Author Topic: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?  (Read 19159 times)

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #150 on: December 03, 2019, 09:49:26 AM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

Does anyone else feel that the over-the-top "Support the troops" mania in our country is mostly a cynical ploy by the rich people in power to keep a steady stream of poor-to-middle-class types volunteering out of some sense of valiant patriotism (and to keep their families on board with it) at the same time as feeding lucrative defense contracts to themselves and their buddies?

And of course, the "military as jobs program, get off your asses and sign up you lazy poors" feeds right into that.

I'll say one thing. It seems kind of freakishly easy to play people in this country by using their own ideologies against them.

Of course. This is a very touchy subject though. And I've gained relatively little ground on this outside with audiences who are already primed to agree with me. Essentially, military people and families don't want to hear a 30 year old, skinny hipster with soft, uncalloused hands who works at a computer all day (me) tell them that maybe the military isn't so great.

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #151 on: December 03, 2019, 10:07:04 AM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

+1

I live in an area that has a ton of really wonderful buildings and parks built by the CCC and WPA. Every time I'm lucky enough to wander around them I am so thankful for those amazing programs that made my town a little more beautiful and community friendly.

Bring back the WPA!

Also one of my Grandpas worked for the CCC in the national parks before he joined up for WWII and said the CCC was one of the most rewarding things he ever did.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #152 on: December 03, 2019, 10:17:21 AM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

The military isn't a "jobs program". It's a "defend the nation program"*. And yes, there are shitloads of other jobs** that add value to society, both private and public, and many of them not requiring more than below-average intelligence.

*Or sometimes a "get revenge program" or "defend the petroleum resources program", but the general idea still holds.

**Or job programs, if you prefer.

I'm responding to the suggestion that young people use the military as a jobs program. I would prefer it if we did not do this.

Contrary to popular belief 15-20% of the population is not intelligent enough to be accepted into the (US, at least) military. They've determined there isn't a job they can train the <83ish IQ crowd to do that is worth the expense. Presumably a civilian jobs program would have similar issues (but maybe worth running at a loss?). The challenges of the cognitive bottom quintile are real.

pecunia

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #153 on: December 03, 2019, 10:34:13 AM »
cannon fodder?

DeniseNJ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #154 on: December 03, 2019, 10:43:19 AM »
I actually was very poor growing up.  Daughter of a single Puerto Rican mom who worked at Woolworth's, latchkey kid, etc.  It was a huge blessing and a relief when we actually got to move into the projects.  Not sure what they call housing projects now but 30-40 yrs ago that's what they were called.  Waited on line for cheese and all that fun stuff.

Now I'm 48 with two teens, two cars, own my home, investments, blah blah blah, all of the fun trappings of the middle class.  And I absolutly hate when ppl complain about all the things they CAN'T do and think I'm somehow the exception to the rule.  Like everybody who doesn't make it is right and those who do are an aberration.  True some ppl can't make it, but that's not a reason for everyone who doesn't make it to think they are part of that small group who can't make it.  Just bc you didn't succeed doesn't mean you couldn't have succeeded.

It's a fact though that everyone sees their successes as their own and their failures as someone elses.  Successful ppl take the credit and unsuccessful ones blame others.  Or maybe that's actually why some ppl are unsuccessful: bc they blame others.

And to be honest, the well born children of the middle income families who grow up with a sense of enittlement and very little gratitude who blame the world for their failures truly make me sick to my stomach. 
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 10:46:01 AM by DeniseNJ »

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #155 on: December 03, 2019, 10:50:09 AM »
cannon fodder?

Modern armies don't need cannon fodder.

sabanist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #156 on: December 03, 2019, 11:21:14 AM »
I don't know everyones circumstance but i know I was a teenage dad who joined the army to support the family then took advantage of the education and housing benefits to improve my station.  That's available to nearly every young person.  jUst takes some guts and a few years of suck.  No magic there.

Except many people's lives aren't improved by joining the military. Some suffer trauma, some are disabled, some are killed. Others just spend a few years doing work they hate and leave the military no better off than they started.

It worked for you--great. But please consider that your experience may not be universal.

Opportunity is what is guaranteed. Not results.  Everyone who served got the same opportunities

Ill keep my opinions on the trauma and disabled to myself. 

sabanist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #157 on: December 03, 2019, 11:24:49 AM »
I actually was very poor growing up.  Daughter of a single Puerto Rican mom who worked at Woolworth's, latchkey kid, etc.  It was a huge blessing and a relief when we actually got to move into the projects.  Not sure what they call housing projects now but 30-40 yrs ago that's what they were called.  Waited on line for cheese and all that fun stuff.

Now I'm 48 with two teens, two cars, own my home, investments, blah blah blah, all of the fun trappings of the middle class.  And I absolutly hate when ppl complain about all the things they CAN'T do and think I'm somehow the exception to the rule.  Like everybody who doesn't make it is right and those who do are an aberration.  True some ppl can't make it, but that's not a reason for everyone who doesn't make it to think they are part of that small group who can't make it.  Just bc you didn't succeed doesn't mean you couldn't have succeeded.

It's a fact though that everyone sees their successes as their own and their failures as someone elses.  Successful ppl take the credit and unsuccessful ones blame others.  Or maybe that's actually why some ppl are unsuccessful: bc they blame others.

And to be honest, the well born children of the middle income families who grow up with a sense of enittlement and very little gratitude who blame the world for their failures truly make me sick to my stomach.
im with you there.  Minus the projects. Just a rural tiny home

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #158 on: December 03, 2019, 11:28:44 AM »
cannon fodder?

Modern armies don't need cannon fodder.

Cannon fodder is a euphemism for the soldiers who are most likely to die in battle. Perhaps a modern translation would be "IED fodder".

I think derogatory terms like cannon fodder are useful but need to be viewed in relation to unnecessary military objectives, as those lives are truly a waste. E.g.: Many World War I soldiers who died in pointless charges of trenches that were well-defended by machine gun fire could be viewed as cannon fodder, but only after those tactics were repeatedly shown to be ineffective. In contrast, I can't think of any World War II battles where soldiers could be viewed as cannon fodder, though if Japan was invaded in lieu of using the atomic bomb, I think a case could have been made.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 11:51:50 AM by Boofinator »

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1570
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #159 on: December 03, 2019, 11:37:35 AM »
cannon fodder?

Modern armies don't need cannon fodder.

Cannon fodder is a euphemism for the soldiers who are most likely to die in battle. Perhaps a modern translation would be "IUD fodder".

[snip]

You probably mean IED fodder.
IUD fodder makes me think of a bunch of sperms getting attacked by an IntraUterine Device.

sabanist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #160 on: December 03, 2019, 11:40:45 AM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

Does anyone else feel that the over-the-top "Support the troops" mania in our country is mostly a cynical ploy by the rich people in power to keep a steady stream of poor-to-middle-class types volunteering out of some sense of valiant patriotism (and to keep their families on board with it) at the same time as feeding lucrative defense contracts to themselves and their buddies?

And of course, the "military as jobs program, get off your asses and sign up you lazy poors" feeds right into that.

I'll say one thing. It seems kind of freakishly easy to play people in this country by using their own ideologies against them.

Idk anything about the whole rich people in power angle you got there. But in the 90’s. We didnt have a culture in this country that had overwhelming support for the military like we do now. It wasnt like post vietnam or anything.  But I was in during 9/11 and that is when i started noticing the culture change. 

The military is a jobs program and an ultimate display of patriotism at the same time.  It helped me out, but you had to give yourself to it and realize that you may be placed in mortal
Danger. 

sabanist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #161 on: December 03, 2019, 11:46:54 AM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

The military isn't a "jobs program". It's a "defend the nation program"*. And yes, there are shitloads of other jobs** that add value to society, both private and public, and many of them not requiring more than below-average intelligence.

*Or sometimes a "get revenge program" or "defend the petroleum resources program", but the general idea still holds.

**Or job programs, if you prefer.

I'm responding to the suggestion that young people use the military as a jobs program. I would prefer it if we did not do this.

What would you prefer? 

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #162 on: December 03, 2019, 11:51:30 AM »
cannon fodder?

Modern armies don't need cannon fodder.

Cannon fodder is a euphemism for the soldiers who are most likely to die in battle. Perhaps a modern translation would be "IUD fodder".

[snip]

You probably mean IED fodder.
IUD fodder makes me think of a bunch of sperms getting attacked by an IntraUterine Device.

Haha! Long live the IUD fodder! (Now off to edit....)

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #163 on: December 03, 2019, 12:12:08 PM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

The military isn't a "jobs program". It's a "defend the nation program"*. And yes, there are shitloads of other jobs** that add value to society, both private and public, and many of them not requiring more than below-average intelligence.

*Or sometimes a "get revenge program" or "defend the petroleum resources program", but the general idea still holds.

**Or job programs, if you prefer.

I'm responding to the suggestion that young people use the military as a jobs program. I would prefer it if we did not do this.

Contrary to popular belief 15-20% of the population is not intelligent enough to be accepted into the (US, at least) military. They've determined there isn't a job they can train the <83ish IQ crowd to do that is worth the expense. Presumably a civilian jobs program would have similar issues (but maybe worth running at a loss?). The challenges of the cognitive bottom quintile are real.
Our grocery store has developmentally disabled adults working there, mostly as baggers but in other areas also.  I think it's great.  I also think it's our duty as a society to make that possible - both in encouraging companies to employ them, and also provide the aided adult housing that is often needed so they can be somewhat independent.  (A grocery store bagger does not make enough to make a living.)

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #164 on: December 03, 2019, 12:16:48 PM »
What would you prefer?

As StarBright suggested, bringing back the WPA. This would have been good to do during the 2008 recession, but there's probably less political will to do it now that unemployment is below 4%.

We have BUILD (formerly TIGER) in which congress appropriates federal funds to go to infrastructure projects around the country. But the scale and the money involved is nothing like the WPA. There's plenty of work to be done domestically, and plenty of money to do it.

sabanist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #165 on: December 03, 2019, 12:41:31 PM »
Yes but you are talking about a time when unemployment was nearing 20 pct vs not even 10 pct in 2011. 

Also, supposed we did have the wpa.  Should those people be provided food and housing like the military?  Education benefits?  VA type loans?  full medical.  Should there be no added benefit to placing yourself in harms way?   

Then there is the job training.  Highly technical fields where a kid can go from being impoverished as a teen, do 4 years in service, then get a job doing the same thing at places like the NSA starting at a salary of 70k.  No college necessary.  No exaggeration. 

That's not what i did, but it was available.  I was not as smart.  I was the cannon fodder that people speak of in this thread.  But I got other opportunities that were spurred by my military service.  Bought my first house when i was 20.  Then got my degree, so on and so on.

Watchmaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #166 on: December 03, 2019, 12:50:37 PM »
I don't know everyones circumstance but i know I was a teenage dad who joined the army to support the family then took advantage of the education and housing benefits to improve my station.  That's available to nearly every young person.  jUst takes some guts and a few years of suck.  No magic there.

Except many people's lives aren't improved by joining the military. Some suffer trauma, some are disabled, some are killed. Others just spend a few years doing work they hate and leave the military no better off than they started.

It worked for you--great. But please consider that your experience may not be universal.

Opportunity is what is guaranteed. Not results.  Everyone who served got the same opportunities

I agree that results aren't guaranteed. That's kind of my point: that no matter how hard working you are, sometimes things don't work out. I guess you're saying it's always within your power to make them work out...that's were we disagree I suppose.

Sure, someone who is less "successful" than me might be lazier than me, or have worked less hard, but they also might have worked harder than I ever have to get where they are.  I can't know their life, only mine. So I try to be grateful for what I have, and compassionate towards others who have less.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #167 on: December 03, 2019, 01:15:44 PM »
Yes but you are talking about a time when unemployment was nearing 20 pct vs not even 10 pct in 2011. 

Also, supposed we did have the wpa.  Should those people be provided food and housing like the military?  Education benefits?  VA type loans?  full medical.  Should there be no added benefit to placing yourself in harms way?   

Then there is the job training.  Highly technical fields where a kid can go from being impoverished as a teen, do 4 years in service, then get a job doing the same thing at places like the NSA starting at a salary of 70k.  No college necessary.  No exaggeration. 

That's not what i did, but it was available.  I was not as smart.  I was the cannon fodder that people speak of in this thread.  But I got other opportunities that were spurred by my military service.  Bought my first house when i was 20.  Then got my degree, so on and so on.

The cost of the military as a jobs program, in its rosiest sense (the bold scenario), is forever wars in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and massive spy program with limited oversight that wiretaps and otherwise surveils American citizens. Of course placing yourself in harm's way should confer additional benefits. But I don't think we should take as a given that there's an unlimited appetite for 18 years old that we need to place in harm's way. The DOD agrees that we have too many bases and that they're overstaffed. But unfortunately, it's political suicide to be the guy who tries to pass legislation that cuts military jobs.

---

If I have the choice to pay an E1 $1900 a month + room and board to be stationed at a base in Ukraine, or to fill potholes in their hometown, as the Supreme Chancellor of the United States, I'm picking the latter. As far as medical, I think the government should guarantee healthcare for everyone anyway. Education? That's a stickier wicket, but it's not too far behind healthcare. K-12 is guaranteed. I'd like to look into expanding that to K-14, with associates degrees and trade schools.

I do agree that the argument for the WPA was a lot easier when unemployment was over 20% than it was in the wake of 2008. Luckily, we've gotten better at fighting recessions and responding to the ails of a complex global economy.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #168 on: December 03, 2019, 01:17:55 PM »
I actually was very poor growing up.  Daughter of a single Puerto Rican mom who worked at Woolworth's, latchkey kid, etc.  It was a huge blessing and a relief when we actually got to move into the projects.  Not sure what they call housing projects now but 30-40 yrs ago that's what they were called.  Waited on line for cheese and all that fun stuff.

Now I'm 48 with two teens, two cars, own my home, investments, blah blah blah, all of the fun trappings of the middle class.  And I absolutly hate when ppl complain about all the things they CAN'T do and think I'm somehow the exception to the rule.  Like everybody who doesn't make it is right and those who do are an aberration.  True some ppl can't make it, but that's not a reason for everyone who doesn't make it to think they are part of that small group who can't make it.  Just bc you didn't succeed doesn't mean you couldn't have succeeded.

It's a fact though that everyone sees their successes as their own and their failures as someone elses.  Successful ppl take the credit and unsuccessful ones blame others.  Or maybe that's actually why some ppl are unsuccessful: bc they blame others.

And to be honest, the well born children of the middle income families who grow up with a sense of enittlement and very little gratitude who blame the world for their failures truly make me sick to my stomach.

Except... no.  I think many of the people in this thread who are successful by most measures are still advocating for the point of view that it takes a lot of luck and factors beyond one's control to be successful. 

Clearly, they don't consider their successes to be entirely their own.  And no one is arguing that one's successes aren't at least partly attributable to the individuals choices--that successes don't "belong", at least partially to the one succeeding.

I am successful by most definitions.  And I don't see my successes as entirely my own.  Yes, I have made and continue to make good decisions, I delay gratification, I resist some temptations, I try to treat others well, etc.  And those things have surely contributed to my success.  As did an exceptionally high IQ, a middle and then upper middle class household the emphasized both education and fiscal responsibility, a very good high school that encouraged college and generally prepared its students for college and beyond (and was safe), parents who paid for a modest state school education, a safe and nurturing home environment, living in a safe and relatively free society, some luck, and other things.  And none of those am I responsible for bringing in to my life. 

