Callousness towards poverty: is it being normalised?

[Brian-E]

Two recent links in the "Things that make you go 'Hmmmm'" thread in the lounge, both of them posted by our forum administrator, have really opened my eyes to a possible new phenomenon: the normalisation - even requirement by law - of adopting a callous attitude towards people who are less well off than we are.

This link is a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless about recent criminalisation in some US cities of sharing food with people who are homeless:

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://nationalhomeless.org/wp-conte...haring2014.pdf

This one is a link to a letter to an "agony aunt" by someone who is concerned about having to provide for children from poorer neighbourhoods at Haloween:

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/d...ghborhood.html

Recently I also came across the following video made by UK based comedian and commentator Russell Brand, who lampoons a USA political commentator and his interviewer on Fox News who both take the view that people on welfare benefits actually do very well on those benefits and need to be weaned off them because it's their own fault that they are not earning sufficiently.



Is all of this official callousness towards poor people a dangerous new precedent in the USA and elsewhere? Is it something to be concerned about?

[kladner]

Hey, Brian,

The video is not showing up (for me,) though there is a box there. Could you add a link?

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by kladner

Hey, Brian,

The video is not showing up (for me,) though there is a box there. Could you add a link?

http://youtu.be/4Hj8pTdpxQI

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

http://youtu.be/4Hj8pTdpxQI

Thanks!
EDIT: .....for trying. I'm getting an "Invalid URL" response for that link. :(

[Brian-E]

Strange, Mini-Geek's link works for me as does the original youtube construction in my opening post. It might be restricted according to the area where you are. The title of the video is "Is It Your Fault You're Poor? Russell Brand The Trews (E152)", and perhaps googling that might get a version which you can view.

[kladner]

Thanks! Searching the title produced the following link-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hj8pTdpxQI
which works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hj8pTdpxQI versus http://youtu.be/4Hj8pTdpxQI

Now both versions of the link work for me, Brian, and your original post now shows as a typical embedded YouTube screen. Go figure.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Two recent links in the "Things that make you go 'Hmmmm'" thread in the lounge, both of them posted by our forum administrator, have really opened my eyes to a possible new phenomenon: the normalisation - even requirement by law - of adopting a callous attitude towards people who are less well off than we are.

Is all of this official callousness towards poor people a dangerous new precedent in the USA and elsewhere? Is it something to be concerned about?

I'm not sure how much you know about politics in the USA. I am young (mid-twenties) but ever since I can remember there has been a callousness towards those receiving welfare. Part of this may have to do with the state I live in (very conservative). There is this huge stereotype that those who receive government assistance are lazy and 1) do not work and 2) do not wish to work.

Clearly, there are some who abuse the system. Contrary to the predominant stereotype here I do not believe it is everyone. In undergraduate I volunteered at a healthy agency that coordinates donated physician time with patients who do not have insurance/cannot afford insurance. There were several qualifications to receive such assistance. I remember one case well- a mother with two children who worked three jobs (90 hours a week) but none full time because they didn't want to pay benefits. She could not afford insurance. I would definitely not call a 90-hour week lazy.

Something that is new to me is this "don't feed the homeless " I cannot think of any good reason to make it illegal to provide food to the homeless in any city. The part that is funny, albeit in a macabre way, is that the United States prides itself on being a "Christian nation." This is even more ironic because this anti-poor stereotype most typically comes form the Republican Party- the party that likes to present itself as Christian. I've gone to church most of my life and I've read the New Testament but for the life of me I can't recall a single verse where Christ said, "Do not feed the homeless for it is their lot in life to starve." Religious jokes aside, I think this is a highly dangerous precedent to set. It is dehumanizing. It makes me think of the short story "Once Upon a Time" by the well-known anti-apartheid writer Nadine Gordimer. Parallels to this story have already happened in American culture-white flight and the astronomical ensuing poverty in the inner cities. Could we heading towards "You Have Been Warned" segregation as presented by Gordimer except that the dividing line being color it is wealth- an apartheid of affluence?

