claim what was axiomatic; I believe you made a mistake.

It's important to note that I have neither said nor implied that poverty is a "black thing." But blacks are disproportionately more likely to live in poverty, despite the fact that opportunities are available to them that would allow them to get out of poverty, which blacks are disproportionately less likely to take advantage of, because of the attitudes fostered by modern black culture, which encourages the entitlement mentality, glorifies criminality and reckless immorality, and rewards conspicuous and counterproductive consumption.

This is where I ask you to prove it. Please demonstrate how "modern black culture" is responsible for poverty, in a fashion that is distinct from that of any other culture. I'm sure you can come up with any number of arguments, but I'd wager most of them can be equally applied to anyone who is poor.

I don't know how to prove it. Honestly. How can I provide statistics of how much poverty and criminality is caused by 2pac? How can I tell you how many children fail because of their parents' failures? That's why I've stopped making assertions and started asking questions: I don't have a way to prove my beliefs, beyond common sense.

I've never claimed modern black culture is in some way unique in that it fosters continued poverty. White farm culture fosters poverty, too; children are encouraged to "stay with the farm," to "keep it in the family." The state even encourages and rewards these "centennial farms," which are all condemned to a long history of unprofitability. The local population encourages this behavior, and treats anyone who tries to "get out" as a traitor. Many of these conditions are the exact same as for modern blacks in the inner city.

And that's just one other example of a poverty culture which encourages continued poverty; there are thousands. My father's family is from /very/ rural stock who have gone, through four generations, through multiple cultures of poverty, from rural Ohio to the oil fields of West Texas to the hinterlands of lower Michigan. And now, to Grand Rapids, and the "unemployed gifted drug users" culture of poverty. I'm not harping on blacks alone, Cain; I know of which I speak from my experience, and that of my family for the last 100 years. And I'm sure that experience - of living in poverty - isn't unfamiliar to you, either.

But it's not inevitable; poverty can /always/ be beaten. Hell, I've done it myself a time or two. But sometimes, your subculture, or even your entire culture, hinders your efforts to escape poverty, and hinders your efforts to help your children escape it. That's all I'm claiming, and all I've claimed from the beginning. I don't have proof of it, not the numerical kind, at any rate, so I've tried to stop asserting what I know I can't support.

In the meantime, you've had the job of attempting to prove the impossible: that culture doesn't effect poverty; only history. And you've been trying to prove that for the sole reason that you /think/ it's the opposite of my argument. But you haven't been listening to my argument: I've never said white people, hispanic people, native americans don't stay poor because of their cultures.

When you talk about history causing poverty, that the poverty of the parent leads to the poverty of the child, what do you think is the mechanism for that passage? What do you think is the reason it takes "50 to 100 years" to get from poverty to wealth? We know it can be done in one generation; hell, our Secretary of State is proof enough of that. So what's the mechanism for the /delay?/

There are a number of them, of course: parental ignorance, localized opportunity, but one of those mechanisms is also the culture of poverty one is living in, and the members of modern black culture are no exception to that rule, just as the Irish of turn-of-the-century America were no exception.

If you think culture has no role in assisting the generational and personal continuation of poverty, then I can do no more than contradict you. I don't have proof that it's a factor. But I believe it to be true, and I think you do, too. Which is why I don't quite understand where the difference between our opinions lies.

[3278]

There are fewer poor black people than white; since we haven't been able to eradicate white poverty for the history of this country, expecting black poverty to have vanished within the last 40 years is quite silly.

It's important to note that no one here has expressed such and expectation.

[Cain]

I don't know how to prove it. Honestly. How can I provide statistics of how much poverty and criminality is caused by 2pac? How can I tell you how many children fail because of their parents' failures? That's why I've stopped making assertions and started asking questions: I don't have a way to prove my beliefs, beyond common sense.

Here's the problem. I'm asserting such cultures are a result of poverty, and you're asserting they're a cause. History demonstrates that similar cultures arise as a result of poverty, so that's my proof. Common sense tells us that it's a symptom, and not the disease.

But it's not inevitable; poverty can /always/ be beaten. Hell, I've done it myself a time or two. But sometimes, your subculture, or even your entire culture, hinders your efforts to escape poverty, and hinders your efforts to help your children escape it. That's all I'm claiming, and all I've claimed from the beginning. I don't have proof of it, not the numerical kind, at any rate, so I've tried to stop asserting what I know I can't support.

