> Poverty is not a lack of character – it’s a lack of cash.
No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
I am battling this right now with my next door neighbors, who use HOC, a Maryland social service that basically puts poor people in middle class neighborhoods by subsidizing rent.
My neighbors have money. They spend it extremely poorly. It's a single mom with 2 kids. Both kids have iPhones, iPads, PS4s, cable TV, you name it. I'm constantly cleaning up scratch-offs and cigarette butts from the shared sidewalk. Yet they are also on food stamps (SNAP) and near the end of the month the 11 year old boy inevitably starts coming over to our house for snacks because they are out of food. Just recently he boasted that his mom is going to buy him a brand new $1500 gaming rig. I remarked that seemed quite expensive and wondered where the money would come from. "tax return" he replied non-chalantly. He also said once they got their tax return they would be going to Disneyland.
I see this 11 year old boy on a trajectory for poverty. I've tried to help him with his math homework and with reading, but he is at a level far below his grade and seems to be constantly skipping school. He hates reading because his reading comprehension is low which means it will never improve because there are no adults in his life (other than me) trying to get him to read books. It's a viscious cycle. He has virtually no adult supervision or guidance (other than what I can offer when he occasionally comes over) because his single mom is always absent or in the hospital or sleeping or working or with boyfriend.
It would require an insane amount of cash to make it so the single mom didn't have to work, and even then, she is uneducated, can't help her kids with their homework, doesn't see the value in school having not used it herself, doesn't know how to be a good parent, not having had them herself, etc.
These kids need mentors more than they need cash. They need adults they can emulate who can help them break free from the viscious cycle.
Even if it was an insane amount of cash, it'd quickly disappear and end up in the same position or worse. Look at the outcomes of lottery winners and others who come into a sudden windfall. Even when it's not sudden, you have clogs to clogs in 3 generations.
I think one of the biggest impacts we could make is to teach financial literacy in school, to everyone. Form and reinforce good habits early on. Demonstrate the danger of credit card interest. Demonstrate the power of compounding all throughout 1st to 12th grade. Taken seriously, it could have a huge effect on outcomes. It'd also make something like the Freedom Dividend (UBI) more effective when/if it happens.
This is the only lesson I really took away from Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad."
People will say what they will about the man, and his kin, that he's a peddler and just another business man out for himself. I'm sure much of that is true, and personally I can't reconcile the fact that he is personal friends with DJT...
However his strongest point throughout that book is that it is essential that people who want to 'make money' rather than taking it, need to be educated on the subject. He juxtaposes this with his view of the situation present: that people are only educated to become good workers, and to depend on one institution or another for their income.
I am still trying to internalise a lot of the sentiment from that book and my financial self-education will continue (I hope) for many more years.
This book is hot garbage. His analysis of real estate (apperently not an asset) is so bad that I cannot imagine that anyone who read this book made money. Even if the author wasn't shady I'd throw it away
The poor and the middle-class work for money. The rich have money work for them.
It’s not how much money you make that matters. It’s how much money you keep.
Rich people acquire assets. The poor and middle class acquire liabilities that they think are assets.
Financial aptitude is what you do with money once you make it, how you keep people from taking it from you, how to keep it longer, and how you make money work hard for you.
The single most powerful asset we all have is our mind.
“””
Some of the book might be “garbage”, but some of the central concepts most certainly are not, and popularising the above is worthwhile IMHO. Not saying you are wrong, but I do believe it is wrong to so strongly denounce the book without recalling its virtues.
I have shown my children my bank account quite early (which is not very usual on France where we are very secretive about money) so that
- they know they are financially safe (everyone is taking about money disasters, I wanted to lower their stress)
- they realize that money comes from somewhere (salary) and goes to many places (tax, food, internet,...).
This made them think about spending and fortunately we live in a place where there is no peer pressure on fashionable items.
I think that getting our of poverty requires either a zillion generations (you made the case of teaching the right things at school), or having a determined parent to explain how to get money (education, employment) and keep it (having a lifestyle adapted to what you have).
Unfortunately this is much much easier when you are wealthy.
I think this is exactly the right approach. The taboo of talking about income and money has got to end, if even just within families. It's probably one of the most harmful cultural hangovers still in common practice.
If we had UBI or something equivalent, financial literacy would probably help. But found it the other way around is simply insulting. Most poor people do not have any money to 'manage', they can only try to keep up with all expenses and hope no unexpected expenses happen. If unexpected expenses do happen, there is simply nothing good they can do about it - they must choose where to go into debt, and hope they will happen to find some way to repay that debt from an unexpected windfall.
Sure, there is a minority of cases where people squander a windfall, like in GP's example. It is such a small minority that it's barely worth mentioning.
I'd also note that people who have been toiling away for years on minimum wage may be forgiven and understood if they decide to use a small windfall on buying a small luxury like a pretty dress or trip to Disneyland for their children, instead of investing it in some stock or whatever would be the 'rational' thing to do. Humans beings are not robots, and we need more than food and a roof to live even a half-way acceptable life.
> use a small windfall on buying a small luxury like a pretty dress or trip to Disneyland
It's still a pretty bad idea if they have literally zero precautionary savings and are one unexpected expense away from disaster. Keeping that windfall in the piggy bank would make them a lot happier and less stressed out in the long term than reminiscing about that crazy trip to Disneyland. But I can see where being severely socially marginalized all the time might make it really hard to think properly about these things. That's often a way bigger issue than the actual money problems, really.
Financial literacy doesn't matter when you don't have the money to put it to use.
Whenever my parents tried to save up money, it was quickly drained that same month for medical issues, food, bills and more. I think when you're thinking of poverty you're thinking of someone in the middle class spending above their means.
