"We had no choice" -American Poor

[Gin1984]

Whole lot of looking down on the poor, unsurprisingly since this is a very judgemental forum.   Fact is 50% of the population has a below average IQ and these people's chances of living a decent financial life is much less than it used to be for various well-documented reasons.  We cannot all become engineers, lawyers, and CPA's.

Very true. But I think the part of the article nobody seems to be focusing on is how much better off the poor are today than the were just 50 years ago. Its incredible.

The next obvious step is to help the poor grow in other places now, education, money management etc. but we're going in the right direction.

Actually they are not.  When my mom was a kid, after her mother (my grandmother) divorced her alcoholic husband, my grandmother was given welfare.  She was allowed to go to school to get a better job (not allowed now), schooling was cheaper (the Catholic school was on a sliding scale so both my aunts and my mother went to private school their entire life, allowing for very well paid jobs as adults).  They did not need to go to college (though two did) to get the job.  Having some random crap that is affordable when you can't get educated, have decent medical treatment, work (and have money after daycare) and retire at a decent age (my grandmother died owning her own house and was able to do a medically needed retirement at 55), does not make life better.  We are screwing our poor by not helping them get out of poverty.  My state has a program for work from welfare that has a discount daycare part.  It has not been funded for years.  And it only applies if you have gotten so poor you are on welfare, not for those who are always working but not earning enough.  WIC used to have a class for nutrition and cooking.  That does not have funding either.  If we want these issue to go down, wages need to go up and we need to educate the poor class.

[odput]

We should save our derision for middle to upper middle class people who can't make ends meet due to their stupid financial choices.  The poor have very little room for error.

While I agree with this, I don't think I ever said anything derisive to poor people, just made a list of common harping points, and easy choices to make against them.

I'm not sure where you are going with the education bit...the fact that most low/no income folks go to Ivies for free seems to prove my point further (that post-secondary education is not usually applicable).

And how many students can even get into Ivies?  Point is most will need to go to a public college and sadly, huge cuts to funding in this area exacerbate the problems of poor students/families, thereby constraining economic mobility.   If these poor students have to go to community college, that decrease their chances of making lifelong social connections (since most make their close friends in the first year or two of college) that could be helpful in the future. 

I think I've made quite clear that college is not normally applicable for low/no income...while this is unfortunate, it is reality.

And when should the working poor do this class?  You know those people whose hours change weekly, can't afford a babysitter (so who is going to watch the kids), and may be working multiple jobs to get by.   And by the by, unemployment is a insurance not public assistance.

So have multiple sessions, available several times throughout the day, multiple days per week.

Other/better suggestions are welcome, although I'll not be responding to any more complainypantsing.

[Gin1984]

We should save our derision for middle to upper middle class people who can't make ends meet due to their stupid financial choices.  The poor have very little room for error.

While I agree with this, I don't think I ever said anything derisive to poor people, just made a list of common harping points, and easy choices to make against them.

I'm not sure where you are going with the education bit...the fact that most low/no income folks go to Ivies for free seems to prove my point further (that post-secondary education is not usually applicable).

And how many students can even get into Ivies?  Point is most will need to go to a public college and sadly, huge cuts to funding in this area exacerbate the problems of poor students/families, thereby constraining economic mobility.   If these poor students have to go to community college, that decrease their chances of making lifelong social connections (since most make their close friends in the first year or two of college) that could be helpful in the future. 

I think I've made quite clear that college is not normally applicable for low/no income...while this is unfortunate, it is reality.

And when should the working poor do this class?  You know those people whose hours change weekly, can't afford a babysitter (so who is going to watch the kids), and may be working multiple jobs to get by.   And by the by, unemployment is a insurance not public assistance.

So have multiple sessions, available several times throughout the day, multiple days per week.

Other/better suggestions are welcome, although I'll not be responding to any more complainypantsing.

And who is funding this course, and you don't think they will expect that people make an appointment?  Both food stamps and WIC, in my state only are open during normal county hours (9-5).  It not complaining to say that your idea will make it hard on those will very little, if any, leeway.  The working poor have very little time, and to add in a weekly requirement, for what?!  To make you feel better about them getting money.  Yes, there may be people who just want to live off the government, but most don't.  Adding an addition time sink is worse than useless. 

[odput]

And who is funding this course, and you don't think they will expect that people make an appointment?  Both food stamps and WIC, in my state only are open during normal county hours (9-5). It not complaining to say that your idea will make it hard on those will very little, if any, leeway. The working poor have very little time, and to add in a weekly requirement, for what?!  To make you feel better about them getting money.  Yes, there may be people who just want to live off the government, but most don't.  Adding an addition time sink is worse than useless.

com·plaint
kəmˈplānt/
noun
1. a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable.

...Every time the surreal and happy world of this blog has a brush with the mainstream media, it triggers an explosive round of complaints, as well as a meaningful stream of questions.

The complaints won’t get us anywhere, because that’s pretty much the definition of a complaint: a whining statement of something you don’t like, without an accompanying proposal to fix it.

