Godheval

Read More »

For this very reason, Nadya Suleman is a moral deviant.  She has not only brought one child into the world under unsatisfactory conditions, but she has brought in eight of them – in fact a brood – merely to satisfy the desire to have more children.

Undoubtedly the birth of the Suleman octuplets was to the applause of many pro-life advocates, but her case also highlights exactly why every pregnancy should be preceded by extensive thought and planning, and why the option for a woman to not follow through to birth must always be available. After all, life is more than a heartbeat and air pumping through the lungs; there must be consideration for quality of life as well.

Even before the inadequate financial circumstances into which Suleman’s children were born, there was the high risk involved with bringing octuplets to term in the first place.  History shows that the risk is high, as before Suleman there were seven reported cases of octuplets, each with tragic results.

• September 13 and 16, 2000 – Four boys and four girls born to Mariella Mazzara of Italy. Four died within a month.
• December 8 and 20, 1998 – Six girls and two boys born to Nkem Chukwu of Houston. The smallest died within a week.
• December 5, 1996 – Four boys and two girls born alive to Rosario Clavijo in Spain. Two other fetuses were stillborn.
• September 30 to October 2, 1996 – Six boys and two girls born to Mandy Allwood of England. All died.
• December 20, 1985 – Five boys and three girls born to Sevil Capan of Turkey. All died.
• August 16, 1979 – Five girls and three boys born to Pasqualina Chianese of Italy. Six died within two weeks.
• March 10, 1967 – Four boys and four girls were born to Maria Teresa Lopez de Sepulveda, 21, of Mexico City. All died within 14 hours.

In light of these odds, Nadya Suleman’s actions were so selfish and careless that it can barely be understood, and can truly only be attributed to some sort of psychological malfunction.  I am sure it will come out at some point that Ms. Suleman suffers from some obscure disorder, at which point the nation’s shock and awe will necessarily change into at least disgruntled neutrality and perhaps even sympathy.

But she will get no sympathy from me, because outside of whatever psychosis she suffers from, she has showed the clear cognizance and presence of mind to arrange for the national welfare system to support her bizarre pathology, to conduct multiple interviews, and to have a website constructed to exploit people’s concern for her children in order to solicit donations.  She was supposedly even in talks to be paid up to $2 million for an interview and to star in her own reality television show.  Whatever illness Ms. Suleman may suffer from, it does not seem to have rendered her incompetent, leaving her completely responsible – morally and legally – for her perverse actions.

Although Nadya’s Suleman’s moral compass is clearly off center, the needle also necessarily points to the physician or medical team.  He, she, or they – aware of the situation, allowed her to take fertility drugs despite protests by Nadya’s own mother.  One can scarcely imagine the flight of judgment required for a highly educated medical professional to condone such a thing, which naturally leads to speculation that there may have been a more sinister motivation behind it.  Recent reports indicate that the care Nadya received reached costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Newly grounded from the euphoria of pulling off an octuplet delivery, her medical team is looking expectantly to California’s Medi-Cal system for compensation.

Could the sanctioning of a poor woman taking fertility drugs and subsequently giving birth to eight children really be based on something so trite as personal profit?  Or perhaps for the  acclaim a hospital would receive in being one of the only hospitals in history to safely deliver octuplets?  Either way, there was a major lapse in personal and professional integrity.

For Suleman’s part, she has cashed in – figuratively and literally – on her overnight celebrity, appearing in several interviews to defend her decision.  So this was no momentary failure of judgment, but a conscious and sustained commitment to moral bankruptcy.  At the same time as she makes the audacious claim that she is not taking advantage of taxpayers, she continues to pull in $500 per month in food stamps, which are of course paid for by taxpayers.  While the welfare system is necessarily in place to support the poor and disadvantaged, especially children, it was never intended to support those who would intentionally put themselves in a disadvantaged position.

