Comparing Rich with Poor: Moral Bankruptcy

[bripat9643]

Talk about hyperbole

I grew up poor and had it thrown in my face on almost a daily basis in one way or the other, but that is not the point.

Let's see--there is my nephew who quit football in the middle of his third practice because he didn't get to be the hero like he did on playstation. There is another nephew that quit his first job--when he was 23--after a day because he didn't like people telling him what to do. While I would love to be able to say, "Hey, it is just my family", I cannot. There is a whole generation of people, going on two generations, who largely have been so coddled that they are increasingly incapable of contributing anything to society other than babies and the aroma of pot.

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

No. We do know. There is more opportunity for some than others.....and this is, for most people, THE primary factor that determines how far up the ladder a person is going to climb.

I believe that many "conservatives" are drawn to the sort of bile that Sowell emits because they have a need to believe that they are high achievers and have worked harder or made better choices than others. It is insecurity more than anything else. By denying that they have had more opportunity....by chance or by station at birth...than those who they view as underachievers.....they get to take that "holier than thou" POV that is so common among them.

In general....meaning for the vast majority of people....where and to whom one is born has more to do with ones success in life than any work ethic or innovative spirit.

It's interesting that you refer to the simple "truth" as bile, that you think the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is somehow distasteful. Somehow you find the idea that people are doomed to suffer under whatever economic circumstances they were born into more appealing.

That's not exactly an admirable attitude for someone to hold.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I fail to see how I used any hyperbole in my post.

But the examples you used do illustrate why at least some so-called inequity exists. The kid who sticks it out in football practice very well may be able to be a 'hero' on down the road. The person who suffers through the tedious, yucky, sometimes terribly boring 'Mcjobs" are more likely the ones who will be attractive to employers for better jobs that lead to still better ones, etc. And if that isn't in the cards, they still benefit from the experience.

The coddling you mention I think is in the soothing and excusing those who don't achieve and telling them it isn't their fault--that they are disadvantaged and oppressed and they are due compensation for the unfairness of the system and others owe them a living or whatever.

Again there is nothing 'unfair' about the kids who attended the rich man's private school. Somebody--their parents or grandparents--earned them the privilege of a first class education. Nobody should look down on those who have achieved and are able to bless their children. I certainly was able to provide more opportunities for my children than my parents were able (or willing) to provide for me. But I also knew the importance of teaching my children to develop a work ethic, to expect to work for what they got, and to understand that nobody owed them anything--to be grateful for gifts and not count on them to get by.

And those poor kids shouldn't be told that they deserve what the rich kids have. They should be told again and again that the power for their own destiny is in their hands. Even if they don't get dealt a great hand, their goal must be to try for a better one, and then a better one. And nobody knows what he/she can achieve until s/he tries.

No. We do know. There is more opportunity for some than others.....and this is, for most people, THE primary factor that determines how far up the ladder a person is going to climb.

I believe that many "conservatives" are drawn to the sort of bile that Sowell emits because they have a need to believe that they are high achievers and have worked harder or made better choices than others. It is insecurity more than anything else. By denying that they have had more opportunity....by chance or by station at birth...than those who they view as underachievers.....they get to take that "holier than thou" POV that is so common among them.

In general....meaning for the vast majority of people....where and to whom one is born has more to do with ones success in life than any work ethic or innovative spirit.

It's interesting that you refer to the simple "truth" as bile, that you think the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is somehow distasteful. Somehow you find the idea that people are doomed to suffer under whatever economic circumstances they were born into more appealing.

That's not exactly an admirable attitude for someone to hold.

I do not think that the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is distasteful. I never said any such thing. You are putting those words into my mouth.

You are a dishonest person.......which is why you allow yourself to write shit like that.

Explain the results of this study, please.

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/website/IGE/Executive Summary.pdf

Equality of Opportunity

Take a look here as well, please.

Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education | Brookings Institution

Finally....if you've really a interest, have a look here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...eports/Economic_Mobility/PEW_Upward EM 14.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

No. We do know. There is more opportunity for some than others.....and this is, for most people, THE primary factor that determines how far up the ladder a person is going to climb.

I believe that many "conservatives" are drawn to the sort of bile that Sowell emits because they have a need to believe that they are high achievers and have worked harder or made better choices than others. It is insecurity more than anything else. By denying that they have had more opportunity....by chance or by station at birth...than those who they view as underachievers.....they get to take that "holier than thou" POV that is so common among them.

In general....meaning for the vast majority of people....where and to whom one is born has more to do with ones success in life than any work ethic or innovative spirit.

It's interesting that you refer to the simple "truth" as bile, that you think the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is somehow distasteful. Somehow you find the idea that people are doomed to suffer under whatever economic circumstances they were born into more appealing.

That's not exactly an admirable attitude for someone to hold.

I do not think that the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is distasteful. I never said any such thing. You are putting those words into my mouth.

You are a dishonest person.......which is why you allow yourself to write shit like that.

Explain the results of this study, please.

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/website/IGE/Executive Summary.pdf

Equality of Opportunity

Take a look here as well, please.

Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education | Brookings Institution

Finally....if you've really a interest, have a look here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...eports/Economic_Mobility/PEW_Upward EM 14.pdf

Of course there is inequality in all facets of life. There is inequality of intelligence, inequality in talent/inate ability, inequality in personal ambition, drive, common sense, and personal choices.

But the beauty of inequality in America is that nobody is forced to accept the circumstances they were born into as their destiny and nobody is forbidden to choose better, change their attitude, change their goals, change their behavior.

Thomas Sowell didn't see his poverty as a handicap. I didn't. Our friends didn't. Tell those poor kids that the deck is so stacked against them that they are consigned to poverty forever and have no chance for anything better and therefore they are entitled to expect others to take care of them, and they will likely fulfill that prophecy.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's interesting that you refer to the simple "truth" as bile, that you think the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is somehow distasteful. Somehow you find the idea that people are doomed to suffer under whatever economic circumstances they were born into more appealing.

That's not exactly an admirable attitude for someone to hold.

I do not think that the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is distasteful. I never said any such thing. You are putting those words into my mouth.

You are a dishonest person.......which is why you allow yourself to write shit like that.

Explain the results of this study, please.

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/website/IGE/Executive Summary.pdf

Equality of Opportunity

Take a look here as well, please.

Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education | Brookings Institution

Finally....if you've really a interest, have a look here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...eports/Economic_Mobility/PEW_Upward EM 14.pdf

Of course there is inequality in all facets of life. There is inequality of intelligence, inequality in talent/inate ability, inequality in personal ambition, drive, common sense, and personal choices.

But the beauty of inequality in America is that nobody is forced to accept the circumstances they were born into as their destiny and nobody is forbidden to choose better, change their attitude, change their goals, change their behavior.

Thomas Sowell didn't see his poverty as a handicap. I didn't. Our friends didn't. Tell those poor kids that the deck is so stacked against them that they are consigned to poverty forever and have no chance for anything better and therefore they are entitled to expect others to take care of them, and they will likely fulfill that prophecy.

And we saw NONE of that in the NYT article. Thomas Sowell fabricated a false motive that you continue to parrot.

WHERE does it say that 'envy' was the motivation behind this program? WHERE doe it even say that the program was the idea of the public school? If it was the idea of the private school, WHAT would THEN be the motivation??

 

[Foxfyre]

I do not think that the idea that people can achieve success through hard work and perseverance is distasteful. I never said any such thing. You are putting those words into my mouth.

You are a dishonest person.......which is why you allow yourself to write shit like that.

Explain the results of this study, please.

http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/website/IGE/Executive Summary.pdf

Equality of Opportunity

Take a look here as well, please.

Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education | Brookings Institution

Finally....if you've really a interest, have a look here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...eports/Economic_Mobility/PEW_Upward EM 14.pdf

Of course there is inequality in all facets of life. There is inequality of intelligence, inequality in talent/inate ability, inequality in personal ambition, drive, common sense, and personal choices.

But the beauty of inequality in America is that nobody is forced to accept the circumstances they were born into as their destiny and nobody is forbidden to choose better, change their attitude, change their goals, change their behavior.

Thomas Sowell didn't see his poverty as a handicap. I didn't. Our friends didn't. Tell those poor kids that the deck is so stacked against them that they are consigned to poverty forever and have no chance for anything better and therefore they are entitled to expect others to take care of them, and they will likely fulfill that prophecy.

And we saw NONE of that in the NYT article. Thomas Sowell fabricated a false motive that you continue to parrot.

WHERE does it say that 'envy' was the motivation behind this program? WHERE doe it even say that the program was the idea of the public school? If it was the idea of the private school, WHAT would THEN be the motivation??

