Like television, I'm struggling to understand what exactly is meant by the highlighted comment above. In human terms, what are you saying about the root cause of poverty in an area like, for example, Jobstown.I am suggesting that the root cause of poverty is social rather than economic. Adults have free will in this country and as such can choose to change their environment or move to a different one. I am not saying it is easy, it is not but the function of government should be to make the decision easier for the person to make, not make it easier for them to just stay where they are.
You are making no attempt to be constructive here. I am engaging in a discussion but your tone suggests that I should in some way seek your approval. This is not the case. While I enjoy the discussion I feel no compulsion to seek your approval as I regard your biases and preconceptions as intellectually lazy. You have taken an ideological position and accept only views and discourse that supports your ideology.
I have given you an example and tried to explain my views over a number of pages of posts.
Would you care to let us know what you thing the root cause of poverty is?
Wow! AAM is a great learning experience. All the same, it seems to me that Japan with more R than you can shake a stick at still isn't third world.
Is that a swipe at those who disagree with you on this thread?No I am afraid a class traitor is someone who turns thier back on thier working class roots and becomes, to basterdise a phrase "more thatcherite that thatcher herself", so to speak. ( I see a lot of that from people on here).
If that was the case “working class” areas would not be crime and unemployment black-spots. I work hard to feed my family and give them a good life. I give back in the form of time, taxes and other donations, but I am not working class since we do not have a class stratified society and people are generally judged on who they are, not where they came from.Hard work is a core working class value. But hard work to feed your family and to give a little extra back for the good of the community, knowing that there is always someone worse off than your self.
What flaws?Because I know you have probably reasoned out the flaws in your own argument and dont want to be trapped.
Is that a swipe at those who disagree with you on this thread?
Not a swipe an observation.
Is that a swipe at those who disagree with you on this thread?
Not a swipe an observation.
If that was the case “working class” areas would not be crime and unemployment black-spots. I work hard to feed my family and give them a good life. I give back in the form of time, taxes and other donations, but I am not working class since we do not have a class stratified society and people are generally judged on who they are, not where they came from.
You are not distinguishing between traditional working class values and socio economic deprived areas of today. Core working class values have been slowly seeping away from these areas . It is difficult to understand why this is the case. perhaps its the culture of greed and self centeredness that have developed since thatcher that has lead to the disintegration of community and a sence of shared identity.
Whatever the reason, where as in the past there was value and honor in being working class today it is a badge of dishonour. Mindless consumerism, the quick fix to happiness, the me fein mentality, are all contributing factors to disempowering the ideal/value of being working class.
I brought up the idea of social and cultural capitial and its implications for a understanding of the poverty dynamic. I am not going to lecture people on this, but I feel in order for me to have any serious discussion with you about poverty you need an understanding of these concepts
On class.It may not be as easily identifyable as the sterotypical english version, but there is definate class distinctions in ireland. But in reality this is not the point. The main question is what is the cause of poverty, you suggest it is social rather than economic and I still do not know what you mean?
Maybe further clarification from you will see us agreeing?
As I am sure you know the problems of Jobstown go back a long way, way before there was a Jobstown. I will take it that you don’t need a history lesson on the area.Like television, I'm struggling to understand what exactly is meant by the highlighted comment above. In human terms, what are you saying about the root cause of poverty in an area like, for example, Jobstown.
I could take a stab at your position, based on what you are saying and not saying, but that would probably be a bit unfair.
Therefore what is required in increased educational resources at early primary school in particular, better public transport so that people in these areas without cars are not trapped in the same square mile and whatever else offers kids there a chance to see what life can offer beyond their own small horizon.
I don’t see how you can suggest that values of good citizenry should be defined as working class and then suggest that there should be a distinction between those values and areas which, by your definitions, can only be defined as working class?You are not distinguishing between traditional working class values and socio economic deprived areas of today. Core working class values have been slowly seeping away from these areas . It is difficult to understand why this is the case. perhaps its the culture of greed and self centeredness that have developed since thatcher that has lead to the disintegration of community and a sence of shared identity.
My grandparents and parents all grew up poor, I never heard them refer to themselves as working class. My mother’s family in particular was involved in the formation of the trade union movement here and they never used class titles.Whatever the reason, where as in the past there was value and honor in being working class today it is a badge of dishonour. Mindless consumerism, the quick fix to happiness, the me fein mentality, are all contributing factors to disempowering the ideal/value of being working class.
These concepts are quite mainstream and unless we are talking about different things they are also cultural rather than economic.I brought up the idea of social and cultural capitial and its implications for a understanding of the poverty dynamic. I am not going to lecture people on this, but I feel in order for me to have any serious discussion with you about poverty you need an understanding of these concepts
I agree that it is not the point.On class.It may not be as easily identifyable as the sterotypical english version, but there is definate class distinctions in ireland. But in reality this is not the point.
Can you explain what you do not understand? I have given many explanations and opinions over the last number of pages and yet you seem no closer to understanding my views.The main question is what is the cause of poverty, you suggest it is social rather than economic and I still do not know what you mean?
