You mention ONE disabled person whom you know that was lucky to get a job. But there’s something missing from the equation. Did he luck out because of someone he knew, or perhaps because of having a casseworker that actually cared and helped with job placement? Does he live in a middle to upper-middle class neighborhood?
What you fail to realize is that our social networks (who we know), which are defined by our social class, make a huge difference in getting an opportunity. And money determines social class.

In the meantime, how are the other disabled jobseekers without any income supposed to live? What about disabled job seekers who are also middle-aged with a significant work history gap AND poor credit ( a result of being poor in the first place), AND who live in inner-city ghettos?

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, it’s fair to say exactly how the privileged classes expect the “have-nots” to live - able bodied or not.

While your occasional token disabled person lucks out in landing a job, many other people whether they are able-bodied or not, do not because no one wants to hire them and give them a chance. Especially not in a Serengeti job market where job seekers far outnumber jobs and employers can have their pick - for a song.

Health problems, class problems, race problems… sure, if you only have one of them, it’s far from insurmountable. Even if you have several of them it CAN be done… but it won’t always. Because someone MUST be on the bottom. Period. There is no alternative in the societal structure we’ve set up.

Now, abuse is a factor you’re completely leaving out. It doesn’t sound like you had a twisted parent who actively tried to keep you from succeeding. If you had, your story would be different. It doesn’t sound like you had teachers who intentionally gave you lesser grades than you’d earned because they didn’t like your skin color or whatever.

When the gatekeepers are against you, it doesn’t matter that you’ve got the key. It doesn’t matter that you did all the work to get the key and now you’ve brought it to them. That’s the societal structure we’ve set up.

Betacandy: Misguided, perhaps, but if I thought you were just stupid, I wouldn’t have bothered to comment. Obviously your thinking critically about the way the world is set up.

I wasn’t claiming I had the saddest sob story in the world. Nor was I claiming that it is just as easy for the poor to succeed. Obviously that can be attributed to racism, classism, and several other sentiments that I don’t deny exist in our country. Of course luck may be an element. Although pure chance is just as likely to favor the poor as the rich when a 50/50 chance is presented, less 50/50 opportunities are presented to the poor, overall, so they are disadvantaged even by that. So yes, it is more difficult, but I wouldn’t call the odds insurmountable.

And I agree with Jacqueline that disabled people and those who can’t read have it hardest of all. To overcome something like that takes great courage and much hard work, and is probably beyond some individuals. But it is possible (Google search “project read adult literacy”). I admit it is very difficult to achieve full literacy as an adult, it is like learning a new language as an adult. The solution is, of course, to teach literacy as soon as possible, which is my career goal: to open private schools in poor communities that will not turn away students because of a family’s inability to pay. I want to start in the US, but eventually want to branch out to countries that don’t have a public education system.

And as for the disabled, they may not be able to get the first job they apply for, because they are disabled. Which is a sad state of affairs, but a fact of todays world. But it is possible for them to eventually get a job. I mentor with a mentally retarded adult in my community who has a full time job, on top of getting aid from the gov’t. My neighbor, paralyzed from the waist down, has a job. I’ll give you full paralysis. It would be impossible, applying for jobs as a Quadriplegic.

So I’m admitting that chance is a factor (though I don’t agree that chance favors the rich except for in the increased number of opportunities rich people have to express that chance), Admitting that family connections are a factor, that who you know through school and what school you went to and what clothes you wear to an interview are all factors in how easy or ridiculously difficult it is for a person to rise in our society. As I did in my first post. But you disagreed, strongly with my first post, so I am left to assume that you believe in a stronger sorting factor, something beyond choice and chance.

If you really believe lower classes can’t achieve success under their own power, I am left to guess that you must believe in determinism. Determinism is essentially the same, whether it be religious (Hinduism, some Christianity), genetic (Eugenisists), physical (Einsteinian physics), economic (Marxism), or based on a variety of factors (Betacandy?); in that it stems from the belief that everyone is on a set track towards success or failure regardless of their choices. Essentially, there is no free will or free agency. And if this is true, you are entitled to your beliefs, as is everyone. If you believe in economic determinism, the solution would indeed be to give money to the poor, rather than education and opportunities. If you believe in determinism based on a variety of factors, then you would give all three, because the downtrodden would never be able to attain them on their own. In that case, your post and everything you said would be correct.

