JWeinCom said:
|
Certainly, I understand that. But these resources and benefits that I described are available to every poor person, whether they live in Philadelphia or the rural areas of PA. While I didn't describe the differences among states, I did mention that Pennsylvania is pretty average in that regard.
I think there should be more emphasis on the socio- portion of low socio-economic status, as economically the poor have many opportunites and saftey nets. The problem seems to be primarily cultural, and that is the cause for the difference between inner-city poor persons and suburban/small town poor persons. The culture of inner-cities is what leads to these results. If anything, i think the inner-city persons get more resources. In Pittsburgh, where I live currently, people who make poor financial decisions get an aid who will teach them about a variety of finance topics. Charter schools and school choice is an actual thing. There are more job opportunites. So on and so on. I am sure Philadelphia has similar programs.
My point of this thread though, is as far as benefits go I can't see how the U.S is supposedly lagging behind other countries in terms of safety nets for the "poor." A poor person in the U.S doesn't have to pay for health-care, food, and a sizeable portion of housing, just like poor persons in other first-world countries. One can argue that the middle class gets fewer benefits, but certainly not the poor.







