The Glamorization of the Poor

An Inquirer article regarding a certain bishop’s statement raised again the issue of poverty as a problem in the Philippines. Bishop Garcera of Daet is quoted to have said “poverty is not a problem.” But whether he said it or not, and no matter who says it, I still maintain that poverty will always be one of the core problems of the country, and no looking from a different angle will de-problematize it. However, this issue reveals that some Filipinos still have wrong attitudes about poverty. Something seems to be dressing up the condition of poverty as something attractive, or as something “good,” despite reality saying otherwise.

For some, it could mean, "I love squatters to stay as squatters (photo from Zazzle.com)."
For some, it could mean, “I love squatters to stay as squatters (photo from Zazzle.com).”
Benign0 raised again the question of why many Filipinos remain in poverty. My answer tries to partially explain it: I believe that there has been a glamorization of the poor that not only spreads wrong ideas about them, but actually serves as a way to keep people poor and suffering.

Why Poverty is a Problem

Poverty basically is a problem because it brings people into harmful conditions. People in poverty have greater health risks. Some of them eat pagpag, which is dirty and is germ-filled. They are less likely to finish or even go to school. They tend to have less intellectualism, which would make their lives less meaningful and more prone to stupid actions. Poverty is also quite related to higher crime; poor people tend to get into criminal activities to support themselves. They also tend to have more children than they can support (which proponents of the RH Law say the law will solve, but it remains to be seen whether it will be effective in that).

I think it is obvious that poverty is actually a harmful thing. Why encourage people to get into it or stay in it?

Saying that poverty is not a problem can be used as an excuse for the poor to stay poor – and keep them in situations of high risk. Some may say, since poverty is not a problem anyway, why help the poor? And another fear I have is that this has been used to demonize the rich, or even just the middle-class. It’s better to be poor. Poor is good, being rich or may-kaya is bad. The poor themselves may say, we’re more saintly when we’re poor, so why bring us out of poverty?

As commenter Midwayhaven said, “a lot of the poor CHOOSE to remain poor mainly due to the ‘victim’ mindset.”

Images of the Poor

Philippine TV shows and movies often show this: poor=good, rich=evil. This is clearly wrong. Even poor people commit crimes and can themselves be corrupt. And when they get into a position of power, they are likely to become corrupt themselves. Professional squatters are a good example.

Some are trying to make the poor into “heroes.” This is yet another attempt at muddling the concept of “hero.” Probably the concept is that heroes suffers, and the poor suffer. But in truth, heroes do not necessarily suffer. Heroes are those who try to help others. They may suffer, but it is because they are trying to help others. Now the poor are mostly trying to help themselves, not others. How can they even become heroes when they’re the ones asking help for themselves!

Some people believe it's better for people to be happy in poverty...
Some people believe it’s better for people to be happy in poverty…
Another image is that the poor are saints. Not just heroes; even the concept of sainthood is muddled. This is perhaps because of the common misuse of Bible verse which is part of the Beatitudes. “Blessed are the poor,” or “blessed are the poor in spirit.” People may think that this makes the poor blameless and holy. Not so. It only shows that God looks with mercy upon the disadvantaged, but it does not absolve the poor of their wrongs.

In addition, another Bible verse says non-working poor are doing wrong: “he who does not work, let him not eat (2 Thes. 3:10).” Some, like Vladmir Lenin, have used this to attack the bourgesioe, assuming that they do not work. However, this verse equally attacks the poor – that if they are poor, but refuse to work and want to receive dole-outs, they should expect to get hungry as a return.

Rooting for the Underdog

One of the things I consider an often misused and abused concept is rooting for the underdog. This is a concept often used in modern fiction. In this country, the underdog concept has been misused as to propagate a harmful and erroneous ideal.

In society, the poor is often portrayed as the underdog. The movies often portray them as abused, downtrodden, and persecuted. But one thing I notice is that the underdogs are often portrayed as lacking intelligence, unskilled, ill-mannered and poor in breeding. The movies often play this up and try to make them look good. But this has a bad effect. It may teach other people to favor being unintelligent, ill-mannered and unskilled. And it will likely make them incompetent, lazy, pretentious and just plain useless in life.