When I think of poverty, I think of the time spent wondering if we could afford to pay for trash this month, eating one meal a day because that's all we could afford and hoping we don't get sick or injured.
The idea is that they’ll find mentors in a middle class neighborhood.
Attacking the character of suboptimal decision makers isn’t fair. They have lives and they have every right to decide how they live it. At the same time, they’re beholden to the economic forces that govern everyday life.
Thinking back at my childhood, my parents gave me a computer, a $300 baseball glove, an N64...etc despite not being able to afford it and I’m grateful for that. It allowed me to not be seen as the poor kid, ostracized by my peers, and provided me with countless hours of entertainment. When my friends went to summer camps, I played counter strike and Mario Kart at my house with the other kids who couldn’t afford camps while my parents worked. Sure, summer camp and a nanny could’ve provided me with a more meaningful experience, but let’s be real.
Without friends, and families of friends, I wouldn’t be where I am today. They’ve fed me countless dinners, driven me to school, and even took me on vacations. The parents most definitely knew my economic situation, but my peers didn’t. Don’t judge the kid. Don’t even try to understand. Just be there if you want. If not, then that’s fine too, just don’t be so patronizing about how his mom should optimize her life.
> Attacking the character of suboptimal decision makers isn’t fair.
It is fair when a family routinely buys big ticket electronic items or vacations every month, but still runs out of food every month, despite being on food stamps.
Like everything else in life, this isn't fair. In my early 20s, they started moving these people into my father's neighborhood, which I couldn't afford so led a worse quality of life. Why should people who contribute nothing be given more consideration than those who are trying? This program is wreckless and just leads to whatever the modern day version of white flight is in the end. Please don't argue this point, I watched upscale areas of town turn to little more than ghettos under an extreme version of this idea. It's one of the biggest reasons I left.
To be clear, I absolutely agree with your point, just not the method of attempting to achieve it.
The article has referenced very robust empirical evidence demonstrating that cash infusions can significantly increase IQ, lower mental health problems, and lower rates of crime. Your kid-next-door story is great, but doesn't refute any of the above.
There are many ways of tackling poverty. Education and mentorship are certainly very valid ways. And so too is expanding the social safety net. I don't know about you, but I would love to live in a society where everyone is smarter, less violent, and less prone to acting out.
And the study you posted doesn't refute his anecdote. If we always listened to depersonalized studies rather than using the context of a situation, than we will make extremely poor choices of how to handle bad situations like this
The OP gives strong analysis for why giving this family money directly doesn't solve any other structural problems
> And the study you posted doesn't refute his anecdote
Sure. Just like all the studies on climate change don't refute my anecdote of "it was really really cold last weekend in my hometown".
If OP is simply giving an anecdote with no strings attached, that's great. Unfortunately, OP's anecdote carries the implication that giving families money, in general, does not solve any problems. Despite robust studies showing otherwise.
I think giving money works for some and it's a waste for others. There are countless of poor people who would do better if they had the chance to break the cycle and there are the poors who wouldn't be able to plan the monthly expenses and they'd be hungry at the end of the month no matter how much money you throw at them. The second category needs a different type of help (maybe along with financial). The first category are simply in a never-ending spiral and sometimes it is not even their fault. Tell me how a single mom can afford to raise a child with a minimum wage salary or how a nuclear family can afford the same when one of the bread earners falls prey to a disability and so on.
Indeed the OP and the article on not in conflict. For families that are functional but poor money can help, and a broad study will show this even if some students are not helped because of the other factors. We need more detail.
>No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship. This is because [insert story about "neighbor"]
To put it very bluntly: I don't give two shits about your neighbour. This is the kind of thinking that justifies racism and other types of discrimination. I have a gypsy neighbour who collects welfare and does not work while he sells drugs in his neighbour |= therefore gypsies are leeches and criminals. You see the problem? For every story of yours I can tell you a story about a guy who had caring and hardworking parents, a nurturing environment, was he himself very hardworking, but simply had not enough money to make it in this world (not enough money to attend good schools, do extracurricular activities, had to care for his siblings or work after school himself, etc.). What does that tell me about this problem?
I don't care for anecdotes about your neighbour (because everybody has "a neighbour", or his cousin's wife has a friend from work who knows a guy who...), I don't care for "common sense opinions". I care for research, data, in short: meaningful facts about large-scale trends rather than individual cases, of which you can find every sort.
> No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
Mentorship is absolutely true. Kids need someone to invest and grow them.
In the specific example you gave: on average kids that grow up in two parent households excel in every metric: graduation rates from high school / college, employment, total lifetime earnings, and incarceration rates.
For kids that grow up in single parent homes, their success on the same metric comes down to mentorship; having involvement from a successful person in their life and repeating their steps to success.
Whatever happens with your neighbor, keep at it as long as you're invited, and keep asking the tough questions. You will undoubtedly are a turning point in his life even if you don't see immediate results.
It sounds like HOC has found this kid a possible mentor. Without it, the kid would never have met someone like you.
As I understand, this is pretty much exactly the goal of such programs, to surround poor families stuck in the cycle with middle class knowledge/experience/wisdom.
However, it wasn't something we knew about when we moved in, and living in close proximity to them has put other strains on us that make us want to move (for example, since we share a wall, our house stinks like marijuana every weekend due to them hot boxing; also they've completely trashed their unit and you can tell from the outside - the blinds are all mangled and one of the windows is missing which I imagine might make it harder to sell our own home).
I agree it's a probably a net gain overall though.
Let's not forget how advertising plays into this mentality. Advertising's sole purpose is to make you feel inferior/incomplete/inadequate without shiny new X. It's blasting at us constantly from every direction. Who is the most susceptible to it, those who are not struggling, or those who are? So they buy shiny new X, which is a bad financial decision.
Advertising doesn't have a sole purpose. One purpose is to make you aware of the existence of a good or service. Another is to persuade you that you would be better off with that good or service than without it. One way of doing that, for some people maybe, is to instill a sense of inadequacy that only the good or service being advertised can cure, but this seems to me to be a small and rather ineffective minority of ads.
This point comes out from time to time, I do not agree with it at all.
If history has showed us something, is that great people come from all sorts of backgrounds and situations, and that includes all sorts of families of course!
Do you think sending large percentages of minority men to prison for long periods of time and then having a society that refuses to permit those who have been to prison to fully re-enter society might have an impact on the population of fathers that stick around?
The following may seem coldhearted, evil, or misguided, but it's the truth. After high school I wasn't making a ton of money, so moved back to near where I grew up, which was a very cheap place to live. After 2 years, I'd had it. I told my wife "I...I just hate poor people, I can't take it anymore." Maybe hate is too strong a word, but it was a feeling of constant frustration. People constantly fighting, littering, driving drunk into mailboxes, etc. When I first moved in, I felt sorry for a few of the folks, including my neighbors. But for the squalor they lived in, they made sure to sit outside blasting shitty music off their new model iphones. By the time I moved out, I had a very different view of the world, and a 'you reap what you sow' attitude.
> > Poverty is not a lack of character – it’s a lack of cash.
> No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
No, poverty is a lack of material wealth.
A lack of education (of which mentorship is a component) may contribute to the durability of poverty, but it is far from the only factor which does so; active class discrimination in distribution of opportunity by the non-poor, both personally and through institutional, including public, policy, is also a factor.
I agree, but I also think there's social cost to not spending your money on status symbols. You will be ostracized by the rich and educated groups for not fitting in, and then how will you acclimate to a higher social sphere? Example[1]
Depending on which class you're trying to signal as, buying the latest iPhone could do the opposite of what's intended.
For the most part class signaling on the easier end (looks, mostly) has more to do with choices than outright spending. It's why a relatively poor college professor on the East coast can still look "upper middle". Their clothes may be a bit worn, some hand-me-downs, some thrifted, but they're the right clothes. Swapping the legible t-shirt & hoodie for a cotton button-up and wool cardigan or a blazer and the $100-150 sneakers for $100-150 (clearance, seconds, or used) leather loafers will do a lot more to signal higher class than an iPhone, and none of those clothes need look new—making the mistake of spending money on stuff like electronics or boldly-branded expensive clothes while getting other things very wrong is a class marker, but not one most would intentionally choose to display if they understood it.
[EDIT] in short, always having new phones and video game consoles and such only signals wealth & higher status to poor people—absent other markers of higher class they'll actual read as low class to everyone else.
Teachers in my children's schools make a point to widen their verbal culture in addition to what they teach. Also (if not mostly) so that they send the right signals (which in France is among others your general culture)
The risk is buying into status symbols of a class beyond your reach. You may signal a certain amount of wealth by buying the latest iPhone, but the "rich and educated" won't be fooled. They will quickly notice where you are living, the car you are driving, the clothes you are wearing and how you spend your vacations, etc... And if it doesn't match, you will get ridiculed. You will be better off living within your means. The rich usually have good finances, that's why they are rich, and they will be more likely to accept you if you have it too.
But getting shunned is not the worst that can happen. If you try to follow them, you are going to get burned very quickly. If they can afford a $100 dinner on a whim, they are going to do it, why wouldn't they. And if you want to stay in their group, you will be tempted to follow, except that you can't afford it.
I fully agree with you, but I couldn't think of a worst example that this article. It reads like someone complaining about being ostracized because of buying the wrong type of caviar or a non exclusive enough bottle of wine.
> You will be ostracized by the rich and educated groups for not fitting in, and then how will you acclimate to a higher social sphere?
What's so interesting in the rich (and supposedly educated, I'll take your word for it...) groups that you have to buy into them with expensive junk?
Do you have any idea how many uneducated rich fools there are nowadays and how they spend their wealth in just as stupid ways as the poor, the only difference being that their capital income often actually sustains that foolishness? LVMH's success is a good hint.
> What's so interesting in the rich (and supposedly educated, I'll take your word for it...) groups that you have to buy into them with expensive junk?
The fact that opportunity is driven largely by networks, and that networks are typically class-gated (not exactly wealth-gated; most people recognize that class and temporary circumstances aren't the same thing.)
Unfortunately, social seeking by the poor who aren't mentored on social signalling by someone already in or experienced with higher classes is likely to reflect lower-class misconceptions of higher-class signals, and fail as class signalling.
> The fact that opportunity is driven largely by networks, and that networks are typically class-gated
This is true, but what kind of opportunities are of vital importance for someone who is wealthy already and which of those can't they just buy into without networking? Or, to put it more plainly, you've got a nice house, your kids go to the best schools, your capital income provides you with a comfortable lifestyle, what "opportunities" are you lacking exactly?
Actually the real rich probably live in the same poor neighborhoods, or just one level up in modest houses. They drive similar old cars. They wear similar cheap clothes. You have to look a second time to realize that the cheap house has good paint on it (cheap enough that the poor sometimes buy it), and a few other details are slightly better. They have a ton of money in the bank and don't have to worry about it.
The pseudo rich with all the status symbols are generally more in debt than the poor person who needs to use a car title loan to get food at the end of the month!
Of course there are also the "filthy rich" with a ton of money with all the toys just like the pseudo rich. They are a minority of those living that lifestyle though.
