Teaching the Poor to be Middle-Class?

[Phased Out]

There's a NY Times article about a woman, Ruby Payne, who wants to teach teachers how to teach poor students middle class values. This sounds like a great idea to me.

Link to NY Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10payne-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

Unfortunately, as documented in the quote below, the academic establishment hates her:


Payne’s work in the schools has attracted a growing chorus of criticism, mostly from academia. Although Payne says that her only goal is to help poor students, her critics claim that her work is in fact an assault on those students. By teaching them middle-class practices, critics say, she is engaging in “classism” and racism. Her work is “riddled with factual inaccuracies and harmful stereotypes,” charges Anita Bohn, an assistant professor at Illinois State University, in a paper on Payne’s work. Paul Gorski, an assistant professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, writes that Payne’s central text “consists, at the crudest level, of a stream of stereotypes and a suggestion that we address poverty and education by ‘fixing’ poor people instead of reforming classist policies and practices.” (“LeftyHenry,” a recent poster on a political blog, was less subtle in his criticism; he called Payne “the Hitler of American academics.”

This is the reason I can't stand leftists so much, because of their denial of the basic differences between the middle class and the poor, and their insistence that all of the poor's problems are caused by racist/classist/unfair government policies and the failure to spend enough taxpayer money on anti-poverty programs.

The poor will never become like the middle-classes because most (not all) of the poor are born with a lower IQ compared to the higher classes. But surely poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can't afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children (for the most part) but poor parents don't. These values would make poor neighborhoods better and safer places and thus increase the standard of living of poor people while saving the taxpayer money.

Such lessons would do a lot more good than coaching poor children to score a percentile higher on multiple choice reading tests.

(T minus the usual: "you're a racist,nazi,fascist,jerkoff, stupid head...etc")

[#FF0000]

I don't really care but I think it's sort of a backwards way of dealing with things.

People aren't poor because of their values. If you think the "values of the poor" are self-destructive then just don't let people be poor.

It doesn't make sense to have people live in horrible conditions and then be surprised when they don't act like people who live on estates and went to finishing school.

[#FF0000]

Wait is there even any evidence that this is effective?

[#FF0000]

Oh and one more thing.

IQ Tests are bullshit. This is common knowledge to everyone in Education.

[bloodbeard]

There's a NY Times article about a woman, Ruby Payne, who wants to teach teachers how to teach poor students middle class values. This sounds like a great idea to me.

Link to NY Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10payne-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all)

Unfortunately, as documented in the quote below, the academic establishment hates her:



This is the reason I can't stand leftists so much, because of their denial of the basic differences between the middle class and the poor, and their insistence that all of the poor's problems are caused by racist/classist/unfair government policies and the failure to spend enough taxpayer money on anti-poverty programs.

The poor will never become like the middle-classes because most (not all) of the poor are born with a lower IQ compared to the higher classes. But surely poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can't afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children (for the most part) but poor parents don't. These values would make poor neighborhoods better and safer places and thus increase the standard of living of poor people while saving the taxpayer money.

Such lessons would do a lot more good than coaching poor children to score a percentile higher on multiple choice reading tests.


Oh yea if only they act more like the middle class, instead of low class degenerate thugs, things would work out for them. How very stereotypical of you to suggest poor and low income means they are thieving, violent, dishonest, baby making machines. How do you know what kind of values poor families teach their children v.s what middle class families teach? How dare you suggest that these values you stated above only belong to the middle class? I'm not opposed to teaching kids in school these values, especially they are lacking it at home, BUT I strongly opposed it being labeled "middle class values".
Many middle class children grow up without being taught half of these so called middle class values but they'll turn out fine regardless and would never have to face poverty, hm i wonder why? Could it be because their parents are still able to send them to university and further their education while accommodating them with good living conditions, so that they can learn these values with ease, without worry and with time on their hands, and not being it shoved down their throats by dictatorial means.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is the reason I can't stand leftists so much, because of their denial of the basic differences between the middle class and the poor, and their insistence that all of the poor's problems are caused by racist/classist/unfair government policies and the failure to spend enough taxpayer money on anti-poverty programs.

The poor will never become like the middle-classes because most (not all) of the poor are born with a lower IQ compared to the higher classes.

You repulsive ass, nobody is born with an IQ. You have to get an education to take an IQ test, and if the education is of poor standard and/or ideologically driven, then of course the results are going to be generally lousy.

To deny that most people are poor because of the situation they find themselves in, and to instead attribute it to some intrinsic quality, is to completely ignore reality.


