The pervasive nature of classism and poverty
I'm covering classism and poverty in a class right now. And I'm pretty certain it's the most interesting thing I've ever studied academically.
I've decided classism is more sneaky and pervasive than racism or sexism. And while I've consciously rejected racism and sexism, I have not at all recognized my own upper middle-class privilege and perpetuate classism daily in my own minute judgments of others. For example, my brother and a good friend of mine tend to date girls that I label as "trashy" or "some hood-rat shit". These girls are never good to my boys. But my judgments of them are often based on their parenting. I was discussing this with a friend and he said "well, you're just actually a better mother than they are". Well.... no. I'm better at raising kids to survive in middle class white culture than they are. But my kids wouldn't last two days in their neighborhood. They're raising their kids to exist in a poor community. That doesn't make them "bad" moms, or "white trash". These "trashy" girls are simply a product of their culture and exhibiting the behaviors and standards of their community. And chiding my brother and my friend for dating out of their "class" is the equivalent of chiding them for dating out of their "race". And I'm sorry. Realizing you've been an asshole is good and humbling.
A question I've had for a long time is if being raised in an upper middle class community but now being poor/working class changes my class identification or not. Apparently, it does not. Because my personal culture is more in line with upper middle class people, I still reap the benefits of middle class privilege on a daily basis. Even though, my parents were kind of shitty and there was a good deal of abuse and mental/emotional instability going on in kidhood... My language, attitude, education level, culture, dress, and lifestyle still reflects the income, education level, and race of my ancestors. I still have the class benefits of worldliness and culture. I continue to reap the benefits of rich schools and fancy houses and travel and good healthcare. I can fit in with a middle class world and am therefore preferred for employment positions and loans, etc.
Now, Poverty. I'm totally curious about what everyone (especially our libertarian friends) think about these.
Here are some poverty statistics:
The three root (philosophical) causes of poverty are
-individualism
-systematization
-fatalism
A single mother with 2 children living in the DFW area needs to make $20/hr just to afford basic necessities. This is 242% above the poverty level and almost $13/hr above the minimum wage. Here is a calculator where you can see how much you need to make in your area to afford to live.
There are more people living in poverty in America today than the total population of Canada.
The white/Caucasian group makes up the largest racial-ethnic group living in poverty today despite common (and inaccurate) stereotypes about the demographics of those in poverty.
A Center for American Progress report reveals that the largest increase of poor residents is in the nation's suburbs.
Poverty is not intractable despite (inaccurate) common stereotypes. The U.S. poverty rate fell by more than 40 percent between 1964 and 1973. By rebuilding our economy, creating good jobs, investing in families, and ensuring economic security, we can replicate this success and move millions into the middle class. A 2007 CAP report shows that just four public policies would cut the U.S. poverty rate by 26 percent in 10 years.
If the wealth of the top one-fifth was shared with the lowest one-fifth, poverty in america would be eradicated.
Over 19 million people are working and living in poverty.
One in 8 americans lives below the federal poverty line.
Middle and Upper class women have .8 more children than women living in poverty (despite inaccurate stereotypes).
Motherhood is one of the largest risk factors for poverty in old age.
Women and people of color are at a higher risk of experiencing pervasive poverty in their lives.
People in poverty have a higher rate of preventable diseases, a shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality, more often malnourished, are more susceptible to emotional disturbances, alcoholism and victimization, lack sleep, are more likely to experience stunted growth, have higher arrests rates, imprisonments and longer sentences, exposed to higher levels of air, water pollution and unsanitary conditions, have more unstable marriages and achieve less academically.
Discuss.
I've decided classism is more sneaky and pervasive than racism or sexism. And while I've consciously rejected racism and sexism, I have not at all recognized my own upper middle-class privilege and perpetuate classism daily in my own minute judgments of others. For example, my brother and a good friend of mine tend to date girls that I label as "trashy" or "some hood-rat shit". These girls are never good to my boys. But my judgments of them are often based on their parenting. I was discussing this with a friend and he said "well, you're just actually a better mother than they are". Well.... no. I'm better at raising kids to survive in middle class white culture than they are. But my kids wouldn't last two days in their neighborhood. They're raising their kids to exist in a poor community. That doesn't make them "bad" moms, or "white trash". These "trashy" girls are simply a product of their culture and exhibiting the behaviors and standards of their community. And chiding my brother and my friend for dating out of their "class" is the equivalent of chiding them for dating out of their "race". And I'm sorry. Realizing you've been an asshole is good and humbling.
