Despite that, over 87% of people reported that “individual initiative” is what helped them escape poverty. — NOS4A2

Around only 56 years ago the civil rights act was helpful. 100% of those who were discriminated against and escaped poverty prior to the act could legitimately claim that individual initiative helped them escape poverty.

I'm not playing. If I reply to you it's not to engage you, it's to make clear for others what I'm referring to and what's wrong with your reasoning or what information you forget or dismiss. Don't bother replying.

I'm not playing. If I reply to you it's not to engage you, it's to make clear for others what I'm referring to and what's wrong with your reasoning or what information you forget or dismiss. Don't bother replying.

Then your aim is propaganda, nothing besides.

The real issue is if the ways to get out of povetry diminish or grow.

That's a good way to look at it.

In our meritocratic World education is the important way for upward social mobility. If there are no stipends, no way for even a very talented pupil to get into the best schools, then there is a huge problem. If the only route is joining the armed forces...that cannot be good.

I agree, joining the armed forces shouldn't be the go-to solution. My generation was often told growing up to get an education and you'll be fine. I'm a millennial by the way, and I don't think this vision imparted by our parents has really panned out. We're saddled with student debt and many of us have degrees which aren't particularly useful for the real world.

There are plenty of scholarships, by the way. There are also state schools which offer a heavily discounted price to in-state students (and these schools are often quite decent.) If you're looking at a private college it can be quite expensive (think around $50k/year USD if not more) and it's questionable how much it's worth it at this point especially if someone is going for, say, art history. Someone could be spending $200k over 4 years for an art history degree, and this often means going into debt.

Personally, I think people should work with their strengths. I have a few friends who are quieter guys and good students and they do fine as engineers. I know other who, while okay students, are much more charismatic and have been doing well as salespeople. School shouldn't break the bank. There's also trade school, but in practice many of the upper middle class wouldn't want to send their child there out of pride. It's totally a pride thing.

Yes, there is risk involved there, in the sense that high-reward investment will involve a lot of short-term ups and downs along the way toward gradual long-term gains.

There is no gradual long term gain most of the time with riskier assets. This is especially the case the riskier you go - look at how many small cap altcoins (cryptocurrencies) just crash in value and go to 0. Same thing with penny stocks. Even if you invest in like 100 penny stocks there's absolutely no guarantee you're going to end up "winning big." This isn't how it works.

There is a likely long term gain with the S&P, but that is over like a 30 year time period. If you're going to go picking individual stocks or crypto you can lose a considerable amount of your investment. There is no long term prize for holding. There's only your belief that there is one.

In any case I still do invest in the S&P. I believe in the long-term value proposition and I would like for poorer families to build up an emergency fund and have that excess capital to where they can afford to take on some risk and put money in the stock market and pile it away for the long term. This is way different from telling them to invest in penny stocks or random cryptocurrencies though.

Then your aim is propaganda, nothing besides. — NOS4A2

Actually, having just skimmed the world bank study that you link to, it appears you're being somewhat misleading. The study supports the importance of both initiative and opportunity for upward mobility.

Actually, having just skimmed the world bank study that you link to, it appears you're being somewhat misleading. The study supports the importance of both initiative and opportunity for upward mobility.

Given this information, is it then true or false that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”?

My aim is not wasting my time on someone who keeps going out of his way to spread lies and disinformation, which is again the case with your qualification. It's telling you qualify it as propaganda. Projection much?

My aim is not wasting my time on someone who keeps going out of his way to spread lies and disinformation, which is again the case with your qualification. It's telling you qualify it as propaganda. Projection much?

I merely took issue with your absurd claim, which you used as a springboard to launch snark against “people not informing themselves or the ideological barriers that come with being born and raised in the US”. If you can’t handle it, why dish it out?

Actually, having just skimmed the world bank study that you link to, it appears you're being somewhat misleading. The study supports the importance of both initiative and opportunity for upward mobility.
– praxis

Given this information, is it then true or false that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”? — NOS4A2

As the world bank study supports, that depends on opportunity.

