The stress of poverty - poverty as a disease

[Bluegoat]

On 1/18/2019 at 4:29 PM, SKL said:

I think the bigger problem is that even with all of those provided, some kids still don't take advantage of some of them, because they think "those aren't for our kind of people."  The mentality of "I am a poor person" which attaches despite the presence of what is objectively "enough."

Most if not all low-income areas in the USA offer 2-3 daily meals to all children as well as food money subsidies, housing subsidies, etc.

There are free activities in low-income communities that are either open to all, or open only to low-income kids.

"Effective educational system ..." is a bit vague, but obviously it exists in theory in every low-income community in the developed world.

Growing up poor, I observed many families who had much more, materially, than I had, also stay-at-home moms, who still grew up with the mindset that they were not going to go to college or do anything other than live paycheck to paycheck.  Including very bright and capable kids.  We had access to the same neighborhood programs, libraries, and so on; they had more access than I had to nutrition, health care, etc.  They came home to the clean house, milk, and cookies; I came home to chores.  It's not about material things; it's a mindset.  (With the exception of abused and neglected kids, of course.)

 

It' true some won't.  But in places where these things are offered, they do make a difference.  Not always in a single generation, but over several, something like post secondary training has a profound effect.

And I do not at all mean university education.  I mean university, trades, what used to be called secretarial training, beauty school, etc.  It's really kind of crazy that so many places don't offer this, as a population with education and job skills is just good for everyone and pays for itself.

[Bluegoat]

On 1/18/2019 at 4:17 PM, Bootsie said:

Something I have wondered about is how widespread meals provided through the school system is worldwide.  In the US, we have had a number of programs that have attempted to feed children in conjunction with the school system (to the point that some children eat 15 meals per week at school), but I have not seen this when I have traveled internationally.  In most places I have visited students do not even eat lunch in a school cafeteria (much less breakfast and dinner).  I have wondered if it is better to provide healthy meals through the school system or provide families with access to healthy food options.  

 

 

It's not that odd I don't think.  France does it, for one. It's also something that used to be more common in workplaces.   It's not, IMO, just a matter of providing for the less well off, though it does mean people get a hot meal at least once a day.  It's a matter of being civilised - kids sit down once a day, talk together, and rushed out after 10 min to gobbletheir food, they learn how to sit at a table and eat with utensils and have a conversation.

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

You do not have to dig far to find the bolded still being said - it's being said in mainstream centre-left circles frequently.

1. If you are not smart enough to move, you're to blame for your own problems. 

2. Eugenics. Don't let the poor breed until they have become the non poor. 

I guess when entire societies lack class analysis, there is no option, even for 'good' people, other than to rely on character (lazy, feckless) as explanation. 

 

 

I think this is all inherent in meritocracy, and it's the inevitable outcome of individualism.

Maybe controversially, I think accepting the existence of class might be part of a solution.  We can't have a society where the goal is to make everyone a middle class office worker.

[Frances]

9 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I don't think it's controversial to look at human history and see that it has not been possible to eradicate class, under any system of government or economics thus far.

I guess I see poverty as an abdication of efforts to ensure that all humans are entitled to dignity, regardless of class. To me,dignity includes the right to exercise reproductive choice, and the right to a community and a home. I find it appalling that people aligned to me politically in other ways see a resolution to poverty as incorporating class based restrictions on reproductive choice, community and home. 

 

 

 

Since I don’t live in Australia, I’m curious what you mean by class based restrictions on reproductive choice, community, and home.

[Frances]

On 1/19/2019 at 3:28 PM, StellaM said:

 

Well, in my home context, there's a strong feeling from urban white middle class progressives that establishing a family and maintaining social connections and connections with place are rewards for reaching the urban white middle class. 

That if, say, a young indigenous woman has a kid/s, and does not want to move away from her land/family/community ie her entire social support system, then she cannot have a reasonable expectation of dignity/work/success, and is to blame, at least partially, for her poverty. 

The ideal indigenous woman is one who breaks ties as soon as possible, usually via a scholarship to a city boarding school, where she can be 'integrated' into high status professions, and thus achieves success.

I don't think the right to family and to culture/home is class specific. If a young indigenous woman chooses to establish a family, and to remain on her land, in her community, that is no more and no less valid a choice than that of a middle class woman who does the same, and both women have a right to dignity through work that renumerates them in a way that enables them to live and provide for their families. 

This idea that the poor need to atomize themselves - to lose family both through extended delaying of establishing one's own family, and by enforced geographical relocation to suit the demands of industry - in order to live with economic dignity is a common mind set. 