Problem is, even incompetent and corrupt underdogs will be glorified (remember the 70s movies featuring criminals?). The overdog (my word for the competent) is often demonized, thus making it less attractive to become one. I believe the overdog is what people should evolve into when they overcome their weaknesses, because they have become stronger, more competent. Media should play up the overdog. Or at least stop portraying the underdog as the hero.

“Nagpapakapoor”

The glamorization of the poor is such that it may invite others to become poor. This can be seen in some families where some members decide that they like the poor life better and go with poor people who are also poor in living life. For example, some children eschew parents’ advice and go out with an ill-mannered, poorly educated brute, only to regret years later the choice made. They may start out rich or middle-class, but can end up poor. This can be explained as rich or supposedly well-bred people being pulled down to the level of the poor – so that they can be poor themselves. This has been portrayed in TV shows as well.

Because it looks good to be poor in this country, it may have eliminated the desire of some people to solve their poverty through their own effort. As Midwayhaven and many others have said, these people will deliberately become poor and use the “pity effect” to ask for dole-outs from others – and from the government. Indeed, there are people who are “nagpapakapoor” in order to elicit dole outs.

But for most, poverty will definitely wipe the smile off their faces...
But for most, poverty will definitely wipe the smile off their faces…
Perhaps my observation may have been exaggerated and somewhat simplistic. But I am certain such cases exist. It does not always need the rich to do anything to “oppress” the poor; the poor sometimes keep themselves poor. Sometimes they know it, sometimes they do not.

Of course, being poor does not make a person condemnable. But it is a an undesirable state, and it certainly harmful to those undergoing it. It is a condition that needs to be solved – not maintained or exploited. Or liked. Wanting to become poor can be seen as irresponsible, and it can help propagate social ills.

And another thing is that the poor are being exploited. We hear of politicians who win elections because they get the popular or the masa vote, which we may surmise is full of poor people. They proclaim this power as the “power of the poor.” But I doubt this power exists. The poor have no power. It’s only the masa politician who feeds on their votes to stay in office and keep them poor, while fooling them that they have “power.”

Don’t forget leaders in insurgent organizations (yes, the commies) who profess to be champions of the poor, but are actually rich people themselves. They are also riding on the supposed “power of the poor,” which is actually “power to fool the poor.”

We need to challenge the very hyped image of the poor as “good,” and dissociate the concepts of “good-bad” from “rich-poor.” We need to help educate the poor and point out the error of their ways – and expose how they are being used. To help bring them out of wrong thinking and show them the right ways to think and act.

Why it is better to be “Anti-Poor”

I have my own definition for “Anti-poor”: believing that there should be no poor in society and that everyone should be free of poverty. Being “Pro-poor” thus is being in favor of having the poor around, and going against their getting out of poverty.

In other words, every society should gun for eliminating the poor. No, I don’t mean using a gun to eliminate the poor. Eliminate poverty by giving people jobs and allow them to work and earn enough for their own living. This is where I partly agree with Bishop Garcera: “When you help poor people they help themselves too… Everyone, when given the chance, will strive to earn a living” (though I’m not really sure everyone will want to).

It is wrong to glamorize the poor. It may encourage them to take upon commitments that they are unable to keep. The poor are not heroes. Poor is poor. It is nothing special, nor does it make people good. There is no assurance that poverty will lead to people becoming good and responsible. In fact, the opposite may mostly be true, making poverty is a severe social cancer.

Thus, propagating poverty and de-problemizing will only serve to deepen the social ills of the country and further cut down an important institution in any society: the middle class.

Opposition needs to be fronted against glamorization of the poor, or against telling the poor that it is OK for them to stay poor. Because it never is OK. And because glamour after all is based on that dreaded demon called pride. When people are poor, it would become even worse if their heads swelled. Instead, Filipinos should seek to develop wealth-building attitudes, the proper kind, which focus on proper stewardship of wealth, and considering it a friend and not an evil. Of course, encourage values such as living within one’s means, and not following the popular mindset. And of course, encouraging people to strive to be non-poor.

print

About ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture keep their society backward. And blogging freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

Post Author: ChinoF

I stick with this blog because I believe, as my cohorts do, that many things Filipino embrace as part of their culture keep their society backward. And blogging freely to show that in a truly decent society, with true freedom of speech, even nobodies have a voice.