A question I've had for a long time is if being raised in an upper middle class community but now being poor/working class changes my class identification or not. Apparently, it does not. Because my personal culture is more in line with upper middle class people, I still reap the benefits of middle class privilege on a daily basis. Even though, my parents were kind of shitty and there was a good deal of abuse and mental/emotional instability going on in kidhood... My language, attitude, education level, culture, dress, and lifestyle still reflects the income, education level, and race of my ancestors. I still have the class benefits of worldliness and culture. I continue to reap the benefits of rich schools and fancy houses and travel and good healthcare. I can fit in with a middle class world and am therefore preferred for employment positions and loans, etc.
Now, Poverty. I'm totally curious about what everyone (especially our libertarian friends) think about these.
Here are some poverty statistics:
The three root (philosophical) causes of poverty are
-individualism
-systematization
-fatalism
A single mother with 2 children living in the DFW area needs to make $20/hr just to afford basic necessities. This is 242% above the poverty level and almost $13/hr above the minimum wage. Here is a calculator where you can see how much you need to make in your area to afford to live.
There are more people living in poverty in America today than the total population of Canada.
The white/Caucasian group makes up the largest racial-ethnic group living in poverty today despite common (and inaccurate) stereotypes about the demographics of those in poverty.
A Center for American Progress report reveals that the largest increase of poor residents is in the nation's suburbs.
Poverty is not intractable despite (inaccurate) common stereotypes. The U.S. poverty rate fell by more than 40 percent between 1964 and 1973. By rebuilding our economy, creating good jobs, investing in families, and ensuring economic security, we can replicate this success and move millions into the middle class. A 2007 CAP report shows that just four public policies would cut the U.S. poverty rate by 26 percent in 10 years.
If the wealth of the top one-fifth was shared with the lowest one-fifth, poverty in america would be eradicated.
Over 19 million people are working and living in poverty.
One in 8 americans lives below the federal poverty line.
Middle and Upper class women have .8 more children than women living in poverty (despite inaccurate stereotypes).
Motherhood is one of the largest risk factors for poverty in old age.
Women and people of color are at a higher risk of experiencing pervasive poverty in their lives.
People in poverty have a higher rate of preventable diseases, a shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality, more often malnourished, are more susceptible to emotional disturbances, alcoholism and victimization, lack sleep, are more likely to experience stunted growth, have higher arrests rates, imprisonments and longer sentences, exposed to higher levels of air, water pollution and unsanitary conditions, have more unstable marriages and achieve less academically.
Discuss.
22 Comments
thinker247*quality ,but that's coming from a poverty-stricken welfare baby.
siftbotAwarding peggedbea with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by thinker247.
peggedbeaIf I felt like cross-referencing my notes to a lower level course on disability and society I took at some point, I'd include poverty statistics about people with disabilities. I'm not going to dig through that mountain of stuff right now, but I promise it's absolutely overwhelming.
jonnyIn regards to your own judgements about trashy girls, I think you're being a little too hard on yourself. Empathy, compassion, and self respect do not require financial stability to be taught, nor do they require loving parents to be learned.
Middle and Upper class women have .8 more children than women living in poverty
Is that have as in "give birth to", or have as in "are raising"? As you note at the end, infant mortality is significantly higher among the poor. If it means the latter, then that statistic is probably skewed significantly by infant and child mortality. If it means the former, then I admit I am completely surprised and very curious how that could be in light of so much anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I don't mean the stereotype of "welfare mothers", but the historic tendency for people to have more babies when they live in a community with low child survival rates.
dystopianfuturetodayI've noticed that even broaching the topic of poorness is taboo. You either get complete disinterest, eye rolling, jokes or people who try to explain to you that poor are really living it up on tax payer dollars. Even the democrats seem to avoid using the word 'poor', but they have no problem defending the 'middle class'. I'd love to see democrats combine the middle and poor classes into one 'underclass', since international free trade seems to be destroying the line between the middle and lower classes anyway.
dystopianfuturetodayWe Americans have a trained Pavlovian negative response the phrase 'redistribution of wealth', but only when that wealth is moving from super rich to super poor. Every financial transaction is a redistribution of wealth, and poor people giving their money to the rich is never seen as a bad thing. If all that free market fairy tale bullshit really worked, and profits magically turned themselves into jobs and revenue for poor people, it would be one thing, but it just doesn't work that way. Money flows in one direction and stagnates at the top, while the people doing all the hard work at the bottom suffer. We need to rethink our archaic cold war era economic concepts. Those stagnant funds need to be liberated.
blankfistI feel bad for the poor who've bought into social security.
