Americans Life Expectancy

[bigruss]

You're absolutely allowed to have an opinion. Just try to examine your own opinions to see if they're coming from a privileged perspective, if there's some advantages you had and maybe didn't recognize that these other people you're judging don't, if you had more room for mistakes and set-backs, etc. Basically "walk a mile in someone's shoes" or at least, to the extent possible without actually living their experience, try to understand a mile in their shoes.

What if he has? What if he still holds the same opinions?

[southsider2k5]

No, you made up that bulls*** about someone saying that poor people or non-whites are too dumb for something or other. You and jenks love to trot out this horrible argument whenever someone points out social factors.

 

I like to point it out when someone tries to play both sides of the racial codes.

[StrangeSox]

And you are doing just the opposite.

 

You are soooo afraid of being accused of doing what you are accusing me of doing that you are belittling them to the point of being sub-human and incapable of any rational thought whatsoever.

 

No, I'm not. Recognizing your own privilege doesn't reduce the non-privileged to subhuman status. Recognizing that society actually has an impact on people and that your thoughts and ideas are impacted by your upbringing isn't calling anyone dumb.

[iamshack]

They found ways to not have to do that and to make it a lot easier.

 

If you make it difficult to walk to the store, few people will walk. I really don't get why you guys are having such a hard time accepting cultural and social factors that go into general health and fitness levels.

 

 

 

I think you've actually hit on a really, really good point here. Worrying about your health 10, 20, 30 years from now is a luxury. It's a huge luxury most people haven't had throughout history and hundreds of millions if not billions still don't have. You're worried about surviving until tomorrow or until next week, worried about paying the bills due Friday and not those due at the end of the month. Planning for the future is a luxury for people who don't have to struggle so hard just to get by in the present.

Well, I am sure I will get accused of harboring some horrible stereotypes with this anecdote too, but I was watching a show on Nat Geo about drug addicts in Las Vegas and they were showing the lives of some of these folks and the lengths they will go to score drugs. Many of them live in the sewers and in tunnels but spend $2500/mo on heroin. Many of them panhandle all day, and make $50-100 in 4-6 hours and then immediately go spend the money on crack.

 

Many people in poverty are not necessarily there by chance, but they are there because they have some issue(s) which industrialized civilization is not particularly good at helping them overcome. Now in the past, these folks would probably have either not developed these issues (because they didn't have the luxury of developing them) or they died unnoticed. Now, because of social welfare, many of them can eek by for 30-60 years and they are noticed. But the point is, they find where to get drugs and they go to great lengths to get drugs because drugs are very important to them. However, quality nutrition, is not.

 

I don't think much of this can be blamed on the food desert or the unavailability of quality food in general, but moreso on other deeper issues which poor nutrition is very symptomatic of.

[bmags]

Excuse shack, he hasn't hit on enough secretaries today. White people don't rationalize well without enough office spankings and layoffs.

 

Great second sentence!

[StrangeSox]

Kinda sucks when we play that game with you, doesn't it?

It kinda sucks when you guys make awful arguments and can't even consider having a discussion about or even acknowledge that existence of culture and privilege, yeah.

[iamshack]

I don't live in Lincoln Park, but I appreciate that you use stereotypes in all aspects of your life. Congrats. At least you are consistent.

So what terrible ghetto do you live in, since you obviously aren't so ignorant as the rest of the affluent white people sharing their opinions here?

[iamshack]

It kinda sucks when you guys make awful arguments and can't even consider having a discussion about or even acknowledge that existence of culture and privilege, yeah.

You started it off by taking my statement that those who cannot provide for offspring probably shouldn't have offspring into a complete and utter hatred of all those before, now, or future people in poverty.

[iamshack]

I'm also guessing not many of us in here have a mom who was 15 when she had a baby and forced to live below the poverty line as a single mom, working multiple jobs.

Sqwert, your heart really is in the right place...but that doesn't make our opinions, or common sense, irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Is it your opinion that only those in poverty should be able to have this discussion?

[StrangeSox]

Well, I am sure I will get accused of harboring some horrible stereotypes with this anecdote too, but I was watching a show on Nat Geo about drug addicts in Las Vegas and they were showing the lives of some of these folks and the lengths they will go to score drugs. Many of them live in the sewers and in tunnels but spend $2500/mo on heroin. Many of them panhandle all day, and make $50-100 in 4-6 hours and then immediately go spend the money on crack.