> My neighbors have money. They spend it extremely poorly. It's a single mom with 2 kids. Both kids have iPhones, iPads, PS4s, cable TV, you name it.
iPhones and video games are very cheap compared to good schools and safe and mentally stimulating childcare.
A poor person's children having an iPhone and PlayStation is no more an indication of their having money than my kids not having those things is an indication that I'm poor.
If anything the correlation is slightly on the opposite direction: I can afford better (expensive) activities for my kids (i.e. horseback riding camp, after school enrichment classes), which cost me tens of thousands per year.
Poor people routinely occupy their children with an iPhone with Candy Crush, which is cheap by comparison. Those things create the temporary illusion of prosperity, both for those in poverty, and for observers like you.
> Just recently he boasted that his mom is going to buy him a brand new $1500 gaming rig. I remarked that seemed quite expensive and wondered where the money would come from. "tax return" he replied non-chalantly. He also said once they got their tax return they would be going to Disneyland.
You shouldn't necessarily believe everything that a child in need says about what their family is purchasing. People (children and adults) do a lot of wishful thinking out loud. Some of it is to assuage themselves, and to feel normalized among their more privileged peers.
> These kids need mentors more than they need cash.
Families need cash to reduce financial stress levels. Being a single mother on govt benefits isn't the cakewalk you make it out to be. And absolutely, kids need mentors, but good mentors also don't come cheap, and they usually aren't willing to work with kids who has behavioral issues originating in financial stress and cheap entertainment distractions.
Volunteer mentors want to work with the "diamonds in the rough" kids, because the reward for mentorship is feeling like a super hero who "made a difference in one child's life".
That approach doesn't scale. The mentorship program that scales is
the one right on front of us: financially stable parents and community, who have an inherent interest in the child's development.
Those things are cheap only if the kids have enough food to eat. I buy a few nice things, but I don't have that much even though it is safe to assume I have 4 times the income (including welfare). My family eats good food, and my kid does well in school.
I'm not against the poor having nice toys, but the priority is not toys. Yet I see the poor spending a lot of toys that are often discarded in a short time.
What you're describing isn't poverty though. It's a bad financial situation, but not poverty. There doesn't seem to be any accountability for such spending - why is that?
I don't know your neighbours situation, but in general you can learn to be a good parent without having had one yourself.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree in that, education and mentorship is definitely helpful and part of the equation. I disagree that cash is not relevant to that same equation though. I think any reductionist argument will be flawed one way or the other, cash is not all they need, but education is not all they need either. And I'm sure there's even more variables at play.
I also want to say, having an iPad or two, a PS4 and cable TV, that's not really a good indicator of wealth. People's top expenses are generally housing, transportation, utilities and food, possibly healthcare if you need it. In your example, rent is subsidized, that means the top expense is minimized and a lot of savings comes from that. That said, I don't think its logical to say that the savings from holding off from buying two iPhones, an iPad and a PS4 can match that. Rent average price for a 2-bedroom is 1200$. That means in 2 or 3 months of rent, you've already purchased 2 iPhones, an iPad and a PS4. So no one can pay their rent by simply not buying these things. So I'm challenging your quote saying: "My neighbors have money". Do they really?
> So I'm challenging your quote saying: "My neighbors have money". Do they really?
Obviously I can only see my tiny slice in the form of an 11 year old coming over to my house asking for snacks bringing along his toys. I don't know how much income the mom has.
But what I do know, is that they seem to run out of food near the end of each month, despite SNAP subsidizing food.
So while abstaining from buying iPhones, iPads, and cable TV and other toys will not pay the rent, buying mid/low-tier Android instead of premium Apple, cutting cable, scratch offs, cigarettes, and other toys from the annual budget could easily relieve other stressors of poverty, for example by stocking shelves with nutritious food that lasts through the whole month.
Unfortunately, your anecdote and also what I have seen and experienced in my own life is that it often is a lack of character. Saying that is controversial, because it seems to be saying those who are in poverty are less than, but that's not what I mean. What I mean is that character includes a lot of things about a person, including their world view and what things they think are important in life. The truly sad thing I've observed is that poverty is generational because children form so much of their world view and their own character from that of their parents, and it is the parent's lack of character that leads to and keeps them in poverty more than anything.
Poverty is a vicious cycle, and it has different causative factors and outcomes for different people. Inner city poverty and rural poverty share many common things, but are very different situations. I've seen both. I have been broke, but I've never been poor, and the difference largely had to do with my upbringing and my own personal character. To a large degree, my very belief that I could overcome being broke and didn't need to become poor is a component of that very upbringing.
People in poverty feel defeated, that there is nothing that they can do which will resolve their situation. They exist in a concentric sphere of negative feedback loops, where the only dopamine hit they can find to make them feel "okay" even for a little bit is found in illicit substances, meaningless sex, or conspicuous consumption that earns them the adoration of their peers. These are the high points of their life, and yet none of them help to break the cycle, they just reinforce it.
It's not enough to throw money at the problem. Poverty must be arrested, like the putting on of brakes. At a certain point in life... people are basically unsavable themselves and too set in their ways, but they can be convinced to save their children. The only effective program I've ever seen to actually combat the cycle of poverty was based on providing pre-teens and young adults in poverty with funds, education, and resources that their parents could not take advantage of or interfere with. Something as simple as providing thorough financial literacy education and a place where pre-teens could bank and their parents couldn't steal from them was very effective, especially when combined with no-cost after school programs which kept them off the streets and out of abusive and dangerous home situations for further education and mentorship. Unfortunately programs like this are contentious and very very expensive to operate and hard to scale. The program I observed had 40 kids in one neighborhood and took nearly 200 volunteers to pull off and 10 paid staff, plus facilities.
When I look at the situation as a whole, it's obvious to me that one of the single biggest factors in why this has become such a serious issue in the Western world is due to the breakdown of the nuclear family. Single-parent homes aren't in the financial position to spend time focused on their children's mentorship and education in the way that a two working parent home is, simply put. And educational outcomes, life outcomes really, are heavily tied to having parents which value education and good financial literacy and ensure that their children value those things as well, regardless of how many dollars are in their bank account or stuffed in the mattress.
EDIT:
To a large degree, how you think about the poverty problem comes back down to the classical philosophical question of nature vs nurture. The reality has always been that life is a little bit of both. But when it comes to poverty, enough time in those circumstances can effectively destroy someone's mental health and make them incapable of escaping. They become effectively addicted to escapist dopamine rushes and impulses, without any ability to plan for the long term. It has real, serious, negative mental consequences for adults and children both. But children can be saved, adults are often a lost cause. The best thing we can do is focus on breaking the cycle so the next generation of adults is better off than the current generation.
> No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
This is beyond insulting, at least in the way it is worded. Your example of the single mom who squanders charity money on expensive toys sounds exactly like right-wing propaganda, even if I am absolutely certain it does happen.
The reality is that the vast majority of poor people just don't have the money to squander. Sure, some of them may squander the money even if they had them, but the reality is that only a minuscule percentage do. Financial education would help these people, and can't hurt. But minimum income of some kind (I'm not necessarily convinced UBI is a good idea) will help all poor people.
A much more common story of poverty is families who can't afford to get their children through school, who live paycheck to paycheck and get forced into predatory lending when they hit financial difficulties (e.g. plumbing problems).
'Education' is not limited to financial education, surely. Mentorship could be a good starting point for the social support that many poor folks seem to lack, and that might make it hard for them to earn money in the first place. Not sure what's 'insulting' about parent's claims, they seem quite sensible and supportive to me.
Perhaps I read it badly, but to me GP's claims sounded like they believe people wouldn't be poor if only they were more educated, that with a little mentorship everyone could learn how to stop being poor. The example of the neighbor squandering her money and not educating her children seemed to reinforce this idea - she has the money not to be poor, she just doesn't know how to do it. This is probably true in her particular case, based on GP's recording, but it is insulting to generalize it to the vast majority of poor people who would know very well how to save 1500 dollars and not to spend it on same gaming system, if they only ever saw that amount of money all at one time.
>No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
Privilege is invisible, or so they say. This is an extremely short-sighted approach to trying to find an explanation to poverty. It is also a lazy excuse to avoid thinking more, because it leads to a conclusion like "... hence why they're poor. That's it."
I hope one day you have the (mis?)fortune of living under precarious conditions, then you could judge by yourself if your preconceived notions are actually in agreement with what you will experience. And then we will see how long it takes you to "stop being poor", it shouldn't be long right?, as you, presumably, already know how to avoid making the kind of "poor decisions" that makes people stay in that situation.
I've always thought it was unintended apathy. Making a (relatively) better choice will seemingly have no effect on lifting them out of poverty any time soon, so why bother? Do the thing that maximizes their pleasure, comfort, hope, etc. in the short term, because things are never going to change in the long term. This article seems to hint at this perspective when talking about not being able to take a break from poverty, but it never seems to make that leap.
That's a lot of it. Having grown up poor myself, and having family and old connections that are still poor, I can tell you that there's another element to it as well.
A lot of poor people resent society due to their poverty. There's a constant meme that their poverty is some one else's fault ("the man", "the rich", "white people", "government", "minorities", "foreigners" are all common ones, depending who you're talking to). It's a defeatist point of view, but it does two things. It allows them to protect their egos by directing blame for their situation at other people. It also allows them to justify poor decisions, because the world is setup against them, so why bother? You will often see this kind of rhetoric if you spend casual time with people in poverty.
You'll also see a slightly different permutation of this, where some people in poverty see the way out as only possible through someone else's actions. Whether that be a charity, the government, or just a personal relationship. They feel very disempowered and defeated, and often look for events out of their control to "save" them, rather than taking actions to correct their situation. Again, why bother saving money if you can't fix the situation. You might as well have a good time while you wait for someone else to save you.
I, personally, believe these mental traps to be a non-trivial part of what keeps people in poverty.
>No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
Yep, you nailed it. A friend of mine was ranting on how the poor people(in Europe) spend their money on iPhones, cigars, alcohol and cable TV instead of saving it. Lately, I realized that poor people spend their money on those things since it's their way of short term escapism from feeling poor and if they were to save it, the amount would be too small to suddenly lift them out of poverty so they don't even bother.
However, if poor people were clever, or had good mentorship, they would save that money and spend it on some courses in tech like sys-admin or getting certified as a professional plumber for example and get a better paying job, leading to a path out of poverty.
Unfortunately, most popele don't have the will or the guidance to figure this out by themselves.
Just to humour you, I work in tech, I have a 4 year old mid-range phone, 4 year old mid-range laptop, no cable, no TV, except for some gadgets that increase my quality of life both mentality and physically, I don't smoke and rarely drink but I do buy the best quality food that I can for cooking and rarely go to restaurants.
Since I don't come from money, I try to save as much as I can so I can buy my own place and start my own business in the future.
Meanwhile one of my youngest friends who works as a bike food delivery agent, owns a MacBook Pro, the latest iPhone, a PS4 with an ever increasing library of games, goes clubbing a lot and complains he can't find a good job.<face:palm>
Unfortunately, the latter example is an ever growing category in Europe of future failures since youngsters are told they can be and do whatever they want and opportunities will just come to you if you're patient and if that fails, the government is there to support you.