NetRunnerI'm with Wallace Shawn. Our world really is a stage.
peggedbeayou make a good point. the text does not specify. i liked the statistic because it is completely counter to the myth of the "welfare mom".
if i wasn't broke, i'd have 4 kids. even if that meant adopting the other 2. but i cant afford them, so i got my tubes tied at 22. noone makes a profit off of welfare. >> ^jonny:
In regards to your own judgements about trashy girls, I think you're being a little too hard on yourself. Empathy, compassion, and self respect do not require financial stability to be taught, nor do they require loving parents to be learned.
Middle and Upper class women have .8 more children than women living in poverty
Is that have as in "give birth to", or have as in "are raising"? As you note at the end, infant mortality is significantly higher among the poor. If it means the latter, then that statistic is probably skewed significantly by infant and child mortality. If it means the former, then I admit I am completely surprised and very curious how that could be in light of so much anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I don't mean the stereotype of "welfare mothers", but the historic tendency for people to have more babies when they live in a community with low child survival rates.
jonny>> ^NetRunner:
I'm with Wallace Shawn. Our world really is a stage.
That's weird - that's two somewhat obscure occurrences of Wallace Shawn I've seen in less than 24 hours (Inconceivable!). I saw part of "My Dinner With Andre" last night. Weird movie.
About his article, though, it's odd that he points out that actors, by definition, are not their job, but he doesn't seem to subscribe to the same idea for everyone else. I'm pretty sure the cashier at the corner store is a lot more than her job. She probably even expresses it while at her job.
NetRunner>> ^jonny:
I'm pretty sure the cashier at the corner store is a lot more than her job.
That's actually the point Shawn was making, on grand scale. Everyone is more than they appear, and there's nothing inherently different between the people at the bottom of our class structure, and the top. It's more about costumes and the script we've written, than any sort of truly consequential difference.
jonny>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^jonny:
I'm pretty sure the cashier at the corner store is a lot more than her job.
That's actually the point Shawn was making, on grand scale. Everyone is more than they appear, and there's nothing inherently different between the people at the bottom of our class structure, and the top. It's more about costumes and the script we've written, than any sort of truly consequential difference.
Yeah, I got that. What I was saying is that he abandons the idea at sort of a crucial point. He's assuming that the cashier or cop or whatever is somehow unable to fully express their talents because the job they have doesn't require it. In the extreme case, look at Albert Einstein. While working an incredibly dull job in a patent office, he writes two of the most important scientific papers in history. I'm not saying this invalidates his entire thesis, just that he needs to look at a larger picture of life.
As a tangent, this also brings up the definition of poverty. The living conditions of many people we might consider the working poor today would be looked upon longingly by people only 100 years ago. Now, I'm not suggesting that means we can ignore the problem, just that we need to understand the context. Certainly there are many people today that are in conditions as bad or worse as the working poor of 100 years ago. My point with this tangent is that it's important to clearly define specific goals you want to achieve when talking about eradicating poverty. Some of those goals are obvious, like food and shelter adequate to maintain reasonable health. But then there are some goals, like access to information (via internet, libraries, whatever) that you may want to include and aren't obvious to some, or are understood but rejected due to a lack of understanding of why they're important.
To try to tie all this together, poverty isn't just about money, just like a person's life isn't defined just by their job, and a person's character isn't defined just by their upbringing.
peggedbeaI think this is the direct result of some very specific, intentional rhetoric. I think it is also mostly, specifically american.
I'm listening to an audio book right now about John Winthrop and the puritan dream of america. The book focuses a lot on his speech on the model of Christian charity. History has been more concerned with his excerpts from the sermon on the mount, focusing entirely on "the city upon a hill". America is a beacon to the rest of the world, Christian values and American exceptionalism and boundless opportunity ... except to Winthrop these things had a more egalitarian backbone. We would be exceptional because of our belief in Christ's charity.... among other things mixed in with calvinist self-hatred and a sense of impending apocalyptic doom.
Here's an excerpt from the speech:
that He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of his Spirit: first upon the wicked in moderating and restraining them, so that the rich and mighty should not eat up the poor.
