> Their general argument can be summed up as, "They made poor choices, and are now facing the consequences of those choices." The problem with this perspective isn't the profound lack of empathy, but rather a presumption that there exists a system of perfect information that everyone is tapped into.
I think the real problem is just that it's trivial to see that it's empirically false. If you look at the statistics, the U.S. is roughly twice as ghettoized as it was only ten years ago, so it's not even plausible that societal patterns of wealth and poverty could be determined by the choices of individuals. E.g.:
"High-poverty schools, in which more than 75 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) [...] comprised 21 percent of all public schools in 2010–11, compared with 12 percent in 1999–2000."
"In 2010–11, some 24 percent of public school students attended a low-poverty school, compared with 45 percent in 1999–2000."
In other words, the percentage of students attending high-poverty schools has roughly doubled, and the percentage of students attending low-poverty schools has also roughly doubled.
I think the real problem is just that it's trivial to see that it's empirically false. If you look at the statistics, the U.S. is roughly twice as ghettoized as it was only ten years ago, so it's not even plausible that societal patterns of wealth and poverty could be determined by the choices of individuals. E.g.:
"High-poverty schools, in which more than 75 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) [...] comprised 21 percent of all public schools in 2010–11, compared with 12 percent in 1999–2000."
"In 2010–11, some 24 percent of public school students attended a low-poverty school, compared with 45 percent in 1999–2000."
In other words, the percentage of students attending high-poverty schools has roughly doubled, and the percentage of students attending low-poverty schools has also roughly doubled.
Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013037.pdf, p. 78