So I am *partly* responsible for my success, and factors beyond my control are partly responsible for my success.  In other words, my life as it stands is part personal causation and part contingency.  To discount either one is disingenuous, at best. 


sabanist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #169 on: December 03, 2019, 02:04:06 PM »
Yes but you are talking about a time when unemployment was nearing 20 pct vs not even 10 pct in 2011. 

Also, supposed we did have the wpa.  Should those people be provided food and housing like the military?  Education benefits?  VA type loans?  full medical.  Should there be no added benefit to placing yourself in harms way?   

Then there is the job training.  Highly technical fields where a kid can go from being impoverished as a teen, do 4 years in service, then get a job doing the same thing at places like the NSA starting at a salary of 70k.  No college necessary.  No exaggeration. 

That's not what i did, but it was available.  I was not as smart.  I was the cannon fodder that people speak of in this thread.  But I got other opportunities that were spurred by my military service.  Bought my first house when i was 20.  Then got my degree, so on and so on.

The cost of the military as a jobs program, in its rosiest sense (the bold scenario), is forever wars in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and massive spy program with limited oversight that wiretaps and otherwise surveils American citizens. Of course placing yourself in harm's way should confer additional benefits. But I don't think we should take as a given that there's an unlimited appetite for 18 years old that we need to place in harm's way. The DOD agrees that we have too many bases and that they're overstaffed. But unfortunately, it's political suicide to be the guy who tries to pass legislation that cuts military jobs.

---

If I have the choice to pay an E1 $1900 a month + room and board to be stationed at a base in Ukraine, or to fill potholes in their hometown, as the Supreme Chancellor of the United States, I'm picking the latter. As far as medical, I think the government should guarantee healthcare for everyone anyway. Education? That's a stickier wicket, but it's not too far behind healthcare. K-12 is guaranteed. I'd like to look into expanding that to K-14, with associates degrees and trade schools.

I do agree that the argument for the WPA was a lot easier when unemployment was over 20% than it was in the wake of 2008. Luckily, we've gotten better at fighting recessions and responding to the ails of a complex global economy.

You contradicted yourself in your statement.

" Of course placing yourself in harm's way should confer additional benefits."

"If I have the choice to pay an E1 $1900 a month + room and board to be stationed at a base in Ukraine, or to fill potholes in their hometown, as the Supreme Chancellor of the United States, I'm picking the latter."

I'm not sure what your point is when it comes to the military.  You seem to be transferring your lamentation of your governments foreign policy to the service member in general.  Soldiers don't choose what countries they are sent. 

As a person who was young, broke, and uneducated, i didn't care much.  So long as the government held up their end of the deal.  As for the rant over wiretaps and limited oversight.  IDK, much about that.  Only what is in the news.  Which is all about sensationalism. 

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #170 on: December 03, 2019, 02:15:36 PM »
You contradicted yourself in your statement.

" Of course placing yourself in harm's way should confer additional benefits."

"If I have the choice to pay an E1 $1900 a month + room and board to be stationed at a base in Ukraine, or to fill potholes in their hometown, as the Supreme Chancellor of the United States, I'm picking the latter."

This isn't a contradiction. If you're put in harm's way fighting for the United States, I think the United States should give you special treatment. What I disagree with, is that we need to manufacture dangerous situations to put young people in so they can get premium jobs program benefits. If you take issue with my rhetorical use of the enlistee pay scale for my imaginary corps of civilian infrastructure workers, then subtract $100 per month. Or $200. Or $300. Or whatever the risk premium is for joining the military. I'm fine with that. Just as long as we're not entering hostile foreign engagements for the sake of a jobs program with richer benefits.

I'm not sure what your point is when it comes to the military.  You seem to be transferring your lamentation of your governments foreign policy to the service member in general.  Soldiers don't choose what countries they are sent. 

I haven't spoken one ill word of any service member. I agree, it's 100% my government's foreign policy. I'm the guy who wants these service members and potential service members at home fixing potholes, safe and sound.

As a person who was young, broke, and uneducated, i didn't care much.  So long as the government held up their end of the deal.  As for the rant over wiretaps and limited oversight.  IDK, much about that.  Only what is in the news.  Which is all about sensationalism.

ok

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #171 on: December 03, 2019, 02:20:08 PM »
To be perfectly clear, if a person who is young, broke, and uneducated wants to sign up to participate in American Imperialism because it's a good opportunity for them, I don't begrudge this person one bit. They've got to look out for numero uno.

But I do begrudge the institution that offers them that opportunity instead of offering them better, safer, and less problematic opportunities.

js82

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #172 on: December 03, 2019, 05:05:12 PM »
I'm going to lift a quote from another thread, because I think it is absolutely appropriate.

On a micro level, it is counter-productive to get into a mindset of "things are stacked against me, nothing I can do", regardless of things being stacked or not. And, while post-war working class prosperity is gone and is not coming back, America still offers plenty of opportunity - you only need to look at the flow of immigrants to recognize that.

On a macro level, it is important to recognize that opportunity is not equally distributed, that most of other developed countries have higher levels of upward mobility, and that too many Americans are growing up in environments where staying out of prison is an achievement in and of itself. So, while it is tempting to say "just do X and Y, and you'll be fine", it is not helpful (or fair), either.

To the original poster: enjoy the successes of your hard work.  As someone who grew up poor and is now rich you've beaten the odds, and you should be proud of that.

At the same time, you should recognize - probably moreso than others, given your life experience - that life is emphatically *NOT FAIR*, especially so for those who are born poor or face other structural disadvantages.  In a perfect world?  You can be a role model to show people what is *possible*, while still recognizing(and possibly speaking to) the structural disadvantages you overcame, that we as a society are currently doing a poor job of addressing.

carolina822

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #173 on: December 03, 2019, 07:13:11 PM »

One of my classic lines and work is "I'm never going to judge you, I'm not your mother" along with "if this has never felt important to you, then someone along the way has failed to communicate the consequences properly"

This reminds me of a local tv ad for a bail bond service. The company is run by four older ladies and their tagline is "We ain't mad at ya!"

Initially, I just thought it was funny, but the more I think about it, it's a pretty good example of meeting people where they are. And I like to imagine that these women have said something like your second quote to a few clients who were able to take it to heart.

DeniseNJ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #174 on: December 04, 2019, 10:08:37 AM »
I actually was very poor growing up.  Daughter of a single Puerto Rican mom who worked at Woolworth's, latchkey kid, etc.  It was a huge blessing and a relief when we actually got to move into the projects.  Not sure what they call housing projects now but 30-40 yrs ago that's what they were called.  Waited on line for cheese and all that fun stuff.

Now I'm 48 with two teens, two cars, own my home, investments, blah blah blah, all of the fun trappings of the middle class.  And I absolutly hate when ppl complain about all the things they CAN'T do and think I'm somehow the exception to the rule.  Like everybody who doesn't make it is right and those who do are an aberration.  True some ppl can't make it, but that's not a reason for everyone who doesn't make it to think they are part of that small group who can't make it.  Just bc you didn't succeed doesn't mean you couldn't have succeeded.

It's a fact though that everyone sees their successes as their own and their failures as someone elses.  Successful ppl take the credit and unsuccessful ones blame others.  Or maybe that's actually why some ppl are unsuccessful: bc they blame others.

And to be honest, the well born children of the middle income families who grow up with a sense of enittlement and very little gratitude who blame the world for their failures truly make me sick to my stomach.

Except... no.  I think many of the people in this thread who are successful by most measures are still advocating for the point of view that it takes a lot of luck and factors beyond one's control to be successful. 

Clearly, they don't consider their successes to be entirely their own.  And no one is arguing that one's successes aren't at least partly attributable to the individuals choices--that successes don't "belong", at least partially to the one succeeding.

