If a person in this situation is unable to do anything about it (e.g. children) then it is understandable. However, once these people are able to at least try to do something about their situation and don't, then they are to blame. Complacency isn't an option.

Despite popular belief, these types of people are necessary to the survival of the economy. Without the poor, there cannot be the rich. Without crime, there cannot be lawmakers. Yes, it is detrimental to the national image, but this can work to the nation's advantage if a proper system is created and implemented.


There is no way to verify this theory. It is likely that you would be an extremely different person had you come from that situation. You may even have never heard of a game called Toribash (the very thought!). This difference alone creates massive rifts in the levels of intelligence, character, and worldview between the two of you.

I would say you a right on just about everything, but a persons intelligence does not necessarily depend on his/her wealth. Although it can have a big impact on a persons psyche, if a person is truly determined to obtain knowledge, it does not matter whether they are poor or not, they will find a way.

I personally know of a few people who are struggling with money, and abusive parents. They want nothing more than to get away. In their cases, they are trying harder in school to get good grades and to go to college or another school out of state to get far away. I am only speaking from experience. It varies depending on location and the severity of the persons problems.


A person's home life is detrimental to their character. The problem is, everyone is different. Even if someone shares the same home life as another person, the two people can come out completely different. A person's character is not only determined by the exterior conflicts that they encounter, but also by the interior conflicts.

The long and the short of it is, every person no matter the situation turns out differently. I know people who were raised by poor families who became successful because they did not want to end up like their parents. I also know people who were raised from good families but ended up going down the wrong path. If someone truly wants to do good for themselves, they will work their hardest to get out of whatever hole they are in, and they will make something out of themselves.

If a person is born to a poorer family, that family may have problems. While carrying the child, she could have gotten bumped a bit too hard, may have drank or done drugs while pregnant, or simply been around different people who would have likely had a detrimental effect on the child's development. That is what I was referring to.

What are these advantages? I can't see how poverty can be seen as something a country should want, it is, by definition, the lack of wealth and of access of services. People having little money is not always a problem if enough high quality services are provided and this is the purpose of the government. Another purpose of having a government is to maintain and enforce the law; in other words reducing crime. Poverty is known to lead to crime. Therefore, as far as I can tell, a government should always be against any sort of poverty.


This is true, but it is unlikely that majority of the impoverished population do not make some effort to gain wealth and escape from their position. And as you said, they are more likely to be born in a state damaged by there parent's drug or alcohol problems and will grow up in am environment which will probably not promote the virtues which lead to success.

I think what I am trying to say is that governments should try to decrease the number of people living in poverty.

Thank you for reading.

Are we talking about a birth defect, because that is something completely different on its own. If a child is born with a mental illness, the government gives the family of that child money.

Just because a family lives in poverty does not mean that the child will have a horrible life. Living in poverty is different than having horrible parents. You can grow up in a rich home and receive no attention which causes some problems, or you can grow up in a family who is suffering from poverty, and have parents who try to do everything for you.

Both of these situations have an affect on the outcome of someones life. In the end it all depends on the person. The environment in which the kid is raised has an affect, but a persons environment does not make decisions for them.

Equality is bad right now. The powerful take from the normal. All of America is basically, an aristocracy. Only the people with money get anything done. Ads, propaganda, etc. Nobody cares or gives a damn anymore. It's our personal standing that makes us happy. We may THINK were somewhat equal, but really folks? Get real. Life where I live is totally unequal.

People seem to misunderstand my stance with equality. I do not believe equal treatment is necessary regardless of ability or performance. I believe that the opportunity to be successful or rich, a failure or poor, or just an average person, should be equal for everyone.

As a way to express it, in my perfect world the people born into the bottom 20% of the social and economic ladder should have the same odds of being in the top 20% of the social and economic ladder by the end of their life as somebody born in the top 20%. Regardless of your starting point in life, I believe you should be able to compete on a level playing field for rewards in life. A child born to rich parents should not have an inherent advantage over a child born to poor parents. Your own ability and merits should decide your future, not your birth.

Therefore, when I see two people who are equally qualified and working identical jobs, yet the pay is not identical, I see inequality. When a child is born into a poor family, and must therefore attend a school of lower quality than the child who's parents can afford a better private school, that is inequality.


And unfortunately, these are the circumstances of reality. Rich people will ultimately stay rich. If I remember correctly, around 60% of all people who are born into the top 20% of society stay at the top, with the majority of the remainder staying in the top 40%. Meanwhile, somewhere around 80% of all people born at the bottom stay at the bottom, with almost nobody making it into the top 40%. Not only are people who are born rich more likely to stay rich, but people who are born poor are more likely to stay poor, and experience less overall social and economic mobility (basically you move slower up the economic ladder the lower you are on the ladder).

If we can't buy things to give ourselves or our family and children more opportunities then there is much less reason to do well and work hard. It would be very hard to stop people using their wealth to give their children better opportunities. Sure we should look at someone's values as a person rather than there background an origins but it is nearly impossible for everyone to have the same opportunities without being a dictator.

I believe that it is, to a greater extent, a child's birthplace and upbringing which determin his or her merits and values, rather than being completely determined by the child. That being said there will be genes which lead to certain character traits so there is a balance.

Other than these small thinks I agree completely with your argument.

Thank you for reading.

You people talk about equality like it is a physical constant that exists within this universe.
Take into consideration that equality is an abstract idea that humanity only developed just recently, so before bickering about how things are not equal, please define a state in which things would be equal. That kind of discussion would be more productive.

Equality is. This is its definition. X=x means that x is equal to x because they amount to the same value. It is a way of pointing out when something is the same as something else and is part of maths. It is, in some ways a universal truth or at least an infinitely present concept (although the word concept sounds too abstract). It is the word derived from something which has always existed but which has not always been named.

The problem is when it is applied to abstract concepts rather than quantifiable values. Well being is not accurately quantifiable.

I am not trying to say that equality exists exert where and that all things are equal or some poetic crp like that, just that it is a mathematical truth.

Thank you for reading. I got a but melodramatic, I apologise.