There has been a great deal of talk in recent decades about the cycle of poverty, how it’s a vicious circle that children have difficulty getting out of.
It makes sense. If parents are short on economic resources, have to work multiple jobs, have little free time to nurture their children, it can impede children’s growth.
What if poverty actually harmed children physiologically, not just impeding socio-economic opportunities? Wouldn’t that then constitute a plan to ensure the poor really, really, really stay poor?
It wouldn’t be a eugenics plan, however, unless we actually knew that poverty stunted children physiologically and we set up greedy, self-serving, 1%-worshiping policy that kept the poor down.
It’s not like poverty can harm a child’s growth and development like cigarettes or nuclear waste.
But then I read this: