http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/witness/2011/08/2011810113949471720.html

I actually completely agree with half of what you are saying: it certainly is o.k. to hold poor people accountable for their actions, and even to give them a (gentle but firm) kick in the bum, but that is not at all at odds with what I have written. What I am saying is that the poor are kept down, particularly in the US (looking at Western countries here), by their own culture, by the rich, by companies, and by charity. These are tremendous odds against them ever using whatever opportunity that they might ideally have, and it represents a huge waste of productivity and happiness etc. To fix this, the poor should be given real help, not only money and training but also responsibility and duties. Food stamps and charity represent handcuffs, and not of the golden type.
Huge government infrastructure projects could be initiated, and unemployed semi-drafted (at minimum or better wages) to do this work. Or microloans could be given for tiny start-up businesses, or whatever. There are plenty of ways to do it. The main point is to give decent support, not only in terms of money but also in terms of faith, respect, and expectation. This is the only way to give the poor a chance, and even solving just 10% of poverty problems in the US would pay really well off in social and financial metrics.

> Do you really feel that 14% of the population of the U.S. can’t afford to eat on a regular basis?

It’s not something I feel; it’s the actual numbers from the census statistics.

> Perhaps a comparison of the obesity rates of the “poor” is in order here.

There are various levels of poverty if you read the stats, but even the very poor can simultaneously be lacking regular meals and get fat: it’s malnourishment.

> and your tone hints of pity

It certainly is, and lack of pity with these poor poor shows lack of empathy.

> Opportunity is not a finite resource

Yes and no: political measures and distribution of resources give different levels of opportunity to people, and the poor are not proportionally represented in American politics.
If you’re poor and uneducated and unemployed in Detroit or New Orleans or some ex-industry Midwestern town, and can’t find work, then your level of opportunity is not nearly the same that of some well-educated kid from a rich New England family. There is also culture to consider: poor cultures are often prey to crime, which can result in negative synergy effects that drags the members down; it’s hard to get out of such a culture. The crime stats and life expectencies of the poor is pretty strong evidence thereof. Of course, like a one-legged man climbing Everest, you can pull yourself up and out of poverty – but the stats show that not many people are able to do this.
Not to say that people shouldn’t try! But with bad odds, many would consider it a waste of effort, if they consider it at all.

> The assumption that able bodied people can’t help themselves is a huge disservice to everyone involved

As explained above and in the previous posts, it’s not nearly so simple. There’s a huge difference between an able-bodied poor person and an able-bodied rich one. The poor are not poor by choice.

> to suggest that there are no safegaurds or education or alternatives for ones who have found themselves in trying times is just wrong.
Welfare, food stamps, [etc.]

Your examples prove my argument: they are spotty, symptom-relief solutions, often given as charity; they are laughable and not at all real support. And it’s unfair and unproportional: all told, this money is piddling compared to what the rich and their companies get from the government, though the poor need the help, and the rich don’t. It’s really a shame for these poor, and it’s a huge waste of potential productivity: with proper government subsidies to give a proper standard of living (I mean, wft.: food stamps?!) with proper training and education, and with big job-investments (eg., Hoover-style infrastructure projects, maybe massive CSP arrays or IT-jobs, who knows), most of these poor could be turned into net-productive members of society, not dependents. There would be plenty of good side effects of doing this: the US would get richer; social cohension would improve; corruption and crime levels would fall; and people would be happier.

> I don’t understand how you come to your conclusions.

We presumably come from opposite angles on this issue

To give a number or two, 1 out of 7 Americans are poor (14.3% in 2009) and not just in relative terms; they couldn’t afford regular meals. The existence and use of food stamps is damning in itself! See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/index.html for more depressing and indecent numbers.

I agree with you that the myths of short-cut success (eg. the Secret or diets) should be fought – and I fully support the ideals of hard work – but that should not rule out cooperation and helping each other out.

I fully agree to both your responses. Regarding politicians in-fighting rather than solve hard problems, it is beginning to look as if the grass roots – in this unusual case, big companies and local- and state governments more than individuals – are getting the green ball rolling. Well, in the West: China and India are charging ahead at government level (though also veering off into more coal/nuclear/consumption etc.). Regarding expectations, it’s weird: more Americans than ever are poor in real, non-relative terms, but still the American Dream – the myth of success and ascension through determined effort – still rules strong. If you could somehow get rid of that evil and oppressing myth, then half the poor in the US would actually be able to pull themselves out of their poverty. All in all, the high American expectations are best used as PR-weapons against the rest of the world, not to be wielded against American themselves. Your last question made me pause a bit: I’m fairly sure that I’d shrug at the thought of not being able to afford more flights; easy come, easy go. Life is full of good stuff here and now, and losing a luxury is a luxury problem. But others might not feel this way. More generally, it would be important to design goals and visions that people could aspire to and look forward to – new and more appropriate ideals – especially if previous ideals were being made impossible to achieve. This is in many ways happening already: instead of just measuring a countries’ GDP, many new metrics are being introduced, like quality-of-life (a nebulous but popular one) for instance, or happiness, to take the Danish example. Work-life balances are getting more important, as is “green” living – though this doesn’t yet mean anything really green.

The reason Danes are happier than everybody else is exactly because their neighbors’ grass is about as green as their own. They have little to be unhappy about. Effectively, they’re the least unhappy All you have to do is to be above a low baseline (e.g. not starve, etc.). Happiness is almost solely about whether you meet expectations or not. Danish expectations are lower than American expectations => Danes are happier. Poor Americans (again above the base line, i.e. able to work and feed themselves) are also happier than their richer counterparts—as long as they don’t have aspirations to become rich themselves.

In think from a future perspective, an important component of happiness is whether people can adjust their level of happiness relative to their past self. How happy will you be if you have memories of transatlantic flights but those are now unaffordable?

The second comment is somewhat periferal: you (Jacob) often link happiness to my-grass-is-greener-than-yours thinking. This has always seemed somehow incorrect to me, and I finally realised why (doh! it was obvious): Danes are said to be the happiest in the world, and yet they also have the lowest income disparity (gini-index) and are very uniform in other ways too (with the important exception being status, which assumes a second currency in Denmark and which is not at all uniform). Relative accumulated wealth is clearly important in America but happiness has universal components like the absenses of unhealthy stresses, and Denmark with its social insurances rates well here: you don't have to worry about getting sick and getting ruined financially by it, for instance. An upshot of this is that you can make a population very happy even if no-one has more than their neighbour.

And yes, a lot of things can change. A person can change. He won’t change his character/personality very much, but opinions, beliefs, circumstances can change a lot.

A lot of things can change between ones early 20s and ones mid 30s, wife and/or progeny not withstanding. Recommend you plan for change, rather than extrapolate history into the future.