I am successful by most definitions.  And I don't see my successes as entirely my own.  Yes, I have made and continue to make good decisions, I delay gratification, I resist some temptations, I try to treat others well, etc.  And those things have surely contributed to my success.  As did an exceptionally high IQ, a middle and then upper middle class household the emphasized both education and fiscal responsibility, a very good high school that encouraged college and generally prepared its students for college and beyond (and was safe), parents who paid for a modest state school education, a safe and nurturing home environment, living in a safe and relatively free society, some luck, and other things.  And none of those am I responsible for bringing in to my life. 

So I am *partly* responsible for my success, and factors beyond my control are partly responsible for my success.  In other words, my life as it stands is part personal causation and part contingency.  To discount either one is disingenuous, at best.
\
That's very big of you.  I haven't met too many ppl who when asked about the secret to their success, don't respond with how hard they work to get where they are.  And I've met even fewer who look at their bad situation and don't bring up their bad luck.  Not for every single situation but as a general attitude and outlook.  Ppl who are successful will generally say, I did it and you can too.  They are optimistic that everyone has a chance.  Ppl who think they are failures have a lot of sympathy for other failures, thinking of unsuccessful folks as victims and damaged with unending bad luck and little chance to succeed.  It's not true in all cases of course.  But I see so many ppl on these boards saying, You can do it!  And all the consumer suckas and debters saying, There's just no way to get ahead.

I would add that this is relative to their peers and expectations.  Relative to how I grew up I'm a big success.  I'm optimitic that while not EVERYONE can do it, still many can.  My spouse grew up in an affluent suburb.  Relative to where he grew up he is not especially successful.  We live the same life but we have really different outlooks.  He places a lot more weight on ppl's circumstances beyond thier control and sees ppl as for the most part being stuck where they are.  It's exhausting actually.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #175 on: December 04, 2019, 10:43:43 AM »
This is an extremely interesting topic to me, so I'd like to weigh in.

I have an adopted child. My wife and I are by no means geniuses, but we are intelligent enough with enough standard societal mannerisms to handle good jobs with good pay. I can't say for sure, but it is likely that if we had not adopted, we would not have understood the basic genetic challenges that come with not having things innate, specifically impulse control and delayed gratification, that come easy to us and would have thought that it was simply nurture or upbringing. We have learned a great deal of humility and are much less judgmental of other parents because of our experience now. Would we have ever believed it/understood how things could be without it? I honestly don't know. This is not to say I'm perfect in not judging by any stretch now...just maybe a little bit better.

I say that to say that I genuinely understand there's a difference in people's abilities even assuming a stable upbringing. My child is already having to work harder than I did even at a young age. To put all of the focus on work ethic even for people that from the outside looking in seem normal and even for people that have good intelligence is still neither fair nor accurate. So many personality factors play into things, it's not logical to claim that only people with IQ's of 85 or ones missing limbs or what have you will have a harder time than I did.

That is one side of things. The other side is that we are fooling ourselves if we think that the extreme rhetoric and emphasis on external factors preventing success have no negative consequences. They might be fewer than the other way, but they are certainly there. I see them in my relative who has all but given up on saving money to try to improve things because there's no way to get ahead. Call it fatalism, call it a victim mentality, call it whatever you want. It's there, and the constant refrain from politicians and the media about how other factors have so much of an impact on keeping people down....that has an impact too. It gets into people's heads.

Personal example - for the longest time, I was very over weight for probably a decade. Then one day, I decided to lose weight. I've lost 60-70 pounds and kept it off - still need to lose some more :-). Before that point, I didn't care. I wouldn't start a diet because I didn't want to or they didn't work. I enjoyed being the guy who ate the most at buffets or always ate the free food at work, but more than that, I bought into the lie that I couldn't change my weight. I'd tried stuff for a little bit and then hadn't been consistent or hadn't really looked at what I was eating, so I believed that I'd always be very overweight. The lie made me never really ever try consistently...until I did, and now I'm a little better off than I was.

Having the societal conversation all about work ethic has major flaws. I completely understand it, and I wish that somehow I could open everyone's eyes a little like mine have been because of my life situation. That being said, the societal conversation appears to be turning towards a much higher focus on how everything's keeping you from succeeding. Maybe that's a good thing, but I also know first hand that buying into the view that everything's outside of your area of control has some severe negative consequences.

Watchmaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #176 on: December 04, 2019, 12:30:00 PM »
The other side is that we are fooling ourselves if we think that the extreme rhetoric and emphasis on external factors preventing success have no negative consequences. They might be fewer than the other way, but they are certainly there. I see them in my relative who has all but given up on saving money to try to improve things because there's no way to get ahead. Call it fatalism, call it a victim mentality, call it whatever you want. It's there, and the constant refrain from politicians and the media about how other factors have so much of an impact on keeping people down....that has an impact too. It gets into people's heads.

Personal example - for the longest time, I was very over weight for probably a decade. Then one day, I decided to lose weight. I've lost 60-70 pounds and kept it off - still need to lose some more :-). Before that point, I didn't care. I wouldn't start a diet because I didn't want to or they didn't work. I enjoyed being the guy who ate the most at buffets or always ate the free food at work, but more than that, I bought into the lie that I couldn't change my weight. I'd tried stuff for a little bit and then hadn't been consistent or hadn't really looked at what I was eating, so I believed that I'd always be very overweight. The lie made me never really ever try consistently...until I did, and now I'm a little better off than I was.

Having the societal conversation all about work ethic has major flaws. I completely understand it, and I wish that somehow I could open everyone's eyes a little like mine have been because of my life situation. That being said, the societal conversation appears to be turning towards a much higher focus on how everything's keeping you from succeeding. Maybe that's a good thing, but I also know first hand that buying into the view that everything's outside of your area of control has some severe negative consequences.

I actually agree with this pretty completely. I generally approach this issue differently when we are talking about macro effects (where I try to highlight the structural problems) and the micro case (when I give individual advice it's: read more, learn more, work smarter, etc). But I could see how the macro emphasis on structural problems could have an unintended negative effect and cause people to give up.

I'm never intentionally saying that structural problems always override effort (because I don't believe that), but because I'm usually talking to people that don't believe the structural problems are real, that is the focus of my arguments. Part of the problem is that to me it's obvious that this is a complex, nuanced, multi-variable system, but I find others often don't, or can't, think in that way.


 

insufFIcientfunds

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #177 on: December 04, 2019, 12:36:46 PM »
This is an extremely interesting topic to me, so I'd like to weigh in.

I have an adopted child. My wife and I are by no means geniuses, but we are intelligent enough with enough standard societal mannerisms to handle good jobs with good pay. I can't say for sure, but it is likely that if we had not adopted, we would not have understood the basic genetic challenges that come with not having things innate, specifically impulse control and delayed gratification, that come easy to us and would have thought that it was simply nurture or upbringing. We have learned a great deal of humility and are much less judgmental of other parents because of our experience now. Would we have ever believed it/understood how things could be without it? I honestly don't know. This is not to say I'm perfect in not judging by any stretch now...just maybe a little bit better.

I say that to say that I genuinely understand there's a difference in people's abilities even assuming a stable upbringing. My child is already having to work harder than I did even at a young age. To put all of the focus on work ethic even for people that from the outside looking in seem normal and even for people that have good intelligence is still neither fair nor accurate. So many personality factors play into things, it's not logical to claim that only people with IQ's of 85 or ones missing limbs or what have you will have a harder time than I did.

That is one side of things. The other side is that we are fooling ourselves if we think that the extreme rhetoric and emphasis on external factors preventing success have no negative consequences. They might be fewer than the other way, but they are certainly there. I see them in my relative who has all but given up on saving money to try to improve things because there's no way to get ahead. Call it fatalism, call it a victim mentality, call it whatever you want. It's there, and the constant refrain from politicians and the media about how other factors have so much of an impact on keeping people down....that has an impact too. It gets into people's heads.