In the meantime, you've had the job of attempting to prove the impossible: that culture doesn't effect poverty; only history. And you've been trying to prove that for the sole reason that you /think/ it's the opposite of my argument. But you haven't been listening to my argument: I've never said white people, hispanic people, native americans don't stay poor because of their cultures.

And again, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. First of all, without outside influences, poverty cannot be beaten. You are arguing that sufficient influences exist, which may or may not be true. However, history also tells us that once sufficient influences exist, time is still required for parity to be reached.

What I'm trying to prove-- and where I think you're wrong-- is that poverty cultures are a result of poverty, and not a prime cause. They may or may not hinder your attempts to escape, that's rather a case-by-case situation instead of a general one. "Modern Black Culture", for example, might be considered to be encouraging people to escape poverty by emphasising material wealth. The exact amount of hinrdance vs. encouragement is highly debateable, and I doubt either of us will be able to prove anything.

When you talk about history causing poverty, that the poverty of the parent leads to the poverty of the child, what do you think is the mechanism for that passage? What do you think is the reason it takes "50 to 100 years" to get from poverty to wealth? We know it can be done in one generation; hell, our Secretary of State is proof enough of that. So what's the mechanism for the /delay?/

In our current world, education is probably the key. Poor areas cannot afford high-quality teachers, and our education is only as good as our teachers. The best and the brightest will have the opportunities to escape, but the average person will only get the teacher's average-- and if that's substandard, then their education will be as well.

As time goes on, and progressively more of the best and brightest are able to escape and improve conditions in their home areas, the productivity of the area will increase. As that increases, the ability to pay teachers will increase as well, and better teachers will be attracted. Over a long enough timeline, in theory, the area will reach parity with the rest of the country.

Your argument does not hold, as Colin Powell is very much the exception and not the rule. How many black SecStates has this country had? He does hold as an example of what the best and the brightest can accomplish, but not of what the average can. We do see that the progression has always been that the best and brightest escape poverty first, and the rest of their subculture follows over time. Why black culture should be any different, in your mind, is what I don't understand.

If you think culture has no role in assisting the generational and personal continuation of poverty, then I can do no more than contradict you. I don't have proof that it's a factor. But I believe it to be true, and I think you do, too. Which is why I don't quite understand where the difference between our opinions lies.

The primary difference, again, is that I view it more as a symptom than as part of the disease. It may not help matters, in the same way that nausea doesn't help you recover from an illness. But blaming a symptom for the disease is counterproductive.

I believe that poverty cultures spring up as a result of poverty, and that doing something about the poverty will "fix" the poverty culture. Which does seem to be the case, historically speaking. From this standpoint, the effect of the culture is something of an appendix-- an extra, possibly helpful or harmful depending on it's condition, but ultimately only a side note.

[Cain]

There are fewer poor black people than white; since we haven't been able to eradicate white poverty for the history of this country, expecting black poverty to have vanished within the last 40 years is quite silly.

It's important to note that no one here has expressed such and expectation.

Bit of a misunderstanding. Your question, as I understand it, was to find the prime cause behind black poverty, and you suggested that modern black culture was the culprit. You wanted to know why blacks were more likely to be in poverty than others, if I understand you correctly.

The answer, in my mind, is the history of poverty. Given that, and the fact that black poverty is on the decrease, I'd say the problem is being corrected as we speak. Typically, only a percentage per generation will escape poverty; if conditions are right, that percentage will increase, until a parity is reached. You were wondering why blacks continued to remain poor, so that's my best answer. I took it to mean that you felt that once opportunities were in place, poverty should just magically vanish under the application of enough "personal responsibility".

[ratlaw]

Here's the problem. I'm asserting such cultures are a result of poverty, and you're asserting they're a cause. History demonstrates that similar cultures arise as a result of poverty, so that's my proof. Common sense tells us that it's a symptom, and not the disease.

My common sense tells me that 32 isn't claiming it's the disease. What I readhis latest post to mean is that, to continue your analogy, a poverty culture is refusing to see the doctor. Culture is part of what keeps people poor, not part of what makes them poor (the disease) nor part of what being poor makes them (the symptoms).

