The Poor Keep Themselves Poor

[wiggin]

I think part of the problem is a lack of basic financial literacy, which is not really the fault of the poor. I had a fascinating conversation with someone who's worked with a lot of patients and employees in East Baltimore; he contends that the reason most of them take their paycheck immediately to be cashed (and have little if no savings in a bank account) is not because they don't want to save or budget, but because it helps them budget. Numbers on a piece of paper have no meaning to them in terms of what they can buy, but cold, hard cash does. Their paycheck isn't real until they have greenbacks in their pocket.

Most other problems initially listed are tied to similar deficits in financial literacy - poor understanding of net present value, risk/benefit analysis, probability, basic financial instruments, even the basic math needed for budgeting. If they had these tools, I suspect many of the working poor would try very hard to improve their financial straits; they just don't have the training or ability (things we often take for granted).

This isn't to exonerate all of the poor for any responsibility for their situation - plenty of poor are addicted to expensive and terrible habits (e.g. nicotine/alcohol/crack/whatever), take little responsibility for their own lot, have extremely poor parenting skills (not to mention family planning!), etc. But I think many of the poor who are just barely scraping by but work their asses off would be greatly helped by some improved financial literacy and quantitative education.

[GGT]

[...]

This isn't to exonerate all of the poor for any responsibility for their situation - plenty of poor are addicted to expensive and terrible habits (e.g. nicotine/alcohol/crack/whatever), take little responsibility for their own lot, have extremely poor parenting skills (not to mention family planning!), etc. But I think many of the poor who are just barely scraping by but work their asses off would be greatly helped by some improved financial literacy and quantitative education.

It's not such a great comment on our public schools that teaching these things is not part of standard classes. People assume kids learn these things at home, but look at the number of middle or even upper income adults who have crippling debt, lost their homes to foreclosure, or aren't prepared for retirement at all. Being financially illiterate isn't just reserved for poor people.

<Years ago, I learned about household budgeting, meal planning and nutriton in Home Economics. It was "easy" for me because my family had been teaching me that stuff since I was tiny. But there were no boys in Home Ec back then, they took Accounting or Shop. My own boys learned at home and through Boy Scouts, the merit was called Personal Financial Management or something like that. In elementary school they all went to a Junior Achievement interactive called Busy Town, but it was only two days and not graded....>

[Lewkowski]

GGT:

(Assuming you mean US poverty) many are likely caught in a vicious cycle, due to a combination of not learning how to make good choices + making some bad choices + a degree of hopelessness or futility.

So what percentage remain poor due to those bad choices?

Early Childhood Education? Yes. Absolutely.

Wasn't there a study that came out that showed Head Start gains were lost by the time kids made it to high school?

Did you just advocate forced adoption or orphanages for "certain people", but you don't want the government to intervene? Make up your mind. Unfortunately, trying to punish parents doesn't really help the kids.

Honestly kids growing up in poor households is pretty detrimental to them. There is more violence, drinking, poor values and crime in those households. I've said my piece that kids raised by parents who require government assistance are in the wrong hands. The government shouldn't raise the kids they should find parents willing to adopt, foster care or heck a plain old fashion orphanage would probably be better then being raised by many households. However remember - if the family doesn't accept government assistance then no one is going to come in and take the kids. Either way we both know this would never happen so its also moot.

Not all poor people commit crimes, even though many in prison come from impoverished homes (monetary or otherwise).

You brought up prisons and police.

WTF does the holy grail of personal welfare even mean, let alone for a baby or toddler?

It means the wisdom to understand the value of delayed gratification is the holy grail of personal welfare. The ability to deny self in the now to reap future benefits is the essential component to bettering oneself. Smokers, lottery players and RAL users all demonstrate no ability to delay gratification.

[GGT]

GGT:

So what percentage remain poor due to those bad choices?

I don't know, do you? I also don't have a specific figure for how many growing up in poverty also experienced neglect, abuse, poor nutrition, educational depravation, crappy schools, teen parents, absent fathers, or crime-ridden neighborhoods. It's a foregone conclusion that those things will negatively affect any child.

Wasn't there a study that came out that showed Head Start gains were lost by the time kids made it to high school?

"A study"? Sure, you can find "a study" for most anything. Maybe even one tying McDonald's Happy Meals to childhood obesity in poorer homes.