But surely poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence, and the importance not having children they can't afford to raise. These are the values that middle class parents teach their children (for the most part) but poor parents don't. These values would make poor neighborhoods better and safer places and thus increase the standard of living of poor people while saving the taxpayer money.

Poor people pay taxes too; in fact, they pay far more than their fair share while rich bastards get to enjoy their millions tax-free from offshore bank accounts. Middle-class values have their dark sides as well.


Such lessons would do a lot more good than coaching poor children to score a percentile higher on multiple choice reading tests.

A better idea would be more more funding for education and healthcare and less funding for blowing up foreigners.

[The Red Next Door]

Some, If not Most; Middle class people have the most god awful values. Like for example; It matter which college you go to, instead of the work you do at the college. materialism and selfishness and snobbery and a bunch of bourgeoisie bs.

[Dr Mindbender]

The poor will never become like the middle-classes because most (not all) of the poor are born with a lower IQ compared to the higher classes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tekXxB6dosQ

[The Red Next Door]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tekXxB6dosQ


Perfect Example.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Middle class and poor = working class.

[Revolution starts with U]

:rolleyes:
it's easy to appear responsible when you have the freedom to be irresponsible

[Bud Struggle]

Middle class and poor = working class.


Best kept secret of the 20th and 21st century. :D

[Phased Out]

I don't really care but I think it's sort of a backwards way of dealing with things.

People aren't poor because of their values. If you think the "values of the poor" are self-destructive then just don't let people be poor.

It doesn't make sense to have people live in horrible conditions and then be surprised when they don't act like people who live on estates and went to finishing school.

Then explain all of the non-poor people who have bad values? That's right, the poor people who are participating in car jackings and armed robberies are political prisoners.


IQ Tests are bullshit. This is common knowledge to everyone in Education.

So only if I practiced hard enough and had the best trainers money can buy, I can become the next Bruce Lee? Oh and we all know that the education industry attracts the best and the brightest? Really?


I'm not opposed to teaching kids in school these values, especially they are lacking it at home, BUT I strongly opposed it being labeled "middle class values".

We would have to call them that in order to avoid offending anybody.

If you can think of a better name, I'd like to hear it.


Some, If not Most; Middle class people have the most god awful values. Like for example; It matter which college you go to, instead of the work you do at the college. materialism and selfishness and snobbery and a bunch of bourgeoisie bs.

Did you even read the article? Payne's contention, and I agree, is just the OPPOSITE. Poor people spent all their money as soon as they get it. The middle class values are in saving the money for a rainy day.

Poor people can't even save enough money to have a bank account, and because of this they get ripped off by paycheck cashing places.


Oh yea if only they act more like the middle class, instead of low class degenerate thugs, things would work out for them. How very stereotypical of you to suggest poor and low income means they are thieving, violent, dishonest, baby making machines. How do you know what kind of values poor families teach their children v.s what middle class families teach?

Low IQ is a much stronger predictor of being poor than high IQ is of being rich.

Having an average IQ, not affiliating oneself with bad peers and following all the rules WILL get someone out of a bad neighborhood.

But having an above-average IQ and following all the rules will NOT automatically get someone into the upper middle class.


A better idea would be more more funding for education and healthcare and less funding for blowing up foreigners.

I agree with this 100%. The defense budget is the biggest welfare program out there and the security that is "promised" is hardly delivered or the threats not even in existence. I am for a single payer system.

Education is up to the student if they want one. As for funding, we spend more per capita per student than any other country on the planet, with less than spectacular results.

I have pointed on this board before that the primary reason why it sucks to be poor in the United States, is that you have to live near other poor people. And the reason you don’t want to live next to poor people is because they have underclass values.

But, what would happen if poor people had the same middle class values as everyone else? Well, if that were the case, a major motivation for not being poor would be removed. People wouldn’t be motivated to work extra hard in order to insulate themselves from poor people.

This explains why Europe is different than the United States.

And, as I told, better values will not solve the income disparities. A wal-mart worker earning 8 per hour with better values will be childless, save money and be more responsible in general, but will still a be wal-marter earning the same 8 per hour. Hopefully, not for that long.


Best kept secret of the 20th and 21st century.

I know, the future outlook doesn't look good for people who behave properly. They'll be making less money and will probably have to share neighborhoods and maybe even households with simple minded proles.