Of course the NYT would not have written that as the motive. Or considered that as the net effect. But then they represent a political class in this country who thinks right motives are sufficient and unintended negative consequences are irrelevent.

 

[Bfgrn]

Of course there is inequality in all facets of life. There is inequality of intelligence, inequality in talent/inate ability, inequality in personal ambition, drive, common sense, and personal choices.

But the beauty of inequality in America is that nobody is forced to accept the circumstances they were born into as their destiny and nobody is forbidden to choose better, change their attitude, change their goals, change their behavior.

Thomas Sowell didn't see his poverty as a handicap. I didn't. Our friends didn't. Tell those poor kids that the deck is so stacked against them that they are consigned to poverty forever and have no chance for anything better and therefore they are entitled to expect others to take care of them, and they will likely fulfill that prophecy.

And we saw NONE of that in the NYT article. Thomas Sowell fabricated a false motive that you continue to parrot.

WHERE does it say that 'envy' was the motivation behind this program? WHERE doe it even say that the program was the idea of the public school? If it was the idea of the private school, WHAT would THEN be the motivation??

Of course the NYT would not have written that as the motive. Or considered that as the net effect. But then they represent a political class in this country who thinks right motives are sufficient and unintended negative consequences are irrelevent.

I can guarantee that 'envy' was not a motive behind that program.

Do you KNOW for a fact that the idea came from the public school? Because if it came from the private school, HOW could envy be a motive?

WHAT were the negative consequences? I don't see any. It is clear to me that both the groups gained knowledge and a new perspective because of the interaction.

 

[Foxfyre]

And we saw NONE of that in the NYT article. Thomas Sowell fabricated a false motive that you continue to parrot.

WHERE does it say that 'envy' was the motivation behind this program? WHERE doe it even say that the program was the idea of the public school? If it was the idea of the private school, WHAT would THEN be the motivation??

Of course the NYT would not have written that as the motive. Or considered that as the net effect. But then they represent a political class in this country who thinks right motives are sufficient and unintended negative consequences are irrelevent.

I can guarantee that 'envy' was not a motive behind that program.

Do you KNOW for a fact that the idea came from the public school? Because if it came from the private school, HOW could envy be a motive?

WHAT were the negative consequences? I don't see any. It is clear to me that both the groups gained knowledge and a new perspective because of the interaction.

The negative consequences Sowell saw was the promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement instead of spending time and effort on equipping the poor kids with an education that would allow them more ability to escape their current situations. Instead of impressing on them how unfair life can be, he wants children to be shown the possibilities open to them and infused with a sense of options, choices, and a spirit of can do. I think he knew that would not be the effect of pairing those kids with kids who didn't have to earn the great circumstances they were born into.

He wasn't knocking the rich kids at all. He knows there is no shame in being born rich. But there is nothing in the story suggesting that the purpose of the exercise was anything other than some kind of feel good exercise with no incentive placed on encouraging the poor kids to make the choices and equip themselves to improve their situations.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody is suggesting that we tell poor kids that they have no shot at the middle class. What we are saying is that without opportunity, they won't have a good shot. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Samson]

Getting raped or mugged is also an "educational experience."

The hyperbole is impressive:

I differ to your expertise.

The word is "defer."

What I attempted to point out is that there are some things kids are better off not learning.

Some things kids are better off not learning?

You mean like there's no Easter Bunny?

Essentially what you attempted to point out was the reality that there are class differences is akin to learning the reality that one could be helpless against sexual assult. I suppose that we should also be against teaching people about gravity by dropping them from buildings.

Perhaps there's an alternative??? Simply hide schools in Oz behind walls covered in ivy?

How would you suggest teaching people there are different classes while they attend school?

It seems that a field trip across class boundries to another school has very effectively taught the lesson without the absurd mention of any element of rape. Sowell would have us believe that the lower class students have been somehow similarly scared for life, their little egos crushed into some quivering pulp, never to recover.

I would argue that US history illustrates that moving from one social class to another is not dependent on the isolation of lower classes from the upper classes, and that while there might be bruised egos, there have also been many individuals who have been inspired to rise above their socio-economic condition.

It is this latter group that we must focus: Those that will run away in tears and suffer permanent scars because they learn there's no Easter Bunny probably are unsalvageable.

 

[Bfgrn]

Of course the NYT would not have written that as the motive. Or considered that as the net effect. But then they represent a political class in this country who thinks right motives are sufficient and unintended negative consequences are irrelevent.