[Gen Y Finance Journey]

It's really not complainypantsing to point out that the poor have it really fucking hard, and the cure is not as simple as just telling them to make better decisions. To say that because you grew up poor and realized you had to make better decisions with your life to climb out of poverty is completely unhelpful. Congratulations, you're smarter than average. But most people are, by definition, not smarter than average. By the time a child living in poverty enters school, he's already miles behind his more affluent classmates who have had the privilege of educated parents who talk to their children every day and foster their intellect. Once you're behind, it's really hard to catch up. These kids have been dealt an incredibly unfair hand in life. To say that they should all be able to magically become more responsible, intelligent people who make stellar decisions after a lifetime of being left behind is absurd, unhelpful, and incredibly naive.

As others have pointed out, if a college educated professional can't figure out how to get by in life without credit card debt, why on earth should you assume that an uneducated person who has never had a good role model should be able to snap his fingers and fix his entire life? The whole "well I did it, so everyone should be able to do it" argument is incredibly derisive, and about the most asshole-ish thing you can say, IMO.

[frugalnacho]

Should we call whine-one-one and have them send a whambulance?  Maybe they can stop and pick up a whamburger and some french cries.

[mboulder]

I've volunteered at a food bank/temporary emergency housing for families for almost 2 years now, so I interact with the poor, some working and some not, on a regular basis. I see all types.

Some come in with their smartphones handy or with designer clothes, and it's pretty clear that many of these are just taking a free handout because that's easier than working. They are too lazy to get education to qualify for a step up in employment, and they don't feel the need to learn basic financial skills. That sounds like the people in this article, and yes, I agree that getting finances under control for these folks is vitally important. Sure, they exist. You will always have people mooching from the system for their own, personal gain.

But most of the poor I meet don't fit in this category. There are some families who are having some sort of crisis, like losing housing for various reasons. Quite a few have health issues that either completely ruined them financially or reduced/eliminated their ability to work, and often both. Some are old or infirm, unable to do any physical work. And many have mental issues that makes working their way out of poverty impossible. Many of these are vets, or people who were able-bodied workers in years past, but life removed them from the pool of eligible workers. These folks have no other choice, and I'll see them every week or two in the food bank for as long as I volunteer there, I'm sure.

Try telling these people that their situation is because they are addicted to toys or they have bad spending habits. Be really, really careful when you say "well, people are poor because of xyz reason, and if they just get some financial education and use some elbow grease they can work their wait out, and if not they are just lazy and stupid"... because often their situations are a lot more complex than that, and their problems go way beyond the fact that they own an iPhone.

[rocksinmyhead]

People just love to shit on the poor for some reason.  The fact is that financial acumen in this country is terrible.  Very few people are good with their money.  This is not a problem only for the poor.  It affects everyone in every socioeconomic class.  Its just that the poor have less margin for error.  I guess they're the easy target.

I agree.  I actually have a lot more contempt for a college-educated bozo in an F250 on his way from his McMansion to his hunting lease that somehow can't manage to save anything but thinks that social security is theft (spoiler alert: it's what he'll be living off of soon enough).

The poor have no margin for error.  Because of this, the consequences for their poor choices are amplified relative to the exact same poor choices that many people in the middle class make. We see the amplified effects and judge them on those effects, but if we judged them by their choices (not saving anything, poor diets, etc.), we'd have to judge a lot more of the people around us by the same metrics.

well put, both of you.

[Malloy]

Sometimes, I think we are hardest on the class right below the one we are in or grew up in.  It's a way to mentally protect ourselves from being lumped in with a group that we are trying to distance ourselves from.

[mboulder]

Sometimes, I think we are hardest on the class right below the one we are in or grew up in.  It's a way to mentally protect ourselves from being lumped in with a group that we are trying to distance ourselves from.

Yes, and I think it is also a way to tell ourselves that we won't end up in that lower class later. "I have good financial sense and don't spend money foolishly like these people in the article, so I'm safe, I won't end up being poor." Sadly, we are all just one medical health crisis away from being poor.

We also do it when people die. "George died young, but his diet was terrible. Luckily mine is better, so I won't end up like George."

We have this need to convince ourselves that we are safe from real life tragedies in the world.

[FireDAD]

I go away for one day and the can of worms has been opened.

[galliver]

The whole "well I did it, so everyone should be able to do it" argument is incredibly derisive, and about the most asshole-ish thing you can say, IMO.

Yup.

[Luck12]

Should we call whine-one-one and have them send a whambulance?  Maybe they can stop and pick up a whamburger and some french cries.

Perfect example of a really asshole thing to say.  Also not the least bit funny or creative.   

The rich and powerful want the middle class to shit on the poor, it's the whole divide and conquer thing. 

[warfreak2]

Somebody suggested that the government should pay to run finance classes that poor people are forced to attend. There's reasonably good evidence that, in most situations, if you have money and you want to help somebody, the most effective way is to just give it to them directly. (The article goes on to advocate for "universal income", which I think is a very sound way to combat poverty; but whether or not you agree with that, it's the first part I'm referring to.)