Better get used to hearing bad jokes, casual swearing, spitting, aggressiveness, ignorance and boorishness. Might want to get acquainted with Roseanne reruns and those stupid looking UFC clothes that sport the words: Fight, Fuck and Drink. Yeah, real classy.

Let's just say that I'd rather live in a community solely comprised of librarians and computer programmers rather than plumbers, roof stockers and unskilled laborers.

[#FF0000]

Then explain all of the non-poor people who have bad values? That's right, the poor people who are participating in car jackings and armed robberies are political prisoners.

Listen, it's either one of two things.

1) Poor people are born with bad values and are destined from birth to be poor criminals or
2) People learn behavior and values.

If the latter is true, then you can't say that people are poor because of their values. People are poor in part because of bad habits that they learned.

But even that can't be the reason! Because no matter what values people have, Capitalism needs a poor lower class to exist!

Let's say we lived in a world where everyone was a hard worker and had perfect values like you do, Phased Out. Would Capitalism provide all of these people with the livelihoods they work so hard for?

No. It's simply no. People can be intelligent and hard-working but that is not a guarantee that they will be rewarded in capitalism.

And there it is.


So only if I practiced hard enough and had the best trainers money can buy, I can become the next Bruce Lee?

That is in no way equivalent. It is common knowledge that IQ tests are a piss poor way to test anything other than someone's ability to take a test. I recall reading somewhere that, when given the test, African adults (as in, from Africa) scored low enough to be considered profoundly retarded, which would mean that the people who took the test wouldn't have any hope of ever living on their own.

But they had no intellectual disabilities and didn't seem to be any more or less intelligent than anyone else.

So, what does this mean? Why, it must mean the test is flawed and culturally biased.


Oh and we all know that the education industry attracts the best and the brightest? Really?

Oh, nice a shot at teachers, I guess.

Say what you want but the fact is that the average teacher knows boatloads more about how to teach a student than you think you do. They aren't the problem with education. The problem with it is people, perhaps like you, who think its purpose is to get kids "ready for work" and hold the moronic view that mastery of material can be measured by a test.

[Nolan]

You're fucking sick. I would say eat shit and die, but you're already so full of it it's oozing out onto your keyboard.

[#FF0000]

Low IQ is a much stronger predictor of being poor than high IQ is of being rich.

Having an average IQ, not affiliating oneself with bad peers and following all the rules WILL get someone out of a bad neighborhood.

But having an above-average IQ and following all the rules will NOT automatically get someone into the upper middle class.


Oh, and to maybe, hopefully put an end to this trope you keep trotting out...

If someone has a "low IQ" (Define that for me, btw), they're more likely to be put in an "Applied" class for struggling students.

However if you're of average or high IQ, you can easily be kept in regular "Academic" classes or put into the "Honors" or "Advanced" classes no matter what your grades are like.

For example, I was given an IQ test in school. I scored around a 126, which put me right in range for Gifted. I was in a lot of advanced courses and when I struggled in a class, I had the option of doing an assignment other than what was given to me. If I was a poor test taker, I could do a more hands-on project instead.

In other words, the school went out of its way to make sure that they accommodated me and my learning style and then went out of my way to get me into a high end college. I was a C-D student and my advisors still saw to it that University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy league Institution, wasn't that much of a reach for me.

They gave me as a luxury what every student has a right to; a fair and appropriate education.

IQ tests in the American school system dictate what classes a student is put in and are far harder on students with a low IQ than students with average and high IQs. Had my IQ been 80, I wouldn't have had any of this extra help. The guidance office would have pushed me to go to the vocational school and learn a trade.

[ComradeMan]

Reactionary Bullshit from top to bottom.

The "Middle-Class" are not bourgeois, they think they are but they aren't.

The Proletariat are not de facto the poor and down-and-outs of society- the lumpenproletariat.

See Marx.

[RGacky3]

This is the story of history, Egyptians thinking the barbarians are just lesser people, and deserve to be slaves. Romans thinking the same thing. Europeans thinking thatthe savages lack christian values, blacks were born slaves, and so on and so forth.

This Garbage is no different.

If you actually look at facts, and conditions, the difference between conditions and poverty rates, its easy to see this is all garbage.

But people like the OP are not interested in finding out the real causes, all they want is to justify and suck up to power, and put down poor people.

Whats funny though, is when you have good education, a good level of social equality, high payed working class jobs, what then? Did suddenly all the poor people learn "middle class values." Why is it that in places with out those ocnditions just not have "middel class values?"

I don't expect the op to answer seriously, because this guy is'nt serious.

