I find it odd you bring up 'Education', as an individualized choice; it is not. .
Everything in life is a choice. teen pregnancy, drug addiction, prostitution are all CHOICES in industrialized societies. Those choices just like the choice to persue an education are individualized choices, not societal pressures which force those choices and decisions.
Rather than continue on an affirmative line of thought, let me pose a question to you: As a seventeen year old male, born into destitute community, and being personally financially 'unequipped' yourself, how would you remove yourself from that environment to seek higher education? Your mother and father both work 12+ hours daily for minimum wage, do not possess the ability to fund private schooling, and since the inception of your academic career have not been able to foster you due to the constraints of subsistence. .
if that seventeen year old was living in such despair, than he or she would have the option to have a lot of government assistance. the government here in the U.S literally throws money at those who are living in destitute communities.
that child should apply for assistance (which they will recieve if they are that financially in need). if they for some reason do not get assistance, they should take a minimum wage job in order to build up enough credit to be able to take out a loan without a cosigner and go to school. i did it just like many out there have.
I on the other hand recieved NO financial help at all. no BOG wavers, no grants. just private loans in which i have to pay for by myself.
the parents that work 12+ hours a day CHOSE to live that way.
Further, I find it almost insulting you insinuate that the 'poor' do not work hard; such an assumption is beyond misinformed Lake, and I mean that with no disrespect.
As I stated above, abuses of the system invariably occur, but often those on the lowest gradients of economic stratification work harder than do you and I. .
The poor do NOT work as hard as those who have good jobs and went to school in my opinion.
as a waitress, i worked hard. HARDER than my work as a dental hygienist. I worked harder and got paid a lot less. BUT, going to school was a BILLION times harder. my program (not the prerequisite gen. ed. courses) was harder than being a waitress and a dental hygienist combined because i could NOT work due to 40+ hours a week in school and i had to pay to be there. many single moms were in my program and simply took out large loans to cover school and their lost earned incomes. .[/QUOTE]
doctors lawyers and ceos all have worked harder than most to get where they are. if everyone was given the option to step in their shoes, and go through everything all these "rich" people went through to get there, most would simply rather work at mcdonalds. i would not do it to make a larger income than i do. i personally could not and would not be able to sacrafice so much to get there. people do not give successful people enought credit for all of their hardships and like to throw pity parties for themselves.
On an anecdotal note, I would always cringe when my Venezuelan immigrant friends would tell me their Mother double-shifted daily as a housekeeper, to make less money in a month than my Mother made in a few days; now, such is not my 'Mother's' fault, nor anybody in her gradient, but merely illustrating your assumption that 'poorness'-as-a-choice is somewhat incorrect. .
no cringing on my part. my waitress friends partied and had time to be with their familys , while i whirled into temporary debt and had NO time for my sanity while in the dental hygiene program. now i make more than 2 times as much as they do now. its quite fair.
my dad is from a third world country. parents do not hold a high school education. worked very hard to barely eat. my dad's parents were so poor, they had to make all of their own clothes. Now my dad is a successful dentist and did it all by himself. no excuses people. choices are choices, not lack of options.
Firstly, 'poor' and 'rich' are subjectively relative terms, used to denote two positions on opposing ends of the spectrum of a closed economic system; in that respect, Microeconomics Now, this stratification is what must exist, to drive an economy predicated upon consumption; without the equilibrium of labor power being purchased for less than the socially necessary goods it produces, you have market failure. This, and not 'richness' and 'poorness', is what Microeconomics rightfully presupposes. However, with that being said, if you would examine the current levels of Global Stratification and tell me you feel this type of wealth centralization is 'necessary', I may call you crazy.
honestly, do you think that society can function if everyone, including the cashier people make +$30 an hour? is it fair to the people who have demonstrated varying levels of motivation? hard work?