I can guarantee that 'envy' was not a motive behind that program.

Do you KNOW for a fact that the idea came from the public school? Because if it came from the private school, HOW could envy be a motive?

WHAT were the negative consequences? I don't see any. It is clear to me that both the groups gained knowledge and a new perspective because of the interaction.

The negative consequences Sowell saw was the promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement instead of spending time and effort on equipping the poor kids with an education that would allow them more ability to escape their current situations. Instead of impressing on them how unfair life can be, he wants children to be shown the possibilities open to them and infused with a sense of options, choices, and a spirit of can do. I think he knew that would not be the effect of pairing those kids with kids who didn't have to earn the great circumstances they were born into.

He wasn't knocking the rich kids at all. He knows there is no shame in being born rich. But there is nothing in the story suggesting that the purpose of the exercise was anything other than some kind of feel good exercise with no incentive placed on encouraging the poor kids to make the choices and equip themselves to improve their situations.

There was NO "promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement" anywhere to be found in the comments of those kids. ALL OF THAT was made up by Sowell. And people like you swallow it and parrot it. There is ZERO evidence that would point to those motivations.

Can you point to the paragraph in Sowell's article that says the idea came from the public school?

 

[Foxfyre]

Nobody is suggesting that we tell poor kids that they have no shot at the middle class. What we are saying is that without opportunity, they won't have a good shot. Do you understand the difference?

I understand the difference. But do you understand that Sowell's point was that the kids won't be inspired to equip themselves to take advantage of opportunities that exist by emphasizing to them that some are born into aflluent circumstances?

 

[Samson]

The negative consequences Sowell saw was the promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement instead of spending time and effort on equipping the poor kids with an education that would allow them more ability to escape their current situations. Instead of impressing on them how unfair life can be, he wants children to be shown the possibilities open to them and infused with a sense of options, choices, and a spirit of can do. I think he knew that would not be the effect of pairing those kids with kids who didn't have to earn the great circumstances they were born into.

He wasn't knocking the rich kids at all. He knows there is no shame in being born rich. But there is nothing in the story suggesting that the purpose of the exercise was anything other than some kind of feel good exercise with no incentive placed on encouraging the poor kids to make the choices and equip themselves to improve their situations.

Sowell seems focused on Negative Consequences.

Any enterprise can generate pessimists. Even JC had his detractors.

What of the Positive Consequences? Probably not quite ans news-worthy, but we should not ignore the fact that class movement in a capitalist society largely depends on the lower classes having an incentive to rise. Without knowing anything about how the upper class lives, then how will the lower class have any incentive?

Could no lower class students be inspired to rise above their stations? Were no Pygmalions in their midst?

 

[Samson]

Nobody is suggesting that we tell poor kids that they have no shot at the middle class. What we are saying is that without opportunity, they won't have a good shot. Do you understand the difference?

I understand the difference. But do you understand that Sowell's point was that the kids won't be inspired to equip themselves to take advantage of opportunities that exist by emphasizing to them that some are born into aflluent circumstances?

No.

History shows that quite the opposite is true: Inspiration is born of incentive.

Hiding the prize is what causes dispair.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nobody is suggesting that we tell poor kids that they have no shot at the middle class. What we are saying is that without opportunity, they won't have a good shot. Do you understand the difference?

I understand the difference. But do you understand that Sowell's point was that the kids won't be inspired to equip themselves to take advantage of opportunities that exist by emphasizing to them that some are born into aflluent circumstances?

How does one "equip themselves to take advantage of opportunities that exist being born into affluent circumstances?"

Does a parent or teacher tell them: "You don't have to work hard"?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody is suggesting that we tell poor kids that they have no shot at the middle class. What we are saying is that without opportunity, they won't have a good shot. Do you understand the difference?

I understand the difference. But do you understand that Sowell's point was that the kids won't be inspired to equip themselves to take advantage of opportunities that exist by emphasizing to them that some are born into aflluent circumstances?

No. Kids know this without anyone emphasizing it.

Conservatives read Sowell and take it as confirmation that poor people are poor as result of their lack of effort and the poor choices they make. That is not an accurate account of things. The evidence does not support it.

Some conservatives then take that a step further and support policies that serve to make the existence of poor people even more distasteful. Only then, it is presumed, will these people take initiative and work their way out of poverty.

