How Come Mexicans Are so Poor?

[Riverwind (imported)]

right on,

River

[moi621 (imported)]

And don't forget an oppressive church which supports the ruling

classes.

Look at the history of any country with poor separation of church

and state. Feudalism is alive and well.

This Oligarchy as exist in Latin America also tends to be those with more, European blood.

President Diaz was know to have his photos touched-up to appear, more European.

Consider also genes, behavior and life choices.

Such as those in New Orleans who have a high obesity rate and seek to live well,

compared to those from Seattle who choose to live, long.

Orange County, Califo-nia has Garden Grove and Santa Ana right next to each other. Dirt poor, no family history of higher education Vietnamese living one neighborhood over from similar, Mexicans.

The Asian kids manage to get themselves to college phenomenally higher then the Mexican kids although family income, family education history were the same.

Genes and Behavior. The Minnesota Twin studies. Victims of our genes.

Not to diss the life choice of New Orleans or Mexican people, nor Seattle and Asian people.

So we have a Euro centric oligarchy combined with a population that, well -you phrase it.

Moi

[bobover3 (imported)]

There's a powerful correlation between age and income recognized by social scientists all over the world. Older people have more education and experience, and have had more time to further their careers and accumulate assets. Most often, a glaring difference between rich and poor countries is the average age of their populations.

From the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... -factbook/), we learn that the median age in Mexico is 26.7. In the US, it's 36.8. The world average is 28.4. Mexico is a young country, younger than average in the world, and this may account for much of its relative poverty.

[bobover3 (imported)]

We should be cautious about attributing sociological phenomena to genes, lest we slip into the old error of "eugenics" - attributing social differences to good or bad "blood," then basing social policies on this pseudo-scientific classification. In the early 20th century, eugenicists declared that Irish, Jewish, and Italian immigrants were innately inferior, using as evidence the poor performance of non-English speakers on IQ tests written in English, the relative poverty of immigrants, etc. They sought to exclude these immigrants from America. The Nazis used similar false reasoning to claim that their prejudices were scientific.

There are many physical differences between groups of people, but I suspect that gross differences in things like educational or economic outcomes have more to do with social psychology than genetics. There are numerous examples of people changing their behavior to conform to the expectations of their group. Black students hear that it's "white" to study. Girls are as good at math as boys, until they reach puberty and hear that boys don't like smart girls. There's example after example of social expectations shaping performance. Genetics shouldn't be a catch-all that allows us to avoid looking critically at our values and how we order our society.

[thearmchairprof (imported)]

In America, Latino culture tends to place more emphasis of its values on the family unit rather than the individual in comparison to Anglo culture. Often times Latinos have to make a choice between career opportunities and helping a family member or relatives, which in many cases family comes first. This is a value system which is not readily accepted by Anglo culture, but can easily be seen as a cornerstone to many Latinos.

This is one explanation, and I am quite surprised to see much of blame by others being placed upon the country in question's system of government rather than our own.

America has a long history in Latin America of staging coux de tas in order to set up puppet governments which cater to American interests. This has happened since we started moving toward imperialistic foreign policy during the post civil war era expansion.

If we really want to ask why Mexico is so poor, we only have to go so far as the grocery store, where a large portion of our produce is grown in Mexico and distributed by American companies. American investment banks such as JP Morgan have a long history of influence over American interests in latin america. Most of these investment banks, which subsequently have been of recent topic due to the bailouts, love poor and destitute countries and have so since after the civil war. They have continuously sought to use them as cheap producers of resources and labor, and their interests lie in keeping them that way.

Cheers!

[butterflyjack (imported)]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the one common factor running through Latin America....The Roman Catholic faith...and what is the mission of the RC church? Why , to populate the earth...They are overpopulated. There is just so much to go around and they are oversucking the juices of their homes...

So...Go forth, propagate, starve to death...Unfortunately, I see overpopulation as the real problem facing the world today....furthered by the inane desire of many religions to propagate their faiths so that they may take over the world....Stop the madness....dragonfly

[A-1 (imported)]

In America, Latino culture tends to place more emphasis of its values on the family unit rather than the individual in comparison to Anglo culture. Often times Latinos have to make a choice between career opportunities and helping a family member or relatives, which in many cases family comes first. This is a value system which is not readily accepted by Anglo culture, but can easily be seen as a cornerstone to many Latinos.

This is one explanation, and I am quite surprised to see much of blame by others being placed upon the country in question's system of government rather than our own.

America has a long history in Latin America of staging coux de tas in order to set up puppet governments which cater to American interests. This has happened since we started moving toward imperialistic foreign policy during the post civil war era expansion.

If we really want to ask why Mexico is so poor, we only have to go so far as the grocery store, where a large portion of our produce is grown in Mexico and distributed by American companies. American investment banks such as JP Morgan have a long history of influence over American interests in latin america. Most of these investment banks, which subsequently have been of recent topic due to the bailouts, love poor and destitute countries and have so since after the civil war. They have continuously sought to use them as cheap producers of resources and labor, and their interests lie in keeping them that way.

Cheers!

If I may add, there was something called "Manifest Destiny" (http://www.historyonthenet.com/American ... estiny.htm) that was responsible for the settlement of the Western States in America.

To paraphrase, people who came to America came to what justifiably could be called a 'belief' that it was the 'destiny' of Americans to settle on unoccupied land.

The American Indian belief was that nobody could 'own' land.Of course these contrasting belief systems let untold numbers of wars and skirmishes as flood after flood of European immigrants came to America and went west to acquire 160 acres of land free of charge courtesy of the U.S. government in the biggest 'give away' of real estate in the history of mankind.