Oh, thought this might add some interesting information to the mix, and it answers my own question of a few posts back. This is a graph of poverty by race from 1959-2001, done by the US Census Bureau. As you can see, blacks have managed to drop their poverty rate by about twice what whites have, from 40-45% down to 22.7% vs 15-20% down to 9.9%. Additionally, blacks did /much/ better than whites in the 90s, despite the 90s being the ?peak? of the sort of black culture 32 is describing (2pac, gansta rap, etc.) Specifically, from a peak of about 32-33% in 1992, the percentage of poor blacks dropped to 22%. Meanwhile, whites went from 11-13% in 1992 to 9%. I'm fairly convinced that any assertation that modern black culture is a major impediment to blacks getting out of poverty are incorrect at this point, barring someone else coming up with more enlightening data on the subject.

One interesting thing to note about the poverty rates for blacks: it's much more variable than that for whites, both up and down.

Additionally, the Census has a whole section devoted to poverty, here

[Cain]

My common sense tells me that 32 isn't claiming it's the disease. What I readhis latest post to mean is that, to continue your analogy, a poverty culture is refusing to see the doctor. Culture is part of what keeps people poor, not part of what makes them poor (the disease) nor part of what being poor makes them (the symptoms).

It's a matter of degree. Refusing to see the doctor doesn't help you get better, but it doesn't prevent your body from healing, either.

To extend the analogy, if we have a diabetic who has become ill, continuing to eat high-sugar/high-carbohydrate foods will actively keep him sick. Refusing to see the doctor will not help matters, but it won't in and of itself alter his situation any.

While I'm sure certain cultural habits do not help matters, it's been my experience that, historically, the cultural limits tend to fade as poverty does.

[Cain]

I believe that one takes personal responsibility for oneself, one's spouse, and one's minor children. That includes working hard enough to not live in poverty. No one in this country is forced to live in poverty on a long-term basis. Anyone, over the course of their lives, is capable of escaping it, and of making sure their children escape it - provided the children are also responsible, which is always a bit of a gamble.

I just realized I missed this point. 32, every example you've given of someone escaping poverty has either involved luck, social services intervention, or just naturally high abilities. You're using argument by rare example-- Colin Powell is hardly representative of the average black man, for example. If anyone is capable of escaping poverty given enough work, why are so many people still in poverty? And if it's just laziness, then why are so many employed?

[Salvation122]

You're using argument by rare example-- Colin Powell is hardly representative of the average black man, for example.

Colin Powell is hardly representative of the average man, period. Most people, regardless of race, do not become general officers in the Army and Secretaries of State.

If anyone is capable of escaping poverty given enough work, why are so many people still in poverty?

Because, the way our current welfare system is structured, you actually get poorer before you can get richer. Where they are isn't great, but they don't want it to get worse.

[3278]

I don't know how to prove it. Honestly. How can I provide statistics of how much poverty and criminality is caused by 2pac? How can I tell you how many children fail because of their parents' failures? That's why I've stopped making assertions and started asking questions: I don't have a way to prove my beliefs, beyond common sense.

Here's the problem. I'm asserting such cultures are a result of poverty, and you're asserting they're a cause. History demonstrates that similar cultures arise as a result of poverty, so that's my proof. Common sense tells us that it's a symptom, and not the disease.

Can't it be both? Can't culture effect poverty? Doesn't it, in fact? Your assertion is that being poor makes people poor for 50-100 years, because it takes that long for generations to get out of poverty. But it's plainly untrue - whether you're talking about Colin Powell [an example I guess I should regret] or myself. I believe a number of things hold that culture back from achieving mass exodus from poverty in a single generation, including ingrained beliefs, the entitlement culture, the habits of poverty, and the culture of poverty, among other things. You just think it's because poor people can't get better jobs, but you could go from making $19,000 a year to making $54,000 a year in a single generation.

And again, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. First of all, without outside influences, poverty cannot be beaten.

WHAT?! That's just plainly untrue. You can go from having nothing to being rich by finding oil in your backyard, or coming up with a brilliant idea. Or you can do it be getting an education and a job - unless you conside those "outside influences."

In our current world, education is probably the key. Poor areas cannot afford high-quality teachers, and our education is only as good as our teachers. The best and the brightest will have the opportunities to escape, but the average person will only get the teacher's average-- and if that's substandard, then their education will be as well.

Then the parents need to move. That's their responsibility. People aren't "stuck" living where they are, or working where they are, or having the level of education they do.

We do see that the progression has always been that the best and brightest escape poverty first, and the rest of their subculture follows over time. Why black culture should be any different, in your mind, is what I don't understand.