I may be incorrect, but I think this is one of the issues with the whole 'I got out of Appalachia and you can too' book industry. If the only way for the poor to sustain themselves economically is to deprive themselves of family and social connections and support, we are proposing the wrong solutions. 

 

 

 

That’s very interesting. I know that in the US, people moving away to other states has decreased dramatically over the last couple of decades, although it’s still quite common for rural youth to move to more urban areas. At least in my state, there is a big push to try and strengthen the opportunities in rural areas that were deeply affected by the drastic decrease in And the successful programs seem to involve partnerships among many different groups. Someone mentioned internet access earlier in the thread, and that is also a big focus in rural areas.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Frances

[Bluegoat]

I think it comes down to people seeing children as a lifestyle choice.  I see that comment all the time, it's as if middle class peopleof this type see children as sort of status pets.  I've seen very serious calls, from people who are supposedly progressives, to not give social supports for poor people who have more than one or two kids - that is, no matter how many more children there are, support is calculated as if there are no more than two children.  

In this view, kids are a consumer choice of parents, and not really even citizens on their own right.

I think the connection to reproductive choice is a little complicated - for many people the justification for this way of thinking is that we have readily available birth control and abortion, no one has to have a baby - where these fail the solution is to improve access so people who should not be having kids can avoid doing so.  Even those with moral or religious objections to those have to live with the consequences of their beliefs which might just include poverty.  

But again, that's individualism for you - there is no society in that worldview.  There isn't really even an organic family, just people who happen to live together.

 

[Bluegoat]

16 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, let people live economically stable lives in their own communities! The economy is meant to serve the people, not the other way round.

 

I agree with this totally. I think though where people sometimes have trouble conceptualising this is because it is also true that communities change over time, in an organic way, often because of other changes in the environment or whatever.  Those changes aren't always bad or catastrophic.  Or, if it is, it's not always someones fault.  So - how do we decide when to support change, or where there has to be people moving away?

As an example, there are communities in Canada that existed for fisheries that no longer exist.  There is still a community in terms of the relationships, but the material basis for that community is gone and it is very difficult to see a new one for many of them.  Simply supporting them indefinitely where they are doesn't seem to be a good solution for anyone.  

People have a hard time, I think, discerning when the problem is more structural, and could be helped, and when it can't.  

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I think it comes down to people seeing children as a lifestyle choice.  I see that comment all the time, it's as if middle class peopleof this type see children as sort of status pets.  I've seen very serious calls, from people who are supposedly progressives, to not give social supports for poor people who have more than one or two kids - that is, no matter how many more children there are, support is calculated as if there are no more than two children.  

In this view, kids are a consumer choice of parents, and not really even citizens on their own right.

I think the connection to reproductive choice is a little complicated - for many people the justification for this way of thinking is that we have readily available birth control and abortion, no one has to have a baby - where these fail the solution is to improve access so people who should not be having kids can avoid doing so.  Even those with moral or religious objections to those have to live with the consequences of their beliefs which might just include poverty.  

But again, that's individualism for you - there is no society in that worldview.  There isn't really even an organic family, just people who happen to live together.

 

I don’t think there is anything wrong about educating people about birth control options and the consequences of having children before marrying and establishing a self supporting lifestyle. Certainly I don’t condone limiting support to anyone who has multiple children or shaming anyone into not having children. But the research is pretty clear on the factors that influence whether or not children will be raised in poverty, and unfortunately in the US, we have only a tattered and torn social safety net. So the consequences for all involved can be pretty heartbreaking.

As for those who have religious objections to birth control, there is often plenty enough money among fellow believers to provide for such families in need. Some denominations just do a much better job than others at putting their money where their beliefs are.

[Frances]

20 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Education and access is good (though honestly, I do think my pro choice sisters sometimes forget that being pro-choice means supporting the choice of women with many or early in life children, as much as it means supporting those who delay or restrict child bearing).

I think we can get mixed up on causality when it comes to child bearing too, as if late and few is a cause of economic success, rather than a reflection of it.

 

I think they are intertwined. Certainly economic success has been linked to marriage stability and having children after marriage. But economic stress is definitely a factor in the failure of many marriages. But the more children that are then left to be supported, often by a single mom, the more likely that economic stability will not be attained. And if education or training was not completed due to early parenting, then the more difficult it is to acquire that later.

And while I would never ever encourage anyone to have an abortion for any reason, I think wanting to live in a world where all children and families are supported is very different than the actual world we live in, at least in the US. Hence why I’m a very strong advocate of education and birth control access while working for a better social support system, rather than the tattered and torn safety net we currently have.

[Frances]

29 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I think the more access to economic stability a woman has, the fewer children she will probably (but not certainly and not neccessarily) choose. 

Conversely, the less economic stability one has, the more it makes sense to maximise one's social support through the creation of larger families. Poor women are not just having babies because they are 1. too dumb to know how to use contraception or 2. unable to access it., though lack of education and access can be problematic.

Sometimes the choice to have an early, or larger family is a smart choice, that is all about maximising the forms of stability available to an individual woman. I think it's good to start from a position of helping poorer women, by acknowledging they can and do make choices that are no less smart for looking different to the choices made by middle class women.

It's definitely a complicated topic. 

I think sometimes people are consciously making choices and sometimes life is just happening. Given the very large percentage of unplanned pregnancies in this country, we know that people are not always planning to have children. I’m all for giving people choices and support, but given the realities of support available in the US, children may have to live with the very harsh consequences of some of their parents’ choices.

[Frances]

On 1/19/2019 at 5:19 PM, StellaM said:

I guess what pops into mind is my daughter's old school, which had a policy of welcoming and assisting teen mums. What blows a lot of people's minds is that those teens were pregnant by choice...they weren't raped, many of them weren't in coercive relationships, and many of them had not experienced contraceptive failure or lack of access to abortion. For those girls, what really made THE difference in their lives wasn't the presence of absence of a baby, but the fact that the school worked to make campus a mother friendly environment, so that, baby or not, all girls could complete their high school exams and move on to further education or training. 

 

M

Edited March 6, 2019 by Frances

[scholastica]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Yes, let people live economically stable lives in their own communities! The economy is meant to serve the people, not the other way round.

Be careful there! You're stating the Catholic position! 😉 

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I don’t think there is anything wrong about educating people about birth control options and the consequences of having children before marrying and establishing a self supporting lifestyle. Certainly I don’t condone limiting support to anyone who has multiple children or shaming anyone into not having children. But the research is pretty clear on the factors that influence whether or not children will be raised in poverty, and unfortunately in the US, we have only a tattered and torn social safety net. So the consequences for all involved can be pretty heartbreaking.

As for those who have religious objections to birth control, there is often plenty enough money among fellow believers to provide for such families in need. Some denominations just do a much better job than others at putting their money where their beliefs are.

 

Why would churches be responsible to provide social security for the children of people who are religious?  Those children are citizens, they are entitled to all the same benefits as every other child.  

Having children is one of the fundamental human activities.  It's so easy to slip into thinking of it as a lifestyle choice which needs to be optimised, but it's absolutely corrosive socially.

 

[Frances]

9 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Why would churches be responsible to provide social security for the children of people who are religious?  Those children are citizens, they are entitled to all the same benefits as every other child.  

Having children is one of the fundamental human activities.  It's so easy to slip into thinking of it as a lifestyle choice which needs to be optimised, but it's absolutely corrosive socially.

 

But at least in the US, we have chosen not to provide for children whose parents cannot, at least not in any comprehensive way. I wish we would, and I would gladly pay for it. But I certainly don’t expect to see it my lifetime. So then I think it is the responsibility of churches who oppose birth control to step in and fill the gap, at least for their fellow believers.

And while having children is a fundamental human activity, it is also a great responsibility and should not be taken lightly. Since here in the US we don’t have a Demark style support system, the consequences of having a child before your are in a position to provide (and I don’t just mean financially, but also in terms of relationship stability, lack of chaos and dysfunction, maturity, etc.) can be pretty severe for the children.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Frances

[scholastica]

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

But at least in the US, we have chosen not to provide for children whose parents cannot, at least not in any comprehensive way. I wish we would, and I would gladly pay for it. But I certainly don’t expect to see it my lifetime. So then I think it is the responsibility of churches who oppose birth control to step in and fill the gap, at least for their fellow believers.

And while having children is a fundamental human activity, it is also a great responsibility and should not be taken lightly. Since here in the US we don’t have a Demark style support system, the consequences of having a child before your are in a position to provide (and I don’t just mean financially, but also in terms of relationship stability, lack of chaos and dysfunction, maturity, etc.) can be pretty severe for the children.

You mean like this? That's just one area's CC group. They are widespread across the US.

Edited January 20, 2019 by scholastica

[Frances]

On 1/19/2019 at 6:08 PM, scholastica said:

You mean like this? That's just one area's CC group. They are widespread across the US.

I’m very familiar with Catholic Charities

Edited March 6, 2019 by Frances

[Frances]

14 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Outcomes are complicated by many factors, including stigma. I think what worked at dd's school is that is wasn't a program, as such, it was a whole school shift to removing school related barriers to study for young mothers. 

The mums at dd's school graduated as other students did, and entered a range of post school activities, including university. 