Personal example - for the longest time, I was very over weight for probably a decade. Then one day, I decided to lose weight. I've lost 60-70 pounds and kept it off - still need to lose some more :-). Before that point, I didn't care. I wouldn't start a diet because I didn't want to or they didn't work. I enjoyed being the guy who ate the most at buffets or always ate the free food at work, but more than that, I bought into the lie that I couldn't change my weight. I'd tried stuff for a little bit and then hadn't been consistent or hadn't really looked at what I was eating, so I believed that I'd always be very overweight. The lie made me never really ever try consistently...until I did, and now I'm a little better off than I was.

Having the societal conversation all about work ethic has major flaws. I completely understand it, and I wish that somehow I could open everyone's eyes a little like mine have been because of my life situation. That being said, the societal conversation appears to be turning towards a much higher focus on how everything's keeping you from succeeding. Maybe that's a good thing, but I also know first hand that buying into the view that everything's outside of your area of control has some severe negative consequences.

I'd like to say that I think your post is wonderful. I think far too often the "victim mentality" takes over and it keeps people down. It causes this thread to have a "who grew up poorer" debate.

It causes a Washington Post writer to rant about his flights being delayed. The "Man" wasn't keeping Richard Morgan down. Acts of God were keeping Richard down. Also the fact that Richard is a freelance writer based on New York (HCOL) is keeping him down. His choice of college, career, and place of living are all his choosing, not someone else's. We preach on here to have "emergency funds," but Richard seemed to have none. He seems to be displaying this "victim mentality" while also being one of those writers perpetuating the narrative that it is always outside factors keeping people down while absolving himself of any responsibility of his plight in life.

"but I also know first hand that buying into the view that everything's outside of your area of control has some severe negative consequences." - Amen.

Mr. Green

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4494
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #178 on: December 04, 2019, 12:38:50 PM »
Friends -

I am sure some of you have had the experience I have - or maybe some other path and want to chime in. In short, I left home at 18 with $4,000 in my pocket, saved from my own manual labor at a summer construction job. I went off to a community college that was not desirable according to my now-indebted peers. My parents offered what they could but that didn't include tuition, fees, a car, gas for my car, insurance or much else. I was given $300 per month to live (and I'm grateful for it). The rest was on me.

Here I am, 17 years later. Now I am a 35 year old "rich white man." I just became a millionaire a few weeks ago. No one wants to hear anything about how it was done or how they can do it themselves. It seems that is considered "up from your bootstraps" advice that "the poor" don't want to hear.

But, I wonder - what is the right attitude to have towards those who "have not"? I mean, those who must begin the long slog toward accumulating money and personal power to extricate themselves from dependency on others and unfortunate circumstances due to a lack of resources.   

Here is the newspaper article that brought up the question in my mind:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/air-travel-shows-what-happens-when-we-give-companies-ruinous-power-over-us/2019/11/26/6e3ce96c-0bb7-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html#comments-wrapper

Final thought, I have a particular lack of empathy for college educated citizens of this country who want to blame structural problems on their situation - like the author of this article. I'm always working with immigrants and so many of them find a way to fight with a fierce attitude under much more difficult "structural" circumstances. I respect the hell out of that.
Hopefully, the conclusion you've come to is that you shouldn't care what other people are doing. You've no doubt already learned during your journey that not everyone like to save their money. Not everyone is hungry to achieve something. Not everyone wants what you want. Some of those people truly have disadvantages while others have simply wasted opportunities. There's nothing you can do about other people's choices though. I never cared about who was doing what while I was stashing my cash. Know that you're in the extreme minority on that topic and accept that you'll hear plenty of things you don't agree with as a outlier but certainly don't dwell on it. Just keep doing you and other people can do them. That's what I do. If someone truly wants to know how you did what you did or are doing what you're doing, they'll genuinely ask, just the same way your younger, hungry self would have asked if you came across an older, more accomplished individual in a discipline you were studying. You'll know it when you see it. The rest is just noise. No need to be bothered by, or have an opinion on, noise. Just do you. You'll be happier. Trust me.

Watchmaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #179 on: December 04, 2019, 12:43:18 PM »
The other side is that we are fooling ourselves if we think that the extreme rhetoric and emphasis on external factors preventing success have no negative consequences. They might be fewer than the other way, but they are certainly there. I see them in my relative who has all but given up on saving money to try to improve things because there's no way to get ahead. Call it fatalism, call it a victim mentality, call it whatever you want. It's there, and the constant refrain from politicians and the media about how other factors have so much of an impact on keeping people down....that has an impact too. It gets into people's heads.

Personal example - for the longest time, I was very over weight for probably a decade. Then one day, I decided to lose weight. I've lost 60-70 pounds and kept it off - still need to lose some more :-). Before that point, I didn't care. I wouldn't start a diet because I didn't want to or they didn't work. I enjoyed being the guy who ate the most at buffets or always ate the free food at work, but more than that, I bought into the lie that I couldn't change my weight. I'd tried stuff for a little bit and then hadn't been consistent or hadn't really looked at what I was eating, so I believed that I'd always be very overweight. The lie made me never really ever try consistently...until I did, and now I'm a little better off than I was.

Having the societal conversation all about work ethic has major flaws. I completely understand it, and I wish that somehow I could open everyone's eyes a little like mine have been because of my life situation. That being said, the societal conversation appears to be turning towards a much higher focus on how everything's keeping you from succeeding. Maybe that's a good thing, but I also know first hand that buying into the view that everything's outside of your area of control has some severe negative consequences.

I actually agree with this pretty completely. I generally approach this issue differently when we are talking about macro effects (where I try to highlight the structural problems) and the micro case (when I give individual advice it's: read more, learn more, work smarter, etc). But I could see how the macro emphasis on structural problems could have an unintended negative effect and cause people to give up.

I'm never intentionally saying that structural problems always override effort (because I don't believe that), but because I'm usually talking to people that don't believe the structural problems are real, that is the focus of my arguments. Part of the problem is that to me it's obvious that this is a complex, nuanced, multi-variable system, but I find others often don't, or can't, think in that way.

I wanted to add a comment to my previous post. I do agree, but I'm not sure what the solution is. Structural barriers do exist, so I don't see how not talking about them is the best way forward. And so while I can see the potential negative consequences of a discussion centered around the barriers keeping the poor in poverty, I don't see any other route out but through. Discuss the structural issues and resolve the structural issues (as much as possible), all while emphasizing the value of education and effort.

Typhoid Mary

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 65
  • Location: The Good Life, Nebraska
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #180 on: December 04, 2019, 01:20:49 PM »

What attitude should you have?
Start by checking your privilege.

Equality is NOT equity.


Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #181 on: December 04, 2019, 01:37:49 PM »
Not only is it highly likely avg IQ here is >115, I would bet the average level of impulse control measured at age 5 would've been way higher than average for a variety of reasons.  Just these 2 factors alone make it much likelier for forum posters than the average person to amass high levels of wealth.       

Some psychometricians  say that persons of low intelligence have poor impulse control and a short time horizon.

In  the United States the average IQ of  incarcerated males is ~92.

If the psychometricians are right their findings shed light on the high incidence of recidivism.

Speaking as a psychometrician and someone who used, studied, and now teaches people about IQ test, I can assure you we are not right.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #182 on: December 04, 2019, 01:42:57 PM »
Not only is it highly likely avg IQ here is >115, I would bet the average level of impulse control measured at age 5 would've been way higher than average for a variety of reasons.  Just these 2 factors alone make it much likelier for forum posters than the average person to amass high levels of wealth.       

Some psychometricians  say that persons of low intelligence have poor impulse control and a short time horizon.

In  the United States the average IQ of  incarcerated males is ~92.

If the psychometricians are right their findings shed light on the high incidence of recidivism.

Speaking as a psychometrician and someone who used, studied, and now teaches people about IQ test, I can assure you we are not right.