I don't. In fact, I think that's exactly what's happening. And I think that then, as now, the culture of poverty is partly to blame for that condition. I think it's possible for an entire generation of a people to escape poverty in a single generation, and I think it's possible for an entire nation's worth of people to escape poverty in a single generation - so long as the nation has the resources for that; Bangladesh wouldn't be able to do that, but the US certainly could.

But it would take everyone doing their best and making all the right decisions. It would require kids not getting addicted to drugs, and parents to stop being addicted to alcohol. It would require everyone investing their incomes well, and working to raise their levels of education. It would require people stop killing each other and stealing from each other. So it's not possible, of course, and I never said that I thought it was. What I'm exploring are the reasons it's impossible for a culture or a nation to exit poverty as quickly as posisible.

On the individual level, where the real action of cultures and nations takes place, there are a number of reasons people stay poor. Many don't know anything else is possible; many don't care. Most poverty cultures eschew what they think of as "sellout" or "highfalutin'" characteristics like investment or education, and instead lavish time and effort on conspicuous consumption of obvious material goods with no material reward, like jetskis and dirtbikes and 21" chrome mags.

There are many reasons a person doesn't get a better job, or move to a better place, and the culture of poverty is one of them. Yes, the culture is caused by poverty in the first place, but it also continues poverty, encourages poverty by rejecting successful behaviors and embracing counterproductive ones.

I believe that poverty cultures spring up as a result of poverty, and that doing something about the poverty will "fix" the poverty culture.

Then answer me this - since I don't disagree with this statement - would not doing something about the poverty culture [like encouraging education and discouraging harmful behaviors] have a positive effect on the poverty level?

[3278]

Additionally, blacks did /much/ better than whites in the 90s, despite the 90s being the ?peak? of the sort of black culture 32 is describing (2pac, gansta rap, etc.) Specifically, from a peak of about 32-33% in 1992, the percentage of poor blacks dropped to 22%. Meanwhile, whites went from 11-13% in 1992 to 9%. I'm fairly convinced that any assertation that modern black culture is a major impediment to blacks getting out of poverty are incorrect at this point, barring someone else coming up with more enlightening data on the subject.

Hmm. I don't have a useful answer to that. So how can encouraging harmful behaviors and discouraging useful ones not have a negative effect on poverty?

Here's a more, uh, perilous question: what happened to black criminality and violent crime during that same period? Is it possible that what's happening with the black poverty statistics is that some people are getting out and doing well, but others are doing worse? Which, I suppose, means you'd have to have mean and median for black incomes, and statistics on crime...Come here, Census!

[3278]

I believe that one takes personal responsibility for oneself, one's spouse, and one's minor children. That includes working hard enough to not live in poverty. No one in this country is forced to live in poverty on a long-term basis. Anyone, over the course of their lives, is capable of escaping it, and of making sure their children escape it - provided the children are also responsible, which is always a bit of a gamble.

I just realized I missed this point. 32, every example you've given of someone escaping poverty has either involved luck, social services intervention, or just naturally high abilities.

Well, I only used two examples. Both involved high abilities and/or hard work. But I still fail to see - which doesn't mean it's not true, it just means no one's showed me - why /anyone/ [barring exceptional cases like quadroplegics] - can't escape poverty in their lifetime.

You're using argument by rare example-- Colin Powell is hardly representative of the average black man, for example.

How is he not average? I mean, I don't know the guy; is he incredibly intelligent, or really really strong or something?

If anyone is capable of escaping poverty given enough work, why are so many people still in poverty? And if it's just laziness, then why are so many employed?

... If anyone is capable of escaping poverty given enough work, and so many people are in poverty, it stands to reason that it's because they're not doing enough work. And if so many others are employed, it stands to reason that it's because they're doing enough work. That's, uh, that's just my take on it, though.

[Cain]

I don't. In fact, I think that's exactly what's happening. And I think that then, as now, the culture of poverty is partly to blame for that condition. I think it's possible for an entire generation of a people to escape poverty in a single generation, and I think it's possible for an entire nation's worth of people to escape poverty in a single generation - so long as the nation has the resources for that; Bangladesh wouldn't be able to do that, but the US certainly could.

Prove it. Show me once, in US History, where an entire ethnic group went from relative poverty to wealth, within a single generation, using their own labor. I can think of some historical examples that come close, but those all involved luck-- the success of the Spanish Privateers, for example.