Leave a Reply

122 Comments on "The Glamorization of the Poor"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
RF Garcia
Guest
We can discuss endlessly everything about the poor and why they are mired in poverty but the fact is that poverty is now a widespread problem in the country and is crying desperately for solution. Why not focus more on how to remedy the problem? Giving doleouts to the poor, for example is a stopgap and wrong solution and will only stave off hunger for a while. Neither will population control fill the bellies of the starving. Did Franklin Roosevelt advocate family planning to lift the U.S from the depths of the depression in the 1930s? What his government did… Read more »
T4Man
Guest

I concede that the Philippines is a former US colony but it’s not a good comparison when discussing culture. The cultures of the two countries are very dissimilar. Having lived in both countries I have serious doubts that a Depression Era jobs program would get to the source of the problem.

Joe
Guest
that is a ludicrous statement.a PAYING JOBS program is what is needed.the new hotel in cdo,masquerading as a mall and condo tower,was built with ‘trainee’ labor.the guys who built the place were not even paid,but hired to do two months of work and then MAYBE get hired.1 out of 100 got a paying job.with the way the corruption is rampaging in the country it must be snuffed out,but the people are not even upset(like the frog thrown into a slowly boiling pot of water,he does not know when to jump up and do something til it is too late) and… Read more »
Johnny Saint
Guest
That is not exactly correct. The Great Depression and the New Deal created a lot of useful things — Social Security for one and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And a number of other social services. And yes, the New Deal did put the country to work at a time when people needed employment. It also raised the US debt. And incurred new TAXES. All of which went to PAY for the COST of the New Deal. Production went to the massive WAR effort; it did not go into actual economic growth. Economic liberalization in the 1950′s after the Marshall… Read more »
JOE
Guest
Well Johnny, adding to what I stated is good,but what I said was ‘spot on’ correct. the Philippines is progressive yet retarded in so many ways(acceptance of ‘she-boys’ yet no divorce laws,WTF?).It goes without saying that paying jobs create a tax base,but the fact is,in a rampant corruption riddled country,it stands NO CHANCE of progressing beyond banana republic status until the corruption is stopped.There is only one way to stop UNLESS the current admin. actually starts taking some of the corrupt as shit public servants out of their offices in hand-cuffs and actually slappin their-asses in a forced labor camp… Read more »
sendonggirl
Guest

you could have just said they tend to have less intellect, wtf do you mean they have less “intellectuality”? and it just went downhill from there. stop glamorizing wrong grammar please

clostridiumgretani
Guest

wrong grammar? i beg your pardon but the right term for that is “grammatically incorrect”. you could have said “stop glamorizing incorrect grammar “. anyway, setting grammar aside, the author could make mistakes in his article as proofreading is a tough job. but then again, why not focus on the gist of the topic? you could keep the comment to yourself. anyhow, i agree with the writer here about his observation of the poor people and the mentality behind “being poor “…

sendonggirl
Guest

i cant understand the point if its grammarically incorrect hehehe

Amir Al Bahr
Guest

You can’t understand, period.

domo
Member

Do you know the words common sense?

ImplaerTriumphant
Guest

Anyway, ChinoF “Perhaps my observation may have been exaggerated and somewhat simplistic. But I am certain such cases exist.”

Was that what you want to see, girl?

sendonggirl
Guest

if there is no poor who will be the janitors? its just like nature predator and prey

Chorvaqueen
Guest

Looks like someone hasn’t seen Dirty Jobs yet.

Haw
Guest

Thats because abs and gma are the only channels he watch

MidwayHaven
Guest

Wow. Coming from a person who implies that Get Real Philippines is elitist, you sure deprive yourself of any human reasoning with that comment.

LA702
Guest
@ MidwayHaven Did you say elitist? I think you guys need to slap yourselves and wake up. To understand why “poverty” seems to be the central theme of GRP, one has to examine their comments because these are not accidental or a choice but a direct consequence of what the blogger, GRP and its people represents and where they came from in the past. They are revisiting poverty and telling the world that somehow they have conquered it. There is a saying in law enforcement that criminals do get caught because they always revisit the scene of the crime. It… Read more »
MidwayHaven
Guest

Nobody here is demeaning the poor.

You most likely misread the point of this article and the comments that follow it. Poverty is a chronic illness in the Philippines because many of the poor do not WANT to escape poverty, preferring to be given handouts and complaining that what’s being given to them is not enough. No one here is saying that the poor are stupid.

As for the “elitist” implication, perhaps you didn’t quite understand who and/or what I’m referring to.