I’m sure there are many reasons for different outcomes. My main point is that just because someone decides they want to be a teen mom (or really a parent at any point), it doesn’t mean they are ready to be one, no matter how much support or help they get. And it is the innocent child who will ultimately bear the brunt of the consequences. Stacking the deck in your child’s favor before they are even conceived seems prudent, especially in places where support and help is lacking.

[Carol in Cal.]

17 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’m actually almost done with Hillbilly Elegy, and it kind of bums me out that it’s being torn apart *to that extent*.  It needs some tearing, for sure. Especially when assuming (probably correctly) that it’s the only title someone might read. But, when it’s combined with additional resources, and viewed as the experience that one man actually lived and the opinions that were formed by it, I can’t wrap my mind around trying to invalidate it. 

Maybe another author’s experience is more complex and observations more astute, but they don’t belong in a stranger’s memoir. 

I mean, if I ever want to write a homeschooling memoir, it isn’t going to look like anyone else’s. 

(For whatever it’s worth, I’m not coming out of it a fan of the author as a person, but I rarely do that.)

It was my absolute favorite book the year it came out, and my book group loved it the next year, too.

But that doesn't mean that it's a thorough and complete sociological study.

Still, it touched on imposter syndrome in the context of a true rags to riches story, and on the assets that helped this particular person move forward without losing his connection to his family and his roots.  That was nice to see. 

[kiwik]

On 1/19/2019 at 4:30 AM, Fifiruth said:

I don’t think that calling it a disease is the correct use of the word. I will definitely agree, however, that poverty affects a person’s thinking big time. A peron can think poor, act poor, and talk poor because of how they were raised even when their actual financial situation is pretty good later on in life. 

The author seems to be making the case that escaping poverty, so to speak, is impossible in a capitalistic system. That simply isn’t true. I could say more, but I’ll leave it at that.

He didn't say it was impossible - he did it himself.  He just said as well as initiative and hard work it also took a lot of luck.  Therefore the "anyone can climb out of poverty because X did" is flawed but X's climb was only partly due to the actions of X.   Also the damage caused by a stressed childhood either from poverty or aotherwise is a real ongoing damage that alters your thoughts and behaviour for life.

Of course people should try but no matter how hard they try most will fail.  You are however more likely to get that luck if you are trying.

Edited January 20, 2019 by kiwik

[Murphy101]

13 hours ago, Frances said:

I think sometimes people are consciously making choices and sometimes life is just happening. Given the very large percentage of unplanned pregnancies in this country, we know that people are not always planning to have children. I’m all for giving people choices and support, but given the realities of support available in the US, children may have to live with the very harsh consequences of some of their parents’ choices.

Yes this. And as an aside, I'm just going to point out that what is label "unplanned" medically is not .. always exactly accurate even when true.

Unplanned could mean practicing catholic who just doesn't use birth control. (Of the 8 OBs I've had, only one didn't refer to my pregnancies as Unplanned for this reason.)

Unplanned could mean they were on birth control and it failed. 1 per 100 is not unlikely even if used perfectly.

So let's keep in mind that Unplanned doesn't necessarily mean too stupid or thoughtless to consider that sex causes babies.

ETA: and also, people presume the poor have always been as poor as they are.  But a middle class woman often ends up in poverty overnight if her husband leaves her or she decides to leave him.  

Edited January 20, 2019 by Murphy101

[Reefgazer]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 8:43 PM, happysmileylady said:

One of the few books in the last decade or so that I was able to read within 24 hrs.  It exactly reminded me of that.  

I agree with your previous post entirely, but I took something entirely different away from Hillbilly Elegy.  I thought the author was pointing out how good choices could often overcome even the most difficult of circumstances.

[Murphy101]

34 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

I agree with your previous post entirely, but I took something entirely different away from Hillbilly Elegy.  I thought the author was pointing out how good choices could often overcome even the most difficult of circumstances.

I don't think good choices overcome circumstances.  I think good choices help cope with difficult circumstances.  But those people do think they are making good choices or best of available options to their way of thinking bc what this really boils down to is morale.   And we don't understand enough about that.  Why do some dogs get kicked and one kick is all takes before they stopping trying to get up  and others it takes a dozen kicks and still others it doesn't seem to matter how many kicks they always try to get back up?   People are similar.  We want to make it out that the people who just keep trying to climb up do so as a matter of character or intelligence or good breeding, but I don't agree.  In my FOO, 1/4 of my sibling group have left poverty and abuse.  I don't know why I did.  The decisions they make make no sense to me at all, but I don't think I'm particuliarly smart or determined.  