[The Red Next Door]

This is the story of history, Egyptians thinking the barbarians are just lesser people, and deserve to be slaves. Romans thinking the same thing. Europeans thinking thatthe savages lack christian values, blacks were born slaves, and so on and so forth.

This Garbage is no different.

If you actually look at facts, and conditions, the difference between conditions and poverty rates, its easy to see this is all garbage.

But people like the OP are not interested in finding out the real causes, all they want is to justify and suck up to power, and put down poor people.

Whats funny though, is when you have good education, a good level of social equality, high payed working class jobs, what then? Did suddenly all the poor people learn "middle class values." Why is it that in places with out those ocnditions just not have "middel class values?"

I don't expect the op to answer seriously, because this guy is'nt serious.

I wonder if he is self hating poor.

[Phased Out]

Listen, it's either one of two things.

1) Poor people are born with bad values and are destined from birth to be poor criminals or
2) People learn behavior and values.

I never stated that poor people are BORN with bad values but rather people are born with a certain level of intelligence and personality traits that makes them more RECEPTIVE to bad values.

Can environment raise a person’s intelligence? Nearly everyone automatically assumes the answer to that question is yes. But in reality, no one really knows.

Now, I’m not saying that environment can’t lower a person’s intelligence. Knocking a person over the head or getting drunk while pregnant are both examples of how the brain can be physically damaged. But in the absence of physical damage to the brain, does a more “nurturing” or “intellectually stimulating” environment make someone any smarter?

This has certainly not been proven.

And there isn’t sufficient research into the area either, because research in this area when done properly always confirms that intelligence is at least partly (if not completely) genetic in origin.

If the right environment really led to higher intelligence, and if there were enough research, then we’d have a roadmap of exactly what to do to significantly boost children’s intelligence by giving them the right environment. All we have are a lot of bullshit-like theories about the mysterious but unknown aspects of middle-class households that magically make children smarter. (It certainly isn't breastfeeding, an example of how a bullshit-like theory withers when carefully examined.) Because of political correctness, we don’t know the truth.


If the latter is true, then you can't say that people are poor because of their values. People are poor in part because of bad habits that they learned.

Which is why we should be teaching these values in schools to poor children who are more likely to be harmed by the bad values that they learn. That was the whole point of this article. But we can't get it off the ground because of political correctness and the conservative notion that parents are solely responsible for their child, even if that parent is a complete misfit.


But even that can't be the reason! Because no matter what values people have, Capitalism needs a poor lower class to exist!

Capitalism is a free market, which is what we don't really have anymore. In a free market, there's not very much profit to make. There's a lot of companies out there making lots of profits because they operate in a market w/ very little or even no competition. Corporations are not creations of the market but rather by government regulation and laws that made incorporation possible.

What you're describing is some sort of market that is controlled by very few entities who have to face little or no competition and are thus, able to make a tremendous amount of profit.


Let's say we lived in a world where everyone was a hard worker and had perfect values like you do, Phased Out. Would Capitalism provide all of these people with the livelihoods they work so hard for?

Of course not, but it would make the quality of life much better for lower income neighborhoods. Living in a cheap neighborhood wouldn't be such a bad prospect, if only you were living beside people who had stable values.

Blaming capitalism, income disparity, racism, unfair practices of not hiring ex-cons, etc is such a cop out

You know why they are ex cons? Because they committed a crime.

I didn't commit their crimes, society didn't commit their crimes, they did it themselves. I have no sympathy for VIOLENT convicted felons who cant find a job: if thats the case you have only yourself to blame.

Let me tell you something: about 70 years ago my grandparents came to this country, two suitcases of clothes and about $200. They have never once committed a crime in their lives. So much for your whole "poverty causes crime".

Today they live in a decent house with a two car garage in a nice neighborhood and away from poor people. You want to know how?

They worked remedial full time jobs while going to school and burying themselves in their studies in an effort to make something of themselves instead of robbing people or selling drugs like your typical member of the lower class.

It's too bad that now, newly arrived immigrants w/ good values have to be subjected to our wonderful and violent underclass.

Taking unionization for example. What's strange is why so few workers take advantage of this easy way to equalize their bargaining power. Even when you get a majority of the workers to sign the union cards, half the time they vote against the union in the election (which is why unions want to do away with the election requirement and allow unionization based only on signed cards).

The workers are obviously too stupid, or too afraid of change, to sign a card and vote in their interests. Back when union organizing was more common, there were enough smart motivated people stuck in crappy low wage jobs to make union organizing possible.