As someone who used to live with an expert in criminal recidivism, I agree.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #183 on: December 04, 2019, 02:08:13 PM »
Not only is it highly likely avg IQ here is >115, I would bet the average level of impulse control measured at age 5 would've been way higher than average for a variety of reasons.  Just these 2 factors alone make it much likelier for forum posters than the average person to amass high levels of wealth.       

Some psychometricians  say that persons of low intelligence have poor impulse control and a short time horizon.

In  the United States the average IQ of  incarcerated males is ~92.

If the psychometricians are right their findings shed light on the high incidence of recidivism.

Speaking as a psychometrician and someone who used, studied, and now teaches people about IQ test, I can assure you we are not right.

Can you elaborate?  (Not challenging; truly trying to learn.)  Are you saying that those with lower IQs have roughly the same impulse control and ability to consider longer time frames as everyone else?  Just making sure I understand correctly.

Given how many smart people I know who have burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars, had homes foreclosed on after getting negative amortization loans, drive Mercedes but have almost no retirement savings, etc., I tend to agree that smart people suck at those things about as much as less smart people.  They just have a lot more cushion so that when their water heater breaks, they can probably find places to cut so they can still buy food. 

EscapedApe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 226
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #184 on: December 04, 2019, 04:19:07 PM »
Not only is it highly likely avg IQ here is >115, I would bet the average level of impulse control measured at age 5 would've been way higher than average for a variety of reasons.  Just these 2 factors alone make it much likelier for forum posters than the average person to amass high levels of wealth.       

Some psychometricians  say that persons of low intelligence have poor impulse control and a short time horizon.

In  the United States the average IQ of  incarcerated males is ~92.

If the psychometricians are right their findings shed light on the high incidence of recidivism.

Speaking as a psychometrician and someone who used, studied, and now teaches people about IQ test, I can assure you we are not right.

Can you elaborate?  (Not challenging; truly trying to learn.)  Are you saying that those with lower IQs have roughly the same impulse control and ability to consider longer time frames as everyone else?  Just making sure I understand correctly.

Given how many smart people I know who have burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars, had homes foreclosed on after getting negative amortization loans, drive Mercedes but have almost no retirement savings, etc., I tend to agree that smart people suck at those things about as much as less smart people.  They just have a lot more cushion so that when their water heater breaks, they can probably find places to cut so they can still buy food.

Smart only matters if the smart is in control.

Intelligent people are just as prone to making foolish decisions. In fact, intelligent people can actually be worse off in this regard since they are more susceptible to the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #185 on: December 04, 2019, 04:30:27 PM »
If intelligent people are just as prone to making foolish decisions, from where do their (correlated) better life outcomes come? At some level, they must make fewer foolish decisions, or less intensely foolish decisions; otherwise there would be no difference in life outcomes.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #186 on: December 04, 2019, 04:46:03 PM »
If intelligent people are just as prone to making foolish decisions, from where do their (correlated) better life outcomes come? At some level, they must make fewer foolish decisions, or less intensely foolish decisions; otherwise there would be no difference in life outcomes.

Really?

From very well documented wealth.

Foolish young people who don't study well get tutors/occupational therapists/special needs education/etc
Foolish young people who commit crimes get lawyers.
Foolish young people who need jobs get connected.
Foolish young people who need...well, anything, get whatever their families are able to provide them.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #187 on: December 04, 2019, 05:16:47 PM »
If intelligent people are just as prone to making foolish decisions, from where do their (correlated) better life outcomes come? At some level, they must make fewer foolish decisions, or less intensely foolish decisions; otherwise there would be no difference in life outcomes.

Pretty much this entire thread has addressed that.

Their outcomes are overall better because they start the race from closer to the finish line.  There are better jobs available to them, then advance more quickly, they understand math and finances and odds better and are able to use that to make better decisions, they are often more articulate and therefore given better opportunities and more leeway.  Etc. 


HBFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1311
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #188 on: December 04, 2019, 05:17:32 PM »

Intelligent people are just as prone to making foolish decisions. In fact, intelligent people can actually be worse off in this regard since they are more susceptible to the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

More susceptible?  Interesting, why is that?  I would assume the opposite.  In fact, I assumed this is one of the reasons those with higher IQ's are more successful -- avoiding some of the pitfalls of DKE.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 05:22:45 PM by HBFIRE »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #189 on: December 04, 2019, 05:18:01 PM »
Family wealth correlates with better life outcomes, but so does intelligence (even controlling for family wealth). So the simple and true assertion that family wealth and connections insulate a person from foolish decision making does not answer the question of why intelligence would correlate with better life outcomes if intelligent people were just as prone to making foolish decisions. After all, many intelligent people are not wealthy, yet overall they would still have better outcomes.

Perhaps what the poster intended to say is that intelligent people are prone to making subjectively foolish decisions as much as anyone else - it's just that their subjective foolishness is not as objectively foolish as those with fewer cognitive resources.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #190 on: December 04, 2019, 05:23:52 PM »
If intelligent people are just as prone to making foolish decisions, from where do their (correlated) better life outcomes come? At some level, they must make fewer foolish decisions, or less intensely foolish decisions; otherwise there would be no difference in life outcomes.

Pretty much this entire thread has addressed that.

Their outcomes are overall better because they start the race from closer to the finish line.  There are better jobs available to them, then advance more quickly, they understand math and finances and odds better and are able to use that to make better decisions, they are often more articulate and therefore given better opportunities and more leeway.  Etc.

You say that they start the race from closer to the finish line, but your examples would suggest that a more appropriate analogy would be that they have a faster top speed when running. That is, your examples relate to (I think) a higher ability to understand certain concepts, a higher ability to make better decisions, a higher ability to articulate things they want to say, etc. I have a hard time understanding then how you could say that a person such as this is "just as prone to making foolish decisions". On one hand, this person is more capable of abstraction, articulation, calculation. On the other hand, the person is just as prone to foolishness. I would be interested to understand how you reconcile the two. Perhaps like I said above you are using a subjective standard for foolishness rather than an objective standard.

I also agree with what HBFire says about the D-K effect. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand it, in which case I would be a perfect example of the theorem, but as far as I know it says that someone objectively less capable at something tends to overrate his or her ability at that something. I'm not sure why an intelligent person should be more often objectively less capable at something, all other things being equal. It might be that an intelligent person thinks he or she is way better at something than he or she actually is. But this distortion holds true for unintelligent people too.

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #191 on: December 04, 2019, 07:31:36 PM »


Speaking as a psychometrician and someone who used, studied, and now teaches people about IQ test, I can assure you we are not right.

Can you elaborate?  (Not challenging; truly trying to learn.)  Are you saying that those with lower IQs have roughly the same impulse control and ability to consider longer time frames as everyone else?  Just making sure I understand correctly.

Given how many smart people I know who have burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars, had homes foreclosed on after getting negative amortization loans, drive Mercedes but have almost no retirement savings, etc., I tend to agree that smart people suck at those things about as much as less smart people.  They just have a lot more cushion so that when their water heater breaks, they can probably find places to cut so they can still buy food.

I really hope psychestache weighs in because I'm very interested in what they have to say, and this is potentially unrelated but my understanding is that you reach a point on the upper levels of IQ where you can have just as much problem getting along in society as you do at the lower levels.

I have really come to like the idea of neuro typical vs. atypical. I feel like I've read some research that indicates brains at either end of the spectrum work differently than brains in the middle.  Additionally I've read that optimal IQ for "success" is around 120.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #192 on: December 04, 2019, 07:56:44 PM »
The other side is that we are fooling ourselves if we think that the extreme rhetoric and emphasis on external factors preventing success have no negative consequences. They might be fewer than the other way, but they are certainly there. I see them in my relative who has all but given up on saving money to try to improve things because there's no way to get ahead. Call it fatalism, call it a victim mentality, call it whatever you want. It's there, and the constant refrain from politicians and the media about how other factors have so much of an impact on keeping people down....that has an impact too. It gets into people's heads.