 

Many people in poverty are not necessarily there by chance, but they are there because they have some issue(s) which industrialized civilization is not particularly good at helping them overcome. Now in the past, these folks would probably have either not developed these issues (because they didn't have the luxury of developing them) or they died unnoticed. Now, because of social welfare, many of them can eek by for 30-60 years and they are noticed. But the point is, they find where to get drugs and they go to great lengths to get drugs because drugs are very important to them. However, quality nutrition, is not.

 

So kick that back just one generation--what if the now-drug addict's parents were also drug addicts? How much of a chance did that kid have compared to you or I? How much easier was it for you or I to get by day-by-day and go to college than someone from that background? That's generational poverty, that's privilege.

 

I don't think much of this can be blamed on the food desert or the unavailability of quality food in general, but moreso on other deeper issues which poor nutrition is very symptomatic of.

 

the food desert was one possible factor that was brought up that I posted an article casting doubt on myself. This conversation expanded beyond food deserts pages ago.

 

[BigSqwert]

Sqwert, your heart really is in the right place...but that doesn't make our opinions, or common sense, irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Is it your opinion that only those in poverty should be able to have this discussion?

No, but the "just stop being lazy and pull yourself up by your bootstraps" discussion in here is quite pathetic.

[southsider2k5]

No, but the "just stop being lazy and pull yourself up by your bootstraps" discussion in here is quite pathetic.

 

As is the image of poor and non-white people on here.

[iamshack]

You're absolutely allowed to have an opinion. Just try to examine your own opinions to see if they're coming from a privileged perspective, if there's some advantages you had and maybe didn't recognize that these other people you're judging don't, if you had more room for mistakes and set-backs, etc. Basically "walk a mile in someone's shoes" or at least, to the extent possible without actually living their experience, try to understand a mile in their shoes.

How do you know that I have had a privileged perspective? How do you know that people here haven't faced hardships growing up? How do you know I haven't walked in those shoes before?

 

Many of our ancestors were absolutely in the shoes of those in poverty today. Many of our ancestors came to this country with nothing. We have been taught many of the lessons they learned in reaching a greater standard of living. Sharing some of those lessons does not make them meaningless or irrelevant because those expressing them are no longer in poverty now.

[illinilaw08]

Well, I am sure I will get accused of harboring some horrible stereotypes with this anecdote too, but I was watching a show on Nat Geo about drug addicts in Las Vegas and they were showing the lives of some of these folks and the lengths they will go to score drugs. Many of them live in the sewers and in tunnels but spend $2500/mo on heroin. Many of them panhandle all day, and make $50-100 in 4-6 hours and then immediately go spend the money on crack.

 

Many people in poverty are not necessarily there by chance, but they are there because they have some issue(s) which industrialized civilization is not particularly good at helping them overcome. Now in the past, these folks would probably have either not developed these issues (because they didn't have the luxury of developing them) or they died unnoticed. Now, because of social welfare, many of them can eek by for 30-60 years and they are noticed. But the point is, they find where to get drugs and they go to great lengths to get drugs because drugs are very important to them. However, quality nutrition, is not.

 

I don't think much of this can be blamed on the food desert or the unavailability of quality food in general, but moreso on other deeper issues which poor nutrition is very symptomatic of.

 

The issue with this post is the word "many." Sure there are people that are in poverty because of mental health, addiction, etc. But there are also people in poverty because they make $9 an hour working 30 hours a week (yearly 52 week income, approximately $14,000). There are people in poverty because they lost a job at age 50 and are considered too old and too expensive to find a new job in a down economy. There are people who, by virtue of lack of parental involvement, lack of opportunity, whatever, have dropped out of a failing high school by the time they are 16. Just like their parents and their parents before them. I would be willing to wager that most of the people in poverty are those people, not the people referenced above.

 

The best point that has been made recently is that, for the people actually in poverty, eating healthy would, generally speaking, be so far down on the list of priorities that no effort is made to do so.

[StrangeSox]

I like to point it out when someone tries to play both sides of the racial codes.

