|
|
|
|
|
|
by jxramos
2094 days ago
|
|
|
This makes me think about some of the reviews I read for a book that came up in an article I read back in the end of May https://www.amazon.com/Unheavenly-City-Nature-Future-Crisis/... Search them for future and time and you'll hit upon the main thesis quickly, eg: Banfield carefully defined class membership, not in terms of income status,
such as government statistical poverty levels, but in terms of orientation toward the future, or time preference.
I can't say I ever heard such an idea so clearly stated before. I still haven't dug into the argument too much to know one way or another or be able to offer much in way of a critique, but it's caught my eye and attention enough to make it a reading TODO. |
|
|
If that's the case, I disagree strongly. It seems like a post-hoc conclusion; if you are wealthy, you can afford to plan for the long term; if you are poor, often you can only orient your behavior towards immediate needs and survival. Poor people know that its better to save for a house than pay rent to a landlord - they're not stupid. But your kid has a cavity that need filling, the rent you are paying is due, and god help you if you have an unexpected expense like your car breaks down.
Does the author account for decades of wage suppression that prevents all from sharing in the nation's wealth? The systematic erosion of labor rights? The (I'm assuming the author's American) carceral state that makes people unhireable and takes away some of their most productive years for earning and saving? In the case of the Black community, does he account for the generational effects of centuries of stolen labor? The list goes on.
Poverty is a cycle[1] and is worthy of serious study and consideration. Paternalistic victim blaming has no place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_poverty