Rich vs Poor. - Page 2/3

Subject: Rich vs Poor.

shadow27 20.10.18 - 03:10pm
I totally get the stigmatization thing though, yeah. What is anyone ever going to do about it? * +

shadow27 20.10.18 - 03:16pm

@ obi_jon - 20.10.18 - 02:45pm
In fact, one of the London-based wealth managers I interviewed said that a willingness to accept with equanimity behavior that would be considered outrageous in others was an informal job requirement. Clients, he said, specifically chose wealth managers not just on technical competence, but on their ability to remain unscandalized by the private lives of the ultra-rich: ''They [the clients] have to pick someone they want to know everything about them: about Mothers lesbian affairs, Brothers drug addiction, the spurned lovers bursting into the room.'' Many of these clients are not employed and live off family largesse, but no one calls them lazy.

When the wealthy are revealed to be drug addicts, philanderers, or work-shy, the response is at most a frisson of tabloid-level curiosity, followed by a collective shrug.

Behaviors indulged in the rich are not just condemned in the poor, but used as a justification to punish them, denying them access to resources that keep them alive, such as healthcare and food assistance. Discussion of poverty has become almost impossible without moral outrage directed at lazy ''welfare queens'', ''crackheads'' and other drug addicts, and the ''promiscuous poor'' (a phrase that has cropped up again and again in discussions of public benefits over more than a century).

These disparate perceptions arent just evidence of hypocrisy; they are literally a matter of life and death. In the US, the widespread belief that the poor are simply lazy has led many states to impose work requirements on aid recipients even those who have been medically classified as disabled. Limiting aid programs in this way has been shown to shorten recipients lives: rather than the intended consequence of pushing recipients into paid employment, the restrictions have simply left them without access to medical care or a sufficient food supply. Thus, in one of the richest counties in America, a boy living in poverty died of a toothache;

This is true, though. My housemate mentioned she had rich friends, the family looked down their noses at her. All the kids were going to uni to become doctors etc..

20 years later: the boy is a ski bum, one daughter married a stockbrocker and the other daughter is doing home ec (cooking). * +

lisasere 20.10.18 - 03:18pm
Lol * +

peta 20.10.18 - 03:44pm
Its so sad though. Unfortunately, this will never change because there are so many -levels to being human and deserving of more than the bare minumum-.

Also, o think the behaviors are different depending on when the money/riches are acquired. For example; your actions are diff if you were born into it, inherited it, or had to work to obtain it, as well as if you are just plain without it. * +

mikeymk 20.10.18 - 10:00pm
Tl;Dr

Summary:
Obi is jealous of those who have gone out and made something with their lives, and would rather everyone else was as poor as him, so he doesn't have to feel offended about it. * +

dan27notts 23.10.18 - 03:18pm

@ shadow27 - 20.10.18 - 03:06pm
Poor is relative, obi. If you are living in Australia, for instance, and you are on welfare, guess what? You are (supposedly) among the top ten percent of earners on the planet.

This is because in developing nations people really are poor. These fu*king Occupy types moaning and bleating on about this sh*t have no fu*king concept of what poor actually is.

Ive heard a similar stat about the UK, even someone on benefits here is still in the top 10 percent earners worldwide, which is quite believable when you see what real poverty is like in other countries. * +

dan27notts 23.10.18 - 03:21pm
And well done obi for finally finding out that some rich and/or powerful people let it all go to there head. Not only that people with psychopathic traits are often successful as they are driven, selfish and ruthless is obtaining what they want.
Given by the lack of replies i think we already knew what you have just told us * +