zlacker

>>tysone+(OP)
It's not like meritocracy is completely unrelated to real life, it matters in a certain regime. However, if like Vanessa, you're born to lesser circumstances, you just cannot escape poverty by just working harder. Similarly, if you are born to very well off standards, even if you're a dope and spend money from Dad's inheritance on cocaine, sure, you won't be successful but you'll still have a net of some kind. You can always improve your lot, but where you start has a large impact on how much of phase space you can reach, so to say.

I think the mentality is shifting a little as millenials and gen z are slowly letting go of the meritocratic myth, but blaming internal motivations more than context is a problem in the American conception of the world we still suffer from as a nation. The inability of us to accept that our actions are not the only determining things in our lives seriously limit our ability to fully comprehend the world and how it really works which leads us to thinking ideas like work requirements are actually sane rather than completely counterproductive.

>>noober+kH
You can escape poverty by working harder; it is just that working harder will not always work. It needs to be coupled with other virtues; of course the solution is not just simply to work harder, but to suggest that working harder is not a great deal part of the solution is false by every measure. Lets say this, you are born into a poor family - you still get to go to school that likely has a great library - the school and the library represent a deposit of great wealth that has been bestowed on you by society and you can take advantage of that - or not; most don't and mostly it is due to laziness. Most children would rather watch TV all day. Say you live in a "bad" neighborhood. You can pick up trash around your house or leave it there, or throw more trash on the ground. My observation is that the poor just throw more trash on the ground, they don't make their beds, they live in filthy or cluttered houses...with all that time on their poverty stricken hands they could at least organize their place. I have seen such stark differences...here in the states, in the middle east, and in Africa. I have seen impoverished people that wallow in their mire, and I have seen those that work hard to improve their situation, and though they may still be financially impoverished - they at least make the things around them a little nicer, educate their minds with what books they have and therefore live a more fulfilled life.

>>DiffEq+rE1
> You can escape poverty by working harder; it is just that working harder will not always work.

You can escape poverty by buying lottery tickets too. Obviously it is all about the probabilities. But if you earn $10/hour (what kind of insane unlivable wage is that?) even if you work 16h/day you'll still be poor.

>>bjourn+eH1
If you work harder than yourself you might still be at the bottom of the pole. It's a competition. If you work harder than the next person above you, you'll definitely earn (keyword is earn) better than them or live a more comfortable life than them.

>>yawboa+jJ1
It's all in relatives, but having a better life than the next person above might still be living dirt poor.

I think what a lot of us a eluding to, is that some people can work as much as they can, up to burnout, without ever reaching above the poverty line.

I think that would be basically fate for a minority group single mother with low education living in a poor neighbourhood. People could blame her for her life, but except if her kid is exceptional in some way, he/she would also be doomed to be poor, for instance.

>>hrktb+tP1
> It's all in relatives, but having a better life than the next person above might still be living dirt poor.

This is true. But the fact that you're not fixed in your position and could live better is an incentive to keep moving. Thus if you don't stop at the person right above you then there's hope you can make the jump to a better living condition.

> I think what a lot of us a eluding to, is that some people can work as much as they can, up to burnout, without ever reaching above the poverty line.

Again, this is true. But whose fault? I think we could get rid of the concept of poverty line and let people decide for themselves. 2 person making $500/mo in California could be living different lives. It's possible for one of them to not consider themselves poor. But they're out of luck since their poverty status isn't defined by them. It's imposed by the state.

> I think that would be basically fate for a minority group single mother with low education living in a poor neighbourhood. People could blame her for her life, but except if her kid is exceptional in some way, he/she would also be doomed to be poor, for instance.

Story of my life. Illiterate parents, but committed to giving their children a better life. My believe that wealth is generational, that state should define a poverty line stems from this story of my life. It's less a matter of fate than decisions and commitment to exiting a terrible situation.