Contrast this with most of the governments in Europe who would not allow an individual to own land unless they were of aristocratic stock. Some were still attempting to cling to the ideas of feudalism. Consequently, individuals with entrepreneurial spirit immigrated to America, caught a train and as soon as they got to a place that they could claim, they claimed their 160 acres. Remember, these were people who may have been considered mostly lower class in Europe.

Contrast this with the settlement of Mexico. First of all, the native peoples of Mexico were more numerous and from the beginning the purpose of the colonizing countries was to exploit the indigenous people and acquire their wealth (gold, silver, etc.) for their monarch at home.

Consequently, the immigrants to Mexico were more interested in taking something from somebody else than they were in establishing a working government and allowing people come and to populate it free-gratis.

Remember, the new world WAS claimed for governments in Europe in the name of royalty, kings, queens and the like. Not until a revolution occurred was private ownership allowed and then always at a cost. Meanwhile, the United States government still was giving away land to anybody who would come and live on it.

This is why the Mexican government and many other governments in the Latin and South America tend to be corrupt and their people tend to be poorer.

The United States of America was a land of promise where people were allowed to have things like royalty. (Like own land) There WAS no royalty in America and EVERYONE WAS (supposed to be) CONSIDERED EQUAL.

In many ways this is still true. Immigration tends to only let financially well established or the scholarly to immigrate these days. Poor people are not allowed. This is why Mexicans cannot immigrate. They are poor. Still, America is a 'promised land' to them and a job in America tends to have 'bosses' who treat them better than the ones at home do, in addition to pay them better.

So, it does not matter how many walls you build or laws that you pass Mexicans will still find a way to come here. They will come legally if they can afford it or illegally if they cannot.

If you want to keep a Mexican from taking your job you had better get a better education than them.

I can tell you right now that the immigrants form India are very well educated. In addition, their children are instilled with a respect for education that the average American does not have.

I could go on and on but unless the attitudes about America and immigration change America stands to spend a great deal of money, time and resources trying to stop a flood with sandbags made from rotten burlap.

We tried to subjugate a nationality once, in America. It was one from Africa, and we called the system "slavery". It did NOT prevail because of the principles that America was founded upon. (EQUALITY)

However, most of the men who fought for the Southern States Confederacy to preserve SLAVERY DID NOT OWN SLAVES. They were lower class, and they were MANIPULATED, much like the Republicans and the Tea Party organization is doing today to the lower class. No immigrant wants to take what you have. They want to BE JUST LIKE YOU and work for what they get.

IF people were better educated, they could see what is going on and how the upper class is manipulating them against the Middle Class. Socialism really has nothing to do with it.

Believe me, folks, the Mexican people coming to America to work are more like us than they are unlike us. This is true whether they are illegally here or here with a legitimate green card.

[butterflyjack (imported)]

Very nicely put A-1...Thank you dragonfly

[bobover3 (imported)]

Shameful outpouring of prejudices.

Always suspicious of generalizations about people's "cultures." Most often, these are cartoons constructed to take the place of real knowledge.

Families count for Americans too. The difference is that, since Americans are more affluent, they have less need of family support. Families are most important wherever people are poor, including the poor in the US.

A Roman Catholic conspiracy? Come now. European countries got rich despite it. Just like family, the consolations of religion are most needed by the poor. That's why the poor everywhere in the world have close families and religious piety. Their families and faiths don't make them poor. They provide the support that the affluent buy with money.

Far from impoverishing Latin America, US corporations have been economic mainstays, offering jobs and income that would not have been otherwise available. Had US corporations not been there, what would these countries have done? They hadn't the infrastructure, technical or managerial skill, or capital to develop their own industries. They'd have had nothing without being "exploited." Here's an example: Bolivia, poorest country in S.A., had, until recently, the world's largest known deposits of lithium, needed for electric car batteries. The Bolivian government stated its determination not be "exploited" as it had in the past by foreign businesses, so they demanded most of the revenue from the lithium. The problem: Bolivia has scarcely any electricity or paved roads; the lithium is in a remote area with almost no indigenous population, so towns providing all necessary goods and services for relocated workers would have to be built from scratch. Bolivia confidently assumed the US and others would provide all this. The result? Bolivia has made nothing from lithium. Its people stay poor. But at least they're not "exploited." Now, larger lithium deposits have been discovered in Afghanistan! (Still another reason why Obama is backing out of his pledge to leave in 2011.) Bolivia overplayed a temporary advantage, and it will probably wind up with nothing. Every country does as well as it can, including the countries of S.A. Bolivia doesn't owe us lithium; we don't owe Bolivia an infrastructure. Two parties may reach agreement, but it's dishonest to assume the weaker party is somehow virtuous because of its weakness.

[gareth19 (imported)]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the one common factor running through Latin America....The Roman Catholic faith...and what is the mission of the RC church? Why , to populate the earth...They are overpopulated. There is just so much to go around and they are oversucking the juices of their homes...

So...Go forth, propagate, starve to death...Unfortunately, I see overpopulation as the real problem facing the world today....furthered by the inane desire of many religions to propagate their faiths so that they may take over the world....Stop the madness....dragonfly

The problem with this explanation is that Catholicism is also the majority religion in economically advanced countries like France and Austria and where it was banned and marxism established as the state religion as in Poland and Hungary, poverty followed. Marxism is the only religion that has a positive correlation with poverty.