A prisoner can escape their confinement and validly claim that it was 100% their individual initiative that allowed them to escape. The ease of their escape would, of course, depend on the available opportunities.

As the world bank study supports, that depends on opportunity.

A prisoner can escape their confinement and validly claim that it was 100% their individual initiative that allowed them to escape. The ease of their escape would, of course, depend on the available opportunities.

It was a true or false question, but I get why you wouldn’t want to contradict your fellow travellers, especially right after accusing their opponents of being misleading.

I never said nor implied that “initiative” was the only reason people were able escape poverty. I never said nor implied “initiative” always works. I was only disputing the claim that “personal choices have very little to do with socio-economic (upward) mobility”. I don’t know why you accuse me of being misleading, unless you are accusing others to mislead.

But no one prisoner can claim that is was 100% opportunity or conditions that made him escape. Initiative is primary to opportunity. Without initiative, conditions and opportunity are wasted.

Dude. You're a joke. I only laugh at you so I'm certainly not offended by anything you say. I thought I was being helpful towards you to let you know you don't need to reply to me as I have no interest whatsoever to have a discussion with you on any topic.

Dude. You're a joke. I only laugh at you so I'm certainly not offended by anything you say. I thought I was being helpful towards you to let you know you don't need to reply to me as I have no interest whatsoever to have a discussion with you on any topic.

If you do not want to defend your claims or prove something from your “wealth of research” I get it. I wasn’t even sure I was fully understanding your point. But it was a bold and insulting claim that was befitting a little pushback. I’m sure not everyone hates to see truth collide with error, so no I will not shut up. No one is forcing you to respond.

Initiative is primary to opportunity. Without initiative, conditions and opportunity are wasted. — NOS4A2

Your view is clearly biased. Didn't you read the world bank study?

The worst part is that this belief in poverty outcomes being affected by personal behaviour is that it actually compounds low socio-economic status. See for instance the work by the APA, starting I think in 2007 with the SES task force.

87% of people who were asked how they escaped poverty said they did so through “individual initiative”... — NOS4A2

All by itself too... no other forces were at work... it's all individual initiative...

:roll:

The worst part is that this belief in poverty outcomes being affected by personal behaviour is that it actually compounds low socio-economic status. — Benkei

I believe that’s the point, maintaining the status quo, or better still, Making America Great Again (pre civil rights act).

A return to normalcy...

:gasp:

All by itself too... no other forces were at work... it's all individual initiative...

All you and your fellow travellers can do is imply that the people who reported on these questions are lying. But perhaps their claims are sincere while yours are mistaken.

Outrageously expensive healthcare was and still is normal. The tremendous divide between the best and worst off is more and more normal. Worker abuse is more and more normal. Massive child hunger is normal. Horribly underfunded public education for those who need it most is normal, and becoming worse and worse. Consumer fraud is normal. Great loss of good paying American jobs is normal. Electorate fraud is normal. The financial sector crafting predatory lending tools that create huge devastation to average everyday Americans was normal. The systematic removal of consumer protective measures is normal. Etc...

All normal... and legal.

No Joe.

Let us not return to normal.

All by itself too... no other forces were at work... it's all individual initiative...

All you and your fellow travellers can do is imply that the people who reported on these questions are lying. But perhaps their claims are sincere while yours are mistaken. — NOS4A2

Red Herring...

It's not about the person's sincerity. We could grant that every person said exactly what they believe. We could grant that it was all true.

It would be more accurate to say that every person participating in a survey agreed to it's wording about the importance of "personal initiative". Regardless...

We could grant it all, and still discard it as irrelevant information, because that's exactly what it is.

Every person who pulled themselves up out of poverty could believe that personal initiative played an irrevocable role in their doing so, and they could all be right. However, if any of them believe that that's all it took... Well, let's just say that they ought consider themselves lucky, because we all know better.