[thepokercab]

The rich and powerful want the middle class to shit on the poor, it's the whole divide and conquer thing.

Bingo. 

I find it amusing that people on a forum who pat themselves on the back for rejecting the overt and covert messaging around consumerism and are so quick to regurgitate talking points, proliferated by similar institutions, whose goal is to make sure that people continue to spend their energies blaming each other.  Better that then if people rallied together to address some of the real structural issues around poverty in America. 

The fact of the matter is that their are multi-billion dollar industries at work making sure that people remain uneducated, dumb and complacent. You think the billion dollar for profit prison industry, as one example, wants to see higher wages, more educational opportunity and reform?  Fuck that.   

Sure, some people are dumb and make dumb choices.  But those people, and their situations are amplified to keep people distracted.     

[Gen Y Finance Journey]

The fact of the matter is that their are multi-billion dollar industries at work making sure that people remain uneducated, dumb and complacent. You think the billion dollar for profit prison industry, as one example, wants to see higher wages, more educational opportunity and reform?  Fuck that.   

Sure, some people are dumb and make dumb choices.  But those people, and their situations are amplified to keep people distracted.   

This x1000

[warfreak2]

"raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt jobs"

Really?  If that's true, then employers everywhere just simply need to pay the employees $100 an hour, no problem.  That makes sense...

Well, I doubt that any of the studies looked at 1280% increases in minimum wage, but that's not what we're talking about at all.

[Malloy]

Someone should have pre-tackled this, since all conversations about this issue take the same form:

1.  raising the minimum wage will just make employers cut jobs

countered with the available evidence against

2.  OK then, it's going to make inflation go up

countered with the available evidence against

3. well, if raising the minimum wage is so great, then why don't we pay everyone $300/hour!! 

No one is talking about that, since it would be a percentage increase of prevailing minimum wage of over 2000%.  The issue is whether a 20% increase to the income floor, not a 2000% increase, would be beneficial to the economy as a whole. The available evidence suggests that for the wage increases that are actually being considered (and not wage strawmen) job loss would be minimal, inflation would be unaffected, and real incomes would increase for the bottom 20% of wage earners.  This is a substantial benefit, and it is only fair to consider these benefits relative to any drawbacks.

Further, it is fair to ask why people don't just pay a minimum wage of $1 or less, because in the global economy we would surely have takers.  The answer is that we (should) have the moral conviction to pay a living wage and respect the dignity of our fellow man.  In mustachian terms, the race to the bottom is a cheap man's morality, not a frugal man's morality.

[Eric]

"raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt jobs"

Really?  If that's true, then employers everywhere just simply need to pay the employees $100 an hour, no problem.  That makes sense...

Well, I doubt that any of the studies looked at 1280% increases in minimum wage, but that's not what we're talking about at all.

Topical Daily Show clip on the subject

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v1lzn2/the-amazing-raise

[infogoon]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

[odput]

It's really not complainypantsing to point out that the poor have it really fucking hard, and the cure is not as simple as just telling them to make better decisions. To say that because you grew up poor and realized you had to make better decisions with your life to climb out of poverty is completely unhelpful. Congratulations, you're smarter than average. But most people are, by definition, not smarter than average. By the time a child living in poverty enters school, he's already miles behind his more affluent classmates who have had the privilege of educated parents who talk to their children every day and foster their intellect. Once you're behind, it's really hard to catch up. These kids have been dealt an incredibly unfair hand in life. To say that they should all be able to magically become more responsible, intelligent people who make stellar decisions after a lifetime of being left behind is absurd, unhelpful, and incredibly naive.

As others have pointed out, if a college educated professional can't figure out how to get by in life without credit card debt, why on earth should you assume that an uneducated person who has never had a good role model should be able to snap his fingers and fix his entire life? The whole "well I did it, so everyone should be able to do it" argument is incredibly derisive, and about the most asshole-ish thing you can say, IMO.

Wow...went away for a bit and we digressed into the usual form.

So before I sign off from this thread:
1. My original comment disagreed that the "reasonable amount rather then how it is spent" (paraphrased because the reply won't let me go that far back).  Now there appears to be evidence otherwise.  @warfreak...thanks for the link...I have some reading to do
2. I offered up an idea on how to fix things, and that was immediately shot down.  That's pretty much the definition of complainypantsing.  I never even came close to trying to defend the position that the poor don't have it tough.
3. I don't buy the whole divide and conquer thing...while there may be a tiny slice of the super powerful that subscribe to it, I'd wager that it is less than 1000 people...in the world.
4. I never said I grew up poor and beat it...go back and read.
5.

People just love to shit on the poor for some reason.  The fact is that financial acumen in this country is terrible.  Very few people are good with their money.  This is not a problem only for the poor.  It affects everyone in every socioeconomic class.  Its just that the poor have less margin for error.  I guess they're the easy target.