WHAT?! That's just plainly untrue. You can go from having nothing to being rich by finding oil in your backyard, or coming up with a brilliant idea. Or you can do it be getting an education and a job - unless you conside those "outside influences."

Finding oil in your backyard, winning the lottery, and all of that involve luck, which is the ultimate outside influence. So are jobs and education-- if no one is hiring or if the good schools are full, you can't magically make them appear. Coming up with a brilliant idea is also pure luck.

Then answer me this - since I don't disagree with this statement - would not doing something about the poverty culture [like encouraging education and discouraging harmful behaviors] have a positive effect on the poverty level?

Encouraging education is doing something about poverty directly, at least in our country. I'm not sure I understand the double-negative in your question, but IMO ignoring cultural issues in favor of dealing with the underlying problems will work, while ignoring the underlying problems in favor of dealing with the culture won't.

How is he not average? I mean, I don't know the guy; is he incredibly intelligent, or really really strong or something?

Not only is Colin Powell extremely intelligent, there is no way Joe Average will ever become SecState. Yes, he attained a rare position-- but as Salv pointed out, there have been maybe 50 SecStates in our history, and 280 million people alive today. The odds of becoming SecState through sheer chance are thus incredibly slim.

If anyone is capable of escaping poverty given enough work, and so many people are in poverty, it stands to reason that it's because they're not doing enough work. And if so many others are employed, it stands to reason that it's because they're doing enough work. That's, uh, that's just my take on it, though.

Poor phrasing on my part. Why are so many people in poverty the "working poor", who are employed? Many of the working poor I knew did regular overtime, to boot.

The average person got C's in high school-- that's what the standard is supposedly at. With a 2.0 GPA, that's not enough to get admitted to a reasonable university-- it'll get you into a community college, but it won't get you into any special certificate programs. That mean, you'll get an average-paying job for your area. If your area is depressed, then your salary will be weak as well.

But if you mean, by "personal responsibilty", that everyone can earn straight A's through work... dude, that's like saying that since 50% of students are below average, we need to make teachers work harder so that all students are above average. That's why the average person can't escape poverty, if they're in the wrong areas-- you can't make 75% of people above average.

[ratlaw]

Finding oil in your backyard, winning the lottery, and all of that involve luck, which is the ultimate outside influence. So are jobs and education-- if no one is hiring or if the good schools are full, you can't magically make them appear. Coming up with a brilliant idea is also pure luck.

Okay. That last bit is such liberal bullshit Stupid people don't have brilliant ideas because they're stupid, not because they're unlucky. Einstein wasn't lucky, nor was he rich but he was far from poor. The guy who owns Amazon.com wasn't lucky, he was brilliant and worked his ass off. Simply chalking success up to luck and nothing else is as ludicrous as saying that blacks should have lifted themselves out of poverty w/o the need for the Civil Rights Act.

[Cain]

And again, being brilliant means being above-average. How on earth can 75% of the populace become above average?

[ratlaw]

Okay, the "Brilliant Idea is pure luck" bit so captured my attention that I skipped the rest of Cain's post. I"m going to rectify that now.

Prove it. Show me once, in US History, where an entire ethnic group went from relative poverty to wealth, within a single generation, using their own labor. I can think of some historical examples that come close, but those all involved luck-- the success of the Spanish Privateers, for example.

Israel after WWII.

[snip already replied to part]

Encouraging education is doing something about poverty directly, at least in our country. I'm not sure I understand the double-negative in your question, but IMO ignoring cultural issues in favor of dealing with the underlying problems will work, while ignoring the underlying problems in favor of dealing with the culture won't.

But dealing with both will work better than dealing with either problem in isolation, which is probably what 32 (being a fairly intelligent and reasonable person) would advocate.

Not only is Colin Powell extremely intelligent, there is no way Joe Average will ever become SecState. Yes, he attained a rare position-- but as Salv pointed out, there have been maybe 50 SecStates in our history, and 280 million people alive today. The odds of becoming SecState through sheer chance are thus incredibly slim.

Cain, you're acting like becoming SecState is the lottery. Obviously, it's not. Of those 280 million people, how many actually have ever even through "Hey, I'd like to be SecState?" The odds of becoming SecState through sheer chance are 0. Not incredibly slim, ZERO. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this statement, since it's so obviously not to the point being made by 32.

Poor phrasing on my part. Why are so many people in poverty the "working poor", who are employed? Many of the working poor I knew did regular overtime, to boot.