Personal want, desire, drive, and/or initiative - all by itself - is not enough, and that was the point. The speaker's sincerity was never in question for me, for it has nothing to do with that. It's about whether or not personal initiative is enough. It's about whether or not that's all it takes. It's not, but some participants have argued such things...

Way too broad a brushstroke, and shows a clear lack of knowledge regarding what all it takes. One must want it...

Sure...

...but it takes quite a bit more than that to actually pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps, especially after being born into generational poverty. That's all. I suspect you agree.



P.S.

I've not forgotten that you offered - as evidence no less - a piece of pure unadulterated propaganda in support of some bullshit false equivalence you draw between Bernie, his ideas, and 'failed regimes' that have been given the "socialist" or "communist" branding.

As if the words "socialist" and "communist" magically makes your rhetoric true.

They don't.

I already offered an extreme example of predatory lending, that of payday loans.

Apologies, looks like I was arguing with the wrong person.

My point was only that accepting that money lending isn't necessarily exploitative doesn't get us far in understanding the way it is used to exploited vulnerable people. The adding of value to the capital borrowed only really happens in business borrowing, in which a sober financial calculation is made. Whereas personal borrowing tends to be more to do with a remedy for poor financial planning, or issues around poverty.

All you and your fellow travellers can do is imply that the people who reported on these questions are lying. But perhaps their claims are sincere while yours are mistaken.

Why don't you agree with folk on occasion and discuss the issues themselves, rather than this false them and us reactionary rhetoric?
You remind me of Dick Dastardly in The whacky Races.
Or is this all part of the Trumpian divide and rule rhetoric?

Whereas personal borrowing tends to be more to do with a remedy for poor financial planning, or issues around poverty. — Punshhh

I don’t know the statistics but I would guess mortgages and credit card debt comprise the bulk of personal borrowing in the US.

Why don't you agree with folk on occasion and discuss the issues themselves, rather than this false them and us reactionary rhetoric?
You remind me of Dick Dastardly in The whacky Races.
Or is this all part of the Trumpian divide and rule rhetoric?

I don’t call people names and compare them to cartoon characters. That’s the bag of you and your fellow travellers, who opine about character and divisiveness out of one side of the mouth while engaging in snark and ridicule out the other. Politics is all about division. If you cannot handle an opposing opinion it’s probably not for you.

Discard the voices of the poor as irrelevant, eh? Then what is relevant? The claims of some life-long politician who has lived off tax-payer dollars the majority of his life? Some other member of the professional-managerial class, perhaps? These people do not care about the poor; they use the poor.

Discard the voices of the poor as irrelevant, eh? Then what is relevant? The claims of some life-long politician who has lived off tax-payer dollars the majority of his life? Some other member of the professional-managerial class, perhaps? These people do not care about the poor; they use the poor. — NOS4A2

Punshhh has a point, you make a caricature of yourself with this kind of crap. Like a wind-up troll doll set to auto repeat.

Punshhh has a point, you make a caricature of yourself with this kind of crap. Like a wind-up troll doll set to auto repeat.

Are you unwilling or simply incapable of addressing anything I argue? If it’s not ad hominem, it’s straw men and false accusations. I wonder if you actually think it works or if it is merely an opportunity to display your bona fides to those trapped within your bubble.

The problem people have with you is that you're intellectually dishonest because you give the impression of being a paid troll. Which is a not unreasonable assumption for someone who comes on here every day almost exclusively to spout Trumpian propaganda. Especially someone who's not American and should have little skin in the game. So, expect to be treated with the contempt you most likely deserve.

Are you unwilling or simply incapable of addressing anything I argue? If it’s not ad hominem, it’s straw men and false accusations. I wonder if you actually think it works or if it is merely an opportunity to display your bona fides to those trapped within your bubble. — NOS4A2

Coming from one who did not address the point I made, offered red herring instead, accused me of calling poor people liars even after I clarified the aforementioned point, as well as topping it all of with yet another false accusation...

Allow me to hold a mirror up for you...