I agree.  I actually have a lot more contempt for a college-educated bozo in an F250 on his way from his McMansion to his hunting lease that somehow can't manage to save anything but thinks that social security is theft (spoiler alert: it's what he'll be living off of soon enough).

The poor have no margin for error.  Because of this, the consequences for their poor choices are amplified relative to the exact same poor choices that many people in the middle class make. We see the amplified effects and judge them on those effects, but if we judged them by their choices (not saving anything, poor diets, etc.), we'd have to judge a lot more of the people around us by the same metrics.

well put, both of you.

+1

[Luck12]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

Tremendous oversimplification meets just world fallacy meets moral righteousness exemplified! 

[thepokercab]

3. I don't buy the whole divide and conquer thing...while there may be a tiny slice of the super powerful that subscribe to it, I'd wager that it is less than 1000 people...in the world.

I'd wager its less than 1,000 people as well.  But hell, when 85 people control more wealth then the bottom half of the world's population, how many people do you really need to subscribe to the whole divide and conquer thing in order to have its desired effect.  Not very many. 

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf

[Gen Y Finance Journey]

@odput - I was conflating your posts with others who were posting similar opinions in my response, so no, not everything I wrote is directly in response to things you said. The "I grew up poor and made good decisions" story was not you, it was jamesqf. Re-reading my post I realize that it comes off as though the entire response is directed just at you, apologies for that.

The problem is that there is no simple solution. I don't think it's complainypantsing to poke holes in an overly simplistic solution. When there's such a huge systemic problem like this, it's easy to find the flaws with proposed solutions, but pretty hard to come up with a comprehensive one. I can make generalized proposals like increased minimum wage and better education & outreach programs, but in practical terms, I have no frigging idea how to solve the problem.

[infogoon]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

Tremendous oversimplification meets just world fallacy meets moral righteousness exemplified!

It wasn't intended as a moral judgment or a belief in a just world.

For example: I live in a poor city that has a "failing" school system. Most people with the means to flee the city for the suburbs did so back in the 1970s, so the city has a huge population mired in poverty and very few middle-class or professional families. (The median household income in the city is about $31k, compared to almost $50k for the county as a whole, and more than thirty percent of families live under the poverty line)

The children of poor families have little evidence that education is their best route out of poverty; there are almost no role models around to attest to that. So the school graduation rates continue to fall (last I checked it was about 25% for black males) and the problems of poverty continue to grow. The students who make it out, for the most part, leave the city.

I'm not saying that poor people stay poor because they're morally or intellectually deficient. I'm saying that the ingrained patterns of a life lived in poverty and the pull of that environment are incredibly difficult to overcome.

[Gen Y Finance Journey]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

Tremendous oversimplification meets just world fallacy meets moral righteousness exemplified!

It wasn't intended as a moral judgment or a belief in a just world.

For example: I live in a poor city that has a "failing" school system. Most people with the means to flee the city for the suburbs did so back in the 1970s, so the city has a huge population mired in poverty and very few middle-class or professional families. (The median household income in the city is about $31k, compared to almost $50k for the county as a whole, and more than thirty percent of families live under the poverty line)

The children of poor families have little evidence that education is their best route out of poverty; there are almost no role models around to attest to that. So the school graduation rates continue to fall (last I checked it was about 25% for black males) and the problems of poverty continue to grow. The students who make it out, for the most part, leave the city.

I'm not saying that poor people stay poor because they're morally or intellectually deficient. I'm saying that the ingrained patterns of a life lived in poverty and the pull of that environment are incredibly difficult to overcome.

Hehe, I was just about to post a snarky reply that poor people keep doing things like being born into the ghetto and having no access to a proper education or good role models, but then saw your follow-up. I don't think your original statement did a good job of conveying what you actually meant. :)

[olivia]

I've been a staunch ultra-conservative capitalist for years. And I felt the same way.

But with a nation as wealthy as ours, its time for a paradigm shift for sure. supporting the poor with housing and education will do nothing except raise our overall wealth even more.  Its ridiculous to have elected officials complaining about spending on entitlements when 50-60% of our nation's tax revenue goes directly to warfare. ridiculous.

This seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, but it is spot on.  And I'm a staunch liberal, but logic should be bipartisan.  ;)

[Eric]

The children of poor families have little evidence that education is their best route out of poverty; there are almost no role models around to attest to that. So the school graduation rates continue to fall (last I checked it was about 25% for black males) and the problems of poverty continue to grow. The students who make it out, for the most part, leave the city.

This is slightly off topic, and obviously variable by geography, but the HS graduation rate just reached an all time high of 80% nationwide.

[Jamesqf]

(The article goes on to advocate for "universal income", which I think is a very sound way to combat poverty...

The problem with this is that it does nothing to combat poverty, since poverty in this country (and most of the developed world) is almost always a relative thing.  It's not what you don't have, in absolute terms (e.g. enough to eat), it's that you have less abundance than those other folks.  Give everyone a guaranteed minimum income of $100K a year, and there'd still be people complaining that they're "poor" because they can't afford the same things as people making $200K, and agitating for an increase in the minimum.