Personal example - for the longest time, I was very over weight for probably a decade. Then one day, I decided to lose weight. I've lost 60-70 pounds and kept it off - still need to lose some more :-). Before that point, I didn't care. I wouldn't start a diet because I didn't want to or they didn't work. I enjoyed being the guy who ate the most at buffets or always ate the free food at work, but more than that, I bought into the lie that I couldn't change my weight. I'd tried stuff for a little bit and then hadn't been consistent or hadn't really looked at what I was eating, so I believed that I'd always be very overweight. The lie made me never really ever try consistently...until I did, and now I'm a little better off than I was.

Having the societal conversation all about work ethic has major flaws. I completely understand it, and I wish that somehow I could open everyone's eyes a little like mine have been because of my life situation. That being said, the societal conversation appears to be turning towards a much higher focus on how everything's keeping you from succeeding. Maybe that's a good thing, but I also know first hand that buying into the view that everything's outside of your area of control has some severe negative consequences.

I actually agree with this pretty completely. I generally approach this issue differently when we are talking about macro effects (where I try to highlight the structural problems) and the micro case (when I give individual advice it's: read more, learn more, work smarter, etc). But I could see how the macro emphasis on structural problems could have an unintended negative effect and cause people to give up.

I'm never intentionally saying that structural problems always override effort (because I don't believe that), but because I'm usually talking to people that don't believe the structural problems are real, that is the focus of my arguments. Part of the problem is that to me it's obvious that this is a complex, nuanced, multi-variable system, but I find others often don't, or can't, think in that way.

I wanted to add a comment to my previous post. I do agree, but I'm not sure what the solution is. Structural barriers do exist, so I don't see how not talking about them is the best way forward. And so while I can see the potential negative consequences of a discussion centered around the barriers keeping the poor in poverty, I don't see any other route out but through. Discuss the structural issues and resolve the structural issues (as much as possible), all while emphasizing the value of education and effort.

I don't know what the solution or right answer to this is. I do feel that I can pick out the wrong answer, and it's in not at least acknowledging that there are risks in over emphasizing the factors keeping you from succeeding while having this conversation. It seems that the more extreme posters on here who are emphasizing strongly all the things beyond hard work that lead to success (intelligence, raised outside of poverty, etc.) have acted as if there are no issues with beating this drum over and over again. They didn't have to respond to my post specifically, but none have said anything to that effect, and none have, in the comments I've seen, mentioned or acknowledged any drawbacks.

It all lies, as is usual in communication, in how you frame it and your perspective when you present it. So, if you act like, oh yea, I know hard work plays a part, but in your emphasis, it's all in how you need to acknowledge that it's this and that and this and that and this other thing and 95% of your discussion centers around how everything but hard work is what really gets you ahead, then it doesn't really matter what you think is right or assume others know or agree with. It matters what you actually talk about in more than a yea, hard work is great but ... .... .... ... and so on and on and on.

A balanced approach in conversation can be had without ignoring genuine problems. If I were to put something together, I would phrase it something like this:

There are both intrinsic and structural barriers that work against people who are trying to succeed. These barriers make it difficult but not impossible to succeed, and may make it a harder if not much harder road to travel than others have. This does not have to be obvious issues (although it could be) like unstable challenging upbringing and lack of support growing up, significant mental or physical disabilities, etc. They can be issues that someone from the outside wouldn't see. Think back to your own life and the things you have had to overcome if you have succeeded. Almost everyone has had some. Now realize that there are many with many more issues working against them. Some extreme situations, of course, exist where no amount of hard work can move the dial any appreciable amount, but these are rare. On the other end of the spectrum, some very few people are in rare situations where almost any action cannot jeopardize their success. It's a spectrum in between, but in almost every situation, hard work and sound financial principles will better your situation significantly. Learn and implement as many as you can. You can do this while fighting against structural barriers and also helping those who have intrinsic barriers on a personal and societal level.

 

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #193 on: December 04, 2019, 08:25:56 PM »
I don't believe that dwelling on structural inequities are very useful to an individual trying to improve their individual circumstances in a short time frame.  This mostly breeds cynicism, nihilism and hopelessness.  It is the opposite of empowering or en-couraging(emphasis on 'courage').

In my experience, I think it comes down to faith and humility.  I'm not particularly religious, mostly functionally religious in a Jordan Peterson-esque way, but people have to find a reason to believe in themselves, to believe in society, and to believe that their efforts and their existence is fundamentally "good".  This is spelled out in detail in Dr. Peterson's Biblical series, where he lectures on the psychological/functional significance of the biblical stories, pointing out that they are essentially metaphysical allegories intended to help us live well-oriented lives.  I'm sure this is controversial enough so I'll stop there, but needless to say we still act in the way these stories point out, so you can discard them at your peril.

If you are feeling courageous or perhaps simply curious, you can start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w

Individuals also have to acknowledge that their lives are somewhat privileged, since we all are in some way: people don't die of starvation or polio, or war or injustice, at least not to the degree that they did--say--two hundred years ago or previously.  We live in the best world that has ever existed.  And ideally this acknowledgement will help people to understand that they are much stronger than they likely think, and the evidence is all over the history books, and even in modern times, where people have triumphed far greater with far less opportunity available to them.  At least, I have found this strategy very useful.  Strength comes from the mind, and humility is the path to ambition.

As far as persuading people to be faithful and humble, well sometimes it requires some damage to force a better perspective.  The wiring is already there from millennia of experience, coded into us at a genetic level, since we are animals and must move forward in life. 

Watchmaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1609
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #194 on: December 05, 2019, 09:03:49 AM »
A balanced approach in conversation can be had without ignoring genuine problems.

Honestly, it doesn't sound to me like you're that far from my own position (and possibly others in this conversation but I don't want to speak for them). I agree that finding balance is key. And (as I said up thread) if I'm giving someone advice it's primarily about the things under their control they can do to improve their life: get more education, get a better job, get out of a bad relationship, etc.*

I think the emphasis you see in this thread on the structural issues is because this is a conversation among a self-selected group of "successful" people. I'm not trying to motivate someone to succeed in this thread; I'm discussing with other "successful" people how we can help our fellow humans.

*I do find some individuals benefit from talking about the structural things in their way and the privileges I've had. For some, a "successful" person recognizing barriers and privileges leaves them feeling acknowledged and validated, which I think helps with self esteem.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #195 on: December 06, 2019, 01:10:32 PM »


Speaking as a psychometrician and someone who used, studied, and now teaches people about IQ test, I can assure you we are not right.

Can you elaborate?  (Not challenging; truly trying to learn.)  Are you saying that those with lower IQs have roughly the same impulse control and ability to consider longer time frames as everyone else?  Just making sure I understand correctly.

Given how many smart people I know who have burned through hundreds of thousands of dollars, had homes foreclosed on after getting negative amortization loans, drive Mercedes but have almost no retirement savings, etc., I tend to agree that smart people suck at those things about as much as less smart people.  They just have a lot more cushion so that when their water heater breaks, they can probably find places to cut so they can still buy food.

I really hope psychestache weighs in because I'm very interested in what they have to say, and this is potentially unrelated but my understanding is that you reach a point on the upper levels of IQ where you can have just as much problem getting along in society as you do at the lower levels.

I have really come to like the idea of neuro typical vs. atypical. I feel like I've read some research that indicates brains at either end of the spectrum work differently than brains in the middle.  Additionally I've read that optimal IQ for "success" is around 120.

Well, I guess I shouldn't try to sneak in short comments and then ghost the board for a few days. :)

So, I'm gonna try to dig deeper into some of what I was talking about, but I guess I can start by trying to answer the question.