I also think we put barriers up that are just stupid.   No woman in modern America should have to choose to be a mother or be educated, to be a mother or have a job that pays the rent, be a mother or leave all of her familial and community and cultural identity behind.  To me, those barriers are nothing more than government economic sanctioned racism and classism and sexism.  It basicly says the only way a woman can have "equality" is if she neuters what makes her female.  If she can't live as though she doesn't have female DNA/organs, then she doesn't really deserve to be equal to men.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Murphy101

[Bluegoat]

29 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I agree with all of this and your two previous posts.

The underlined: the assumption would be that we'll be able to eventually tease out that "why" genetically, and rectify it medically. 

 

Ugh, I find that kind of horrific.  

[Murphy101]

21 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I agree with all of this and your two previous posts.

The underlined: the assumption would be that we'll be able to eventually tease out that "why" genetically, and rectify it medically. 

Yeah. I'm not ever going to be pro eugenics, before or after birth.

And it really doesn't make sense in these situations.  The genetic modification is to help adapt to the environment they are born into,   To only modify the genetics just makes them less able to survive their environment.  And it seems rather blasé from a social justice pov to me.  Oh we know that our social policies are literally have detrimental mental and emotional outcomes, but instead of addressing that uncomfortable truth, we're just going to medicate the problem. And we don't even have universal healthcare or price controls on pharmaceuticals, so I don't see that actually happening.

[Murphy101]

27 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

When ultimately, it was the love of a good woman (his grandmother) that provided some kind of context for the choices available to him, along with a running commentary. It is often the grandmothers IME. 

In fact, it was HER choices that led to him having the choices he had in the first place. Which is tremendous good luck, since that worked out for him. 

Ugh.  I can't remember the source, but iirc that fits statistically.  It takes at least 3 generations of diligent effort and luck to rise from poverty.  It's daunting to know a person may never see the results of their blood sweat and tears in their own lives or possibly even their children's lives.

[Frances]

On 1/20/2019 at 6:37 AM, Murphy101 said:

Yes this. And as an aside, I'm just going to point out that what is label "unplanned" medically is not .. always exactly accurate even when true.

Unplanned could mean practicing catholic who just doesn't use birth control. (Of the 8 OBs I've had, only one didn't refer to my pregnancies as Unplanned for this reason.)

Unplanned could mean they were on birth control and it failed. 1 per 100 is not unlikely even if used perfectly.

So let's keep in mind that Unplanned doesn't necessarily mean too stupid or thoughtless to consider that sex causes babies.

ETA: and also, people presume the poor have always been as poor as they are.  But a middle class woman often ends up in poverty overnight if her husband leaves her or she decides to leave him.  

It’s interesting that most of your OBs considered your pregnancies unplanned, I wouldn’t have thought pregnancies in women purposefully not using birth control for moral or religious reasons would be classified that way. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Frances

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

The teen mom support programs here state that less than 50% of teenage moms grad with a high school diploma nationwide but if they have support programs that can be upped to 85%  These programs are funded, among other reasons, because of the state push here to up the grad rates of each high school.  I don't see how I can blame the govt here ....the other parent has abandoned the child and the govt does give financial support and does provide schooling as well as job skills programs and subsidized housing to the parent who is raising the child. 

As far as genetics, there are so many people with minor genetic issues that can be quickly fixed that I cannot reject that solution.  Vit D receptor mutation alone affects 30% of the pop, and many of them significantly enough that they incur medical expenses that keep them in poverty.  Overall, with 15% classified special education, I think we can do better if learning from the people who are doing..for example the work on maple syrup urine disease has shown the genetic cause and the solution. Its cheap, and without it the family is improverished by the cost burden of care. The UK now recommends screening for this genetic disease as a part of its newborn screen program...and that's old news, from 2014  

Your description of teen mother support is not like my state or most states.  I have no issue with your government doing that other than I hope they do more of it regardless of maternal age or marriage status.

I have no issue with ethically treating medical conditions, regardless of them being genetic issues or not.  Treatment means finding ways to make care affordable and accessible. 

[Murphy101]

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

It’s interesting that most of your OBs considered your pregnancies unplanned, I wouldn’t have thought pregnancies in women purposefully not using birth control for moral or religious reasons would be classified that way. As a statistician and someone who deals with large quantities of data everyday, I know how much small differences in definitions can cause large differences in results. Being a statistician is also the main reason I’m a big proponent of doubling up on birth control methods. Personally, I’ve only used a single method when I was fine with being pregnant, the timing was just not ideal (e.g. being in full-time grad school while doing research and teaching).

Usually they ask if you were trying to get pregnant or not.  I caught on that I needed to say I was actively trying to get pregnant or they always checked the "unplanned" and that started the cascade of Unplanned pregnancy questions.  So anyone who is not actively trying to get pregnant is automatically an unplanned pregnancy.

