Edit: removing a further unnecessary elaboration here because it feels like I'm just piling on. Initially the reception to my earlier comment skewed quite negative but it seems to have leveled out.

You can make all the observations you want but correlation is still not causation.

Your original comment before your edit made claims of someone in a given environment having certain behaviors while someone in a different environment not having those behaviors. I'm saying those behaviors are not a mere "environment", but systemic and wholly caused by the broader culture we all live in and the opinions espoused by those who control it. Poor people are definitely attuned to that and mostly because they're vulnerable and living in a social desert. They don't know better beyond what's fed to them by the media and "science".

"How can I feel good about helping poor people if the answer is in themselves, and there's no more poor people? It's best if they are oppressed by some system, in which I can counterbalance by the few dollars I give them on my way home from work"

Poor people really don't consume that much.

Political power is another matter.

I can agree with a lot of that, and sorry about cutting out the comment from underneath you - didn't realise.

I think you're right that claims and sentiments like, for example, the poor stay poor but it's not their fault don't exist in a vacuum and will have some negative effects.

The question is whether they're more helpful on balance, or less damaging than an alternative tough love just pull yourself up already, everyone else did attitude.

I think speaking about the current reality as we understand it is probably the best option.

I don't personally agree with the correlation/causation comment in this context. Putting the research (eg. the heredity of university admission) aside, not-born-poor folk can be just as shitty and lazy and morally bankrupt as anyone else but hope, greed, health, education and opportunity are good counterweights to that.

There is a LOT of "poverty programming" - people get a moral kick out of having poor people around, poor people buy consumerist things, etc. Society needs poor people to remain poor, more than anyone is comfortable with.

It's like the age ol' "why don't they teach you how to do taxes in school?" - not just taxes, but things like budgeting, meal planning, mending clothes, (home economics I think it was called?)

All of my friends said the same thing "why bother budgeting, voting X will be better, the system is against us, there's no point, didn't you watch Y, burn down the place!" - and they are still grovelling in poverty.

I'm not, I'm out, I'm with OP and I know where they're coming from.

"Typical mind fallacy" my ass. If you contribute to poverty programming, you're profiteering off poor people, even just to feel morally righteous.

(Not attacking you, just trying to point out what almost everyone does, this isn't aimed to you)

Even for this example, it's not "OP was poor and got out, good on him, he has some experience to share" - but instead, the response is - "OP got out, but he's the lucky one, and now he's grandstanding" - ie: pulling someone down.

If he had a drinking problem, then these sort of attacks could've spiralled them back down into the pit. No one wants that (On the surface at least)