I see you've both fallen for the banksters' debt-based laugh now, cry later plan.

Now, that is a straw-man argument.
It assumes something that has yet to be proved, that so-called 'networks' are responsible for people acquiring wealth.

Networks aren't responsible for the acquisition of wealth, but the "good ol' boys" network is responsible for its unmerited excess accretion at the expense of the "hoi polloi."

What century are we living in now?

Pick one!

there really was no argument,, only change is to qualify the statement with more adjectives,, so , for those who are the word for word types,,,

those schools need to set up the types of '
'networks' that those born into middle and upper class are more often exposed to and have regular access to


NETWORKK:



a group or system of interconnected people or things


children whose parents have already acquired stability or wealth have become a part of such NETWORKS, and often live amongst others who are part of those networks. including but not limited to banking institutions, accountants, stockbrokers, insurance brokers etc,,,,,,who flock to and around those with money because it is how they make money themselves,,

which leads to references, and portfolios, which do indeed contribute to creating wealth,,

networks that those in impoverished , or drug infested, or crime infested , or undereducated communities are FAR LESS LIKELY to be exposed to

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feds-spend-110-billion-food-assistance-year_666467.html

Feds Spend $110 Billion on 'Food Assistance' Per Year

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/federal-welfare-spending-skyrocket-80-percent-next-decade_696026.html

Federal Welfare Spending to Skyrocket 80 Percent in Next Decade

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html

'Welfare Spending Equates to $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty'

An interesting example of begging the question.

or trying to have a discussion that includes opinions and observations,,,

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-welfare-tax-breaks- subsidies/




Corporate Welfare Grows to $154 Billion even in Midst of Major Government Cuts

Yep, and I observe people begging the question.

and people distracting from the topic,,

You want to see ugly classism?

Then read posts that express wealth envy.

point me to them,,,

keeping in mind,, desiring a decent living is not the same as 'envying' the wealthy,, neither is pointing out how income disparity is perpetuated through ugly classism,,,

unless perhaps, one is a member of the club that flips discussions by claiming pointing out an issue is the reason an issue exists,,,


discussing classism is classist
discussing racism is racist,,,,etc,, etc,,, etc,,

Yes, this is emphatically a propaganda piece. And I agree with some of it.

See, its not "either/or". Its not the case that poverty is caused either by social injustice or by irresponsible personal decisions. (Or any other singular cause that anyone else wants to scapegoat.)

*Both* sets of factors, and many more, can play a role. The roles played can vary a lot with the individuals.

I've lived with the poorest people of several US cities, and I have definitely seen first hand, on thousands of occasions, a really strong influence of subcultural values (irresponsibility) that keep poor people poor. Hedonism, extreme selfishness, thinking only of immediate wants (and not long term needs) aren't unique to poor people but they tend to hurt poor people the most.

first of all I do think the mention of race in the OP is not necessarily appropriate because in rural areas in America there are far more caucasian (white) and latino poor who may, nationwide, outnumber poor African Americans. so I beg to set race aside.

I do know from first hand expereince and observation that the creation of wealth begins with productivity....period

BUT growing wealth is dependent on networking to a degree as is income growth as far as career advancement. nothing is worse than sitting by and watching the less talented or less qualified succeed just because they are in with the "in" crowd.....that's actually not even legal and a business that does that for long will soon falter.

hence EEO. there are far too many programs and laws in place to level the playing field for me to buy into feeling sorry for the chronic poor when they are able and healthy

BUT I totally agree that special programs are still needed to prevent discrimination whether it be ethnic, racial, age, religious etc - so that all get a fair chance to succeed from the ground floor platform. I think the "ground floor" platform tho is available to anyone willing to work and BE ACCOUNTABLE

Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results.

Sadly, some people insist that unequal results must be due unequal opportunity.

well that can be a reason, tho, yes I agree there can be others. there are all kinds of invisible barriers that are class based, age based, race based. One can only hope that the decision makers will select based on merit.

but then, of course, merit based hiring can sometimes look as tho it is unfair.....so I do think that those coming in the door w/out societal "advantages" prolly have to work a little harder to gain the "informal" education to add to their formal training in order to adequately and successfully compete. is that fair? IDK...sometimes those informally developed "societal skills" are very necessary. Does it mean the more disadvantaged have to try harder and prove themselves with greater vigor?

yes I think it does. is that fair? maybe not but it is the way it is and it has produced some awesome leaders & businessmen....from those up to the task

It is one thing to claim unequal opportunity.
It is another thing to actually demonstrate it.

It is a lack of a demonstration that I am speaking against.

I don't know...I think there's been plenty of demonstrations. They've been going on since MLK started his marches.

Sounds to me like they have yet to "overcome."