The average person got C's in high school-- that's what the standard is supposedly at. With a 2.0 GPA, that's not enough to get admitted to a reasonable university-- it'll get you into a community college, but it won't get you into any special certificate programs. That mean, you'll get an average-paying job for your area. If your area is depressed, then your salary will be weak as well.

Once again, Washington must be the most hellish state in the Union. Here in North Carolina (not exactly known for it's progressive liberal government) we have an entire university of 20,000 students whose only entry requirements are a 2.0 GPA and an 800 on the SAT. Even if you're correct, almost any university I know of will accept you after 1 or 2 years at a community college, assuming you managed to make a high enough GPA to qualify for transfer. I should know, most of my cousins (not the shaprtest tools in the shed and definitely making worse than 2.0s in HS) managed to get into decent universities that way.

But if you mean, by "personal responsibilty", that everyone can earn straight A's through work... dude, that's like saying that since 50% of students are below average, we need to make teachers work harder so that all students are above average. That's why the average person can't escape poverty, if they're in the wrong areas-- you can't make 75% of people above average.

You can if "average" is actually well below human potential. Of course, then we have to talk about American education and it's desire to teach to the lowest common denominator, rather than challenging students to actually, you know, learn something. Perhaps expecting people to preform above average, rather than average, would be of some benefit. Fate knows the reverse seems to be turning out stpider and stupider students every year.

[3278]

I don't. In fact, I think that's exactly what's happening. And I think that then, as now, the culture of poverty is partly to blame for that condition. I think it's possible for an entire generation of a people to escape poverty in a single generation, and I think it's possible for an entire nation's worth of people to escape poverty in a single generation - so long as the nation has the resources for that; Bangladesh wouldn't be able to do that, but the US certainly could.

Prove it. Show me once, in US History, where an entire ethnic group went from relative poverty to wealth, within a single generation, using their own labor.

I don't know of any. Does that mean there could never be one? Does that mean it's impossible for 100% of people to work hard? No. Just because it's never happened, and likely never will happen, doesn't mean it's impossible.

WHAT?! That's just plainly untrue. You can go from having nothing to being rich by finding oil in your backyard, or coming up with a brilliant idea. Or you can do it be getting an education and a job - unless you conside those "outside influences."

Finding oil in your backyard, winning the lottery, and all of that involve luck, which is the ultimate outside influence. So are jobs and education-- if no one is hiring or if the good schools are full, you can't magically make them appear. Coming up with a brilliant idea is also pure luck.

It's not luck. Luck isn't real. Finding oil in your backyard means you bought the right land and dug in the right places. Having a brilliant idea doesn't require anything, really; a number of inventions - say, the television tube - were created by totally ordinary people. And the school's /aren't/ full, and some people, somewhere, are hiring. If they're not, you /really/ have to work hard: H's parents, for instance, without work, started making magnets at home and selling them to Hitachi. They live on a Centennial Farm and have three children. In her spare time, his mother is a nature artist of some repute; she has a duck on a stamp, of all things. They're millionaires now, through hard work and responsible behavior. I might mention they're also Republicans and members of the NRA.

Then answer me this - since I don't disagree with this statement - would not doing something about the poverty culture [like encouraging education and discouraging harmful behaviors] have a positive effect on the poverty level?

Encouraging education is doing something about poverty directly, at least in our country.

Well, okay. So? Does changing that cultural characteristic have a positive effect on the poverty level?

I'm not sure I understand the double-negative in your question, but IMO ignoring cultural issues in favor of dealing with the underlying problems will work, while ignoring the underlying problems in favor of dealing with the culture won't.

But the underlying problem, according to you, is a lack of education and work. In my eyes, you have two options: force people to have education and give them work, or teach them that education and work are important. You'd like to lead the horse to water and then stick his head under until he drinks. I'd rather point at the water and say, "Check it out. Water. You should go where water is."

The cultural problems I'm talking about - education, materialism - are the same as the "underlying causes" you're talking about. Unless I'm misunderstanding, which is possible, since I thought you believed the underlying causes of poverty were, "poverty."

Poor phrasing on my part. Why are so many people in poverty the "working poor", who are employed? Many of the working poor I knew did regular overtime, to boot.

I don't even know how that's possible. Let's get into poverty a little here. First of all, the poverty statistics OMB - and therefore the Census - uses are ridiculous. It was developed in 1963 by a Polish immigrant named Molly Orshansky, for whom food accounted for one-third of her budget. It didn't take into account transportation or health insurance. Subsequent revisions have failed to repair it.