I've been a staunch ultra-conservative capitalist for years. And I felt the same way.

But with a nation as wealthy as ours, its time for a paradigm shift for sure. supporting the poor with housing and education will do nothing except raise our overall wealth even more.  Its ridiculous to have elected officials complaining about spending on entitlements when 50-60% of our nation's tax revenue goes directly to warfare. ridiculous.

I do seem to recall that this has been tried, most recently in Britain in the '50 and '60s.  Not a resounding success.

[BFGirl]

Somebody suggested that the government should pay to run finance classes that poor people are forced to attend. There's reasonably good evidence that, in most situations, if you have money and you want to help somebody, the most effective way is to just give it to them directly. (The article goes on to advocate for "universal income", which I think is a very sound way to combat poverty; but whether or not you agree with that, it's the first part I'm referring to.)

Very interesting article on a universal income.  It really makes you think. 

[Cassie]

I worked as a social worker for awhile and that job really opened my eyes. People really struggle to get services & get out of their situation.   Some people make it & some don't.  Some don't want to but believe me that they are the minority!  Also listen to stories of people that survived the depression and what they had to endure.  Not one bit pretty.   My parents were kids during the depression and all we ever heard was go to college or get a skilled trade.  They never wanted us to experience what they or their parents did.  Whenever there is an article about poor people it shows them doing things most think are stupid because they are poor. They never show the poor people that are making smart decisions.  I think that is done on purpose because if we can blame the poor then we won't want to help them.   We would much rather prefer to spend billions killing people in far away countries then to take care of our own.  It really boggles the mind.

[Gin1984]

It's really not complainypantsing to point out that the poor have it really fucking hard, and the cure is not as simple as just telling them to make better decisions. To say that because you grew up poor and realized you had to make better decisions with your life to climb out of poverty is completely unhelpful. Congratulations, you're smarter than average. But most people are, by definition, not smarter than average. By the time a child living in poverty enters school, he's already miles behind his more affluent classmates who have had the privilege of educated parents who talk to their children every day and foster their intellect. Once you're behind, it's really hard to catch up. These kids have been dealt an incredibly unfair hand in life. To say that they should all be able to magically become more responsible, intelligent people who make stellar decisions after a lifetime of being left behind is absurd, unhelpful, and incredibly naive.

As others have pointed out, if a college educated professional can't figure out how to get by in life without credit card debt, why on earth should you assume that an uneducated person who has never had a good role model should be able to snap his fingers and fix his entire life? The whole "well I did it, so everyone should be able to do it" argument is incredibly derisive, and about the most asshole-ish thing you can say, IMO.

Wow...went away for a bit and we digressed into the usual form.

So before I sign off from this thread:
1. My original comment disagreed that the "reasonable amount rather then how it is spent" (paraphrased because the reply won't let me go that far back).  Now there appears to be evidence otherwise.  @warfreak...thanks for the link...I have some reading to do
2. I offered up an idea on how to fix things, and that was immediately shot down.  That's pretty much the definition of complainypantsing.  I never even came close to trying to defend the position that the poor don't have it tough.
3. I don't buy the whole divide and conquer thing...while there may be a tiny slice of the super powerful that subscribe to it, I'd wager that it is less than 1000 people...in the world.
4. I never said I grew up poor and beat it...go back and read.
5.

People just love to shit on the poor for some reason.  The fact is that financial acumen in this country is terrible.  Very few people are good with their money.  This is not a problem only for the poor.  It affects everyone in every socioeconomic class.  Its just that the poor have less margin for error.  I guess they're the easy target.

I agree.  I actually have a lot more contempt for a college-educated bozo in an F250 on his way from his McMansion to his hunting lease that somehow can't manage to save anything but thinks that social security is theft (spoiler alert: it's what he'll be living off of soon enough).

The poor have no margin for error.  Because of this, the consequences for their poor choices are amplified relative to the exact same poor choices that many people in the middle class make. We see the amplified effects and judge them on those effects, but if we judged them by their choices (not saving anything, poor diets, etc.), we'd have to judge a lot more of the people around us by the same metrics.

well put, both of you.

+1

You offered up an idea that had major issues and therefore would not help but would harm the population you say you are trying to help.  If you want to help, perhaps you should actually learn more about the population, before making judgements. 

[Roland of Gilead]

And how many students can even get into Ivies?  Point is most will need to go to a public college and sadly, huge cuts to funding in this area exacerbate the problems of poor students/families, thereby constraining economic mobility.   If these poor students have to go to community college, that decrease their chances of making lifelong social connections (since most make their close friends in the first year or two of college) that could be helpful in the future. 

My wife went to Brown and came from a family making very little.  She actually worked during the summers to send money home.

[warfreak2]

(The article goes on to advocate for "universal income", which I think is a very sound way to combat poverty...