Any vitriol towards Ms. Suleman has nothing to do with the fact that my taxes are helping to support her deviancy, because her situation has not increased my taxes, and I doubt that even one penny from my income goes directly to her.  And I completely support the welfare system, in spite of the fact that my family managed through poverty without it.  I would even see it expanded, if it ensured that the poor and disadvantaged were provided some relief.

Most people participating in the system – exceptions made for other exploitative deviants like Ms. Suleman – are in genuine need, and it is because of that need that I have no objections to contributing to that system.  Ms. Suleman, in creating her need voluntarily, is taking from those who find themselves at an unexpected disadvantage.  That she would deny that this is the case, and that she would be unrepentant, only compounds upon her disgrace.  That she gave birth to eight children she cannot support is a problem in itself, but that she has no concept or conscience of how she affects others is completely unacceptable.  It only becomes a greater trangression when we consider the state of the U.S. economy, and that the needs of the legitimately disadvantaged have only increased.

Things only get worse when we consider that more than half the world’s population lives in absolute poverty.  In very few places, and perhaps only in the United States, can – or would - a person willfully subject themselves and their children to poverty, and then look expectantly to the rest of the world with an open hand.  In most cases, with poverty comes humility, and reservations about receiving aid from others.  The people of the world’s poorest countries eke out a living as best they can with what little they have, and are invariably grateful – never expectant – for those who assist them.

Nadya Suleman is not only ungrateful – for the privilege of living in a country where her situation is even possible – she is indifferent to the fact that there are those who are suffering around her, and in the world at large.  This becomes clear in how she has embraced her sudden fame, making a public spectacle of herself and her children, even having the audacity to hire a publicist, as if to formally legitimize her celebrity status.

Reports are coming in that Ms. Suleman has gone into hiding, due to a number of people making threats towards her and her children.  She has allegedly checked into a hotel, leaving her publicist to interface with the public.  The welfare system does not cover the fees for a publicist, nor does it cover hotel costs.  Word also has it – and picture evidence affirms – that she had some sort of plastic surgery performed on her face.  Yet she has had to rely welfare system and the donations of strangers for support.  The people who have offered or made donations to the Suleman brood almost certainly did it for the sake of her children, and considering her need.  They probably did not – do not – intend to fund her public relations campaign.

It is not only a physical problem, as Nadya Suleman takes from the collective mouth of the poor, and the hand of the generous, but an ideological one, as she strengthens the case of those who criticize the welfare system as one of waste and excess.

It is for these reasons that Nadya Suleman – and the medical professionals who have explicitly endorsed her deviancy – are deserving of any vitriol that comes their way.  Instead of her actions being celebrated in the media, they should be examined by a mental health professional, and on proof of competence, examined in a criminal context.

Whatever the outcome of the situation, however, it is important to separate the Suleman children from the indiscretions of their mother, and proceed in matter that protects and provides for them as new members of society.  Even if it means their mother is deemed unfit – all evidence seems to point to this – and that they need to be placed in another’s care.

«

Read More »

1. Five Percent Across the Board Income Tax Cut – This provision would reduce the six federal income tax rates by 5% beginning with 2008, and make the new rates permanent.

If the purpose of an economic stimulus is to provide individuals and families with some relief so that they can more confidently participate in our economy, then a tax cut is clearly a good idea.

2. Increase child tax credit from 1,000 to 5,000 – Under current law, families are eligible for a $1,000 tax credit for each child under the age of 17.  This provision would increase, and make permanent, an increase in the child tax credit to $5,000 beginning in 2008.

I am in favor of anything that provides relief to families with children.  However, I feel that there needs to be some oversight for this kind of thing, to ensure that families are not exploiting this benefit.  I am not certain how it could be implemented, but it needs to be mandatory for families receiving this tax cut to spend a certain percentage of their income only on goods and services that directly benefit the children.  I fear the American tendencies towards excess that would see this money being spent on things that are unnecessary, with no change in the livelihoods of the children.