Reagan of all people invoked this speech. Leaving out the part about the rich eating up the poor of course and focusing only on "that shining city upon a hill" .... I think you've touched on something with your cold war reference. Reagan made greed and enduring pride a national value during the cold war. Contextually, this seems sort of appropriate... if you're ronald reagan, it's the 80s and capitalism proving a more lasting and successful social/economic value than communism is of the utmost importance.
And somewhere between then and now, we've skipped the part where we redefine our national values and even 9/11 and the decade of war proceeding did not put our moral folly in check.
It seems ever so unlikely that economic, social, political and cultural devastation is going to put it in check now. Right around 15% of the country is now receiving food stamps. I think if we knew that, instead of "poor" being taboo, you'd be more likely to see some kind of authentic populist uprisings. I think the decades since the cold war have seen such a demonization (and femalization for that matter) of economic hardship, you're unlikely to meet enough people ready to come out of their homes and yell about it. Not only does the media and marketing make women feel bad about their bodies, I think it's making people feel bad about their inability to consume the desired quantity of shit.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I've noticed that even broaching the topic of poorness is taboo. You either get complete disinterest, eye rolling, jokes or people who try to explain to you that poor are really living it up on tax payer dollars. Even the democrats seem to avoid using the word 'poor', but they have no problem defending the 'middle class'. I'd love to see democrats combine the middle and poor classes into one 'underclass', since international free trade seems to be destroying the line between the middle and lower classes anyway.
NetRunner>> ^jonny:
What I was saying is that he abandons the idea at sort of a crucial point. He's assuming that the cashier or cop or whatever is somehow unable to fully express their talents because the job they have doesn't require it.
Not to belabor the point, but you're mistaking rhetorical device for abandoning the argument. The title of the article isn't just "Is the world really a stage?" it's "Why I call myself a Socialist: Is the world really a stage?" He's not really in doubt about where he stands on the answer to the question, he in fact is saying that this observation he makes is one that fundamentally defines his own political identity.
The bit at the end where the flash of insight slips away, that's more of a concession that just because he sees the potential for us to live in a vastly less constrained world doesn't mean that the world has actually changed in any meaningful way.
However, if we were all to get that same flash of insight at the same moment...
dystopianfuturetodayWhy not join the conversation? Seriously. We won't tell your libertarian buddies. >> ^blankfist:
I feel bad for the poor who've bought into social security.
blankfistSuccessful troll is successful.
jonny>> ^NetRunner:
Not to belabor the point, but you're mistaking rhetorical device for abandoning the argument. The title of the article isn't just "Is the world really a stage?" it's "Why I call myself a Socialist: Is the world really a stage?" He's not really in doubt about where he stands on the answer to the question, he in fact is saying that this observation he makes is one that fundamentally defines his own political identity.
Fair enough. I guess I just read it differently. To me, he was saying that people have so much more potential than the mundane jobs into which they are forced by the invisible hand of the free market, but then kind of abandons that premise by saying that people are not able to fully express that potential because of the mundane jobs into which they are forced. My problem with it is that he only scratches the surface of the real problem, which is equal access to resources, particularly in childhood. Such is the writing of an artist interpreted by a mathematically-inclined reader.
>> ^NetRunner:
However, if we were all to get that same flash of insight at the same moment...
meh - it'd probably be like that moment of perfect clarity while under the influence of hallucinogens. Suddenly, everything makes sense, but good luck trying to convey that or share it the next day.
peggedbeai am actually really interested on your thoughts about individualism being a root philosophical cause of intractable poverty. i understand it probably gets tiresome and boring for you to have the same conversations over and over again all by yourself with collectivist sift. but, i am genuinely interested.
texas is just full of teabaggers who didnt know "individualism" was a word that had meanings. their thoughts only make me feel sad. >> ^blankfist:
Successful troll is successful.
blankfist>> ^peggedbea:
i am actually really interested on your thoughts about individualism being a root philosophical cause of intractable poverty. i understand it probably gets tiresome and boring for you to have the same conversations over and over again all by yourself with collectivist sift. but, i am genuinely interested.
texas is just full of teabaggers who didnt know "individualism" was a word that had meanings. their thoughts only make me feel sad. >> ^blankfist:
Successful troll is successful.
Thanks. In that case I'll give it an honest read and give you a serious response in a bit.
bamdrewKind-of an aside:
It is extremely challenging in this country to simplify goals towards combating intractable poverty (or improving healthcare, etc.) and then maintain sight of those simple goals through the processes of solution identification and implementation.