There's also been a lot of study surrounding the infant and child's developing brain. "Get 'em while they're young" is a principle even neuro-scientists would agree with.

Honestly kids growing up in poor households is pretty detrimental to them. There is more violence, drinking, poor values and crime in those households.

And I think you're way too comfortable putting all poor people into one big category. The violent, drinking, gambling, lazy group. Because it makes it easier for you to turn a blind eye to children and families who really can and DO benefit from some help. Certainly, new immigrant groups would fall into that category. Would you deny them, too?

I've said my piece that kids raised by parents who require government assistance are in the wrong hands. The government shouldn't raise the kids they should find parents willing to adopt, foster care or heck a plain old fashion orphanage would probably be better then being raised by many households. However remember - if the family doesn't accept government assistance then no one is going to come in and take the kids. Either way we both know this would never happen so its also moot.

So, you're fine calling poor people lazy, boozing, gamblers who choose that lifestyle, and live off the dole. All those bad decisions they make. Yet, you expect them to have the insight and overriding altruism to.....electively give their kids up for adoption, foster homes or orphanages?

You brought up prisons and police.

Only because you pulled your routine Frey 'em, Fuck 'em attitude.

I'd prefer them to live with mind numbing terror of the law if they decide to commit crimes. If swift and certain death is the response to theft, rape and murder then we won't need to spend that much more on police and prisons.

It means the wisdom to understand the value of delayed gratification is the holy grail of personal welfare. The ability to deny self in the now to reap future benefits is the essential component to bettering oneself. Smokers, lottery players and RAL users all demonstrate no ability to delay gratification.

That's well beyond a parenting issue, though. It's a cultural phenomenon now, with instant everything and short-term pleasures. That's not limited to just poor people, either.

[Lewkowski]

I don't know, do you?

Well I can't say it with absolute certainty but the very point of the thread was to discuss if at least 51% (ie most) of the poor are poor due to their own choices. And so to state again, yes I believe the majority of the poor are poor due to their own choices.

Only because you pulled your routine Frey 'em, Fuck 'em attitude.

I'd prefer them to live with mind numbing terror of the law if they decide to commit crimes. If swift and certain death is the response to theft, rape and murder then we won't need to spend that much more on police and prisons.

Wow... read this thread again. Your order of events is mixed up.

That's well beyond a parenting issue, though. It's a cultural phenomenon now, with instant everything and short-term pleasures. That's not limited to just poor people, either.

A good parent would teach their children delayed gratification is important. A good school system would teach its students the benefits of financial discipline. A good society would not reward immediate gratification through hand outs. A good society would not punish financial discipline via higher taxes for those who practiced delayed gratification.

[GGT]

Well I can't say it with absolute certainty but the very point of the thread was to discuss if at least 51% (ie most) of the poor are poor due to their own choices. And so to state again, yes I believe the majority of the poor are poor due to their own choices.

Again, if you already believe that.....it's not much of a "discussion", is it?

If you believe poor people are choosing to be poor, to scrap for every meal, tolerate cockroach and rat infested rentals, maybe cold-water trailers in strawberry fields, living fist-to-mouth and paycheck to paycheck.....have you ever wondered WHY, or if there's a way to change that?

A good parent would teach their children delayed gratification is important. A good school system would teach its students the benefits of financial discipline. A good society would not reward immediate gratification through hand outs. A good society would not punish financial discipline via higher taxes for those who practiced delayed gratification.

"Good" is relative, ya know. A "good" society wouldn't withhold beneficial programs from children that can help lift them out of poverty, just to punish their poor parents. That's the surest way to perpetuate the cycle of poverty with no end in sight.

In fact, you are exhibiting the very short-term thinking and immediate personal gratification you criticize those poor people for.

[Loki]

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/20...t_sawhill.aspx

Brookings, the bastion of conservative and biased thought.

[GGT]

If this thread was intended to criticize Head Start programs, then why wasn't it presented that way? We ALL KNOW that we have some inefficient or ineffective gummint programs, and wasted funding.

That doesn't change the fact that young children, especially children born into poverty with multi-generational poverty, can benefit from methods and programs that give them hope and open their world with educational opportunities.

[Loki]

You never even bothered to address the things mentioned in the article (such as the poor spending an insane amount of money on stupid things). Now you're complaining over me pointing out that your attack on Lewk over Head Start was unwarranted. You do know that no one has appointed you God yet, right?