The problem with this is that it does nothing to combat poverty, since poverty in this country (and most of the developed world) is almost always a relative thing.

1) I specifically said "but whether or not you agree with that, it's the first part I'm referring to", because this isn't relevant to the discussion at all.
2) Are you trying to say that combating poverty in your country is not a worthwhile goal because there isn't really any?
3) You know I'm not in the country you call "this country", nor did I refer to it, right?

[Ian]

This thread really expanded overnight (for me). I feel late, but I'll still try to respond.

I wish people on this forum would be more sympathetic to the working poor. Many of them make poor decisions, yes, but don't underestimate the additional handicaps caused by growing up in an environment where everyone models those poor choices. Those barriers aren't insurmountable, but it's unfair to expect people to magically acquire soft skills when they have very few chances to do so.

Those barriers aren't insurmountable, it just takes hard work and a desire to change.  I'm very fortunante to be able to see this every day in my job

I'm not sure whether or not you're disagreeing with me, given that we use exactly the same language. Yes, barriers can be overcome. But in threads like these, we're looking at broad populations, not individuals. It's about as senseless to condemn poor people for not all having financial skills as it would be to condemn amputees for not all being great athletes. With large numbers of people, disadvantages are going to have an impact, regardless of if some people overcome them.

Fuck that they bring it on themselves.  I came from a poor environment where everyone made terrible financial decisions.  They still do.  Once I was able to start thinking on my own though I realized how foolish they were (and still are) with money.

My sister is constantly bitching about money and even says she doesn't have the $500 required to send her kid to summer camp for 8 weeks (they get a steep discount as my mother works as a counselor at this camp during the summer).   I showed them republic wireless plan and did the math showing how they could save a little over $100/mo if they make the switch and she scoffed at the idea.  She has her iphone and she likes it - despite being able to save $1200+/year as a family.   Even though she has a car loan.  And $10,000 in cc debt.  And lives at home with our parents (in a house I own).

I've never said that the poor always make good decisions, it's just that they don't exist in a logical vacuum where they dispassionately decide to choose the worst option. For example, I encounter many people who grew up viewing money as a transitory asset - if you don't spend it quickly, it will be taken by poorer relatives. Incorrect attitudes won't just change instantaneously, especially if they're part of your assumptions about the world.

Having said that, I don't want to come across as saying no one can be frustrated. Especially when it's a personal situation, as in your anecdote. It's just that I don't think frustration is the primary emotion here, it's closer to a sneering confirmation of our superiority.

since they dont have the soft skills, maybe they should be told what to do or even forced to do what they are being told if they dont listen.

/evil laugh

Except that in this thread, we're not telling them to do anything, we're just commenting from the outside.

[Psychstache]

Whole lot of looking down on the poor, unsurprisingly since this is a very judgemental forum.   Fact is 50% of the population has a below average IQ and these people's chances of living a decent financial life is much less than it used to be for various well-documented reasons.  We cannot all become engineers, lawyers, and CPA's.

Actually, the fact is 25% of the population has a below average IQ (the other 25% are above average), but a high IQ is not required for many high paying (though possibly low status) jobs and careers.

[Baylor3217]

It's facinating to me that the people in these articles always have smartphones.

Tammie Hagen-Noey, a 49-year-old living in Richmond, Va., tapped at an iPhone as she sat on the porch of the group home where she lives ... “It’s impossible,” she said. “Every cent of that goes towards what I need.” A few months ago, she sold her car for $500 to make rent.

While here on the MMM forums we might make an argument to get rid of BOTH - it intrigues me that a person felt they needed to keep an iPhone with its associated expenses, even while fire-selling her vehicle in order to make rent.

It's a sad, yet brilliant, triumph of marketing.

Maybe an obamaphone?  paradoxically started under Reagan

[Jamesqf]

(The article goes on to advocate for "universal income", which I think is a very sound way to combat poverty...

The problem with this is that it does nothing to combat poverty, since poverty in this country (and most of the developed world) is almost always a relative thing.

1) I specifically said "but whether or not you agree with that, it's the first part I'm referring to", because this isn't relevant to the discussion at all.

You may not think it's relevant.  I do.  Since I was the one writing the post, and no moderators have objected (yet, anyway), I think my opinion prevails :-)

2) Are you trying to say that combating poverty in your country is not a worthwhile goal because there isn't really any?

No, I'm saying that (beyond basic necessities) it is ultimately futile, because those near the bottom, even if they are unimaginably wealthy by today's standards, will always think that they're poor.  Just as most of the poor today are unimaginably wealthy by the standards of a couple of centuries ago.

3) You know I'm not in the country you call "this country", nor did I refer to it, right?

I don't, and obviously can't, know what country every reader is in.  Since 1) I am in the US, and 2) from context, much of the discussion is about conditions in the US,  I think it follows that when I write 'this country', I'm probably referring to the US.