I, on the other hand, politely disagree with the idea of determinism. Here is why: for my life, I prefer to assume the philosophy that gives me the most responsibility. Because if I assume responsibility for my life, and I am wrong, no harm has been done because I was predetermined to succeed or fail whether or not I assumed that responsibility. But if I assume determinism for my own life and I turn out wrong, I will have wasted my time waiting for my destiny to arrive, when there is no such thing as destiny. That is why I believe in free agency in my own life. And, because I want to give other people the same respect that I give myself, and to retain philosophical consistency, I assume everyone has free agency. If fully admit I could be wrong, but this path is less disastrous to be wrong about.

And what is this “free agency” you are referring to Dragyn?

When you lack the means of production to be able to earn a living when no one will give you a chance for a job, you are not a “free agent.” when your ability to survive depends on the policies of a corporation or on someone of higher socio-economic status deciding whether or not to give you a chance, you are NOT a free agent by any definition.

The only thing poor people are free to do is starve, suffer without heat in the winter, and forego medical care that might otherwise help you become employable by restoring your health. Or at the very least, save you from premature death.

I speak from experience. Since you are able to attend Amherst, I assume you can read. A small window to that experience is discussed here.

http://classism-jacqueline-homan.blogspot.com/2007/10/classism-in-career-opportunities.html

What “locus of control” does someone who is disabled - and consequently so poor that they are a member of a permanent underclass - what control do they truly have here when no one will give them a chance or treat them in a way that is remotely fair?

Why don’t you tell all of the desperately poor residents of the Red Hook section of Brooklyn how much “control” they really have when no one gave them chances for jobs simply because they live in a ghetto while the jobs created in that particular urban enterprize zone went overwhelmingly to non-poor job seekers who did not live there.

As an aside, this pehnomenon of “poverty profiling” in the hiring process is not unique and occurs regularly across the nation.

Victim-blaming and classism is alive and well. Q.E.D.

Except Dragyn (and btw, everyone’s comments were caught in spam filters, not just yours, but I do disagree with you.) First, I don’t appreciate your condescending remark that I’m “well-meaning” but… what? Stupid? Of course that’s what you mean.

You’re just the sort of person I’m talking about. You tell this fairly difficult story that you think is the worst anyone ever lived through, and offer it as proof anyone can thrive. Got news for you; I’ve heard much, much worse stories. You think you overcame the worst odds, but that’s only because you have no idea how bad it can get.

The I got mine. Get yours, jacks, are simply rationalizing why they are selfish pricks.

Along these lines, you may appreciate some of the stuff that Kevin Carson has written about “Fish! Philosophy” and “Who moved my cheese?”–it’s basically a corporate self-help scam to convince workers that their own powerlessness is simply the result of their own attitude (nevermind economic and physical reality!).

Even though anyone can get rich, not EVERYONE can get rich. It takes a few thousand “poor” people doing menial jobs for poverty wages to support each “rich” person. Always been this way, always will be. Even if everyone started making the “right” choices on lifestyle, education, career overnight, we would still have this ratio in our society because of the way it’s structured. We live in a giant pyramid scheme. There’s no way one can achieve even “middle-class” prosperity without a supporting cast to produce, serve, and clean up our consumer smorgasboard.

Used to be we billed our technological achievements as the force that would save us from lives of drudgery and over-work. The balance of our time would be shifted to higher callings in science, medicine, the arts, raising families, community service, spiritual pursuits.

Time saving devices now exist that do the work of hundreds, even thousands of people - massive machinery, high-speed transportation, computers…on and on. But what became of all the time we saved? Did you get any? Me neither.

Until we change our worldview to one that values people over profit and recognizes that economic measurements are but a small part of the story that defines us, we will always have this imbalance and the finger-pointing will continue as to whose fault it is.