Not saying I'm a poster child for financial success, far from it, I have my own guilty pleasures that keep my sanity intact, everybody has, but most people born in lower class families seem to be clueless about how to get out and it ain't by frivolous spending.
I don't spend money on any of those things, I have lived on way less than most articles like this say is possible my whole life. "But, even though you can be happy like that others can't, they need to indulge!", well shit, maybe that has something to do with their poverty then? Why should I help others indulge when I don't do it myself? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Not at all. What's naive is presuming that people in poverty are just as driven and equipped to make good decisions as you are.
Whether poverty causes ignorance and complacency or the relationship is reversed (it probably goes both ways and depends on the person) there's no question that a sizable minority, if not the majority, of people in poverty are quite content to live off of the government and spend their days idle. Partly because of the mentioned lack of guidance, partly because of ignorance, and partly because not all people have ambitions beyond having their basic needs met.
You have to put yourself into the shoes of someone who did not pay any attention in school, if they attended. Has no real grasp of the utility of math or science or knowledge in general. No intrinsic thirst for learning or accomplishment. Take food, cigarettes, maybe other drugs (alcohol included) as funds permit, cheap entertainment (TV, Facebook, Instagram), and sex, and you have a recipe for millions of content lives which are a net cost to greater society.
And what's worse is that the children of these types of people grow up in a similar environment and pick up the same fundamentally rotten culture. Sorry to be harsh but this is the reality - no amount of funds will fix broken culture.
It's really amazing to see the mental gymnastics going on here to try and paint the people born into poverty as those with a broken culture, no ambition and being a net drain on society.
I was one of those people born into poverty. Your post is remarkably ignorant of the circumstances we faced and dealt with, and why cheap entertainment is used as an escape from the crushing levels of bullshit we had to deal with on a daily basis.
For someone who says to put yourself into the shoes of the poor, you could do with a reality check yourself.
I don't think your response is fair. Rather, I think you are focused on the feeling of offense and resentment for what you see as a condescending attitude from the parent commenter. But, if as you say, you came from poverty and broke away, surely you can look at the situation objectively and acknowledge that escapism often leads to negative feedback loops in and of itself, and that their commentary on culture is accurate for a significant minority if not a majority of those in poverty.
It's easy to interpret an emotional context in the parent's comment that may not be present. It could absolutely be read as a condescending comment which looks down upon poor people as less than. However, a charitable reading which takes a step back should be able to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth in their statements.
Nobody is saying that the circumstances of poverty are not absolutely soul crushing, it's rather a statement on how people react to those circumstances lead them farther down a dark path rather than into the light, and as poverty becomes generational it forms its own culture. There is absolutely a culture of poverty (technically multiple cultures of poverty) in the US, at the very least.
I think my response is plenty fair, considering one of the core aspects of his argument in paragraph 3 is equating people in poverty to those without drive, ambition, people that sink into escapism which is the reason why they're in poverty (hence the rotten culture).
It's the exact same 'those dirty poors are poor because they're lazy' nonsense I've heard over and over again just dressed up slightly. The emotional context is that he's outright calling those people a drain on society.
And when I look back on poverty and escapism, for a lot of people it's the one thing giving them a temporary out from the crushing depression of realizing that you're trapped in a situation that you'll likely never escape. I refuse to accept their commentary as any sort of objective analysis because it reeks of someone passing judgment on something they have never experienced.
I agree with your analysis of the grandparent to some extent, but I think you're seeing condescension that may not be there or even if it is there isn't really the point. It's absolutely true that poverty has negative impacts on mental health including crushing depression. That defeatist mentality definitely drives the seeking of simple pleasures when they become available. Over generations (and poverty is generational in the US), that becomes cultural. Culture isn't some amorphous concept, it's the set of things which are socially acceptable within the surrounding peer group you find yourself in. It's something you get inculcated into by your parents and your friends.
But that is also not the way out, not from a rational perspective. We have to wrangle with the fact that the rationally best actions someone in poverty can take with what little money they have, especially large lump sums like tax returns, is not the way most people behave because human beings are emotional creatures. I don't think it requires looking down upon the poor to acknowledge that their choices are driven by internal factors (mental health, despair) as well as external cultural factors (consumerism, social status among the poor being driven by luxury brands, et al).
I'm just as guilty of practicing escapism as anyone else when I was in poor circumstances, it was just a random chance my escapism was into books which in turn helped increase my knowledge and ability to converse intelligently, rather than into lottery tickets, junk food, and entertainment. But it was still a form of escapism, and it was driven by many of the same factors. Books were more valuable in the long-term (knowledge, skills), and they were less costly in the short-term (used market, libraries), and in the end it helped provide me a way out.
While my family wasn't wealthy and after leaving home I was even more poor for awhile, I came out of a culture that emphasized reading, literacy, and learning and used the television only for public broadcasting/documentaries. That's just as cultural as other families who emphasize social hierarchies/machismo, strength/being hard, and taking what you want, and uses television for escapism and entertainment. Saying something is cultural isn't an insult, it's an observation. Whether it started that way is irrelevant, it's cultural now that generations have gone by.
I'd much rather see a conversation that tries to understand how we can break the cycle of poverty by helping people make better more rational choices and using forms of escapism that lead to positive outcomes instead of those that reinforce negative feedback loops. I think offense-taking and trying to find the worst possible interpretation of someone making a relevant observation isn't going to solve the problem.
Maybe it's a touchy point of its own with me, but it seems so many of the really serious problems of our modern life can't be discussed in anything approaching an objective manner because there's always someone who wants to use it as an opportunity to take offense, rather than to understand and empathize, and return with something that changes the perspective of the person by creating empathy for themselves. Offense-taking doesn't build empathy, it just shuts down conversation.