[Baylor3217]

I wish people on this forum would be more sympathetic to the working poor. Many of them make poor decisions, yes, but don't underestimate the additional handicaps caused by growing up in an environment where everyone models those poor choices. Those barriers aren't insurmountable, but it's unfair to expect people to magically acquire soft skills when they have very few chances to do so.

This.   Not to mention it is very easy for one who is not dealing with a scarcity of basic resources to look down on how those in scarcity situations deal with it, when the reality is that probably we would all make similar bad choices under those circumstances (I recommend this book http://www.amazon.com/Scarcity-Having-Little-Means-Much/dp/0805092641 ).

I've gotten the impression that MMM has been very clear that the principles he promotes apply to those living on middle class + salaries, and appreciate this about him (if his stance was otherwise I probably would not hang out here).   It's just not the same for someone who makes poverty wages and I find it very disturbing for those who are more privileged to pretend otherwise.   

With that said, I really like the point of the article.   Stuff is cheap.   Having stuff is no longer really any good measure of what separates those with good lives from those who struggle.   The important things that bring true well-being are expensive (child care, education, time, flexibility, etc), and not easily attainable by all.

IMHO, we all come from different walks of life, but coming from a poverty level situation shouldn't entitle you to a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to having responsibility for yourself and your actions.

My grandparents were dirt poor but had respect for their surroundings, themselves and never played the "poor me, I need special treatment cause I just don't have the skills" card. Their house was always the cleanest on the block, they worked hard for what little they had and dealt with things much more severe that what todays generation has had to deal with.

Thats quite the opposite of todays low to no income population, who seem to be given more by the government and required to do less for it, paving the way for more "entitled" low income future generations content with their IPhones but not a job that pays under $10 per hour. Its just too easy nowadays to sit back and make excuse after excuse after excuse for why things haven't lined up in your life.

Just my $0.02

A lot of wisdom in this post.

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

This will not go on forever and will eventually end very badly. It's just a question of when. Of course, to be clear, when the government gives something to someone, the thing they gave they took from you...or your kids...or your grand kids....or after the last 8 years, your great great great great grandkids.

[Eric]

You know I'm not in the country you call "this country", nor did I refer to it, right?

I don't, and obviously can't, know what country every reader is in.  Since 1) I am in the US, and 2) from context, much of the discussion is about conditions in the US,  I think it follows that when I write 'this country', I'm probably referring to the US.

Let me guess.  You work as a detective, right?

[Eric]

IMHO, we all come from different walks of life, but coming from a poverty level situation shouldn't entitle you to a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to having responsibility for yourself and your actions.

My grandparents were dirt poor but had respect for their surroundings, themselves and never played the "poor me, I need special treatment cause I just don't have the skills" card. Their house was always the cleanest on the block, they worked hard for what little they had and dealt with things much more severe that what todays generation has had to deal with.

Thats quite the opposite of todays low to no income population, who seem to be given more by the government and required to do less for it, paving the way for more "entitled" low income future generations content with their IPhones but not a job that pays under $10 per hour. Its just too easy nowadays to sit back and make excuse after excuse after excuse for why things haven't lined up in your life.

Just my $0.02

A lot of wisdom in this post.

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

This will not go on forever and will eventually end very badly. It's just a question of when. Of course, to be clear, when the government gives something to someone, the thing they gave they took from you...or your kids...or your grand kids....or after the last 8 years, your great great great great grandkids.

Why do both of you seem to think that poor people don't work hard?  Most poor paying jobs are where people work the hardest.  To paint the poor as lazy because they don't make much money is just asinine.  Ever cleaned a house?  Worked in a restaurant?  Day laborer?  Those are fucking hard work, as are the vast majority of poor paying jobs.

[Gen Y Finance Journey]

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

This will not go on forever and will eventually end very badly. It's just a question of when. Of course, to be clear, when the government gives something to someone, the thing they gave they took from you...or your kids...or your grand kids....or after the last 8 years, your great great great great grandkids.

Yea, I want financial freedom, but not at the expense of other less fortunate people. And can we stop talking about all those people "unwilling" to work hard enough to fit your standards? I'm perfectly happy with my tax dollars being used to help less fortunate people have access to food, education, and health care. There will always be some people taking advantage of the system, but that doesn't mean we should throw the whole system out.

[galliver]

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

Actually, what's unsustainable is vast income/wealth inequality. Societies with a middle class and social mobility thrive; societies with an upper and lower class collapse, like the Roman empire did (this has been covered in numerous studies and sources). So we could look at it not as "redistribution," but as "paying for a system that supports a stable society with an educated workforce and not sick, starving people robbing you in the street"

And oh, everyone's favorite "the poor are lazy" fallacy. Exhibit A: A whopping 2% of welfare disbursements go to people who could work, but don't. 91% go to the elderly, disabled, and working households (>1000 hrs/year). (The other 6% is explained, too) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677 Exhibit B: 19% receive benefits for <7mos, and only 19% for over 5 years. http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

[Cwadda]

I personally think this:

Cut unemployment to 52 week max to find a job and tighten restrictions on people that barely have to show anything
The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

Raise minimum wage to a reasonable amount to adjust for inflation
It makes economic sense.