Today, the low wage jobs are comprised of people who are dumb and unmotivated, or people who imagine (true or not) that they will soon move up in the world and don't care about or identify with the lifers.

[RGacky3]

Your calling poor people stupid? Your too stupid to understand historical context and even modern context, I could take the time to explain it to you, societal backgrounds, political history, and all that, but the fact that you have such strong and douchy views based on such little knowledge shows, that your probably to stupid to understand context even if it was spelled out for you.

[Revolution starts with U]

I never stated that poor people are BORN with bad values but rather people are born with a certain level of intelligence and personality traits that makes them more RECEPTIVE to bad values.
So, there's a biological difference between the rich and the poor, from birth? Is that what you're saying? If Paris Hilton were poor you would despise her. You may still, but it doesn't hurt her to act the same exact way you claim "poor" people are born into.
Do you seriously not see that you are trying to tie something biological to something arbitrary like how much money your parents had when you were born?

Can environment raise a person’s intelligence? Nearly everyone automatically assumes the answer to that question is yes. But in reality, no one really knows.


But in the absence of physical damage to the brain, does a more “nurturing” or “intellectually stimulating” environment make someone any smarter?
Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture)? You do know we're humans right? It doesn't matter who's "smarter," as if that word actually meant anything. I can personally introduce you to well over a dozen people that are dirt poor and more knowledgable than you could hope for. What matters is "creating value."
Rich and poor, demographically, act the same way; just as many rich have these poor values you talk about as poor. It's just not as apparent because they have the networks around them to support them and give them oppurtunities.
If every business I ever had failed, I would not get on the Board of Directors of one of the largest trading companies in the world; but George 2 could, because of his social networks. Who are you going to call on for a favor as a poor person for a favor... another poor person?

But here's the kicker; how sick can you be to believe that because someone is "stupider" than someone else, they deserve to be treated as inferior?


And there isn’t sufficient research into the area either, because research in this area when done properly always confirms that intelligence is at least partly (if not completely) genetic in origin.
UH... duh! Who would claim otherwise? Once again, it doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you don't have/can't find the right social networks.


Which is why we should be teaching these values in schools to poor children who are more likely to be harmed by the bad values that they learn.
Do you realize you just 180'd, right? Intelligence is not created by culture, but we should teach those biologically poor fools "good" culture?
BTW, nobody says it's wrong to teach children good, responsible values. That's what being human is all about. It's when you call them "middle class" values, or say the poor are poor biologically, or think "stupid" people have the right to be subjugated, that you make a huge mistake.. and sound like a vile barbarian.



Capitalism is a free market, which is what we don't really have anymore. In a free market, there's not very much profit to make. There's a lot of companies out there making lots of profits because they operate in a market w/ very little or even no competition. Corporations are not creations of the market but rather by government regulation and laws that made incorporation possible:laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Where, when? Show me? That's so disconnected from history my brain just sharted. :rolleyes:


What you're describing is some sort of market that is controlled by very few entities who have to face little or no competition and are thus, able to make a tremendous amount of profit.
Yes. The "free" market. That's exactly what we're talking about :thumbdown:


You know why they are ex cons? Because they committed a crime.
If I were rich and I got caught selling coke, I wouldn't have to worry about it. I could get the people around me to invest in a business for me, and I certainly will hire myself. All is well. Poor old Johnny is fucked, he has no networks, no capital. He must sell his labor to a capitalist, except he can't. Min. wage is the best he can hope for.


...I have no sympathy for... you...
I took out the unnecessary parts for you :cool:


Let me tell you something: about 70 years ago my grandparents came to this country, two suitcases of clothes and about $200. They have never once committed a crime in their lives. So much for your whole "poverty causes crime".
Ad hoc evidence proves things, a hyuk hyuk :rolleyes:
Dude, seriously. You're all over the map on this thread. Poverty is culture, no it's biology. No it's culture. Nah, biology.
C'mon man, get w the 21st century. It's not nature v nurture. It's nature/nurture.


Today they live in a decent house with a two car garage in a nice neighborhood and away from poor people. You want to know how?

They worked remedial full time jobs while going to school and burying themselves in their studies in an effort to make something of themselves instead of robbing people or selling drugs like your typical member of the lower class.
Ha. You have no idea what goes on out there. Ya, they're all "robbing and stealing." Have you ever lived in a ghetto? What most of them really do, other than the few young gangsters, is work full-time under the table, and get welfare-to-work; and they still can't pay their bills.
One can pull themselves out of poverty, that is apparent, and beautiful. But capitalism cannot survive without large swaths of the population poor. It will simply collapse in on itself.


