Poor People Make Bad Choices Not Because...

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

There is a meaningful variables that comes into play ... Mainly where you are living and how big your family is. If you are trying to raise two kids in Wichita you are in a very different set of circumstances than trying to raise four in metropolitan NYC.

 

There are plenty of studies that suggest for a family of four living in an average cost of living situation that an income of $40,000 is sufficient to live on. Therefore, using this same family I would guess that an income that was $1000 less per month or $28,000 puts them in poverty and very difficult circumstances.

 

I think a part of this also has to do with how well you can absorb inevitable financial shocks. So my $12,000 difference above is that cushion and without it I can only guess that life would be exceptionally difficult. Even at the $ 40,000 number it would not be hard to slip into a pretty difficult set of circumstances due to a sudden and unexpected financial hit.

 

Finally, health insurance or the lack of it is also very meaningful. The family of four is likely to have some experience through an accident or illness with the healthcare system. Whatever savings they have could be wiped out very quickly due to healthcare costs.

 

Excellent post BuffBill!

 

Anyway...

I am flipping out hysterically that my son lost his 300 dollar retainer! A 300 dollar retainer? Impression, a stainless paper clip and penny worth of plastic... Oh well, most likely in the garbage @ school during lunch... Hope I don't foget to pay the electric bill! LoL...

[BuffaloBill]

Alright. So poor people are what? Annual income of under how much? Hourly wage under what? Boards opinion?

 

One could also ask the flip side of this - what is wealthy?

 

Like poverty this is a tricky question to answer as variables do come into play. The variables are mostly tied to the fact that all Americans are expected to be more self reliant and self sufficient. So is a twenty year old with a million dollars the same as a 65 year old with a million dollars? Are both wealthy? The answer is likely to be yes in both cases but the answer is not as simple as it appears to be.

 

What if the 20 year old with a cool million has no education beyond H.S., no job, health issues but no health insurance and a poor work ethic? How long does s/he stay "wealthy?" This is perhaps a bit extreme but it does show why people that fall into big money often go broke. Obtaining wealth is one thing, sustaining it over a long period of time is another.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Did they do the test where a poor person wins the lottery, and six year later is dirt poor again?

 

Like Chef said - people are poor because they make bad decisions. And while people are usually taught to make bad decisions by living in poverty (my wife grew up poor - literally without shoes. She still can't handle money worth a damn, because when you're poor you learn to spend everything you have when you have it), a sudden influx of cash isn't going to change that decision-making paradigm. Being poor may teach bad judgement...but bad judgement perpetuates poverty, and eliminating poverty won't eliminate bad judgement.

 

Good points... VERY good points. I totally agree and so would the people doing the study. Isn't this exactly what the study is saying?

 

I wonder what the link to medical depression in people is to all this?

 

EDIT: In the study, they did give the farmers the whole year's wages. They found they were broke towards the ends. I suppose that is kinda like the lottery thing? YET, a bigger windfall does create a certain amount of "escape velocity." You can lose it all tomorrow but, still have the house to live in paid for... BUT, what about taxes, or upkeep. They can always downsize. They talked about pawn shops. FWIW, were pawn shops 60 years ago really the number one source of consumer credit?

Edited August 30, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[BuffaloBill]

 

 

Did they do the test where a poor person wins the lottery, and six year later is dirt poor again?

 

Like Chef said - people are poor because they make bad decisions. And while people are usually taught to make bad decisions by living in poverty (my wife grew up poor - literally without shoes. She still can't handle money worth a damn, because when you're poor you learn to spend everything you have when you have it), a sudden influx of cash isn't going to change that decision-making paradigm. Being poor may teach bad judgement...but bad judgement perpetuates poverty, and eliminating poverty won't eliminate bad judgement.

 

What you assume is that poor people are presented with options that by their very nature allow for right and wrong choices. What you miss is that for some (not all) there are limited choices available to them. The reasons are many with the obvious ones being health, intelligence, education, availability of jobs, mobility and some forms of "isms" (racism, ageism, etc).

 

I also think their tends to be a snowballing of choices - one bad decision leads to more. The classic example is that some girl gets pregnant, then does it again. Perhaps bad choices especially when the father abdicates his responsibilities and leaves her high and dry. This is a recipe for poverty started out maybe as a moment of passion.

 

You are clearly a smart guy and you suggest that you grew up in different economic circumstances than you wife. How many of your good choices came about because you received good counsel from family or friends? What if the good counsel was not available to you? Do you really believe that you would have been as fortunate in isolation? Also, how dependent were you on your parents making good choices when you were not mature enough to do so on your own?

 

I fully believe in self sufficiency and the idea that systems or government can't replace people making sound decisions. What we do need to look at though is just as there should not be a handout there should not be a hand slapping people down.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What we do need to look at though is just as there should not be a handout there should not be a hand slapping people down.

 

Excellent point I was pointing out earlier.

 

Excessive bank fees? Not that I think there should be any penalties, the excessive nature is not helping people make wiser choices or pull themselves out of a jam.

[Jauronimo]

The problem with this sentiment is that people need to have the belief that there is an opportunity to rise above their current circumstances. I think for many this belief is evaporating and that is scary from a societal standpoint. I truly believe the strength of America comes from this belief tied to a love of freedom.

 

The poor of other countries came here by the thousands because of these ideals. For a long time those thousands did mostly live in an experience of improved economic mobility. What are we left with if this is lost?

I agree with everything you just wrote, but I fail to see how its a problem with the sentiment I just described. People need to believe their efforts will be rewarded in any system. A system without incentives (i.e. socialism and communism) is a pretty poor system.

 

I would also argue that the cumulative effects and weight of the programs designed to help the less fortunate have ultimately hindered their opportunities for social mobility.

[BuffaloBill]

 

I agree with everything you just wrote, but I fail to see how its a problem with the sentiment I just described. People need to believe their efforts will be rewarded in any system. A system without incentives (i.e. socialism and communism) is a pretty poor system.

 

I would also argue that the cumulative effects and weight of the programs designed to help the less fortunate have ultimately hindered their opportunities for social mobility.

 

The difference is in the systems. Our economic system was built on the ideals of a free economy (hardly is one now) and the motion of economic mobility. This is far different than socialism where the whole system is supposed to in effect make everyone middle class an thereby eliminates poverty.

 

The problem I see four our system today is that the steps in the middle of the ladder are simply being eliminated. This means that the poor who do make sound choices may not be able to come out of their circumstances.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I agree with everything you just wrote, but I fail to see how its a problem with the sentiment I just described. People need to believe their efforts will be rewarded in any system. A system without incentives (i.e. socialism and communism) is a pretty poor system.

 

I would also argue that the cumulative effects and weight of the programs designed to help the less fortunate have ultimately hindered their opportunities for social mobility.

 

I agree to some extent Juaronimo. There has to be balance. IMO, the study agrees with that.

Edited August 30, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[Jauronimo]

The difference is in the systems. Our economic system was built on the ideals of a free economy (hardly is one now) and the motion of economic mobility. This is far different than socialism where the whole system is supposed to in effect make everyone middle class an thereby eliminates poverty.

 

The problem I see four our system today is that the steps in the middle of the ladder are simply being eliminated. This means that the poor who do make sound choices may not be able to come out of their circumstances.

Do you think that I'm not aware of the differences between capitalism and socialism? Why bother with this tangent? Its not exactly relevant and its kinda insulting.

[KD in CA]

Nobody said throw money at them. I think the core of the issue is whether there is opportunity available to them. Jobs that pay a sustainable income are the bedrock that the economy has to be built on. The problem seems to be in numbers. Jobs that pay enough for people to live some version of the American dream are less plentiful. Statistics clearly show that what was described as the middle class is shrinking. Economic forces are causing a bifurcation in economic outcomes.

 

There is also a perception issue. Look at the examples they use for the "American Dream" in the article - people who went from poverty to excessive wealth and in Oprah's case societies new standard for success - fame. What happened to the idea that the American Dream also included the notion of earning a decent living, being able to manage a reasonable expense base and experiencing some joy in life. Sadly to many the new ideal is categorized by being uber wealthy and famous.

I don't think anyone will disagree that we need more good jobs, but the problem is a lack of people creating those jobs and an overall hindrance on the part of a giant, stupid government in creating those jobs. It's not simply a matter of 'jobs not paying enough'; those jobs have to actually create value that is commensurate with their contribution. Otherwise you're just building another house of cards. This is why the 'pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers' mentality is moronic. Those people are not going to be any smarter at $15/hr. They're just going to waste more money and help drive inflation higher.

 

And yes, our pop culture media (that's one thing now) continues to make things more difficult with the endless hype of pointless celebrity and excess.

