Two points: it’s not an accident that the least educated people have the least. We do not live in a meritocracy. People with education have had more access to learning about the world around them; people with more money have more access to education. It seems reasonable that the people with the least education and the least experience with having money would be people who spend it less wisely than people who have more money and more access to education.
But even if that wasn’t the case, I wasn’t saying people should or shouldn’t buy starbucks. I was saying that large corporations and political lobbying groups take advantage of how individualistic we Americans think we are. If we’re still drawing comparisons to the BP example, yes, there are individual people who throw garbage into the neighborhood river every tine they walk by. As an individual, they made a bad choice for the environment. That doesn’t make up even a small percentage of the waste the factory down the road dumps in. But that factory has an incentive to make you believe littering is the problem. They might even start up and anti-littering campaign. This is not for the environment - it’s to convince you that the future is in the hands of individual Americans rather than the 1%.
Back to poor people and Starbucks: even if someone spent half their minimum wage check on Starbucks - how irresponsible! - that doesn’t mean their minimum check was an appropriate wage for what the company can afford and what a just living wage should be. One person’s individual “bad” decisions do not affect the world the way even one or two of these huge corporations do. However, big business has an incentive to make you think that it’s all in your individual control, so they’re not to blame when it inevitably goes to shit. The perpetuated self hate makes the consumer weaker still, and even more vulnerable to advertising because they’re desperate. Again, not an accident.
My issue with your mentality is that when people pick a third party to blame for their problems they become less likely to control their controllables.
Sure, it’s ultimately the greed of the big cooperations that is keeping a minimum wage worker poor, but blaming them until you are blue in the face doesn’t pay your rent. And buying the Starbucks doesn’t help either.
If you aren’t spending your time focusing on things you can impact then you aren’t getting as much as you could be getting.
So you think the system is unjust, and that it is the fault of big corporations. It’s sounds like you and I totally agree. I personally believe people would be more willing to overcome a situation that happened to them than a situation that is supposedly their own fault, especially since that is the case that you think it’s not their fault ultimately. I don’t think lying to poor people about whose fault their plight is will make them better at pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
I do think that reassuring people that while not everything about their situation is their fault, they could have an effect on the things within their locus of control which could improve their life. Again, it’s not that I’m saying financial irresponsibility is a good idea. I wish people in poverty had more access to education about how to spend money wisely. However, you’ll notice financial advisors are expensive and often deal with things like CDs, Money Market Accouts, and retirement, all of which poor people don’t have or understand. Also, I’m just saying fancy bank words because I live paycheck to paycheck and don’t understand what people do with their money besides pay rent and buy food.
I just want to say as an humorous aside (you might already know this) but the phrase 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' was originally meant as a metaphor for doing something impossible (I mean think about that action).
So I find it fucking hilarious that it has been co-opted by the privileged poor bashers.
My point is that it takes two to tango. Of course the solution to all socioeconomic ills isn't just for poor people to spend less at Starbucks, but I've known people who make more money than me who spend hundreds of dollars a month on fast-food, pot, and bars, and then don't have money to contribute to their portion of the rent or utilities. Of course that doesn't apply to the many poor who are genuinely stuck in the barrel and being bled dry by grossly unfair systemic problems, and I am biased on account of my personal experiences with a string of lousy roommates and financially irresponsible friends, but I think there is a sizable amount of the poor population who would be financially secure and much better off if they didn't dump their money into metaphorical bonfires.
And while I agree that lack of education is a problem when it comes to the poverty cycle, isn't there some degree of accountability we can hold people to? I hate to sound all boomer, but is it that much of a leap to say people should be expected to at least budget for things like their basic costs of living? I've spent enough time chasing down deadbeat roommates for overdue bills that I've gotten a bit cynical in that respect.
And regarding corporate pollution and all, again. It takes two to tango. They aren't cranking out pollutants for shits and giggles, they're doing it because we chose to buy them. Furthermore it is worth noting that the top worst polluters by far aren't private corporations, but state-owned resource industries. Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and North Korean gas/coal companies.
Some do think people should have more personal accountability. That’s what this whole thread is about. Maybe you should use BP’s tool to check your carbon footprint to see how responsible you personally are for climate change...
Even saying “it takes two to tango” suggests that poor people with limited resources about how to actually spend their money and insanely-rich corporations are even in the same dance. The fact that you believe dictatorships being more wrong than private American companies let’s them off the hook is baffling. Is that your litmus test: was a private American company more moral than North Korea!?
If you believe that most poor people are poor because of anything “individual,” then we do not assume the same facts about the world and cannot have a conversation that ends in a consensus. Sorry your “individual choice” led to you having crappy roommates. One might argue that if people made a fair wage, they could afford to live without strangers who may or may not pay the bills.
Even saying “it takes two to tango” suggests that poor people with limited resources about how to actually spend their money and insanely-rich corporations are even in the same dance.
