The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof writes a fascinating opinion piece on a "politically incorrect, heartbreaking, frustrating and ubiquitous" truth of global poverty, "It's that if the poorest families spent as much money educating their children as they do on wine, cigarettes and prostitutes, their children's prospects would be transformed. Much suffering is caused not only by low incomes, but also by shortsighted private spending decisions by heads of households." What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below...
Economic Choices: Sex, Alcohol, and Tobacco or School?
By Matt Rosenberg, About.com GuideJune 1, 2010
Top Related Searches nicholas kristof economic choices global poverty prostitutes new york times incomes
Explore Geography
Comments
Unfortunately this has always been the case; it is not your income which necessarily limits your economic fortunes, it’s your spending patterns, or those of your trustees/parents, etc.
Gary Oldman is an example, and so is Elvis Presley. Presley’s estate has made far more than he ever did while he was alive, becaused it has been managed better.
People from lower income groups have a different environment from others; they learn from that;it’s difficult to break the cycle.
All the above should not prevent us from getting into that cycle and helping to change the mind sets there. It is so tragic that many people from disadvantaged backgrounds believe that their only ways out are crime, the defence forces, or sport.
what a crock!! apparently most of you have never been in the class of the working poor. one can make all the good decisions in the world, but income only goes so far. the rich make just as many bad decisions as the poor, but their’s don’t show because, comparatively, they have more than enough to go around several times. who needs a dozen cars, several houses and just have to have others clean their homes and raise their children.
If we could reduce the time spent in school gossiping, arguing, etc. by even 10% by the
lowest 25% GPA/IQ students, the effect on
our civilization would be amazing.
by the way: the rich drink wine, smoke and buy prostitutes. the only difference is they have to pay more for all of the above! if you want to blame the poor for the ills of society, lets remember it was the greed of the rich that almost destroyed our entire banking system. people are people-rich or poor. no one class is better than the other!!
Kristof’s article is a very good sample of prejudism against the poor. It only shows his total lack of gray matter. It’s easy to judge others when you don’t know how the poor live. Remember the native american saying “never judge a man until you have walked in his moccasins”.
There remains class warfare and indifference. The former U. S. President, George W. Bush, was a prime example. He had never had to struggle, therefore, he could not understand the stuggle. His surroundings were that of the rich and the powerful. Therefore, he signed away many of the prospects of the general public in favor of his so-called ‘friends’. Those with high income and influence seemed to him the ‘way to go’, so per se. As a result, the greed from two decades, both in the U. S. and globally, was allowed to continue. So nothing changed for the better for ‘lower classes’ of people. Instead, they got worse. This is just an example. History has proven this scenario over and over again. However, in this day and age, the stakes are much higher. Meanwhile, I work in a liquor store (gave up drink 20 years ago, but still smoke), and I see the same crowd coming in during the morning all the way up to the evening. Small and cheap products, over and over again. Some rich folks come in too and buy the expensive stuff. The difference? The poor have to settle for less and get nowhere, whereas, the rich buy the ‘good stuff’ and continue. It is true that even if you give up certain ‘habits’ and make ‘tough decisions’, you might still be poor. Granted. On the other hand, if you have means, it is simply a matter of preference. Harder on the poverty crowd, but bad decisions are just that…bad decisions. Opportunity is either given or earned. That is the truth of the matter. When we have obtained a fair system, let me know, please. I would definitely be on that bandwagon!
…………………if the richest families spent as much money educating the poor children as they do on wine, cigarettes , prostitutes,many so called girlfriend, unnecessary luxury, etc the prospect of the world would be transformed.
I’m working in Africa for the past 20 years and observed that the more children the family has the less attention is given to them. Education, new clothing even feeding and medical attention is usually more available for first 2 children and the last- born (“the pet of the family”). Most families have not less than 4-6 children and the middle ones are the ones suffering most. Hardly you see them in new clothes or shoes (only in church/mosque), they usually attend public schools while their lucky siblings could be in private ones, events like sport competitions or birthday parties are often not for them and so on… Many are going astray, but who’s fault is that?
Parents are mostly concerned with procreation because they believe the more children they have the more chances that at least one of them will make it in life and help parents at old age. So its kind of selfish insurance for the future. By what means they will make it is nobody’s concern. Many are even expecting that some of their children will die. But if they will give more attention to fewer children all of them will survive and make it in life.
And another thing. Many do not want to do “family planing”. Men believe that to use condom during sex is like “to suck sweet without removing the wrapper”. Again, its a selfish thing. They just want to enjoy their own life. “And let the white man worry about the future” as one of our workers put it.
In many cases,indeed, poor people rather spend money on alcohol, and other bad choices for various reasons:1) it’s generational; 2) immediate satisfaction, 3) different values. However, impossible to ignore that economy plays major fact in poor families education. At the same time, here in the United States there is so much help to the poor families: grants and scholarships. Yet, they still tend to practice poor choices. All of us need literacy in using money properly. But this is just fantasy: so many distractions and advertisements of “easy and sweet” life.
The problem of poverty cannot be solved with the existing political and economical systems. All governments are working for the millionaires and rich people. Examples are the lists of millionaires, actor stars, singer stars footballer stars and so on.
I am proud after reading all the comments outside of my own previously! Each and every person that has spoken here has made points that are accurate, correct and to the point. Unlike the ‘talking heads’ (know-it-alls), so per se, at either the higher economic and intellcetual strata, the ones that either tell direct lies, misinformation, or just live in a bubble of their own making, the folks here obviously have a grip on reality. Perhaps all of the people in this particular forum should be enlisted into a world and local parliment of some kind. At least then, we would see good answers and actions to real problems, rather than ‘feel good’ political, economical and military solutions that are not really solutions at all. By the way, if someone out there can solve the British Petroleum leak in the Gulf of Mexico, they should be elected ‘world president’!
I’m very disappointed in Matt Rosenberg on this one. Kristoff’s article was about how poor MEN- the heads of households he mentioned- are the ones wasting money on sex and drugs, and that when poor WOMEN are put in charge of the finances, it goes to educate the children and improves the family much more than when men are in charge. Men are more selfish, it’s a fact, and it is grossly reinforced by cultures in regions that are- surprise, surprise- the poorest in the world. Sadly, the argument that gender roles are dangerously ignored in economics is proved true by this presentation of Kristoff’s article, which is all about empowering poor women.