I am not seeking agreement or to justify my position. It would help if you attempted to clarify your position.Maybe further clarification from you will see us agreeing?
Your didactic and condescending tone not withstanding I have not changed my position at all. Increased resourced are required because some parents, through inadequacy, complacency or laziness, have not equipped themselves with the skills necessary to do their job as parents properly.Aggreed, but now your rethoric is taking on a more concilatory and less bombastic tone. You now realise that generational poverty is not about an inherent laziness among the poor which is whaat you have been consistantly implying.
Your didactic and condescending tone not withstanding I have not changed my position at all. Increased resourced are required because some parents, through inadequacy, complacency or laziness, have not equipped themselves with the skills necessary to do their job as parents properly.
We are all, to some extent, products of our environment but adults have free will and can choose not to slip into a cycle of complacent underachievement. I do blame people for accepting their lot as if they are not good enough or intelligent enough to have better. I hold these views because I know so many people from these backgrounds that have given themselves and their family a better life. They did so not because they were better or smarter but because they choose to.Perhaps some parents are lazy or inadequate etc. But you seem to see this as traits inherent to the poor. I see them as a consequence of poverty. That is the difference. I do not blame people for this, generations of marginilisation will do that to you, generations of neglect, of terrible schools, of teachers from the middle classes picking up a pay check and not giving a dam and in fact looking down on their students, of social system ignoring the multidimentional nature of poverty and the multidementional nature of solutions. Yes putting money into primary school care but also tackle issues arround the wider public understanding and prejudices surrounding the poor, of the need to empower marginilised people to help themselves, of the need for a coorinated multiagency approach.
Your simplistic attitude that those who disagree with you are mindless adds nothing to the debate.But your attitude of mindless blame will propetuate the cycle.
With comments like this and your anti-business people comments earlier I m getting a distinct whiff of inverse snobbery.teachers from the middle classes picking up a pay check and not giving a dam and in fact looking down on their students, of social system ignoring the multidimentional nature of poverty and the multidementional nature of solutions
Ah!! The good old days before Maggie. Let me see, 1979. Double digit inflation. Double digit unemployment. But I was alright, just got a raise to 11K punts, downside was I would now pay 65% tax + 7% PRSI. But living in lower middle class (sorry PurpleTV said:You are not distinguishing between traditional working class values and socio economic deprived areas of today. Core working class values have been slowly seeping away from these areas . It is difficult to understand why this is the case. perhaps its the culture of greed and self centeredness that have developed since thatcher that has lead to the disintegration of community and a sence of shared identity.
There is not a whole lot that I'd disagree with here, but this does not tell the full story. It is a relatively superficial analysis that doesn't really address root cause.As I am sure you know the problems of Jobstown go back a long way, way before there was a Jobstown. I will take it that you don’t need a history lesson on the area.
So let’s take a kid in a school in Jobstown (I’m generalising as there are always exceptions and assuming that it’s the same as the sort of area that I was born in and the area I work in now).
His parents aren’t pushed if he does his Leaving Cert and even if he does they consider his passing his leaving cert to be a big deal. He goes to school with kids who have the same attitude, whose parents have the same attitude, and socialised with same. Even if the kid wants to achieve he will be met with well meaning parental indifference or peer-group pressure not to be a “swat”. None of these problems are economic but all of them lead to and perpetuate a cycle of poverty. Go on one generation, the same kid is now a man living in the same area and has his own kids. He has fallen into the cycle of low level depression (with the accompanying increased likelihood of substance abuse and gambling) and is very exposed to economic downturns as he has no marketable skills.
Therefore what is required in increased educational resources at early primary school in particular, better public transport so that people in these areas without cars are not trapped in the same square mile and whatever else offers kids there a chance to see what life can offer beyond their own small horizon.
Of course we are not talking about the majority of people in Jobstown, or Clondalkin, or West Finglas, or any other urban area of the country with high unemployment, but most of the people in those areas are not living in poverty; they are attempting to create a better life for themselves and their families.
Now, I have left myself open to attack by offering my views openly. I ask again; what, in your opinion, is the root cause of povety?
Ah!! The good old days before Maggie. Let me see, 1979. Double digit inflation. .
There is not a whole lot that I'd disagree with here, but this does not tell the full story. It is a relatively superficial analysis that doesn't really address root cause.
We are all, to some extent, products of our environment but adults have free will and can choose not to slip into a cycle of complacent underachievement.
TV, that society thing was tried, it was called the Soviet experiment. I actually think many of those guys meant well. Unfortunately they completely misjudged the socio-economic beings that we are. There was no unemployment in the Soviet Union. Little crime. You wouldn't have mindless violence in the deprived areas, in fact relatively speaking no deprived areas. No drug problem. In short - utopia!Maggie may have improved the economy but my argument is that she did so to the detrement of society or at least to the ideals inherent to pride of the working class. A legacy of rampent greed and of ignoring the needs of the poor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?