This is just wrong. Our efforts need to be spent on developing ways that create opportunity for more people. If opportunity exists, the vast majority of Americans will seize it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nobody is suggesting that we tell poor kids that they have no shot at the middle class. What we are saying is that without opportunity, they won't have a good shot. Do you understand the difference?

I understand the difference. But do you understand that Sowell's point was that the kids won't be inspired to equip themselves to take advantage of opportunities that exist by emphasizing to them that some are born into aflluent circumstances?

No. Kids know this without anyone emphasizing it.

Conservatives read Sowell and take it as confirmation that poor people are poor as result of their lack of effort and the poor choices they make. That is not an accurate account of things. The evidence does not support it.

Some conservatives then take that a step further and support policies that serve to make the existence of poor people even more distasteful. Only then, it is presumed, will these people take initiative and work their way out of poverty.

This is just wrong. Our efforts need to be spent on developing ways that create opportunity for more people. If opportunity exists, the vast majority of Americans will seize it.

And conservatives like Sowell create a false narrative about liberal policies, by attaching false negative motivations behind those programs. The classic example:


"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

 

[Foxfyre]

The negative consequences Sowell saw was the promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement instead of spending time and effort on equipping the poor kids with an education that would allow them more ability to escape their current situations. Instead of impressing on them how unfair life can be, he wants children to be shown the possibilities open to them and infused with a sense of options, choices, and a spirit of can do. I think he knew that would not be the effect of pairing those kids with kids who didn't have to earn the great circumstances they were born into.

He wasn't knocking the rich kids at all. He knows there is no shame in being born rich. But there is nothing in the story suggesting that the purpose of the exercise was anything other than some kind of feel good exercise with no incentive placed on encouraging the poor kids to make the choices and equip themselves to improve their situations.

Sowell seems focused on Negative Consequences.

Any enterprise can generate pessimists. Even JC had his detractors.

What of the Positive Consequences? Probably not quite ans news-worthy, but we should not ignore the fact that class movement in a capitalist society largely depends on the lower classes having an incentive to rise. Without knowing anything about how the upper class lives, then how will the lower class have any incentive?

Could no lower class students be inspired to rise above their stations? Were no Pygmalions in their midst?

If you have read any of Thomas Sowell's stuff you know that he is HUGE on equipping poor kids to rise above their circumstances and he knows from up close and personal experience how that is done. And he gives poor kids a lot of credit for being smart enough to know the difference between rich and poor without smacking them in the face with it as if they would never understand otherwise. But he is also very opposed to liberal feel good mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes little more than resentment, class envy, condescending patronization, and racism. And though he didn't explicitly say so, I think that's the way he viewed this kind of program.

He could be wrong. But I am an active volunteer working up close and personal with 'poor' families. And I would certainly not think it useful or helpful to intentionally smack them in the face by comparing their situation that that of the very rich.

 

[Samson]

The negative consequences Sowell saw was the promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement instead of spending time and effort on equipping the poor kids with an education that would allow them more ability to escape their current situations. Instead of impressing on them how unfair life can be, he wants children to be shown the possibilities open to them and infused with a sense of options, choices, and a spirit of can do. I think he knew that would not be the effect of pairing those kids with kids who didn't have to earn the great circumstances they were born into.

He wasn't knocking the rich kids at all. He knows there is no shame in being born rich. But there is nothing in the story suggesting that the purpose of the exercise was anything other than some kind of feel good exercise with no incentive placed on encouraging the poor kids to make the choices and equip themselves to improve their situations.

Sowell seems focused on Negative Consequences.

Any enterprise can generate pessimists. Even JC had his detractors.

What of the Positive Consequences? Probably not quite ans news-worthy, but we should not ignore the fact that class movement in a capitalist society largely depends on the lower classes having an incentive to rise. Without knowing anything about how the upper class lives, then how will the lower class have any incentive?

Could no lower class students be inspired to rise above their stations? Were no Pygmalions in their midst?

If you have read any of Thomas Sowell's stuff you know that he is HUGE on equipping poor kids to rise above their circumstances and he knows from up close and personal experience how that is done. And he gives poor kids a lot of credit for being smart enough to know the difference between rich and poor without smacking them in the face with it as if they would never understand otherwise. But he is also very opposed to liberal feel good mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes little more than resentment, class envy, condescending patronization, and racism. And though he didn't explicitly say so, I think that's the way he viewed this kind of program.