[BuffaloBill]

 

Do you think that I'm not aware of the differences between capitalism and socialism? Why bother with this tangent? Its not exactly relevant and its kinda insulting.

 

Sorry

For any insult it was certainly unintentional.

 

 

[Jauronimo]

Sorry

For any insult it was certainly unintentional.

I didn't think it was intended. Letting you know that you can talk to me like an adult. Big words, complex concepts, history, politics, economics, adult situations and everything else that entails. You don't need to spoon feed me the basics.

[/dev/null]

And then there is the argument which is probably more the case than them being stupid. People are poor because they make bad choices.

/thread

winner = chef

[BuffaloBill]

 

I don't think anyone will disagree that we need more good jobs, but the problem is a lack of people creating those jobs and an overall hindrance on the part of a giant, stupid government in creating those jobs. It's not simply a matter of 'jobs not paying enough'; those jobs have to actually create value that is commensurate with their contribution. Otherwise you're just building another house of cards. This is why the 'pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers' mentality is moronic. Those people are not going to be any smarter at $15/hr. They're just going to waste more money and help drive inflation higher.

 

And yes, our pop culture media (that's one thing now) continues to make things more difficult with the endless hype of pointless celebrity and excess.

 

I guess we are on the threshold off moving thos to PPP.

 

You make several points above. The one that you seemed to focus on more was the payment of $15 per hour to flip burgers. I agree that this is absurd but for different reasons. Higher wages will be paid to those who have more skill and in the newer economy those who have more knowledge. To tie it back to the point of the thread and the article that EII referenced the issue is not big government but the fact that economic circumstances are contributing to poor people making sub optimal choices.

 

To me the single straightest path out of poverty is through education. Not PhD level but certainly a HS diploma and probably a college degree. The statistics supporting this are overwhelming. No handout is going to pull someone out of poverty over the long term. What will is learning to think through issues, communicating and understanding options. So he number one thing that poor people could do - instead of protesting McDonalds is to fight for excellence in school systems and then keep their kids in school. The next thing would be to improve their own level of education.

 

A kid growing up in poverty that drops out of school is more likely than not predetermining that s/he will continue to live in economic distress. There are certainly individual exceptions to this but broadly it is true.

 

 

 

 

/thread

winner = chef

 

So what about the kid who is smart but has to attend a poor inner city school? Is the kid choosing to be in a crappy school or are they subject to the circumstances that his/her parents are in?

[Clippers of Nfl]

Pooj, you know the answer is always beer and toilet paper.

I thought it was just beer.

[Doc]

Pure bunk study.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I thought it was just beer.

 

So true! More beer... 33% of the world uses toilet paper, the others are left to fend for themselves. Hey, if it works for the 66%...

 

:-)

Edited August 30, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois

[/dev/null]

So what about the kid who is smart but has to attend a poor inner city school? Is the kid choosing to be in a crappy school or are they subject to the circumstances that his/her parents are in?

 

It's up to the kid to choose whether to put in the hard work and effor to work his/her way out of the hood or to become another casualty to a self perpetuating cycle of dependence

[BuffaloBill]

 

 

It's up to the kid to choose whether to put in the hard work and effor to work his/her way out of the hood or to become another casualty to a self perpetuating cycle of dependence

 

How much time have you spent in inner city schools? Not to mention there is more to the equation than hard work. The kid needs an environment mainly parents, teachers and schoolmates that help to support hard work. There are kids in crime infested parts of some cities that display symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder due to the violence and environment they are exposed to.

 

This is a far cry different than some kid in the burbs surrounded by a whole support structure that is there to help them to succeed.

 

My pint in the original post was that some kids have a much steeper climb up the hill due to the choices and circumstances of their parents.

 

 

[Chef Jim]

 

 

Did they do the test where a poor person wins the lottery, and six year later is dirt poor again?

 

Like Chef said - people are poor because they make bad decisions. And while people are usually taught to make bad decisions by living in poverty (my wife grew up poor - literally without shoes. She still can't handle money worth a damn, because when you're poor you learn to spend everything you have when you have it), a sudden influx of cash isn't going to change that decision-making paradigm. Being poor may teach bad judgement...but bad judgement perpetuates poverty, and eliminating poverty won't eliminate bad judgement.

 

She grew up without shoes and now she has you? That's The epitome of out of the kettle and in to the fire.