Nobody brought intelligence into this. Not having the same advantages as someone from a higher socioeconomic class has nothing to do with intelligence. Maybe you're projecting your own views of poverty in there, I don't know. But plenty of smart people are poor and plenty of dumb people are rich, and growing up in an impoverished household with a whole hell of a lot less resources than a suburban kid doesn't make you dumb. Nobody has said this, yet that's the same terrible deflection you and jenks attempt any time someone talks about privilege. You guys don't even understand it as a concept apparently.

[bigruss]

No, but the "just stop being lazy and pull yourself up by your bootstraps" discussion in here is quite pathetic.

I don't think this applies to everyone, but a fair amount probably do need this said to them (to stop being lazy, not the bootstraps part).

[iamshack]

No, I'm not. Recognizing your own privilege doesn't reduce the non-privileged to subhuman status. Recognizing that society actually has an impact on people and that your thoughts and ideas are impacted by your upbringing isn't calling anyone dumb.

I'm not ignorant of the impacts society has on people. It is quite a leap, however, to claim that because McDonalds exists, people should not be held responsible for passing over other more nutritional food sources.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, you made up that bulls*** about someone saying that poor people or non-whites are too dumb for something or other. You and jenks love to trot out this horrible argument whenever someone points out social factors.

 

Because when you point out social factors you're blaming society, whether you intend to or not. You justify the behavior and/or indirectly excuse the behavior of poor people because they can't act any differently due to their upbringing. That's the import of your argument here. "They can't help the fact that they drink 128oz soda! That's what society is telling them to do!"

 

 

[StrangeSox]

How do you know that I have had a privileged perspective? How do you know that people here haven't faced hardships growing up? How do you know I haven't walked in those shoes before?

 

I dunno, usually someone who's talking about lazy, irresponsible poors who should think before knocking up a bunch of women if they can't find the time to be healthy now didn't come from poverty. That doesn't mean you've never faced your own problems, just that you might not know what it's like to face the struggles of poverty.

 

Many of our ancestors were absolutely in the shoes of those in poverty today. Many of our ancestors came to this country with nothing. We have been taught many of the lessons they learned in reaching a greater standard of living. Sharing some of those lessons does not make them meaningless or irrelevant because those expressing them are no longer in poverty now.

 

Sharing what it was like for your grandfather or someone who isn't you to grow up in poverty can tell in interesting story, but that doesn't mean that you, personally, know what it's like to live in poverty in 2013 or any other time.

 

Things are different than they used to be and the inequality gap is growing, not shrinking. But I think you've highlighted another aspect of privilege--coming from a successful family. If you come from a well-to-do family full of entrepeneurs, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier for you to figure out how to start your own business right? Still going to be challenging, but you're going to start from a much better place than the kid who's entire neighborhood is blue-collar factory workers who are steadily losing their jobs to overseas plants. So how fair is it for you to judge that person for not reaching the same heights you did? What right do you have to judge them at all?

[BigSqwert]

Why Can’t More Poor People Escape Poverty? A radical new explanation from psychologists.

 

snippet:

 

The level at which the poor have to exert financial self-control, they have suggested, is far lower than the level at which the well-off have to do so. Purchasing decisions that the wealthy can base entirely on preference, like buying dinner, require rigorous tradeoff calculations for the poor. As Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir formulated the point in a recent talk, for the poor, “almost everything they do requires tradeoff thinking. It’s distracting, it’s depleting … and it leads to error.” The poor have to make financial tradeoff decisions, as Shafir put it, “on anything above a muffin.”

 

Last December, Princeton economist Dean Spears published a series of experiments that each revealed how “poverty appears to have made economic decision-making more consuming of cognitive control for poorer people than for richer people.” In one experiment, poor participants in India performed far less well on a self-control task after simply having to first decide whether to purchase body soap. As Spears found, “Choosing first was depleting only for the poorer participants.” Again, if you have enough money, deciding whether to buy the soap only requires considering whether you want it, not what you might have to give up to get it. Many of the tradeoff decisions that the poor have to make every day are onerous and depressing: whether to pay rent or buy food; to buy medicine or winter clothes; to pay for school materials or loan money to a relative. These choices are weighty, and just thinking about them seems to exact a mental cost.

