January 2017

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16 171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 06:30 pm (UTC)
The problem with your claim here is that the flip side is quite ugly: You are essentially saying that if you're poor, all you need to do is work hard and you'll be better off. That is patently not true, as has been explained elsewhere, and the corresponding side to that is that poor people are poor because they DON'T work hard.

I don't know if you read [livejournal.com profile] akiko's LJ, but [livejournal.com profile] tiurin has some really excellent comments there about the problems with mobility, and the related problems of privilege. I think that is what a lot of these discussions are coming down to. It's a very important concept, and it's not one that's easy to explain sufficiently well, especially if you don't have a background in women's or African American studies or something similar.

Regarding the lottery: Are you sure about that? Sure, there are newspaper stories about people who win and then spend it all within a year, but that's not good data. Obviously, the newspaper is printing it because it makes a good story, not because that's an actual tendency.

Also, moving from one class to another is a hell of a lot easier if you already have a leg up. Going from third to fourth quintile will still take work, but if you're in the third already you likely have a lot of things available to you, like education and the expectation from your parents and peers that you'll do well. (That makes a HUGE difference.) If you're in the bottom or fourth quintile, not so much. This whole "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" notion doesn't work so well if you can't even afford to buy boots.

Reply

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting