That fact that poverty concentrates in geographic regions, ethnicities and political respresentation indicate more systemic factors than simple individual situations.

There is a process of ghettoisation that takes place, and it is abetted by politics. Alabama's Black Belt, which includes Lowndes Country, is not unique in this process. It happens across the country.

In the US, individuals are able to work their ways out of it. There is no racism that stops them from doing so. Yet local communities have less tendency to change.

The reason for this geographic concentration is poor people move to places where their costs are lower

To us poor libtards ethnicity sounds racist

Marton, don't be an idiot and go study before blurting ignorant nonsense. Go look up Alabama's poverty maps, its history and educate yourself.

Local communities change sloly or not at all because of inertia. It takes a few strong people to spark change, somes it never happens.

On one hand you say that concentrations of poverty are due to systemic factors, but then individuals can work their way out of it. I agree with the first but not the second. It is not always easy or possible to work out from under crushing debt, probably due to the same inertia. I know people who have, but it has taken some major adjustments and luck.

My point, which might not have been clearly articulated is that there is no reason for enormous medical debt and the US should provide better opportunities to veterans.

I agree with that. There are varying situations and varying degrees of difficulties. I think we should have a social safety net that temporarily help people who experience hardship. A problem though is that it often becomes a smothering blanket that keeps people from moving on. This is not as simple as handing out checks to anyone and everyone who wants it.

We allow a wide range of freedoms in the US. And I have to say that I have met many people who have freely and admittedly chosen their situations. Some of these may be people we would think need help from their choices.

I have seen local communities change, but not through government social programs. The best examples I have seen of communities that have changed have been through economic development brought upon by market driven gentrification.

Precisely. Took my friend 10yrs to work her way back from the brink of bankruptcy caused by crippling medical debts (2nd cancer diagnosis at 25). It took a cross country relocation, masters degree, her husband working two jobs (teacher and part-time fire fighter), her husband's lucky cash prize from winning 2nd place in a TV talent show, and 8yrs working her way up in the industry she loves.

That isn't an example of a community changing though, it is the example of the socio-economic make-up of an area changing. The community who were originally there are just dispersed and forced further afield, maintaining exactly the same problems as before, except presumably their bus journey to work is now 20 minutes longer each way.

There can be both. Gentrification can cause the cost of living to skyrocket, pricing out the local inhabitants, such as what you see in London, right? And then it can also lift up local inhabitants with opportunities that arise. In either case, it is driven organically rather than artificially pumped up by government funds.

One thing that could really help with Black communities in the US is the availability of capital for black-owned businesses. I think Trump is in a position to help with this, if he recognizes it. There is an opportunity here for success if it isn't hindered.

Sometimes. One of the big problems is education funding. Local schools are funded largely by property taxes. Richer neighborhoods have higher property taxes and therefore often more and better schools, and are able to pay teachers more as well as offer more activities. Poorer neighborhoods have lower property taxes so they can't offer the same opportunities from the start. It's not easy to come from a poor ghetto and work your way up.

I came from a rural, lower middle class town. Our school district did not offer any AP/college credit courses, and only two foreign languages for a max of two years each. There were very few clubs and only a few sports offered. Only a handful of people from my graduating class went to uni. A few went to technical college, but the rest couldn't even afford that. These are good people, smart people, and hard workers but even they struggle to stay afloat.

And racism does still exist. Studies have shown that when given two CVs with the same qualifications, the more white-sounding name is more likely to be called for an interview first, and often be chosen for the job over the less-vanilla name.

No doubt. Although looking at actual cases, the degree of difficulty of a circumstance does not necessarily determine a person's outcome. Many of the most successful people have overcome nearly insurmountable odds. Likewise, some of the most privileged circumstances are routinely squandered away by individuals.

I don't really think flattening this by debasing the peaks serve any useful purpose. A more effective way is to promote the reward of merit, which does occur routinely. Sometimes, that merit has to be earned by fighting tooth and nail. The more difficult the challenge, the greater and sweeter the reward.

The US is full of individuals with personal stories of overcoming unlikely odds.

...but it is far far fuller of people unable to do so through no fault of their own. As I have said before, the US is one of the worst developed countries for social mobility (only the UK and Italy are marginally worse). If you are poor in the US chances are very much you are going to stay that way.

Perhaps true if you leave it up to chance. But the point here is to work one's way out of chance and more through deliberate effort.

A major problem with the US is that it totally allows people to make up their own decision, and make choices they make, so long as they take responsibility for their choices. Most of the time, we cannot save people from the decisions they make. We allow and forgive a very wide range of individuality.

Ah that old chestnut. Actually most independent observers rate the US relatively poorly amongst developed countries - typically somewhere between 15th and 18th on the articles I've just been looking at.

Good idea.
Turns out you could be onto something when you point to political representation as a link to poverty levels.

If you rate the US States on the basis of per-capita income then you will find the top four States are majority Democrat and the bottom four are majority GOP.

No. The point is that in the US if you are born poor then no matter what you do the chances are very much you will stay that way. It's particularly (but not exclusively) about access to top education. Only possible in the US for the rich - also one reason the UK performs badly. In Switzerland everyone has pretty much the same access (whether they use it or not), result good social mobility.

Oh, we have the full range and gamut. You'll find the highest peak, as well as the lowest low. We have representations of microcosms of just about everything in the world.

Averages are meaningless.

Got sources?

It doesn't even matter. Any independent observer can go anywhere and observe the wrong things.

I know people who have gone from rags to riches, back and forth, up and down, three or four times in their lifetimes.

Nah I'm interested what publications rendered the US far down the list of developed nations in terms of "freedom".

Social mobility?

You mean destroying the solidarity of the working classes by inviting some of us to "better" ourselves and end up like fish out of water, too posh for the Uxbridge Arms and too common for the Widder Bar?

It's overrated.

Now back to Trump...