(as a quick sidenote, if you see me say IQ test, please assume that is short-hand for standardized norm-reference IQ assessment)

In a short answer: No, I believe the data we have shows that there is no predictive validity to IQ as it relates to self-regulation and attention skills. They have some correlation, but not to any significant degree where we can confidently identify a link. For one small example, we know that individuals with ADHD, who universally have deficits with impulse control and attention, have a full range of outcomes on IQ tests.

In a longer answer: I say that 'we are not right' because to we have too many significant issues with our ideas of IQ to say with real certainty what we are doing.

First off, we do not have a single unitary concept of IQ. My joke in training is 'There are as many different ideas about what IQ is as there are available grants." Some would include the constructs of attention, self-management, and impulse control as part of what makes up IQ and is inseparable. Some identify it as a separate, but related, construct (most commonly as a group of skills referred to as 'executive functioning'), and others say it is a separate and unrelated construct.

There is a lot of research ongoing, but it is best thought of as work going on in parallel trenches. All of these people are digging around in the IQ fields, but none of them are popping up and peeking at what others are doing (unless it is to slam one another work in an industry journal). So we have a lot of noise about what we know about attention and IQ.

Also, in most cases, we have some issues with validity of IQ test results themselves. It is clear that what we are measuring is important, because one of the best correlates for IQ test results is academic achievement, but its hard to say if what we measure is truly IQ (that's assuming that there is even a valid way to measure an 'overall' IQ).

I fear this has turned into a rambling mess, but hopefully that answers some questions (or prompts some new ones).

P.S. For those of you who keep mentioning and referencing the 'marshmallow test', you should know that the study that comes from is part of the ongoing 'replication crisis' in psychological research in our field and has issues. Here's a decent article that goes over some of the major points:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmallow-test/561779/

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #196 on: December 06, 2019, 02:13:12 PM »
Thanks!

You say that there is a strong correlation between IQ and academic success.  I'm curious about whether there is an upper limit to that.  IOW, does that hold true even with 98th+ percentile IQs?  Or is there a point at which someone is so smart that they have related difficulties in academics, especially in traditional academics (i.e. performing well in tradition, age-normed school settings and tests)?


John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2038
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #197 on: December 11, 2019, 03:22:57 PM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

Does anyone else feel that the over-the-top "Support the troops" mania in our country is mostly a cynical ploy by the rich people in power to keep a steady stream of poor-to-middle-class types volunteering out of some sense of valiant patriotism (and to keep their families on board with it) at the same time as feeding lucrative defense contracts to themselves and their buddies?

And of course, the "military as jobs program, get off your asses and sign up you lazy poors" feeds right into that.

I'll say one thing. It seems kind of freakishly easy to play people in this country by using their own ideologies against them.

Of course. This is a very touchy subject though. And I've gained relatively little ground on this outside with audiences who are already primed to agree with me. Essentially, military people and families don't want to hear a 30 year old, skinny hipster with soft, uncalloused hands who works at a computer all day (me) tell them that maybe the military isn't so great.

Military  service resulted in FIRE for my sister's  neighbors.


My sister is a best friend of her neighbors, a married couple in their early 40s.

She is on a path to FIRE and the couple is FIREd so when the three of them are together they talk about their finances and other retirement matters.

Husband entered the USN when he was ~18. He stayed in for ~22 years and retired at the highest rank possible, a level 9, master reactor technician. He spent most of his time on submarines. He has a monthly, inflation-adjusted  pension for life and military-provided health insurance for himself and wife.

Wife is a retired nurse; she worked and saved $ from age 22 to 41. IDK about her pension benefits if any.

They have ~$1.7 million invested in stocks/bonds.

Their paid-off townhouse is worth ~$700K.

He has a new truck and she a new car.

The couple now enjoys secure FIRE because of his military career.


insufFIcientfunds

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #198 on: December 12, 2019, 10:27:42 AM »
Can we have a jobs program that isn't the military?

Does anyone else feel that the over-the-top "Support the troops" mania in our country is mostly a cynical ploy by the rich people in power to keep a steady stream of poor-to-middle-class types volunteering out of some sense of valiant patriotism (and to keep their families on board with it) at the same time as feeding lucrative defense contracts to themselves and their buddies?

And of course, the "military as jobs program, get off your asses and sign up you lazy poors" feeds right into that.

I'll say one thing. It seems kind of freakishly easy to play people in this country by using their own ideologies against them.

Of course. This is a very touchy subject though. And I've gained relatively little ground on this outside with audiences who are already primed to agree with me. Essentially, military people and families don't want to hear a 30 year old, skinny hipster with soft, uncalloused hands who works at a computer all day (me) tell them that maybe the military isn't so great.

Military  service resulted in FIRE for my sister's  neighbors.


My sister is a best friend of her neighbors, a married couple in their early 40s.

She is on a path to FIRE and the couple is FIREd so when the three of them are together they talk about their finances and other retirement matters.

Husband entered the USN when he was ~18. He stayed in for ~22 years and retired at the highest rank possible, a level 9, master reactor technician. He spent most of his time on submarines. He has a monthly, inflation-adjusted  pension for life and military-provided health insurance for himself and wife.

Wife is a retired nurse; she worked and saved $ from age 22 to 41. IDK about her pension benefits if any.

They have ~$1.7 million invested in stocks/bonds.

Their paid-off townhouse is worth ~$700K.

He has a new truck and she a new car.

The couple now enjoys secure FIRE because of his military career.

The military is a wonderful place to work and to get great benefits from. At least for activity duty members, they can get their pension and choose to work, or live off their pension.

I’m sure many people like the last couple of people who posted don’t understand the culture because they aren’t in the military, maybe don’t live in a military community, or have family in the military. They just see crap on TV about pushing for jobs for vets and think it’s some ploy to get dumb people to join and to fight. While the military might be an escape for some to get out of their less than desirable life’s circumstances (would you rather them stay in their depressed communities and get addicted to drugs?), there are still plenty of young men and women who go to ROTC at Ivy League schools that feel that strong desire to serve. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc.

Hate to also break it to some, but most members aren’t in combat positions. They are 30 something hipsters, with soft hands, working at computers just like you, trying to find ways to kill the enemies of America before they kill you. They may have gotten an engineering degree from Stanford or MIT. They may be a drone pilot who killed a group of terrorists while at work and who sit next to you that night at your kids T-ball game. However you want to spin it in your own mind is fine, as long as you keep paying your taxes so our country can continue to fight whatever conflict they deem necessary anywhere in the world at anytime.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: What's the right attitude for a former poor person who is now "rich"?
« Reply #199 on: December 12, 2019, 12:24:24 PM »
The military is a wonderful place to work and to get great benefits from. At least for activity duty members, they can get their pension and choose to work, or live off their pension.

I’m sure many people like the last couple of people who posted don’t understand the culture because they aren’t in the military, maybe don’t live in a military community, or have family in the military. They just see crap on TV about pushing for jobs for vets and think it’s some ploy to get dumb people to join and to fight. While the military might be an escape for some to get out of their less than desirable life’s circumstances (would you rather them stay in their depressed communities and get addicted to drugs?), there are still plenty of young men and women who go to ROTC at Ivy League schools that feel that strong desire to serve. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc.

Hate to also break it to some, but most members aren’t in combat positions. They are 30 something hipsters, with soft hands, working at computers just like you, trying to find ways to kill the enemies of America before they kill you. They may have gotten an engineering degree from Stanford or MIT. They may be a drone pilot who killed a group of terrorists while at work and who sit next to you that night at your kids T-ball game. However you want to spin it in your own mind is fine, as long as you keep paying your taxes so our country can continue to fight whatever conflict they deem necessary anywhere in the world at anytime.

The argument against the military as a jobs program isn't an indictment on it's effectiveness at improving people's lives as much as it is an argument that you could effectively improve lives with a jobs program that's more constructive.