This has always been a challenge for human society once a community becomes large and heterogeneous.
However! I'm writing this comment in a public forum in which individuals submit good ideas that are then analyzed, commented on and culled by an encouraging community. I'm here because this community is entertaining AND interesting AND self-encouraging of participation.
... therefor I propose that @dag run for President.
...OkNotReallyButWhatI'mSayingIs... with the internet we not only have access to knowledge, we have access to people's ideas to solve a problem and people to vet and cull and promote these ideas. In principle this should allow management of very simple anti-poverty ideas from birth to implementation to statistical analysis of the idea's impact.
Topic: Being poor is a taboo
Discussions: impact of self-identifying as poor, implementable ideas to address taboo of self-identifying as poor, and methods to quantify impact
Reward: Top 10 discussion notes, chosen by community, receive... um... 3 power points
>> ^peggedbea:
It seems ever so unlikely that economic, social, political and cultural devastation is going to put it in check now. Right around 15% of the country is now receiving food stamps. I think if we knew that, instead of "poor" being taboo, you'd be more likely to see some kind of authentic populist uprisings. I think the decades since the cold war have seen such a demonization (and femalization for that matter) of economic hardship, you're unlikely to meet enough people ready to come out of their homes and yell about it. Not only does the media and marketing make women feel bad about their bodies, I think it's making people feel bad about their inability to consume the desired quantity of shit.
blankfistI haven't read anything on individualism being a root cause of poverty. I did a quick google search and found a couple things. One is the idea of "survival of the fittest", that those in poverty do it to themselves, and it's the individualist ideology that tells everyone "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and as a result those who cannot receive no help. Is that the complaint against individualism?
If so, I completely understand that a self-centric position on society would most likely create an environment where poverty could easily manifest and consume the less-to-do of society. I do think some will allow it to happen to them, while others will resist but their current station in life (specifically class) won't allow them to escape poverty. A couple bad financial decisions and the banks won't make it easier on you. The poor are usually in the financial position where they receive higher interest rates they cannot afford, while the well off with good credit receive lower intrest rates. It seems unfair.
I do believe charitable actions would be higher in an individualist society. We already live in a nanny state which is counter to the individualist society. Sure, the majority of spending tends to go to defense spending, but that doesn't mean we don't currently have excessive social programs already in place to catch the fringe of society. And still we have poverty. Lots of it.
What happened? The government has its hands deeply embedded in the private economy, and restrictions and regulations are steep for startup entrepreneurs, while the larger corporations enjoy crony-capitalism. Translation: regulations and restrictions create a tilted playing field where larger corporations can easily succeed with less competition, thus less jobs are created by budding entrepreneurs. So the number of workers goes up while the number of job creators goes down. Eventually we could all be working for the big corporations, and with less competition they could lessen benefits such as health or vacation pay, they could easily lower wages, and they could then extend the expected work week from 40 hours to something like 100 hours. If that sounds farfetched, I can tell you from first hand experience I've seen this exact thing happen to an industry I know very well. And when I say big corporations, I mean major parent companies that buy large businesses. For instance, let's take the advertising industry. One parent company could own almost all of the major companies in that industry, so if you complain about the 100 hour work week and loss of vacation benefits, your chances of receiving another job in that industry are cut to almost zero. I've seen it. And they do illegal shit like tell women not to get pregnant.
This kind of corporatist entitlement is bad. And we got here through regulations, through a regimented government nanny system that is counterintuitive to free markets. And this makes it very hard on people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", which is what all individualists claim to want of people around them. How can you pull yourself up when you're essentially a slave to corporations? I don't know. But it's not getting better. The nanny system, in my opinion, is making it worse. The more we ask for, the less we get. And I say this because I see a very real connection between system created to help us (welfare) and regulations that help big business. I see it as being connected. Poverty perpetuated by big business and bankers.