Reevaluate overtime restrictions and make sure hardworking people have better opportunities to make 1.5x their rate
Hardworking people should always be rewarded. They are the ones that need the money the most.

[Roland of Gilead]

The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

You mean like the software contractors who make $200,000 a year but are forced to take a 6 month cooling off period every 18 months?  Most (all?) of the ones I know collect unemployment during those 6 months.

I'd probably do it too if I were a contractor instead of a full timer.

[Cwadda]

The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

You mean like the software contractors who make $200,000 a year but are forced to take a 6 month cooling off period every 18 months?  Most (all?) of the ones I know collect unemployment during those 6 months.

I'd probably do it too if I were a contractor instead of a full timer.

Unemployment is a necessary thing, no doubt. We are very fortunate as a country to have it. That said, it has ridiculous loopholes. People should not be able to collect while never looking for work.

Welfare and worker's compensation are the same concepts. There are people that need welfare to survive and there are people that get severely disabled and cannot physically work. But saying you have back pain or coming out of a fender bender claiming you're unable to work makes it so easy to exploit things.

[bacchi]

Actually, the fact is 25% of the population has a below average IQ (the other 25% are above average), but a high IQ is not required for many high paying (though possibly low status) jobs and careers.

Eh? Where does the other 50% lie?

[Roland of Gilead]

Eh? Where does the other 50% lie?

They are the ones who were busy watching reruns of 2.5 men and forgot to show up for the test.

[Breaker]

An example of this is a somewhat recent study that shows that it would cost less to provide shelter for every single homeless person than it would to continue letting them be homeless, because homeless people get sick more frequently than everyone else, and sick people spend a lot of time in hospitals....  and hospitals are freakin' expensive

.

San Francisco is doing this, not because of any official decision.  The decision is that they don't make people move out of subsidized housing if they don't pay the rent. 

The problem comes when the other people who are living in subsidized housing learn that others aren't paying and they are.  So once again the people who are doing their best to take care of themselves lose out to those who are given a free pass.

I also have reservations about Parents using a credit card for everything.  If you are Mustaschian you can explain the reason to your kids but I often think that what the kids learn is that if you don't have the cash - just pull out the plastic. 

There needs to be a solution but I don't have it.  My only suggestion is that basic household finances need to be taught from Middle School on up.  In High School a basic course in investing would be a great thing too.
 

[Southern Stashian]

IMHO, we all come from different walks of life, but coming from a poverty level situation shouldn't entitle you to a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to having responsibility for yourself and your actions.

My grandparents were dirt poor but had respect for their surroundings, themselves and never played the "poor me, I need special treatment cause I just don't have the skills" card. Their house was always the cleanest on the block, they worked hard for what little they had and dealt with things much more severe that what todays generation has had to deal with.

Thats quite the opposite of todays low to no income population, who seem to be given more by the government and required to do less for it, paving the way for more "entitled" low income future generations content with their IPhones but not a job that pays under $10 per hour. Its just too easy nowadays to sit back and make excuse after excuse after excuse for why things haven't lined up in your life.

Just my $0.02

A lot of wisdom in this post.

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

This will not go on forever and will eventually end very badly. It's just a question of when. Of course, to be clear, when the government gives something to someone, the thing they gave they took from you...or your kids...or your grand kids....or after the last 8 years, your great great great great grandkids.

Why do both of you seem to think that poor people don't work hard?  Most poor paying jobs are where people work the hardest.  To paint the poor as lazy because they don't make much money is just asinine.  Ever cleaned a house?  Worked in a restaurant?  Day laborer?  Those are fucking hard work, as are the vast majority of poor paying jobs.

Yes, I have done a few of those jobs earlier in my life. The difference though is that I got up everyday and went to work, worked hard on my motivation and education in order to be able to move past those back breaking jobs to where I am now.

You seem to think that I group all low income people together, which I don't. I've never knocked anyone who is out there working hard, regardless of their income, as they at least are out there trying to get ahead.

Their counterparts are a different story though, as I feel no compassion for a parasite who doesn't contribute to society. These people feed off of the government, making it our problem to keep them alive. These same people spend their time (the time they could be working) convincing society to believe that the answer to their woes is handing them more money or upping their starting wage. That makes as much sense as giving a drug addict MORE drugs to get them on the right path.

We are one of the few nations in the world where a person is considered to be "poor" but live better then 98% of the world. These people are handed money for NOT working, sleep in everyday, are overweight or even obese, have a smart phones, cable tv, cigarettes, beer, fatty foods and reasonable housing while the person next to them is living a lesser lifestyle by getting up everyday and staying in shape by working 50 hours per week.

Sorry if I come off as unsympathetic, but in some regards I am. I would consider myself a failure in life if I lived that way or raised children who ended up being burdens to others. It's just too bad that others don't put that same focus into their lives rather than blaming everything, everyone and every road block in life for their misfortunes.