3. Make the Lower 15% Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent – Under current law the lower rates (15%) currently in effect expire at the end of 2010, which means that the top capital gains rate will go back to 20% and the top tax rate for dividends will be 39.6%.

I fervently disagree with this provision as it appears to only benefit the wealthy.  If it were amended to benefit only those making beneath a certain income – say $200,000, then perhaps it would be more reasonable.  Although everyone is suffering in these harsh economic times – relatively speaking – the extremely wealthy are still at least very wealthy and will manage even with the capital gains tax increase.

4. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax on Individuals  – The AMT was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes altogether.  Under current law, the tax will hit more than 30 million people in 2009.

Again I disagree, because I am skeptical of completely eliminating something for the sake of the wealthy.  However, after reading about the AMT, pros and cons, I agree with those who think that it needs to be examined and perhaps reformed.  It can’t hurt to take a look and revise it for our current economic needs.

5. Permanently Repeal Required Distributions on Retirement Accounts – Under current law, senior citizens, beginning at the age of 70-and-a-half, are required to make mandatory withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s.

If anyone’s suffering during these times, it’s the elderly.  My job has made me quite aware of the the ridiculously high costs of eldercare, and the insufficiency of medicare and medicaid to cover their expenses.  If this provision will truly provide them with relief, then it is a good thing.  Furthermore, I do not even understand why seniors should be forced to do anything with their money that they do not wish to do.  The reasoning behind the required distributions escapes me.

6. Make All Withdrawals from IRAs Tax- and Penalty-Free During 2009 – As a general matter, the purpose of 401(k)s and IRAs is to incentivize retirement savings. However, individuals who are facing foreclosure or some other financial emergency during the current recession should have penalty-free access to all of their savings.

It is easy to see how this relates to economic stimulus, so I agree with it for the same reason that I agree with the across-the-board tax cut.  While this will do virtually nothing for the lower class, who for the most part do not have IRAs and 401(k)s, it will be worth it for the middle class who have invested well.

7. Increase by 50% the Tax Deduction on Student Loans and the Tax Deduction on Qualified Higher Education Expenses -this would increase by 50% the tax deduction of for interest on student loans and higher education expenses to $3,750 and $6,000 respectively.

As a member of the [lower] middle-class who can personally attest to the crippling burden of student loans, I have to agree with this provision.  I didn’t even know until now that I could claim these deductions at all.  Too bad I’ve already filed for 2009.  In any case, this will most certainly help struggling families, since colleges and universities, regardless of the economic climate, only see fit to raise the cost of education.

8. Full Immediate Expensing – would allow all businesses to immediately expense—or fully
deduct on their tax returns—the costs of assets (including buildings) they purchase for their business in the year that they buy such assets.

I agree with this provision in principle, but only businesses with revenue below a certain amount, so that it cannot be exploited by wealthy and greedy corporations the same was as the  the bank bailout.  Furthermore, it should have a statute of limitations, and be extended only so long as it is necessary for fixing the economy.

9. Significant Reduction in the Top Corporate Income Tax Rate – The bill would immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%

Here’s where the Republicans show their hand as pro-corporate.  Still, I can agree for businesses making beneath a certain amount (say $500,000), for the reasons mentioned above, but there must be rigorous oversight to ensure that this is not exploited.  It also should not be permanent.

10. End the Capital Gains Tax on Inflation – Under current law, the capital gains tax is based on the difference in the original purchase price of the asset and the sale price of the asset. However, some of this difference, or “gain,” can be attributed to inflation

I think this needs to be analyzed thoroughly to determine just how much gain can be attributed to inflation, so that this is not just another tax-cut for the wealthy and corporations disguised under a separate pretext.  Unless individuals are taking a major hit (relative to their wealth) as a result of this tax, then I don’t think it needs to be repealed.

11. Simplify the Capital Gains Rate Structure – allow corporations to benefit from the
15% capital gains rate.

Absolutely not, unless accompanied by a strict limitation on employee raises/bonuses, to prevent CEOs and the like from pocketing the extra money or the company from splurging on unnecessary expenses like executive hotel parties.  Did we learn nothing from the unlawful excesses of AIG executives?

12. Make the R and D Tax Credit Permanent – The Research and Development tax credit is currently due to expire at the end of 2009.  Originally enacted as party of President Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, it has since been extended on 13 separate occasions without being made permanent. The purpose of this tax provision is to spur research and development in the private sector.

I completely disagree with this provision.  The tax credit should continue to be observed and extended where plausible, to prevent exploitation.  A company could feasibly categorize nearly any expense as “R&D”, and so oversight is required before any tax credits can be given.  Were our current financial burdens not the result of the disgraces of wealthy corporations, then perhaps we could be more lenient, but as things stand now – especially in light of how the bailout was handled – tax credits for companies need to be streamlined and tightly regulated.

There are a few provisions in ERMCRA that I do not understand, and as such I will not comment on them.  Overall, I’d say that the bill is strong for how it proposes to stimulate the economy and provide families with immediate relief, but as with all things Republican, I am skeptical of any provisions that mostly (or only) benefit the wealthy and corporations.  And it seems that much of this bill involves tax cuts for those very groups, only under given a variety of different names.

To be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy – which is why I have no problem with the 5% across the board cut. After all, it is only fair.  But those things which only benefit the wealthy, the country – the majority of which are not wealthy – can do without.  The wealthy always have the option of giving tax-deductable donations to charities, which allows them some greater measure of control of where their money goes.  If they are not inclined to give, then neither should the rest of the country be inclined to shoulder their tax cuts.

I am also not necessarily opposed to tax cuts for businesses, especially not small businesses which for in many cases are merely self-employed individuals.  As for the larger corporations, any tax cuts granted to them must come with mandatory oversight – I can’t state that enough – and with the expectation, if not obligation, that they use the money to create new jobs for Americans.

So while ERMCRA has some fine provisions, it is in need of some serious revisions, so that its purpose remains economic stimulus, and not libertarian-style deregulation – which has only proven to broaden the socioeconomic gap between the rich and poor, and completely ignore the middle.  This may all be moot, however, as the Republicans probably lack the support to see this bill pass the House.  Still, one would hope that whatever form the final stimulus package takes, that it takes some of the more useful items of ERMCRA into consideration – in the name of bipartisanship, and for the sake of the economy.

«

Read More »

Today the Associated Press reports that the Israeli Defense Forces, in their continuing incursion into Gaza, attacked the United Nations headquarters, destroying large supplies of food intended for the suffering Palestinians.  That, along with a hospital, five high-rise apartment buildings and a media outlet, appear to be the latest in a list of targets that have nothing to do with Hamas and the stated purpose of the offensive.

This raises the question of whether or not Israel is simply incompetent – in killing more civilians than soldiers and “accidentally” destroying benign civilian infrastructure – or merely careless and arrogant in its apparent infallibility.  Interestingly enough, the associated press article goes on to reiterate the purpose of the Israeli offensive:

[A]n effort to stop militant rocket fire from Gaza that has terrorized hundreds of thousands of Israelis.

In characteristic fashion, in the same virtual breath as it reports an obvious offense on the part of Israel, the press seems to want to justify it by overstating the causes.  “Hundreds of thousands” of Israelis are being terrorized by Hamas rockets?  Really?  The latest reports say that altogether Israel has had thirteen casualties – three of which were civilians killed by the rockets, the others Israeli soldiers who fell during the ground offensive.  Three of those were killed by friendly fire – perhaps further evidence of incompetence.

No loss of innocent life should be dismissed as insignificant, but there is a matter of proportionality to be discussed here.  Hamas, in spite of representing a legitimately aggrieved Palestinian citizenry, was misguided in launching its rockets.  However, they also appear to be quite inept, failing to hit any meaningful targets.  Israel, who has them out-manned, out-gunned, and seems to have the moral imperative of “infallibility”, has killed as many as 1,100 Palestinians, more than half of which have been civilians – and too many of which have been children.  There simply is no argument that can be made to justify Israel’s exaggerated response to the utterly ineffective actions of Hamas.

That Hamas continues to launch rockets – and continues to miss everything that matters – shows not only the kind of illogical reasoning that inspires terrorism, but the clear sense of desperation felt by the Palestinian people.  It can be only foolish pride or a sense of having nothing more to lose that an organization would invite upon itself complete annihilation.  Either that, or a desperate last ditch appeal to the world community to pay attention to the chronic injustices that continue to plague the people of the Gaza strip.

But that plea continues to be ignored due to the self-victimization of Israel – affirmed by the mainstream press corps – and the infallibility license extended by the rest of the world.  If the United States can be maligned by the global community for the ill-motivated war in Iraq, then why can’t that same sense of right and wrong be applied to Israel?  What is it about that little country that gives it carte blanche authority to violate every established moral and legal convention of the civilized world?  And what is it that makes us – the rest of the world – so complicit?

It must be the power of infallibility.

«

Read More »

But when we look at needs as they apply to groups, they do correspond to a qualitative hierarchy – the socioeconomic stratum. Generally speaking, those at the bottom of the stratum are struggling to fulfill the basic needs. This is not universal, and I do not mean to suggest that self-actualization is not possible for those in poverty. Afterall, how we define poverty varies from place to place. The people of Bhutan – in South Asia – have a per capita income of around $1300, which places them in abject poverty by U.S. standards. Yet the people of Bhutan, who hold a measurement of “national happiness” higher than economic wealth, are mostly happy. Happiness, where it is a regular characteristic of a person rather than circumstantial, is closely correlated to self-actualization.

In the United States, the hierarchy of needs is superimposed by a second hierarchy – of want. The difference between wants and needs is that needs are dictated by the bodies and minds of people and mostly on a subconscious level. Maslow’s model does not state that people knowingly act on their needs, but that needs function on a more subversive level. Wants and needs can and do align where a person becomes conscious of what they need and how to acquire it. However, all too often, wants displace needs – filler instead of fulfillment. Wants are like empty calories – food that fills your stomach and satisfies the immediate hunger need, but not the underlying nutrition need. A child may want candy, but needs vegetables.

Wants, unlike needs, are dictated not by individuals themselves, but by the external environment, from peers to the greater society. The United States economy is under-girded by people’s willingness to spend money. It is not enough to spend only on those things we need, but also on the things we want. In fact, the economy would be starved if we only purchased according to our needs. What we have is a culture of consumerism, where value is ascribed not only to goods, but to people according to their ability to purchase goods – material wealth.

The pursuit of wealth is not only a sidetrack from climbing the hierarchy of needs, but displaces it with the hierarchy of want. The hierarchy of needs leads to self-actualization – where a person is no longer acting on subconscious needs, but making regular conscious movements towards limitless personal growth. The hierarchy of wants does not ever lead to fulfillment of any sort, and in fact only leads to more and increasingly difficult to attain wants.

Individuals at the helms of the government and industries of the United States and other capitalist economies understand this dynamic well – and in fact, their positions in the socioeconomic stratum depend on it. That is not to say that people in high government positions and at the tops of corporate ladders are removed from the hierarchy of wants. They may actually be the most entrenched. As they fulfill higher and higher wants (meaning rarer or more expensive), they eventually come to a point where the goal is to attain greater ability to fulfill wants. Material wealth becomes the end in itself rather than any means to an end. This stage of the hierarchy of wants leaves people stuck within the hierarchy of needs, most often the esteem needs. The phrase “keeping up with the Joneses” invokes the need for the esteem of one’s peers, or self-esteem based upon one’s status in relation to one’s peers. People stuck in the hierarchy of wants fail to recognize that wants are endless and that satisfaction can only come through fulfilling one’s needs.

With that background laid out, we can get to the real meat of the essay. I have little interest in the vices of of the materially wealthy, only in how they affect everyone else. Just like the people on the top of the socioeconomic stratum, those at the middle and bottom are also mired in a hierarchy of wants. In creating and sustaining an economy based on consumerism, we have created a veritable culture of want. This ailment of society is particularly chronic and systemic within the lower class, much to their detriment. The idea of competing with the Joneses is patently absurd when one has yet to fulfill the most basic needs.

Our era of mass communication has only compounded the problem. Whereas it should be – and at its best is – a system for educating more people and faster, it is also a medium for spreading the memes of want. Before television and the internet, the economic classes were vastly divided by both material wealth and wealth of information. The poor could not even conceive of the pleasures of the wealthy and in a way it was to their benefit. Climbing the hierarchy of needs is possible even in poverty – as the example of Bhutan indicates. Once exposed to the prospect of wealth, but without any sustainable means of acquiring it, the poor can become mired in the hierarchy of wants as well. An interesting side note is that the people of Bhutan were amongst the last to have television, as it was banned from the country until 1999. This is probably not unrelated to their ability to achieve happiness in conditions that we in the “first world” would consider poverty.

Through television and the internet (radio to a lesser extent since it lacks the crucial visual component), the middle and lower classes were delivered images of seeming wealth and prosperity that are based on the hierarchy of wants. False associations were made between material possessions, social status, and happiness – again a displacement of needs by wants.

In rare instances, a member of the lower class may see a near instant teleportation to the top of the socioeconomic stratum, foregoing the natural and healthy progression of climbing the hiearchy of needs, and taking a shortcut through the hierarchy of wants. As a result, many of the needs remain, and like the already wealthy, they remain trapped in the esteem needs. The hierarchy of wants continuously changes the status quo for esteem needs – bigger and more expensive houses, faster and fancier cars, ever gaudier jewelry.

Worse yet, these individuals become an exemplar for other members of the lower class, who identify with them on the basis of their once-shared socioeconomic status. As mentioned before, the sudden leap from the bottom to top is exceedingly rare, but as the mass media constantly inundates our society with accounts of the materially wealthy, their stories seem more prevalent than they actually are. In fact, the prospect of skyrocketing from bottom to top overnight is mostly a delusion, and it is in pursuit of this impossible goal that leads many individuals and groups towards self-destruction.

Although the terms “culture of want” and “hierarchy of want” have so far been used interchangeably, but it should be understood that the hierarchy is merely the foundation for the culture. The culture of want is a memetic cancer that has extended into every sector of human life. The best way to understand it is to examine the different instances where wants displace needs and continue to inhibit personal growth. As mentioned earlier, at the base of the hierarchy of needs are the physiological needs such as nourishment. The body needs certain substances – like proteins, vitamins, minerals – which can be fulfilled by eating the right kinds of foods. Originally human beings collected their food directly from the surrounding environment, but today we rely on a food industry.

The trouble, however, is that the food industry, in seeking to increase its wealth by expanding and speeding up production, has taken numerous shortcuts. If you recall the distinction I made earlier between wants and needs, it was that wants are dictated by the external environment. That is the case here, as the food industry – through massive advertising campaigns – tell people what they want. Fast food in particular satisfies our immediate hunger – a want impulse – but falls short in providing nutrition – a need. Worse than that, these products are often detrimental to our health. Those at the helm of the food industry decided that it was more important to fulfill their want for more wealth than to continue to supply us with what we need. This wants-over-needs initiative is amplified in poor communities, where fast food outlets are disproportionately allocated.

Another example of the culture of want phenomenon can be observed amongst lower class African-Americans. The causes behind the chronic poverty amongst African-Americans are numerous and beyond the scope of this essay, but I would like to highlight an important shift in how many perceive their plight and envision the way out of it. During the so-called Reconstruction era, in the aftermath of slavery, African-Americans – both newly emancipated, and the freemen of the north, conspired to elevate the status of what then was an African-American community of mutual plight and aspiration. Education was the cornerstone of a movement towards personal and community growth. One product of this movement was the foundation of institutions today known as “historically black colleges and universities” or HBCUs.