A number of years ago my parents heard of a very young single mother in their community. She was being housed at a local woman's shelter, but was kicked out for continually breaking the rules regarding use of the stipend that was provided for each mother. She had two kids and nowhere to go, so my parents took her in for what they thought would be a couple weeks.
The weeks bled into months, and by the time that my parents thought she would be fine moving out, they had housed her for close to half a year.
My parents learned many new things about poverty by having her and her kids there for so long. One of the most significant was the severity of the mental/emotional/psychological strain that someone who is destitute is burdened with. My parents were able to find her a part-time job, they paid for everything, and cooked most of the meals. She struggled though to even just get up in the morning, let alone make it to work on time or even go at all. She lost the job. And sometimes all she could do was sit on the porch and chain smoke.
About a half a year later my parents decided that she was probably well enough to be independent. They worked with some other families in the community to get her an apartment, a car, and a new job (good pay and part-time). She still has a lot of struggles, but can now fend for herself.
I'm guessing some people who lift themselves from poverty are both lucky and have a psychological makeup which keeps them stable enough to do the necessary work in getting there. We either forget, ignore, or are ignorant of others that need a lot more hand-holding along the way.
Absolutely. To extend upon that, the reasoning behind the short-term gratification isn't simply the inability to see the benefits of longer-term investment. It's also the need for relief in the short term.
Negative impacts of that disposition can be compounding, and psychologically harmful without a break.
That's pretty much the idea behind Locus of control, the (perceived) degree of control you have over the outcome of the future vs outside forces beyond your control. If you don't believe it matters what you do, not wasting energy is the rational answer.
This article cites several research studies as well as the results of the casino in North Carolina and is a great read - and I hope people read it, digest it, and then comment (rather than comment based on the title).
This is actually what presidential candidate Andrew Yang is trying to change. He calls this the "Scarcity mindset" and it doesn't just affect poor decisions, but also inability to think about things like climate change.
This is why his proposal for Universal Basic Income of $1000 is believed to raise the poor's IQ by 13 points because having no money decrease your IQ by 13 points.
People don't need cash. That's the easy way out for intellectuals. And they sure as shit don't need a casino in their town.
They need social infrastructure (families, extended families, social institutions like churches and service organizations), cultural infrastructure, and economic opportunity within this stable social structure.
All of which the intellectual class has been helping the financial elites destroy for the past century or more.
I don't know, as someone who grew up in a dysfunctional family, I feel like if your parents are not good parents you're basically screwed. You just have to wait until you're grown up and make that tech salary to pay your therapist for a long time.
If there is neglect or abuse at home, it doesn't matter if there's some mildly positive neighbours / aunts / church people, I think it's hard for that to make a real difference.
Why do we need churches specifically? Do you think there is something special about a church that couldn't be gained from other group, communal activities?
I don't see attention being spent on church helping the community... some churches may spend 10-20% of their efforts helping the community, sure, but why not go to a soup kitchen or animal shelter or litter pick-up? Then 100% of your effort is helping others, not listening to stories from ancient books or discussing how mythical beings would view our sins.
Community-wise, I'd prefer to play music, sports, sing in a chorus, head to a farmer's market or pub trivia. All of these don't require an abandonment of reason and enlightenment whilst still building community. And even when I have attended church, most people consider it a perfunctory duty to ensure they aren't put into Hell or, more closely, that they aren't judged by themselves or others for being pagans.
I think churches fuel poverty more than they help. Religion teaches people that they are the way they are because that's how 'God' intended them to be and that they'll be rewarded with riches when they go to 'heaven'.
You're describing prosperity gospel theology, which is certainly popular (see Joel Osteen and the like) but is considered heretical by mainline traditions.
Can you explain how that post was ridiculous? It matches my understanding of Christianity pretty well.
The idea that suffering in this life is OK because it will pay off in the afterlife seems to be a common theme in the bible and helps explain why Christianity has been so consistently successful within poor communities.
Can you expand? I'm an atheist as well and that aligns pretty well with what I remember from when my parents would take me to the church as a teenager. For context, they're catholics.
That's nonsense. The only sliver of truth might be the waning of the influence of churches, which I might add, are not particularly helpful to when they decide to shun the members of the community who need the most help.
At least in my northern coastal state, there are lots and lots of family resources that were put in place as a result of the persistent work of the "intellectual class". Free library programs for all ages of children, free health education programs, and so on.
Cash is appealing because it's "cheap" and scalable.
It's a cold, clinical approach that lets "leaders" feel good and appeals to people at first glance but doesn't actually solve problems.
The things that will change people, families, and cities require true leadership, mentoring, holding people accountable, and friendship. It requires deep personal investment in people and neighborhoods and can't be done from an office downtown.
Where is this bitterness for such a generic category of people as "intellectuals" coming from? I totally agree with what you're saying except the blame of - who? All educated people? All smart people? (Unless you're using that word as a shorthand for something more specific that maybe I would agree with.)
I think this applies to companies as well. Continuous economical stress starts to take unproductive attention such as focusing on finance instruments (funding) instead of revenue.
A lot of people are poor because they trade education and learning for cheap short-term entertainment. People that remain poor aren't thinking about the long-term. They spend a ton of money on fast food, they do unneeded impulse purchases, they go for quick dopamine rushes and fall back into depression when it wears off. Many people get 'comfortable' in their low wage jobs complaining everyday how much they hate it, but when they go home they go straight to watching Netflix instead of improving their skills to make themselves more valuable. A lot of the time, poverty is a mindset.
The one point that is sometimes missed is that in some pockets of poverty, those who are bettering themselves get mocked for it. It is strange mentality that requires betterment in isolation.