MidwayHaven
Guest

Yep, you DEFINITELY contradict yourself with this sarcastic remark:


sendonggirl says:
January 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm
cant hardly wait. so we can bash poor people and pat each other on the back again

clostridiumgretani
Guest

the poor tend to get the lowly jobs because their educational attainment do not warrant them working a white-collared job. HOWEVER, do you not notice that being a janitor is a job too? people, no matter what state of life they’re in, had to fulfill certain task in this society. i wonder why it never even occured to you. or that you are just too engrossed in your caste that you really had to imply that because one is poor, he MUST be a janitor…that’s too prejudicial on your part.

sendonggirl
Guest

so you will volunteer as a rich janitor midway? is that it?

MidwayHaven
Member

Now you’re just making illogical attacks with no referential basis.

Felipe
Guest

@sendonggirl

so you will volunteer as a rich janitor midway? is that it?

For me, yup, no problem. I know people who got rich with their janitorial services and continue to run their business hands-on. It’s just business–that’s all there is to it.

Iba dyan presidente na, pero mga KKK at kapartido lang mas nakikinabang talaga sa kanya (at the expense of political enemies he demonizes with the help of the media)–Walang silbi! Buti pa simpleng janitor. Tunay yung integridad. Serbisyo sa lahat with genuine equal opportunity!

You there simply have to let go of your tendency to stereotype.

sendonggirl
Guest

yes you’re right but the discussion was more about who will take the janitor jobs if we are all rich hehe like will you work as a janitor if you’re already rich. i believe there will always be poor just as there will always be weaklings/prey in nature

Thomas Jefferson
Guest

@sendonggirl

Predator-prey? Hmmm…let me guess. Are you an apex-predator or a cannibal? Are you a lecher? Are you into sexual harassment? Are you a rapist? Are you a criminal? Are you an animal? What?

sendonggirl
Guest

i am a predator of pseudo intellectuals who are grammatically incorrect

Johnny Derp
Member

I’d say you are more of a mewling quim than a “predator”.
You just keep getting dumber and dumber. You clearly underestimate us too much.

sendonggirl
Guest

you clearly have no respect for women. is that how your father raised you?

Johnny Derp
Member

Really? You claim to be a woman yet your actions here contradicts your claims of being a woman.

Johnny Derp
Member

My father raised me well but you claim to be a woman? Don’t make me laugh TROLL. What a coward, do you really think that we would go easy on you even if you are a woman?

sendonggirl
Guest

the use of the primeval expression “mewling quim” which roughly means whimpering vagina is very offensive to women such as your mother if you had one. but never mind, if you’re a misogynist that’s your business

Johnny Derp
Member

Why should I believe that you are a woman? Your actions contradict your claims.

Johnny Derp
Member

I have a mom but she is clearly a BETTER woman than you’ll ever claim to be.

sendonggirl
Guest

better than i’ll ever claim to be. fine jony

Johnny Derp
Member

@sendong”girl”
The question still remains… Are you a real woman or just a stupid TROLL pretending to be one?

Vergil
Guest

Please. Being a Aquino worshiper doesn’t make you really smart.

So much for the “i am a predator of pseudo intellectuals who are grammatically incorrect” nonsense. You just want to attack people, not the message. In any case, being LOGICALLY INCORRECT is a better fit for you.

MidwayHaven
Guest

If I get compensated fairly with the appropriate benefits, why not?

Combuzz
Guest

I know of a janitor who is a retired CPA. He’s a janitor part time because the hospital he works for gives him health care benefits. If there are economic benefits to being a janitor someone’s going to take the job.