Medicine is full of requiring black and white answers that often don't exist.

For example, no matter what that ultrasound shows, all the paperwork asks for is when was your last period.  And when I said my period was 18 months ago, they literally got out a calendar and put in a fictional period if I'd missed one right before the pregnancy.

Or getting it in their heads that preeclampsia MUST be signaled by high blood pressure.  Never mind that my blood pressure is normally very low so normal pressure IS high for me.

And yes, this is exactly why the devil is in the details of statistics and why a combo of not knowing that or relying too heavily on them can be problematic for individual application.

[SKL]

Actually some trauma throughout life is the historic norm.  What most children brought up in developed countries experience is probably not what evolution prepared them for.

Which suggests the question - are we suppressing useful evolutionary traits by making things so easy - are we sure it is sustainable ....

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

The overall issue for nonelderly poverty doesn't seem to be confined to teen parent support, but rather broad support of those launching to independence.  Families aren't able to 'stake' the teens for launch, instead moving them out of the home at 18 (or younger) rather than having them live at home while working & saving up or while attending community college.   With the housing affordability issues outside of cities that have subsidized housing, young families as well as single parent families and singles are having a tough time.  If you look at states such as Michigan, the property tax relief bar is set so low that singles and couples who are working just can't get out from under that burden. They have to double or triple up in housing or live in their car. Launching needs to occur so that the young family can have stability.  Subsidized housing and converted basements and garages aren't the answer, its got to be property tax relief.

Treatment also includes solving the cause of the problem.  No need to leave someone ignorant of what they can do to alter their gene expressions or make up for genetic variations and go back to a healthy body.  I myself am looking forward to the rest of the Terry Wahls story, she used nutrition and functional medicine to get out of MS, it will be very interesting to see the work on the genetic component and use that to help other people with autoimmune disorders. There is no way I'd deny a Type 1 diabetic insulin, and I sure wouldn't deny a healthy diet or the knowledge of the particular diet need individualized to those who need that for their genetic variations.

I agree with all of that.  👍

[SKL]

Sorry, that was just TMI, my bad.

Edited January 20, 2019 by SKL

[Murphy101]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

Actually some trauma throughout life is the historic norm.  What most children brought up in developed countries experience is probably not what evolution prepared them for.

Which suggests the question - are we suppressing useful evolutionary traits by making things so easy - are we sure it is sustainable ....

That is a good question.  Like most things, I would hazard there's middle ground.

Learning from failure is a very hairs breath fine line from learning that we are failures.

I don't know about anyone else, but the balancing between helping and enabling is no small thing in parenting and in life.  And hell yes, life in general is traumatic to get through, but helping each other get through it is the only option on the table that I can stomach.

 

[Murphy101]

Poverty is The Problem.  How that's expressed in society may vary.  But let's call it what it is poverty is having no financial resources and having no financial resources is a problem. Money determines health, relationships and relationship stability, education, geography, employment, and nutrition.

 

[Murphy101]

As for looking at or  treating poverty as an illness, I don't agree with that.

Too often once something is declared an illness, people just shrug like oh well sucks for them folks.

I mean, they feel bad for those people, but they don't seem to feel an obligation to assist.  It's just something in life that happens to other people that they hope never happens to them.  Like fallen tree limbs on the road.  As long as it isn't blocking our driveway...*shrug*

And it can go either way for the unfortunate diagnosed.  Some will feel hopeless because this thing happened to them through no fault of their own and some will feel like whew it's not all their fault because this thing happened to them.  Still hit or miss as to how they take that, to fight it or accept it.

But changing the wording doesn't change what it is.  A rose by any other name and all that.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Murphy101

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I can see a role for an epidemiological model - investigating the environmental factors in the maintainance and spread of poverty. But I guess that is different to literally considering poverty a disease.

 

 

I think this is what is meant by considering poverty as a disease.  Not so much that it is, literally, a disease.  But that for modelling and analysis, it's a really useful analogy.

[Scarlett]

When I think of my own family I am not sure how we followed this model.  My mom was raised up in poverty but in an intact family with good extended family support. Her parents though were not particularly stable. My mom at age 19 got pregnant, abandoned by the father of the baby ( me) and her next many years were very very difficult.  By the time she was 30 and I was 10 she had got rid of my step dad ( the only dad I ever knew), moved my brother and me back to her hometown and probably most importantly found her faith.  I think what she did very right was avoid men ( literally she did not date in any way) avoid vices, ( none, zero)and worked to better herself eventually getting a bachelors and becoming a teacher by the time I was 18 and finishing high school. 