I am totally open to the idea as espoused in the comments that poverty is not about money but about decisions and mentorship.
Can I ask if anyone can actually point to any studies to highlight that? The linked article is very well sourced and I'd like to see sources that point to mentorship programs.
No; the above article is well-sourced but the comments heavily disagree with it. I'd like for these comments to cite an equally sourced article so I, an undecided reader, can decide for myself what I find more compelling.
There's too often conflation and confusion surrounding two larger principles:
a. The layers of beliefs that build on each other that lead to amplified productivity, wealth, success, popularity and such.
b. that poverty isn't an innate quality or fate, but a prison of the mind most people get attached to and will defend. They can escape it if they so choose.
a.)
1. Locus-of-control - Poor people exist in world where they are made to feel like criminals and everything is a zero sum game. So, it doesn't seem to matter about saving a dollar here or a dollar there. (External locus-of-control/learned helplessness). Contrast this with people who make a game, and get a thrill, out of buying something on closeout and getting to use a coupon on top of it. Costco: it's hard to get a poverty-oriented person excited about saving money at Costco
2. Saving - People who are poor don't choose to have high Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC), they have unmet needs and emergencies all of the time.
3. Investing and ownership - People who don't have any savings and don't have internal locus-of-control can't conceive on multiplying money with money, so they can't really build balance sheet affluence. And if workers were rational, they would consider what profits they were giving away to their employers for a pittance, and take collective action to improve their lot or form another company (co-op's/worked-owned enterprises). Also, people in a poverty-mindset will often believe that lottery tickets, celebrity or special talents (magical thinking) are their "way out."
b.) Poverty isn't strictly income or balance sheet, it begins with either elements of virtuous-cycle or self-defeating, vicious-cycle attitudes. When people believe a certain way or lack confidence, they continually sabotage themselves with every choice and missed opportunity in live.
On the flip-side, continued wealth is never assured: people can convince themselves they are invincible, have infinite money and/or otherwise sabotage their cash cows like pissing-off their customers.
It seems to me that the amount of politics discussed on a platform is related to how popular that platform is. I like how in some technical IRC channels they just ban any political discussions outright. It seems to keep the channel on-topic even with thousands of users. Not saying HN should follow this course... but this thought crosses my mind sometimes. Sometimes there's too much political discussions on HN for my taste.
That isn't entirely true, though. Your parents being poor often means you will be too simply because of the disadvantages it brings. Being a teacher is hardly a poor decision, but you will probably be poor because other people have decided it isn't worth it to pay you well.
My ex has very little chance of being anything but poor, no matter the decisions he makes. He's on disability due to a mental disorder: Anyone that is on disability, especially at a young age (no matter reason), is in the same boat.
The business you work at could close. Even if you made good enough decisions so far, you may or may not bounce back well. You might not have ever made enough money to be able to save 3 months worth of expenses, for example, and this is more likely if you are young and simply haven't had a chance. Or you might get cancer while working somewhere that isn't covered by FMLA (in the US, anyway) - and while you aren't likely to die, you also have no job and no insurance.
On the contrary, you can pretty much pile on debt if you make enough money to make the monthly payments and never really be poor. Just indebted. Heck, this might even mean you qualify for loans easier in the future as long as you don't fall behind. The person that lives in their means cannot always find the same fate.
This is a common refrain from people who believe that nearly 100% of the cause of poverty is in avoidable mistakes committed by stupid people in whom complete fault lies and who therefore deserve it. To avoid misinterpretation, you should consider elaborating, since I doubt you're one of those people.
That may be so, but this idea does absolutely nothing to help someone get out of poverty. If you were born to financially illiterate parents and grow up poor or end up poor as a result, pointing to how it was stuff out of your control that made you poor will lead to nothing else but continuing to stay poor until you start doing things and making choices that lead you out of that situation.
It sucks and isn't really fair, but the person best equipped to extract you from poverty is you. No one can make your choices for you, and you're far better off taking your life into your own hands and working to improve it than hoping that greater society will intervene on your behalf simply because your situation isn't favourable to you or because you're not entirely to blame for ending up in it.
No. Poverty is a lack of education and, more importantly, mentorship.
I am battling this right now with my next door neighbors, who use HOC, a Maryland social service that basically puts poor people in middle class neighborhoods by subsidizing rent.
My neighbors have money. They spend it extremely poorly. It's a single mom with 2 kids. Both kids have iPhones, iPads, PS4s, cable TV, you name it. I'm constantly cleaning up scratch-offs and cigarette butts from the shared sidewalk. Yet they are also on food stamps (SNAP) and near the end of the month the 11 year old boy inevitably starts coming over to our house for snacks because they are out of food. Just recently he boasted that his mom is going to buy him a brand new $1500 gaming rig. I remarked that seemed quite expensive and wondered where the money would come from. "tax return" he replied non-chalantly. He also said once they got their tax return they would be going to Disneyland.
I see this 11 year old boy on a trajectory for poverty. I've tried to help him with his math homework and with reading, but he is at a level far below his grade and seems to be constantly skipping school. He hates reading because his reading comprehension is low which means it will never improve because there are no adults in his life (other than me) trying to get him to read books. It's a viscious cycle. He has virtually no adult supervision or guidance (other than what I can offer when he occasionally comes over) because his single mom is always absent or in the hospital or sleeping or working or with boyfriend.
It would require an insane amount of cash to make it so the single mom didn't have to work, and even then, she is uneducated, can't help her kids with their homework, doesn't see the value in school having not used it herself, doesn't know how to be a good parent, not having had them herself, etc.
These kids need mentors more than they need cash. They need adults they can emulate who can help them break free from the viscious cycle.