az_121490
Guest
Don’t forget that with the glamorization of the poor, comes the media-saturated acts of “charity”. How often do we see ads that feature “bunutan/dropbox” promos, lotteries or “scratch-it-to-win-it” cards that are so widespread in the most basic of consumer goods? More so, how often do we come across a TV program that suddenly helps some random street vendor in an instant rags-to-riches glory just because that person, despite being relatively poor, is living an “honest” life and is doing his job “properly” in the service of other people? Or how about the plethora of populist crusaders in the media industry… Read more »
mikemac17
Guest
There is a difference between voluntary poverty and involuntary poverty. Voluntary poverty means detachment from material attachments. It is the necessary poverty. Voluntary poverty ultimately enriches. You are the master of your wealth instead of its slave. Involuntary poverty ultimately impoverishes. You are the slave of your wealth instead of its master. It is unnecessary poverty. From a psychological standpoint, the “pagpapakamartir” may be a form of ego tripping. The “martir” gets to feel some sense of moral justification. Somehow, the “martir” feels that the world owes her/him for the suffering s/he endures. Sense of entitlement tends to develop in… Read more »
Hyden Toro
Guest
The good Bishop from Daet; did not study his Scriptures in his Christian Bible. Jesus Christ stated: ” The poor will always be with you.” Maybe the good Bishop is blind, because he lives in his Bishop Palace. The Politicians are the root causes of poverty in the Philippines. Poor people are desperate people. In time of elections; desperate people will cling to any deceptions, to get out of their desperation. The Politicians comes campaigning, with promises. Swallowed by these people: hook, line and sinker. So poverty will always be glamorized by politicians, for them to remain in power.and to… Read more »
Jane Doe
Guest

I have heard that growing up in poverty would make a person more… humble and someone who knows how to improvise. I’ve heard people say “Ang mga laki sa hirap, masisipag.” They believe that so that might be one of the reasons why being poor is is being glamorize. Being poor does have it’s advantages by being low maintenance, knowing how to survive.

premonition08
Guest

to sendonggirl,

“Gamitin mo ang utak mo” tagalog yan para maintindihan mo…

premonition08
Guest

Mathew 5:3 “God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs” -kaya kuntento na ang mga mahihirap sa pagiging mahirap dahil sa langit ang bagsak nila. aba e kung ganito mentalidad ng mahihirap, wala na talaga tayong pagasa

Trosp
Guest

Alam mo naman ang sinasabi mo?

Ang sinasabi, KAHIT KA mahirap…

Trosp
Guest
This time, the blogger new claim is – “But whether he said it or not, and no matter who says it, I still maintain that poverty will always be one of the CORE problems of the country, and no looking from a different angle will de-problematize it” His previous claim was poverty will always be a problem, no matter how anyone sees it. Which is which? BTW, I might be wrong, but I still haven’t read his definition of his poverty. IMO: Some will say it’s over-population which results to poverty (A myth, it’s misgovernance). Some will say it’s the… Read more »
17Sphynx17
Guest
Well, there are cases of poor being a choice for some but I am not generalizing it for all. To put it simply, if no one was poor then no one is rich. If such a society existed then there is no reason to create/run a business as everyone is pretty much equal. The boss, employee and customer all earn equally the same amount regardless of labor put forth. As such, there is no incentive to even work harder, innovate etc etc. It is an ideal utopian society like that of StarTrek where I recall no one is technically paid… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

“Poverty will always exist, it is caused by the existence of money. Take money out, no one is poor in the general sense of the word.”

Have you consider those affluent losing every thing to gambling?

Even without involving money.

Trosp
Guest

And I love your “to put it simply” thing…

17Sphynx17
Guest
Well, the case of rich losing on gambling/vices in general (like drugs, women/men, alcohol etc etc) is not necessary for society to exist anyway. As such, in a society without the existence of money or something of similar nature would not actually allow for such an activity such as gambling to exist. There is no benefit. Everyone in that society earns the same, that goes for “businesses” as well. So the boss of the supposed gambling in that society would never be richer than the nutjob supposedly waging his whole life savings (which doesn’t exist by the way). It doesn’t… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

@sphinx

Lets unpack your comment –

“Well, the case of rich losing on gambling/vices in general (like drugs, women/men, alcohol etc etc) is not necessary for society to exist anyway.”

Utopia?

Other than that, I can’t comprehend you.

17Sphynx17
Guest
@trosp Yes, that is what I am saying. The only way poverty will not exist is in a “utopian society” which will never come to pass as that basically removes a reward system in place for improvement/work by salaries, bonuses, incomes etc etc. It is connected to my first comment which is if you remove money/riches/the concept of it from society, that poverty will not exist. As long as you retain the idea of earning more/having more over someone else, then poverty will exist because there will be an imbalance in possessions/what he owns/has. Someone will always have more than… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

@sphynx

According to you –

“Well, the case of rich losing on gambling/vices in general (like drugs, women/men, alcohol etc etc) is not necessary for society to exist anyway.”

How could I have an interesting argument with you if that is your point?

“…is not necessary?”