I have  lived my entire adult life not in poverty.  So I thank my mom for that.  

[KungFuPanda]

On 1/17/2019 at 8:37 PM, happysmileylady said:

Yes, I did, in fact, I read the whole thing which was a bit tough.  And yes, that's exactly what I took away from it, even to the very end.  I can understand how you don't see that is what it says, but really, that's what I took away from it, even to the very end.  

I think that’s exactly what it doesn’t say. What I got was not that you shouldn’t try, but if you try and it works, luck was a factor along the way. Also, if you try and fail it doesn’t mean you did less or are less deserving than someone who “got out.” People who are too defeated to try at all aren’t really addressed as part of this equation. 

I grew up in Appalachia.  It’s not just the lazy, damaged, or less intelligent people who got stuck. Some of those guys made it out too. It’s like those board games where you need a combination of luck and skill to win. 

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

When I think of my own family I am not sure how we followed this model.  My mom was raised up in poverty but in an intact family with good extended family support. Her parents though were not particularly stable. My mom at age 19 got pregnant, abandoned by the father of the baby ( me) and her next many years were very very difficult.  By the time she was 30 and I was 10 she had got rid of my step dad ( the only dad I ever knew), moved my brother and me back to her hometown and probably most importantly found her faith.  I think what she did very right was avoid men ( literally she did not date in any way) avoid vices, ( none, zero)and worked to better herself eventually getting a bachelors and becoming a teacher by the time I was 18 and finishing high school. 

I have  lived my entire adult life not in poverty.  So I thank my mom for that.  

 

And I'm here, envious of her luck.

[KungFuPanda]

On 1/17/2019 at 11:28 PM, StellaM said:

Having few material things by choice is not bad at all.

Having a low income, especially by choice, is not neccessarily bad either.

Having an income that is insufficient, despite one's best efforts, to house, feed, warm and clothe oneself, and engage in broader society (in terms of education, culture, health, leisure) - that is actually 'not good'.

Let's not spin poverty as 'not bad'.

I agree. You cannot oversimplify the issue to the point of believing that poverty is just a bad PR spin on simple living. They’re very different lifestyles. 

[Scarlett]

20 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

And I'm here, envious of her luck.

Kindly, gently, you think all of my moms success was luck? I agree she had a lot of help,,,, but she also made  many  many great decisions.

[Carol in Cal.]

9 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

When ultimately, it was the love of a good woman (his grandmother) that provided some kind of context for the choices available to him, along with a running commentary. It is often the grandmothers IME. 

In fact, it was HER choices that led to him having the choices he had in the first place. Which is tremendous good luck, since that worked out for him. 

This is true, although it is also the case that the grandparents felt that they had done a poor job with their children and were trying to make up for that later on during his life.

[Rosie_0801]

35 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Kindly, gently, you think all of my moms success was luck? I agree she had a lot of help,,,, but she also made  many  many great decisions.

 

I'm not sure how you got from me wishing I had your mother's luck, to me potentially thinking your mum hadn't any brains or virtues of her own.

But since you asked, no I don't think your mum's success was 100% luck and 0% virtue. I said what I meant. I wish I had the luck she did have, and I'd be surprised if you didn't wish I did too. 

[Reefgazer]

10 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

When ultimately, it was the love of a good woman (his grandmother) that provided some kind of context for the choices available to him, along with a running commentary. It is often the grandmothers IME. 

In fact, it was HER choices that led to him having the choices he had in the first place. Which is tremendous good luck, since that worked out for him. 

Yes, his grandmother was instrumental.  It was most notable that what he *didn't* have in his ear was some official telling him that he was a victim and couldn't count on his own ingenuity and hard work to get him out.  I think that is true for many; it was true for me.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Reefgazer

[Carol in Cal.]

2 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

  It was most notable that what he *didn't* have in his ear was some official telling him that he was a victim and couldn't count on his own ingenuity and hard work to get him out.  I think that is true for many; it was true for me.

Well, it's awkward to know what to do with the reality of challenges to be overcome.

Do you pretend they are not there?  Big fat recipe for Imposter Syndrome and maybe a nervous breakdown down the road.

Do you talk about them sympathetically?  Makes people very uncomfortable, and also tends to identify some as 'affirmative action hires' interpreted to be getting an unfair advantage and probably less competent than others.

I think the thing to do is to mentor or coach people.  But that's much more one to one than most bureaucratic systems can pull off officially.

[Carrie12345]

14 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

The cause of the problem under discussion atm is poverty. 

Poverty in and of itself isn't The Problem. One can theoretically be poor and nonetheless happy, healthy and wise. The problem, as such, is all that follows seemingly-naturally from the condition of living in nearly impenetrable generational poverty.