However, due to the prevailing blight of racism, which maintained a distinct separation between the races in terms of access to resources and influence, a glass ceiling was set that placed severe limitations on just how high most African-Americans could aspire. This barrier was not only physical and social, but emotional. It was not only that African-Americans observed and lived within very real limitations, but that they also internalized those limitations. These emotional limitations remained even after the physical and social limitations were no longer imposed by law.

Compounding upon this emotional limitation is the ideal of the “American Dream”, where anyone can achieve anything if they work hard enough. Except that the American Dream was not inclusive of African-Americans, and completely ignores any concept of inequality. An added consequence to the rosy American Dream “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” ideology is that when one does work hard, but due to the very real social inequalities does NOT make it, it results in a psychological backlash in which the person blames him/herself for their inability. After all, they are told that it’s all a matter of “personal responsibility”. The idea becomes that if you didn’t make it, you just didn’t work hard enough, or to hear some tell it, you just weren’t “smart enough”.

Many African Americans, who as a group are disproportionately lower class, subscribe to the overall American standard of high-materialism and excess – the culture of want – in spite of the fact that they do not have the means to sustain such a lifestyle. Because education – once recognized by forward-thinking African-Americans as essential to personal growth – is so inadequate in many poor areas where African-Americans are the majority, it does not appear to offer a viable path towards success.

This is particularly relevant to young people in the lower class, regardless of ethnicity. Students who stay in school all the way through – and this is a particularly daunting challenge in poor communities – are not seeing opportunities that are much better than those of the people around them who didn’t finish. They see drug dealers, athletes, musicians, or even people who quit school and work hard at an honest job making money, more of it, and much sooner. And in a culture of want, money is the ultimate prize,  the ultimate measure of self worth. Why toil through school when there is no apparent guarantee that it will give you any greater advantage, and while the local drug dealers and big name rappers are getting what they want right now? Ideals such as self-actualization are not only obscured, but inconceivable.

Due to the quality of education in poor areas, students are not even given an idea of the possibilities outside the culture of want. They are given the standard subjects of reading, math, and science, but there are slim pickings when it comes to art, technology, and higher liberal arts. By contrast, public schools in high-income areas feature state of the art technology, up-to-date educational materials, and a greater spectrum of classes.

The result is always another generation of kids who are not only under-educated and unmotivated, but also disinterested in the school’s meager offerings. They see no way to connect the dots between an inadequate school and a successful life.

The fairytale lifestyles seen on the television and internet, especially when compared to the reality in their own neighborhoods, are simply more appealing than what school has to offer. Compound upon all of that a lack of mentorship, such as teachers working for a paycheck without any mental or emotional investment in the success of the children. At best they’ll fail to motivate and inspire, and at worse, they’ll add to the problem. They may even be the most recent products of the same system.

In poor communities, you often have a bunch of under-educated people with the wrong values and bad priorities, disillusioned with life, hopeless, and perhaps even angry. Material comforts – from clothing to technology to drugs – and status comfort appears to be a solution to one’s grievances.

The result is a culture where people spend beyond their means to compensate for feelings of inadequacy and hopelessness, and because they were never shown a viable alternative. But these same people, in spite of their financial, educational, and even spiritual poverty, still manage to contribute to the economy in a big way. Therefore it is not in the interests of those at the head of government or industry to promote the personal growth of those at the bottom of the stratum. Worse yet, they see it as being in their best interests to keep the poor spending beyond their means, as we witnessed during the subprime mortgage crisis. Poor and uneducated people continue to stimulate the economy without ever elevating their station. They remain trapped within the culture of want, at the expense of making any progress in climbing the hierarchy of needs.

«