[GGT]

You never even bothered to address the things mentioned in the article (such as the poor spending an insane amount of money on stupid things). Now you're complaining over me pointing out that your attack on Lewk over Head Start was unwarranted.

Does Lewk need you to provide links for him and make his arguments? No. Did Lewk start a thread titled, "Head Start programs are a waste of tax dollars"? No. Am I attacking Lewk? No, at least I don't think so. We were having a discussion about poverty. IMO the poor might keep their children poor, by passing on bad habits that are Learned.

You do know that no one has appointed you God yet, right?

What the fuck.

[Loki]

Does Lewk need you to provide links for him and make his arguments? No. Did Lewk start a thread titled, "Head Start programs are a waste of tax dollars"? No. Am I attacking Lewk? No, at least I don't think so. We were having a discussion about poverty. IMO the poor might keep their children poor, by passing on bad habits that are Learned.

Do you ever provide empirical support for your arguments? No. Do you frequently attack others for not providing empirical support for their arguments? Yes.

[GGT]

Do you ever provide empirical support for your arguments? No. Do you frequently attack others for not providing empirical support for their arguments? Yes.

Leave me alone, troll.

[Loki]

That's on the level of being called insane by kat. I'll take it as a compliment.

[GGT]

That's on the level of being called insane by kat. I'll take it as a compliment.

Leave me alone. Stop treating me like one of your students, please.

If you have an OPINION or an IDEA about Poor People Keeping Themselves Poor, then post it. Don't just link to a think tank about Head Start. And don't troll around.

[Aimless]

I'm not even worth debating.

Most truthful post in the thread?

Poor people are poor because their parents didn't have abortions. Their parents didn't have abortions because they're poor, uneducated, live in the US, and are therefore either stupidly religious or were just unable to get an abortion (or a morning after pill or what have you).

Poor people would benefit from getting some more basic financial education and rehabilitation, some general education, some relief and some motivation, maybe some help with kicking addictions, establishing credit, getting out of poor and crime-infested neighbourhoods, etc etc. I honestly believe that the best way to do those things is to treat poor people with contempt and scorn and judgement, just like with students. No, wait, that's not right...

No-one on the left enjoys keeping people poor. I contend instead that people on the right who manage pizzerias enjoy being judgemental and contemptuous even when it's clear that no-one benefits from their attitude.

I like the rest of this discussion, it's nice to learn more about what's going on in a part of the US that doesn't get much attention here




As for Tear, Tear was never contemptuous of the "self-made man". Tear was supremely contemptuous of those who bought the myth of the totally self-made man whole and without questions. Frequently those people are "self-made" men, although I'll grant that many self-made men are fully aware of what got them to the point they're at today, by virtue of having brains and learnings. It's not difficult to see that the American belief in the self-made man who's pulled himself up from the bottom by his own bootstraps has a hint of the religious about it. It's also not hard to see why that religious conviction is so prevalent--you folks are trained to be religious, and you have to have SOME means of holding your despair at bay.

[GGT]

Poor people are poor because their parents didn't have abortions. Their parents didn't have abortions because they're poor, uneducated, live in the US, and are therefore either stupidly religious or were just unable to get an abortion (or a morning after pill or what have you). [...]

According to some people, they wouldn't need abortions (or even birth control) if they could control their immediate self-gratification needs. Remain celibate and chaste until marriage, the only institution (for one man and one woman) recognized by the government.

One of our veteran members used to explain a life of poverty as nothing more to do besides Drink, Fight, and Fuck. Day by Day, paycheck-to-paycheck, meal by meal.

[Loki]

The idea of a "self-made man" came out of the late industrial revolution (second half of the 19th century), when several Americans did go from nothing to becoming billionaires. I'm not sure how much of a religious element this idea had at the time, but it was heavily influenced by social Darwinism (i.e. certain people succeed because they are genetically superior; the implication is that the US is best off leaving these people alone in terms of regulation/taxation, as that would benefit the country the most; an added implication is that helping the poor won't make much of a difference because they have genetic flaws).

[Loki]

That ignores why they're in the position they are now. I wonder how many of them would be in poverty if they didn't do drugs, didn't have a criminal record, didn't drop out of high school, or didn't get knocked up while in school. There are plenty of poor people who are hard workers now, but unfortunately, that doesn't make up for all the mistakes they've committed in the past.

[Wraith]

That ignores why they're in the position they are now. I wonder how many of them would be in poverty if they didn't do drugs, didn't have a criminal record, didn't drop out of high school, or didn't get knocked up while in school. There are plenty of poor people who are hard workers now, but unfortunately, that doesn't make up for all the mistakes they've committed in the past.

I tend to be a lot more sympathetic with people like you're describing, and wish that more of our social welfare efforts were focused on them than the people who are more like the ones Lewk described. I don't really see as much of a problem with helping people get past mistakes they made possibly a long time ago. If they're working hard now, it's a good indication that they'll keep working hard afterwards, and all they might need is just a bit of help to move up out of poverty forever, without lifelong maintenance from the rest of society.

[Loki]

I tend to be a lot more sympathetic with people like you're describing, and wish that more of our social welfare efforts were focused on them than the people who are more like the ones Lewk described. I don't really see as much of a problem with helping people get past mistakes they made possibly a long time ago. If they're working hard now, it's a good indication that they'll keep working hard afterwards, and all they might need is just a bit of help to move up out of poverty forever, without lifelong maintenance from the rest of society.

I certainly have no problem helping people who learned from their mistakes and are helping themselves, but I'm not convinced that simply throwing money at them is a viable solution. Many social programs decrease the incentive for people to get a full-time job or to make any kind of long-term plans. And stigma toward people with a criminal record, especially for victimless crimes committed a long time ago, don't help things either. The government should be making more of an effort to get these people into vocational schools (or academic programs if that's a viable option) and providing incentives for them to move to areas where there specialty might be in demand. Instead, we're encouraging poor women to pump out babies (welfare), not get married (section 8), and not get a job with good prospects.

[GGT]

I tend to be a lot more sympathetic with people like you're describing, and wish that more of our social welfare efforts were focused on them than the people who are more like the ones Lewk described. I don't really see as much of a problem with helping people get past mistakes they made possibly a long time ago. If they're working hard now, it's a good indication that they'll keep working hard afterwards, and all they might need is just a bit of help to move up out of poverty forever, without lifelong maintenance from the rest of society.

That's how (I hope) most of us view these things, too. One thing that's hard for social workers (or probation officers) is figuring out how to extract people from dysfunctional family and friends. You can't just yank people away from people they love and know, or remove their support systems without a replacement. That's where the "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" tends to fall apart.

[LittleFuzzy]

That ignores why they're in the position they are now. I wonder how many of them would be in poverty if they didn't do drugs, didn't have a criminal record, didn't drop out of high school, or didn't get knocked up while in school. There are plenty of poor people who are hard workers now, but unfortunately, that doesn't make up for all the mistakes they've committed in the past.

Who cares why they're in the position they are now? I'm glancing at the top of my screen, and the top of my page says this thread was titled "The Poor keep themselves Poor." The point of this discussion isn't how people become poor, but how/why they can't seem to improve things. Sure, a very healthy ration of that is because they're not making good choices. But a fair bit of the "not good" choices happen to be selected from a pool which did not include ANY good choices. You're the rat-choicer, Loki, are you actually going to try and sell me on poor people simply not trying to make rational choices?

[Loki]

Who cares why they're in the position they are now? I'm glancing at the top of my screen, and the top of my page says this thread was titled "The Poor keep themselves Poor." The point of this discussion isn't how people become poor, but how/why they can't seem to improve things. Sure, a very healthy ration of that is because they're not making good choices. But a fair bit of the "not good" choices happen to be selected from a pool which did not include ANY good choices. You're the rat-choicer, Loki, are you actually going to try and sell me on poor people simply not trying to make rational choices?

Let's start with selection effects. If someone is poor, chances are there are missteps they took to get there. Presumably, that kind of person is more likely to make more of those missteps than someone who never made any in the first place. There are possibly genetic factors involved as well (a person might not be very smart, might be aggressive, etc., which would both make him poor and make him more likely to stay poor). Even if we discount that and the path dependence I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure how you deal with people highly discounting the future. It's not irrational for someone who doesn't know/care what happens 5 years from now to not work hard at a low-paying job today or to save his money. As far as I could tell, it's predominantly a cultural issue in the US. Almost any person can get out of poverty, and there are numerous government (and private) programs in place to help them do that. But yet it's only the people who reject the culture of instant gratification, lack of emphasis on education, and overemphasis on sport and music, who manage to get out of poverty. I've seen far too many people from poor backgrounds work their way through college and get a good job afterward (many of them not particularly support or overly hard-working) for anyone to tell me that there are impenetrable obstacles in the way.

[Wraith]

Let's start with selection effects. If someone is poor, chances are there are missteps they took to get there. Presumably, that kind of person is more likely to make more of those missteps than someone who never made any in the first place. There are possibly genetic factors involved as well (a person might not be very smart, might be aggressive, etc., which would both make him poor and make him more likely to stay poor). Even if we discount that and the path dependence I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure how you deal with people highly discounting the future. It's not irrational for someone who doesn't know/care what happens 5 years from now to not work hard at a low-paying job today or to save his money. As far as I could tell, it's predominantly a cultural issue in the US. Almost any person can get out of poverty, and there are numerous government (and private) programs in place to help them do that. But yet it's only the people who reject the culture of instant gratification, lack of emphasis on education, and overemphasis on sport and music, who manage to get out of poverty. I've seen far too many people from poor backgrounds work their way through college and get a good job afterward (many of them not particularly support or overly hard-working) for anyone to tell me that there are impenetrable obstacles in the way.

No, the obstacles not insurmountable. I think I fit the description you're providing, so I know this. But I really don't see the problem in making them a bit easier to surmount. It's not just good for them, letting these people become fully productive, successful members of society benefits society as a whole. I understand objections you've raised in previous posts; the rewarding of people for doing nothing, but I think we've moved past that now, on to the working poor. The people who work 40 hours a week, and are still poor, due to past mistakes, financial obligations, or whatever. I don't see much of a problem with helping them out a bit so they can get to the point where they never need help again. It seems to me that the societal benefits outweight the costs here - it's basically an investment.

I basically agree with this:

The government should be making more of an effort to get these people into vocational schools (or academic programs if that's a viable option) and providing incentives for them to move to areas where there specialty might be in demand.

I also agree that the culture of some groups is part of the problem, and that we should be pushing harder for a cultural shift, and also improving financial literacy through our public schools.

[GGT]

....

I also agree that the culture of some groups is part of the problem, and that we should be pushing harder for a cultural shift, and also improving financial literacy through our public schools.

Which groups are problematic?

We had a huge cultural shift decades ago, aimed at every social tier climbing up the mobility ladder. It was called Home Ownership. That was the American Dream version, bought and sold. Boy, did that backfire on hundreds of millions of people who couldn't sell their home within 3 months (for a profit) in order to move where the jobs were, when their jobs vanished.

Financial literacy via public schools, absolutely.

[GGT]

I'm not sure I buy into the genetic fault theory. You can delay a person's development with depravation or neglect, often in the first year or two of life.

[Aimless]

I think all our societies would be able to get very far on effective interventions for reducing abuse of (or addiction to) alcohol, tobacco, etc, and on effective behavioral interventions. I hear there were about 1.5 million people in Sweden who were abusing/misusing/down right addicted to alcohol and/or various prescription drugs in 2005. Back then there were about 9 million people living in Sweden, and since the source may be a pathological liar the numbers may be off... but probably not by very much. Maybe with the right interventions you could get people to save 80 bucks per year. giving an addict money doesn't exactly cure them of their addiction, it's an illness that has its basis in biology and whatnot.

[Being]

I think all our societies would be able to get very far on effective interventions for reducing abuse of (or addiction to) alcohol, tobacco, etc, and on effective behavioral interventions. I hear there were about 1.5 million people in Sweden who were abusing/misusing/down right addicted to alcohol and/or various prescription drugs in 2005. Back then there were about 9 million people living in Sweden, and since the source may be a pathological liar the numbers may be off... but probably not by very much. Maybe with the right interventions you could get people to save 80 bucks per year. giving an addict money doesn't exactly cure them of their addiction, it's an illness that has its basis in biology and whatnot.

There is a powerful force that leads to abuse of drugs, alcohol, tabacco, etc. That force is boredom.

[agamemnus]

You're.

[Aimless]

I think he was talking about chavs and the like