 

In a paper in April 2010, Harvard behavioral economist Sendhil Mullainathan (for whom, full disclosure, I once worked) and MIT’s Abhijit Banerjee applied this same notion to decisions requiring self-control. If a doughnut costs twenty-five cents, they wrote, then that “$0.25 will be far more costly to someone living on $2 a day than to someone living on $30 a day. In other words, the same self-control problem is more consequential for the poor.” And so, in addition to all the structural barriers that prevent even determined poor people from escaping poverty, there may be another, deeper, and considerably more disturbing barrier: Poverty may reduce free will, making it even harder for the poor to escape their circumstances.

[southsider2k5]

Nobody brought intelligence into this. Not having the same advantages as someone from a higher socioeconomic class has nothing to do with intelligence. Maybe you're projecting your own views of poverty in there, I don't know. But plenty of smart people are poor and plenty of dumb people are rich, and growing up in an impoverished household with a whole hell of a lot less resources than a suburban kid doesn't make you dumb. Nobody has said this, yet that's the same terrible deflection you and jenks attempt any time someone talks about privilege. You guys don't even understand it as a concept apparently.

 

The inference through this whole thread (well except when a couple have flat out said it) has been that poor/non-white people aren't able to make the healthy lifestyle choices they need to make, even though those choices are out there, and a vast majority of them are obvious. The only deflection here is trying to deflect the idea that a lot of people in this thread think poor and non-white people need to have their choices limited or made for them. That is the entire theme of this thread. It is disgusting and racist.

[StrangeSox]

Because when you point out social factors you're blaming society, whether you intend to or not. You justify the behavior and/or indirectly excuse the behavior of poor people because they can't act any differently due to their upbringing. That's the import of your argument here.

 

I wouldn't say I'm laying blame, period. However, it says nothing about intelligence, nor does it mean that poor people have zero agency. But nobody has total agency, privilege is a thing and where you start in life is a strong predictor of where you end.

 

The difference is that I explicitly reject viewing peoples' outcomes in moral terms while you don't. You're only seeing the argument from your moral framework.

 

"They can't help the fact that they drink 128oz soda! That's what society is telling them to do!"

 

Except that I've explicitly said the exact opposite of this. Directly to you.

 

I can't drink a 64Oz McDonalds soda if they don't sell 64Oz sodas. I can't drink a 7Oz soda if they don't sell 7Oz sodas. I really, really don't understand why this was controversial at all.

[StrangeSox]

The inference through this whole thread (well except when a couple have flat out said it) has been that poor/non-white people aren't able to make the healthy lifestyle choices they need to make, even though those choices are out there, and a vast majority of them are obvious. The only deflection here is trying to deflect the idea that a lot of people in this thread think poor and non-white people need to have their choices limited or made for them. That is the entire theme of this thread. It is disgusting and racist.

you really believe that, don't you?

[Jenksismyhero]

I wouldn't say I'm laying blame, period. However, it says nothing about intelligence, nor does it mean that poor people have zero agency. But nobody has total agency, privilege is a thing and where you start in life is a strong predictor of where you end.

 

The difference is that I explicitly reject viewing peoples' outcomes in moral terms while you don't. You're only seeing the argument from your moral framework.

 

 

Except that I've explicitly said the exact opposite of this. Directly to you.

 

I can't drink a 64Oz McDonalds soda if they don't sell 64Oz sodas. I can't drink a 7Oz soda if they don't sell 7Oz sodas. I really, really don't understand why this was controversial at all.

 

As I said, it's not. But based on the discussion you were using that as an example to show that people just don't have any choice in the matter, when the real choice is not having ANY soda at all. People aren't FORCED to buy a bigger soda. Otherwise I agree with your statement.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I can't drink a 64Oz McDonalds soda if they don't sell 64Oz sodas. I can't drink a 7Oz soda if they don't sell 7Oz sodas. I really, really don't understand why this was controversial at all.

 

Those arent really true statements.

 

If they sell 64 oz cokes, I can drink every 1 oz, I can drink 64 oz, so I can drink 7 oz if I want to.

 

If they sell 7 oz cokes and I want to drink 64 oz, I can buy 10 7 oz cokes.

 

Just because I bought 12 donuts, doesnt mean I have to eat 12 donuts as soon as I get home.