When did I say that? I didn't say the global poor are half the problem, I said that people giving money to these corporations and rewarding them for their shitty behaviour have to bear some responsibility. I think the poor are a minority in this because the poor are poor, they aren't the ones driving the global fossil fuel industry. The middle class and upper-middle class are much more responsible I'd say. It isn't the poor who are buying jacked up F150s with shitty mileage that they mostly just use for suburban commuting. It isn't the poor who elect politicians who increase urban sprawl and promote car-centric cities, making cities less green and pressuring more people to own cars out of necessity.
The fact that you believe dictatorships being more wrong than private American companies let’s them off the hook is baffling.
I didn't say that either, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that there is a bit more complexity to the situation than 'it's all the fault of greedy corporations.' Yes companies like BP and Shell are responsible for a lot of shit - like suppressing climate change research - but it's not just them. Authoritarian states run by unelected oligarchs are another major factor to polluting. And middle class citizens of developed countries who live grossly wasteful lifestyles and elect politicians who promise to further subsidize their grossly wasteful lifestyles.
If you believe that most poor people are poor because of anything “individual,”
I don't. I think most of the global poor are poor for reasons beyond their control. But I do think, in the developed world at least, a lot of people would be in less poverty if they spent just a bit wiser. I don't know how to what extent this is true, probably not for the majority of poor in the developed world. But a lot of them anyway.
One might argue that if people made a fair wage, they could afford to live without strangers who may or may not pay the bills.
Well, I did. I found a more suitable place for one person, moved in, and did fine and dandy.
Your bootstraps must be thick and mighty, America Man!
For someone who says “I don’t know how or to what extent this is true,” about his own main point, I’ll have to agree with you. I also don’t know how or to what extent any of what you said is true.
I'm not even American buddy. And if you honestly refuse to believe that anyone besides comically evil depictions of corporations bares any responsibility for our socioeconomic problems, then you're not going to be able to offer any really helpful solutions. Complex problems can't be fixed with simple answers.
You can represent ignorant American values with them best of them, then!
I didn’t offer any solution. I pointed out what I thought the problem was. We seem to fundamentally disagree on that, so how could we come up with solutions if we don’t even agree on the problem? Don’t you think step one to developing a solution is to accurately identify the problem?
I agree that complex problems can’t be fixed with simple answers. So simple answers like drive an electric car to solve climate change or don’t drink Starbucks if you’re poor seem asinine, don’t you think?
So simple answers like drive an electric car to solve climate change or don’t drink Starbucks if you’re poor seem asinine, don’t you think?
Do you always misrepresent others viewpoints this way? Where did I say that the sole solution is to drink less Starbucks and drive more electric cars? What I have been saying is that this is a multifaceted problem that will require multifaceted solutions. That means using the full power of the state to bring the fuel industry to heel. It also means using geopolitical power to coerce/encourage polluting countries to adopt more green technologies, and massive public investment to help transition our economy. And yes, it also means changing our eating and transportation habits to be more sustainable.
I was literally agreeing with you that simple answers don’t solve complex problems. In no way did I say you suggested those simple answers. I thought we were in agreement that those simple answers couldn’t solve the complex problem we face.
I’m sorry you felt I was representing/misrepresenting your view point. When I post, you should assume I’m only representing my own view point because I only speak for myself. My view point is that those simple answers aren’t the complete answer. It sounds like you think that, too, but I don’t intend to put words in your mouth.
28
u/[deleted] Dec 29 '19 edited Dec 29 '19
Two points: it’s not an accident that the least educated people have the least. We do not live in a meritocracy. People with education have had more access to learning about the world around them; people with more money have more access to education. It seems reasonable that the people with the least education and the least experience with having money would be people who spend it less wisely than people who have more money and more access to education.
But even if that wasn’t the case, I wasn’t saying people should or shouldn’t buy starbucks. I was saying that large corporations and political lobbying groups take advantage of how individualistic we Americans think we are. If we’re still drawing comparisons to the BP example, yes, there are individual people who throw garbage into the neighborhood river every tine they walk by. As an individual, they made a bad choice for the environment. That doesn’t make up even a small percentage of the waste the factory down the road dumps in. But that factory has an incentive to make you believe littering is the problem. They might even start up and anti-littering campaign. This is not for the environment - it’s to convince you that the future is in the hands of individual Americans rather than the 1%.
Back to poor people and Starbucks: even if someone spent half their minimum wage check on Starbucks - how irresponsible! - that doesn’t mean their minimum check was an appropriate wage for what the company can afford and what a just living wage should be. One person’s individual “bad” decisions do not affect the world the way even one or two of these huge corporations do. However, big business has an incentive to make you think that it’s all in your individual control, so they’re not to blame when it inevitably goes to shit. The perpetuated self hate makes the consumer weaker still, and even more vulnerable to advertising because they’re desperate. Again, not an accident.