But let's assume it works, since we've got nothing else. A family of three - Mom, Dad, baby - has a poverty threshold of US$14,480. Assuming Mom or Dad is staying home with the baby, that means the other parent has to earn $278.46 a week, which at 40 hours, is $6.96 an hour. You'd have to work minimum wage to make so little you had to work overtime just to not be in poverty. And that's assuming you have a spouse and a child; if you have a spouse and a child and you're working minimum wage, you screwed something up somewhere. You need to get a job which pays a couple more dollars an hour - say, work your current job for a couple of years - and then you'll be out of poverty.

There's no excuse for /anyone/ to be married, work five years /anywhere,/ and not make more than US$6.96 an hour. Factory work - entry level - pays more. Only fast food pays so little, and not for a couple of years. Job market's hit, you lose your job as foreman at the factory? No reason that should last more than a couple of years, and then you're /out of poverty./

All that has to be true for my assertion - that it's possible for someone to work their way out of poverty in their lifetime - is for that person to make more than $9,359 in any one given year, the threshold for a single person in poverty. That's $179.98 a week, or $4.50 an hour. How can a person /not/ make $4.50 an hour for a year?

Yes, it's possible for people to work their way out of poverty within their lifetime. All they have to do is get a job. Ever. I don't see why an entire culture can't do that, barring exceptional circumstances in individual cases.

[Cain]

H's parents, for instance, without work, started making magnets at home and selling them to Hitachi. They live on a Centennial Farm and have three children. In her spare time, his mother is a nature artist of some repute; she has a duck on a stamp, of all things. They're millionaires now, through hard work and responsible behavior. I might mention they're also Republicans and members of the NRA.

Again, argument by rare example. How many people know how to make magnets for Hitachi? How many people have a working farm to live on? How many people are artists of good repute? I know tons of artists, but maybe only one or two of any local fame. Sorry, but you don't become an artist of repute by hard work; you need innate talent, which not everyone is born with.

But the underlying problem, according to you, is a lack of education and work. In my eyes, you have two options: force people to have education and give them work, or teach them that education and work are important. You'd like to lead the horse to water and then stick his head under until he drinks. I'd rather point at the water and say, "Check it out. Water. You should go where water is."

Ok, sorry, I didn't fully understand your last question. In our culture, poverty is largely cause by a lack of education and availiable work. However, you're using an either/or fallacy. You can easily teach people that education and work are important, without actually giving them any education and work to do, thereby accomplishing nothing.

What you seem to be suggesting is equivalent to putting up signs that say: "Illiterate? Write for help!" You can tell people how important an education is all you like; unless you back it up by providing a better education, you won't succeed. Besides which, many cultures with rampant poverty do emphasize education and hard work-- China, for example, has always held those values dear. That doesn't change the fact that most of the country is at the subsistence-farming level.

You can tell people the value of a better education and a good job all you like-- but if you don't back it by providing a better education and good jobs, then you have done nothing.

The cultural problems I'm talking about - education, materialism - are the same as the "underlying causes" you're talking about. Unless I'm misunderstanding, which is possible, since I thought you believed the underlying causes of poverty were, "poverty."

Yeah, this is probably a misunderstanding. Education isn't the same as a culture-- people worldwide recieve essentially the same training in math, for example. You're focusing on the cultural aspects of education, which is not what I meant. For the purposes of this argument, I'll correct myself to only mean math and science education, which is pretty much culture-free.

Materialism is another issue, but then again, it doesn't just exist in poverty cultures. I'd say the average yuppie is probably more materialistic than the average immigrant, for example.

But let's assume it works, since we've got nothing else. A family of three - Mom, Dad, baby - has a poverty threshold of US$14,480. Assuming Mom or Dad is staying home with the baby, that means the other parent has to earn $278.46 a week, which at 40 hours, is $6.96 an hour. You'd have to work minimum wage to make so little you had to work overtime just to not be in poverty. And that's assuming you have a spouse and a child; if you have a spouse and a child and you're working minimum wage, you screwed something up somewhere. You need to get a job which pays a couple more dollars an hour - say, work your current job for a couple of years - and then you'll be out of poverty.