—-

But it's not impossible! Perhaps it's worth a try. I am, as I have said, just a lot less optimistic than the author of the article in the OP about the poverty-as-disease theory's efficacy on a large scale. Do we collectively tend to think better or more ill of people who are perceived as giving their children so-called lifestyle diseases? What could be more of a lifestyle disease than destitution?

I like to think that the perception is moving from the idea of people giving their children this “affliction” to the realization that we’re players in a system that has created and perpetuated the problem. But, despite my range of social contacts, I admit that I mostly only talk about this kind of stuff with people who lean a certain way.

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

To a large extent what these questions come back to is the responsibility of a democratic citizenry.

I used to do volunteer work at an elementary school in a poverty stricken, ESL, gang-ridden community.  There were really good people there, and they had to contend with risks of extreme violence every single day.  When you are not able to assume basic life safety to be the probable norm, you don’t have the emotional and physical margin to move forward very much—mostly you expend your energy on just surviving.  There were 5th graders there who had never been out of the little neighborhood.  They didn’t know that at a university in the contiguous town they could see the authors of some of their library books in person, and they could get scholarships to learn anything in the world.  They didn’t know anyone who had been to college except for their teachers.  They were not being raised to think ahead about much of anything except the best way to get by and to avoid major injury or death—jail being a fairly common alternative to those two.  They were great kids, but they could not envision  a good future or even a reasonable life.

My view is—A democratic citizenry is not going to be raised in that setting consistently.  Plus a DC has a responsibility to say, This is entirely unacceptable.  Basic assumptions of safety that allow people to grow into their actual potential are something that we should provide, along with a reasonably effective public school education available to everyone.  Teaching all to have the self-control and morals to fail to inflict horrendous harm on others, and conveying clearly that criminal attacks are unthinkable are among the other responsibilities of a DC.  

From a systems standpoint, the underlying assumptions of democracy require a responsble citizenry having reasonable self-control, decent education, available basic assumptions of ‘if you work hard, you will do fine and be reasonably safe’, and basically shared morals and a basic mutual as well as individual responsibility for conveying these responsibilities as well as rights to future generations.  We don’t have a critical mass of these, and that does not bode well for our future as a democratic nation of free people with liberty and justice for all.  

 

[Murphy101]

In my city/state, those kids teachers may not even have a college degree.  Due to an extreme teacher shortage, our state has for many years now allowed emergency t aching certificates.  In theory it is supposed to be to people with bachelor degrees, but someone working towards a bachelors degree can also apply.  But all you have to do to meet that requirement is fill out paperwork saying you plan to get a bachelor degree and or be enrolled in at least one college class.  Since the pay is abysmal and the schools even worse, even that low bar is not enough incentive to get teachers in the doors.  There's something like 600 teacher vacancies in my county alone iirc as of last summer.  Now you go south/west side of the city and that's not a problem.  The disparity is very stark from one district to the next.  Even so, over all we have 60% of high school graduates need remedial maths and reading.  It's hard to convince those kids higher education is an option when in fact, it really isn't for the majority of them.

[SKL]

I agree that safety is a huge issue in urban poor areas.  Unfortunately that has been hard to address.  Add more cops / crack down and people complain about discriminatory outcomes.  Cops are treated as the enemy.  So what is the alternative?  Moving people out of that mess has been denounced as taking away poor people's community.  And there is some truth to these concerns.

Has anyone come up with something that works?  I really hope for that.

In my county, they have community college campuses and libraries right in the middle of the poor neighborhoods.  I assume that helps at least somewhat - kids who have dreams / whose parents encourage them can see that there might be an alternative right there - all they have to do is walk through the door and ask questions.

[historically accurate]

11 minutes ago, SKL said:

I agree that safety is a huge issue in urban poor areas.  Unfortunately that has been hard to address.  Add more cops / crack down and people complain about discriminatory outcomes.  Cops are treated as the enemy.  So what is the alternative?  Moving people out of that mess has been denounced as taking away poor people's community.  And there is some truth to these concerns.

Has anyone come up with something that works?  I really hope for that.

In my county, they have community college campuses and libraries right in the middle of the poor neighborhoods.  I assume that helps at least somewhat - kids who have dreams / whose parents encourage them can see that there might be an alternative right there - all they have to do is walk through the door and ask questions.

It's not able to completely solve the problem, but the nearest large city to me has "community police officers". They are police officers who go and hang out with the local residents - help out with garage sales, hand out teddy bears, go to school programs, play basketball at the local park, etc. Here is one of the local community police:  https://www.facebook.com/OfficerThurmond