If we could peel back the regulations and restrictions on industry, we would see a growth of jobs. We'd see a decline in corporate dominance. Most restrictions or regulations are created to stifle competition, not help the consumer, mind you. From there, I'd like to think people would generally do better, have better lives, and contribute charitably to others. Poverty will never be stricken from the planet, but we certainly could do more to help those in our community. That's where it starts. And when people feel they pay into a nanny system, they feel less generous to help those in front of them. I know, I see it every damn day in LA.
peggedbea@blankfist
Eventually we could all be working for the big corporations, and with less competition they could lessen benefits such as health or vacation pay, they could easily lower wages, and they could then extend the expected work week from 40 hours to something like 100 hours. If that sounds farfetched, I can tell you from first hand experience I've seen this exact thing happen to an industry I know very well. And when I say big corporations, I mean major parent companies that buy large businesses. For instance, let's take the advertising industry. One parent company could own almost all of the major companies in that industry, so if you complain about the 100 hour work week and loss of vacation benefits, your chances of receiving another job in that industry are cut to almost zero. I've seen it. And they do illegal shit like tell women not to get pregnant.
That is exactly what's happening. Wages began stagnating in the 70's. At the time, women were moving into the work force so the impact on families was offset by an extra income. And today, it's out of control. It's been researched and it's been documented. And it's visible if you look at all the personal debt families have. Americans take less vacation time than other industrialized nation. The US is also the only industrialized nation who does not mandate vacation time. I read something the other day (disclaimer: i don't have a good grasp on economics, it was a complicated paper and i'm a bit dyslexic/dyscalculic so I've got to reread it a few times before I'm totally confident I understand it, and then research it for accuracy) and the idea of it just fascinated me. It was something like, wages used to increase as labor's productivity increased.. like it was inherently built into the market. So maybe technology eliminated the need for as many people, but the remaining workers were more productive, so their wages should have been going up. But the mid 70's saw an abandonment of this principle in favor of higher profits and the consequences of that have been devastating for working people ever since. Like, they broke a rule of the market and it's sent tremors through almost 40 years and now everything is fucked up and the worker is more and more screwed everyday.
now, regulation: we've been peeling back regulations for decades. and it seems to have worked antithetically to your hypothesized outcome. why do you think that is? which regulations are you talking about, specifically?
I don't disagree that it should be fairly simple to start your own new business. And I don't like or trust government either, but I want some kind of assurance that this new business is not polluting my air, water, community, that its employees are not being exploited and are paid a living wage and that sanitary practices are being followed. What sort of system do you propose to keep new restaurants from serving rat poo infested soups made by 5 year olds? ..... maybe, eventually, the free market would take care of this sort of violation but after how many people eat there and get sick? And after how many child chefs burn their little fingers on hot stoves?
And when people feel they pay into a nanny system, they feel less generous to help those in front of them. I know, I see it every damn day in LA.
this statement is a motherfucking cop-out. i'm not saying that you dont "see" it.. i'm just saying people should know better. The "nanny-system" obviously, isn't taking take care of those in front of them. This is where i see a major downfall in individualism. "I would help, but something else is already helping you. I'm looking out for #1!! I already gave to charity this week.. see where my pay stub says 'FICA'?"... And "someone else is already doing it" has become the operative ethic of the gen-x yuppie class. It is an excuse for petulance and cold heartedness and snobbery. If we lived in nomadic, tribal hunter/gatherer communities, they would be the first kicked out of the clan. ... and John Winthrop would have thrown them off the arabella. Shame on them.
I spend a great deal of time with the "nanny-system"... personally, professionally and academically. There are atrocious disparities. My most functionally impaired clients also happen to my poorest clients. At first, I thought this was a coincidence. It isn't. Not at all. Diagnosis doesn't have as much to do with prognosis as the financial and social status of the person living with the disability. (e.g. parents can't afford to make the home handicap accessible, so the wheelchair can't make it through the front door, so person with the disability spends 30 years crawling around on the floor, which solves the problem of moving from room to room, but creates 100 other problems in its place. the body is so malformed at this point, employment placement for the disabled adult is impossible, i could give you 500 other examples) This is a sin.
In a lot of ways, I agree... government is too bulky and convoluted here to be as effective as it needs to be. The apparatus is too cumbersome and the funding and political/community support for such services is far too small. It doesn't have to be this way. Nationally, we've tabled charity and efficiency as a virtue, in favor of strength and might and greed and pride. Social Services could be reworked, in a vastly more effective and efficient way if only we had the political and social will to do it. We could do it for a lot cheaper as well, I think. I won't go on my diatribe about how disability services needs to function, mostly because its full of jargon and boring.
But, I think we mostly agree on a lot of things, namely, corporations are fucking us all and the government is providing the reach around. every 4 years half of us orgasm when our candidate is elected by popular vote. only for the pounding to commence again the following January.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.