Let's revise your example. Single parent, two children. Assuming said parent has graduated high school, he or she would be losing most of that money in child care. If the parent has not, then there is basically little chance of ever going beyond minimum wage-- and if you've got two kids, and can barely afford child care as is, you're not going to be able to stop working to go back to school.

The current Federal Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, beneath your standards. Let's say you work it, and are provided with a yearly salary increase. However, unless the increase is of a substantial percentage, it probably won't even keep up with the cost of living. In a few years, someone starting at that wage would have needed an increase of about 40% to reach the threshold you're discussing. I don't know about you, but I've never been able to score a 20% increase in a single year of work, let alone do it two years in a row.

Factory work also does pay differently, and poverty thresholds are different everywhere. I know when I worked in the factory, I got paid a lot less than $5.15 an hour. Granted, that was decades ago, but a barely-survivable wage is still a barely-surviveable wage.

Let's also look at the current job market. In a situation where there are plenty of jobs to go around, you'd have more of a point. In the current economy, and for a while now, there are fewer and fewer jobs to go around. It's been the trend to hire fewer people, and work them harder.

All that has to be true for my assertion - that it's possible for someone to work their way out of poverty in their lifetime - is for that person to make more than $9,359 in any one given year, the threshold for a single person in poverty.

And that assumes said person is single, and has no dependant children, parents, or the like. That also assumes said person has had sufficient education to see and recognize opportunites as they arise-- and weren't you the one complaining how our current system doesn't teach people that?

What you have demonstrated is that above-average people are capable of working their way out of poverty. However, if poverty is the average for where you live, then the average person will live in poverty. What needs to happen is that the average income has to be increased (generally through investment, and not by arbitrary increases in the minimum wage, we're both aware that doesn't really help) and the average living condition raised. As a result, poverty goes away.

Now, since I'm rather confused-- are we still discussing Prime Causes for poverty? If so, I think we can dismiss culture as the prime cause. What degree of contributing factor it is can still be debated, but I was under the impression that we're debating the originating factors, and not related issues.

Israel after WWII.

Isreal after WW2 recieve all kinds of Foreign Aid from all over the world.

But dealing with both will work better than dealing with either problem in isolation, which is probably what 32 (being a fairly intelligent and reasonable person) would advocate.

That's not what i've understood him to be advocating. He seems to be looking for points where people in poverty weren't responsible enough, and thus placing blame. Besides which, "Fixing a culture" won't really help, while giving them better math/science education and offering better paying jobs will. His argument that "there's no excuse" means he's writing off the poverty problem to a simple lack of effort; he seems to think laziness is the prime cause behind poverty, when we all know differently.

Cain, you're acting like becoming SecState is the lottery. Obviously, it's not. Of those 280 million people, how many actually have ever even through "Hey, I'd like to be SecState?" The odds of becoming SecState through sheer chance are 0. Not incredibly slim, ZERO . I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this statement, since it's so obviously not to the point being made by 32.

It's meant to demonstrate that Colin Powell does not work well as an example of the average. He didn't set out to be SecState either. Anyone who manages to get to that level is not your average Joe, is the point I'm trying to make.

Once again, Washington must be the most hellish state in the Union. Here in North Carolina (not exactly known for it's progressive liberal government) we have an entire university of 20,000 students whose only entry requirements are a 2.0 GPA and an 800 on the SAT. Even if you're correct, almost any university I know of will accept you after 1 or 2 years at a community college, assuming you managed to make a high enough GPA to qualify for transfer. I should know, most of my cousins (not the shaprtest tools in the shed and definitely making worse than 2.0s in HS) managed to get into decent universities that way.

State colleges here will automatically admit anyone with an AA from a state community college, true enough. But getting into an advanced program-- either a certificate or a specialized degree program-- requires better than a 2.0. You can get a general AA or BA fairly easily, but those just don't get the respect a specialized one would. If you were going to hire an IT tech, and had two equally-qualified candidates, who would look more attractive-- they guy with a general AA, or the one with MCSE certs and an IT AA degree?

You can if "average" is actually well below human potential. Of course, then we have to talk about American education and it's desire to teach to the lowest common denominator, rather than challenging students to actually, you know, learn something. Perhaps expecting people to preform above average, rather than average, would be of some benefit.

The problem is that our job market does work on a curve. Some people will always be at the bottom, and some will always be at the top. It's unavoidable. Now, if the low side is still above the poverty level, you're doing ok. If not, you've got a problem-- but you can't just work on the people at the bottom. You've got to increase the values across the entire curve to succeed.