It's too bad that now, newly arrived immigrants w/ good values have to be subjected to our wonderful and violent underclass.
Haha. You're an american (I assume) that's racist against americans? That's rich :laugh:


Taking unionization for example. What's strange is why so few workers take advantage of this easy way to equalize their bargaining power. Even when you get a majority of the workers to sign the union cards, half the time they vote against the union in the election (which is why unions want to do away with the election requirement and allow unionization based only on signed cards).

The workers are obviously too stupid, or too afraid of change, to sign a card and vote in their interests. Back when union organizing was more common, there were enough smart motivated people stuck in crappy low wage jobs to make union organizing possible.
It's culture. No, biology. No culture. :confused:


Today, the low wage jobs are comprised of people who are dumb and unmotivated, or people who imagine (true or not) that they will soon move up in the world and don't care about or identify with the lifers.
/boggle
Also, "ya. fuck those stupid mouth breathers. Really, if you lose a job, or can't find a job for more than 4 mos, we should just send you to the firing squad. You're a drag on humanity, artard."
^That's kind of the logical conclusion of your view.

[Outinleftfield]

But surely poor children can be taught the values of honesty, planning for the future, obeying the law, solving their differences through negotiation instead of violence,

These are all values the rich should be learning or have you been living in a cave and missed the news on "Enron", "Halliburton", "Blackwater", "Destroying the Environment"(how's that for planning for the future?).

And also "obeying the law" has no value in and of itself. The law has to be "right" for there to be value in obeying it and the laws of the bourgeois state are framed according to their class interests.


and the importance not having children they can't afford to raise.

They'd be able to afford to raise their children if they were allowed to keep the full value of their labor. It's the rich lazy investors who wouldn't be able to afford to raise their children if they weren't stealing the product of other people's labor.


These are the values that middle class parents teach their children (for the most part) but poor parents don't.

Many poor parents do. More might not compared to the "middle class" because they're less likely to fall for the fairytale of the "American dream" that hard work and perseverence is all you need to "succeed". In reality in the present day system liars have an advantage. People who are willing to do immoral or illegal things if they can get away with it have an advantage. That's the reality of the system. People at the very bottom of the economic ladder are more likely to realize this reality. Some will still do the right thing and teach their kids to do the right thing and will forsake the dream of making lots of money that the educational system and the media tells us everyone should have, some might even become active in trying to bring about socialism. Others will completely forsake everything human in order to get an advantage and get ahead, and that's where the "lumpenproletariat" comes from. A few of these will even be able to get into the "bourgeois", and because moral scruples don't hold them back they're even more "successful" in competing with the more moral people in the bourgeoisie. That's why overtime the capitalist system has become worse, more brutal, and more corrupt. Rosa Luxemburg noticed that in German society during her time the bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat were increasingly intersecting. This is even more true today. Ties between businessmen and politicians, and organized crime have been revealed many times in scandals.


These values would make poor neighborhoods better and safer places and thus increase the standard of living of poor people while saving the taxpayer money.

Or teach the poor to be sheep so the capitalists can rob them blind. No thanks.

[Noinu]

There was these results for a research that stated that being well off from childhood can impare your perception on other's emotions.
As in, empathy is easier for those who haven't had a very easy life when it comes to finances and education.

It was published in 'Psychological Science'. I've tried to find the original paper on it, as I only read it in the news (www.hs.fi), but haven't been able to find it, if someone happened to have seen it, I'd like to read it.

[#FF0000]

I like how all of the content in my posts were just ignored for Phased Out to go on about how stupid poor people are.


They worked remedial full time jobs while going to school and burying themselves in their studies in an effort to make something of themselves instead of robbing people or selling drugs like your typical member of the lower class.

This is my favorite part. It shows exactly how out of touch you are. You literally think that the working poor are a bunch of bloodthirsty criminals.

[Lt. Ferret]

Ever been to Oklahoma? :cool:

[bloodbeard]

Having an average IQ, not affiliating oneself with bad peers and following all the rules WILL get someone out of a bad neighborhood.

But having an above-average IQ and following all the rules will NOT automatically get someone into the upper middle class.


Basically, in other words, as long as you already belong to the middle class or upper class, a higher IQ is not even a factor.

[Cirno(9)]

This whole "middle class populism" thing has got to be one of the more weirder recent mass movement in American politics