You again oversimplify it.

17Sphynx17
Guest
@Trosp I am not oversimplifying things because that looks to be how it will turn out should money/riches not exist. Take into context/account my example of that utopian society where money does not exist, the Star Trek universe. It is the only “concept” of a society that I can envision wherein there is no poverty but there is also nothing to gain. Again, with the issue of gambling, it can’t exist in that society because you can not gain more than everyone else, nor can you have less than everyone else in the end. Hence, gambling would be removed in… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

“Well, the case of rich losing on gambling/vices in general (like drugs, women/men, alcohol etc etc) is not necessary for society to exist anyway.”

It’s not mine. It’s yours.

17Sphynx17
Guest
@Trosp Yes, I made that statement but that should be kept in context with the rest of what I said and the society which it should “theoretically exist with” based on what I originally said then you commented on. Right? If you just wanted a reply of how about rich getting poor because of gambling well then, my answer to just that (excluding any information which you could have replied on from my original comment) would just be, that is their problem because they chose to gamble it away. Would they generally be poor by then? I can’t really say.… Read more »
17Sphynx17
Guest
@Trsop And if in case you are wondering why I put in the words is not necessary (in a utopian society) is because I believe utopian societies would rid excess and wasteful actions/inactions in its existence which affects gambling and vices altogether. I just didn’t add the statement “in a utopian society” because I thought that was already implied from my original comment. But to go about it differently, is it necessary for society to exist? Just to at least get the ball rolling? Before you do start answering though, I would like to frame my concept of gambling. Poker,… Read more »
Robert Haighton
Guest
I am not an expert in the field of poverty. But to get everyone out of poverty and make those a member of the middle class (or higher classes) is something you really can forget. Its simply impossible. A person is good in using his mental skills, another person is good at using his hands, others just want to have a simple job (from 9 till 5) without any hazzles, and there are poeple who simply dont want to work at all and will get their monthly benefit from the government (dole outs). We are not all the same, we… Read more »
T4Man
Guest

Utopian ideals aside; the best we can hope for is a society that values the freedom and opportunity to live your life the way you choose as long as you’re not violating the rights of others. That is about the extent of the “bull’s eye” we can aim for. Unfortunately, that is far from what we have especially now in a world that is increasingly becoming a cult of entitlement rather than a society of production and contribution.

Robert Haighton
Guest
T4Man, Striving for the best, dont hurt anyone. Even if others will call that selfish(ness). Although I do get the drift of the author of this article/Blog. I think the problem lies deeper, much deeper than that. I actually do think its much easier to make a pinoy a world class soccer player than to get rid of overall poverty in the Philippines. Similar to changing aspects of the Philippine culture. Some things are so imprinted in society its hard to kick the habit. And thats why I think it will take centuries (literally) to make just only a few… Read more »
sendonggirl
Guest

what if you’re poor in money but rich in family and health. author is materialistic

17Sphynx17
Guest
Hmm.. So if I have parents and 2 brothers while person B has 5 brothers and 2 sisters with his parents intact then he is in fact richer than me? Actually the claim of being rich in family/health is just to soothe the pain of realization that someone else is better off than you. No being materialistic here but just stating facts. It is like saying “it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all” to console yourself of the fact that you are heartbroken at that certain/specific point in time when you made… Read more »
sendonggirl
Guest

it means having a great relationship with your family. sometimes you sacrifice family and health in wanting to be rich, because grp said you have to be rich to have value as a person

17Sphynx17
Guest

Really? Did it say you had to be rich to have value? Please grab it from the GRP article and/or link it so I can at least sift through it at least.

sendonggirl
Guest

just read the article

MidwayHaven
Guest

Remember: sedonggirl doesn’t want to read long texts because they frustrate her.

Johnny Derp
Member

What a letdown. “She” is no different from the retarded malacanang shmucks that used to troll here with no success. Can’t even read the blog. The troll keeps insisting that “she” is a woman but “she” can’t even win ONE argument.

Ici
Guest

The weird thing is, the pinoy poor love the idea of rich people. They will not necessarily strive to be rich themselves. They’re content with watching the rich people’s conspicuous consumption and are thrilled with that perhaps they would be thrown a bone or two every now and then.

Ask them to complete the sentence ‘billboard ako Kay…’ They will not likely mention Mother Teresa for her good heart.

