View Single Post
Old 05-05-06, 01:13 PM
  #29  
DannoXYZ 
Senior Member
 
DannoXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 11,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by ignominious
I'm not going to outright blame the "haves" for the failing of the "have-nots" but we certainly contribute to a degree and those on the advantaged side are in a better position to effect change. If you ask people from these areas, practically none of them like their conditions but hey, what can any of them do about it? How are they going to be able to make change that lasts?
It's a catch-22 eh? The "haves" tend to teach and train their kids in ways of thinking, ways of acting, ways of seeing themselves and others, such that will be prosperous. Those who do not teach their kids this way, ends up with spoiled-brats who will destroy the family fortune in a single generation. That's fine, they'll end up amongst the "have-nots" and learn a lesson.

On the other hand, the "have-nots" don't even have this resource available. There's no recent history of wealth and prosperity in their family, no one to learn from, no one to teach them the ways of thinking in abundance. Certainly our schools aren't teaching these things to kids. Schools teaches kids how to be good employees, not employers...

Our society has the power to change this, to bridge the gulf between haves and have-nots, but I don't think taxation and welfare is the way to do it. It has to be more active and require participation and learning from the have-nots. You have to change the way they think, to learn new skillz, have hands-on training. I think some sort of government-sponsored internship/apprenticeship programme would be a step in the right direction. Rather than just giving them money, have them earn it in a way that's going to be beneficial in the long-run (having more kids to get more money is not the answer).
DannoXYZ is offline