He could be wrong. But I am an active volunteer working up close and personal with 'poor' families. And I would certainly not think it useful or helpful to intentionally smack them in the face by comparing their situation that that of the very rich.

Well, in one of my posts I did ask for examples of how NOT to "smack them in the face."

But as I said before, there's always going to be someone who feels "smacked." Frankly it appears Sowell would prefer a kinder, gentler lesson, but what is it? How do you tell people who "have not," that there are people that "have" without hurting ANYONE's FEELINGS?

 

[Bfgrn]

The negative consequences Sowell saw was the promotion of resentment, sense of deprivation, class envy, and sense of entitlement instead of spending time and effort on equipping the poor kids with an education that would allow them more ability to escape their current situations. Instead of impressing on them how unfair life can be, he wants children to be shown the possibilities open to them and infused with a sense of options, choices, and a spirit of can do. I think he knew that would not be the effect of pairing those kids with kids who didn't have to earn the great circumstances they were born into.

He wasn't knocking the rich kids at all. He knows there is no shame in being born rich. But there is nothing in the story suggesting that the purpose of the exercise was anything other than some kind of feel good exercise with no incentive placed on encouraging the poor kids to make the choices and equip themselves to improve their situations.

Sowell seems focused on Negative Consequences.

Any enterprise can generate pessimists. Even JC had his detractors.

What of the Positive Consequences? Probably not quite ans news-worthy, but we should not ignore the fact that class movement in a capitalist society largely depends on the lower classes having an incentive to rise. Without knowing anything about how the upper class lives, then how will the lower class have any incentive?

Could no lower class students be inspired to rise above their stations? Were no Pygmalions in their midst?

If you have read any of Thomas Sowell's stuff you know that he is HUGE on equipping poor kids to rise above their circumstances and he knows from up close and personal experience how that is done. And he gives poor kids a lot of credit for being smart enough to know the difference between rich and poor without smacking them in the face with it as if they would never understand otherwise. But he is also very opposed to liberal feel good mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes little more than resentment, class envy, condescending patronization, and racism. And though he didn't explicitly say so, I think that's the way he viewed this kind of program.

He could be wrong. But I am an active volunteer working up close and personal with 'poor' families. And I would certainly not think it useful or helpful to intentionally smack them in the face by comparing their situation that that of the very rich.

Thomas Sowell get paid very well to rile up you folks on the right. His objective is to create mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes resentment, and a condescending attitude toward liberals by self righteous right wing narcissists like you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sowell seems focused on Negative Consequences.

Any enterprise can generate pessimists. Even JC had his detractors.

What of the Positive Consequences? Probably not quite ans news-worthy, but we should not ignore the fact that class movement in a capitalist society largely depends on the lower classes having an incentive to rise. Without knowing anything about how the upper class lives, then how will the lower class have any incentive?

Could no lower class students be inspired to rise above their stations? Were no Pygmalions in their midst?

If you have read any of Thomas Sowell's stuff you know that he is HUGE on equipping poor kids to rise above their circumstances and he knows from up close and personal experience how that is done. And he gives poor kids a lot of credit for being smart enough to know the difference between rich and poor without smacking them in the face with it as if they would never understand otherwise. But he is also very opposed to liberal feel good mumbo jumbo propaganda that accomplishes little more than resentment, class envy, condescending patronization, and racism. And though he didn't explicitly say so, I think that's the way he viewed this kind of program.

He could be wrong. But I am an active volunteer working up close and personal with 'poor' families. And I would certainly not think it useful or helpful to intentionally smack them in the face by comparing their situation that that of the very rich.

Well, in one of my posts I did ask for examples of how NOT to "smack them in the face."

But as I said before, there's always going to be someone who feels "smacked." Frankly it appears Sowell would prefer a kinder, gentler lesson, but what is it? How do you tell people who "have not," that there are people that "have" without hurting ANYONE's FEELINGS?

You don't have to tell them at all. You give them credit for having eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think, observe, process, and figure things out.

What you do tell the poor kid is that everybody isn't dealt the same hand to play in life. It isn't your fault and you aren't inferior to anybody. If you don't like your circumstances, it is within your power to change them. Stay in school and educate yourself. Take whatever crappy job you can get and prove that you have a work ethic and develop skills and references that will help you get better jobs. Stay away from illegal activities and illegal substances. Seek out role models in your church or community center or elsewhere who will reinforce the best qualities of who you are. Don't get pregnant until after you marry a responsible person who shares your values and goals and together raise your family.