Libertas
Guest
From internet – no author quoted “If everyone was a Clever-Thief there would be no profit in stealing. Stupidity is essential. Not everyone can be rich because “wealth” depends upon the legal-theft associated with unfair transactions. Unfairness is essential… Mass stupidity creates rich-lifestyles for THE ELITE … Intelligence determines if one human or another rises to the top. Some humans are born into privileged circumstances and some humans become wealthy due to pure luck, but intelligence is the always the overall determining factor for being rich. Throughout history intelligent people have gradually created a civilisation that makes life easier for… Read more »
BlueStreak
Guest
I give you the merit of your objections and yes most of the ones in power is in a way, doing it in a subtle manner. I think you have read 1984 and got the idea on that. Yet I do know something that can we say, “offset” this problem but it will be too peculiar to apply and it will be most likely not accepted but to making it as the a MUST is NOT TRUE. I have searched out that the Nordic countries were able to somehow reduce inequality substantially and its population is both educated and financially… Read more »
Ici
Guest

Bilib…not billboard

Chiruu
Guest

I agree with you ChinoF my friend, being poor and stay poor will prevent society from progressing in fact that I’m very sad that the poor themselves are fatalistic.

So how are you sir? Long Time No See!

MidwayHaven
Guest
I have to clarify things, though. 🙂 Personally I have no faith in “trickle-down economics,” the main belief (especially in certain red states in the US) that as people get richer their wealth eventually “trickles down” to the poor. This concept is uncharitable and ultimately inhuman. Neither however do I believe in the “woe-is-me” mentality of many urban poor, especially in the Philippines where the poor seem unable to develop themselves into relative sustainability, simply because they believe that the government is a charity. Here I have to give credit to the government when it has the occasional initiative to… Read more »
Johnny Saint
Guest
MidwayHaven, I have to disagree. The whole debate over so-called “trickle-down economics” or as Ross Perot put it Reagan’s “voodoo economics” is unfounded. Mainly because the term mislabels the economic strategies that its proponents advocate. Their perspective is that economic progress is dependent on (consumers) being able to save and innovation — creating new products and services. These in turn are driven by the opportunity to make wealth. That is the same standard for everyone, i.e. everyone has the opportunity to participate in the economy and make high profits. It is not a “trickle-down” phenomenon. True — we rely on… Read more »
mcalleyboy
Guest

When the term squatters is mentioned, does it only apply to Manila or heavy populated area’s where there were no options for extra space or under bridges, I feel it does because there are so many that live way out from the city that don’t own the land.

MidwayHaven
Guest

I guess here at GRP the more important term is “squatter mentality,” where even the rich have a misguided sense of entitlement.

BlueStreak
Guest
Sound statement there. And by the way if you look at logic. The rich actually and should be the ones to shoulder most of the poor and the some(not all) of the middle class.(likely the lower middle class) and they are not entitled to what they have CONSIDERING THEY DID NOT ACHIEVE WHERE THEY ARE ALONE. If you look at economics carefully regardless of the system, the flow of capital especially money is perpetuated to end up those in the elite.(inflation is included) and is “invested” again to produce more wealth for them. The BETTER perspective that one must look… Read more »
Robert Haighton
Guest
I only experienced squatters myself while in Cebu City and not in towns or villages in Cebu. Although I cant blame these young lads (I guess their ages range from 5 up) but I told them the rude harsh truth to “go fuck your parents” bec they (the parents)are to blame that they are there and probably they (the squatters) are encouraged to do what they are doing by their parents. Now I dont know any good definition of what a squatter is and maybe those people we can see in London and Paris undergound/tube/metro can also be labeled as… Read more »
ImpalerTriumphant
Guest

A squatter is someone who lives on a piece of land, makes a living off it, but doesn’t own the land. Many squatters in fact build small townhouses on the land they squat on, making them landlords. So the beggar kids, the musicians in London, the sidewalk vendors, the landowners of Hacienda Luisita: well fits.

You know, you’re in the right place to get pissed off by those kids begging for food. I guess that you would hate to live in Manila, because some beggars would even hurt you if you don’t give them money.

Robert Haighton
Guest

You mean physically hurt me (like kicking my leg or knee?) or mentally hurt me (or both)?

My partner once told me that in case I would become a victim of pickpocketers to let him/them go. I told myself: No fucking way!!!!

wpDiscuz