[TheMawn]

I think I remember this from our newspaper years ago. The columnist writing the story needed help painting a pretty big stretch of fence out at his farm or something and he went to where all the panhandlers like to hang out: the (relatively) big mall on the West Side, just on the "border" between the slums and downtown. There he asked about a dozen panhandlers if they would like to help paint his fence for a very fair payment, plus a ride to his farm and back, plenty of refreshments and even a meal. Everyone said yes, but when he went out to pick them up, not one showed up.

If I had to generalize, I would say the truly destitute in North America don't want to work and would rather take their free money than earn it. Of course, I am not generalizing, but that's the prevailing opinion within my circle. While the story of the 90-hour work week mom is certainly a sad one, that one story doesn't mean that all poor people work their asses off but remain poor, just like my story doesn't mean all poor people are lazy.


We have a recycling center where almost every employee is disabled in some manner, be it physical or mental (more of the latter, I found). Every time I see a mentally handicapped person working the till at Walmart, an autistic guy working in a warehouse, a ninety-year old woman working at a little shop, etc., it makes me sick to see an overweight but otherwise healthy fifty-year-old with a suspicious paper bag ask me in perfect English if I could give them some money.

Very few people on Welfare that I have ever seen are actually unable to work. For the ones that truly are, I feel nothing but pity. For the ones abusing the system, I feel that they are technically people.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

Very few people on Welfare that I have ever seen are actually unable to work.

I agree with this. Sometimes the issue is work cannot be found, sometimes it is laziness.

I do not think it is unreasonable that those are are mentally and physically able to work should be required to work to receive government aid. There are TONS of jobs the government needs doing. Why not pay people to do these jobs? If some of these jobs included training (such as for infrastructure) then in theory people would have a marketable skill once they found a job of their own (assuming they don't have one already). Not only would this increase tax revenue it also provides a needed service and can improve the sense of worth/pride that some receiving welfare lack. Some of the highest rates of depression are in this demographic.

[firejuggler]

In France, if you have 2 dependant kid ( until they are 18 years old) you receive around 130€ (150 $) by month, with no condition attached (except the kid must be alive ). Recently, a bill passed and , as a result , this help will be reduced by half if you have aan income of above 6k € by month (65€, 80$), and by three quarter if your income is above 8k€ (32 € , 40 $). Is it Callousness towards rich people?
Upon my contry moto ( libertée, égalité, fraternité) and particulary the second part , my sentiment is that, even if these people have a large income, they shouldn't be treated any differently than lesser income people. Even if my more leftist tendency would approve of this bill.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

In France, if you have 2 dependant kid ( until they are 18 years old) you receive around 130€ (150 $) by month, with no condition attached (except the kid must be alive ). Recently, a bill passed and , as a result , this help will be reduced by half if you have aan income of above 6k € by month (65€, 80$), and by three quarter if your income is above 8k€ (32 € , 40 $). Is it Callousness towards rich people?
Upon my contry moto ( libertée, égalité, fraternité) and particulary the second part , my sentiment is that, even if these people have a large income, they shouldn't be treated any differently than lesser income people. Even if my more leftist tendency would approve of this bill.

Is this income combined household income? Let's assume someone makes 2k € a month or about $ 30,000 / year. This family receives $1,800 per year per child in assistance. For the first cutoff of 6k € per month or about $91,000 / year that same family receives $900 per child per year. If each family has three children then the difference received in aid / year is about $2,700. For a family making 2k € a month they receive nearly 18% of their income additionally as aid while the family making 6k € per month receives roughly 3%.

Playing devil's advocate here... Assuming the family making 6k € / month likely has more disposable income even after higher cost of living (more expensive house, other expenses). I'm assuming there is still money left over to help cover the high cost of raising a child as a percentage of income compared to the family making 2k € a month. I don't think it is "callousness" towards the rich rather than acknowledging those with more wealth likely do not need as much assistance.