This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense

[onodera]

I hate how any discussion here ends up polarizing the views of those who take part in it.

1. If you confiscated all property in the US and redistributed it equally, most of those people who are poor now would end up poor and most of the rich would end up rich after you let them trade again. The reasons are multifold:
a) heritable intelligence
b) better education
c) marketable skills
d) better money management skills and so on

2. Conversely, if you replaced every American citizen with 300 million identical clones, you would still end up wth poor clones and rich clones.
a) money begets money, you can simply invest your savings
b) extra money can be invested in your education and so on

Yes, there are exceptions in both cases (Paris Hilton wouldn't survive property equalization), but the system has a positive feedback cycle in general: it's much easier for a rich person to stay rich and a poor person to stay poor than the other way around. You can't get around that completely, but you can still try to level the playing field:
a) universal access to free full spectrum healthcare
b) universal access to free higher and/or vocational education
c) personal finance education classes
and let's go really socialist here...
d) proactive removal of children from deadbeat parents

Blaming the poor for being poor will not help them stop being poor, even if they are responsible for that.

[Sir Og]

The original marshmallow experiment shows us that the ability to delay gratification is a very good predictor of future success. The improved version of the experiment shows that this ability is not innate in each kid but is instead dependent on weather the kid trusts the person doing the experiment. It shows that kids who behave like poor, unsuccessful people behave are actually fully rational people who respond to unstable environments that they grow up into.
Having an well thought out social safety net can help make the environment in which people grow more stable and predictable and this will give better outcomes for all.

The other thing that explains a great deal of outcomes is chance. A good social system would distribute good luck from people who have a lot of it to people who are unlucky.

I think that 2/3 of outcomes are due to environment and luck. And maybe just a third are due to actual conscious choices and efforts that each person makes by themselves. These numbers are not supported by anything but my intuition. Though I might even be overestimating the effect of conscious choices.

[molly bloom]

For those of you playing at home.

'Pregnant the first time'. Is she married? No? Then that's a big reason why she's poor.

Oh, lack of contraception. Thanks Mr. Professional Roman Catholic, that's good advice for the poor.

'Weekly motel'. I see weekly motels for 250/week here.

Jolly good. And there's just one rate for motels across the whole of the United States ? Thought not.

Why didn't you buy canned stuff? You can warm it up in the microwave.

That's right. Heating cans up in a microwave is an excellent idea. If you like sparks and explosions.

Christ. Condoms you can pick up at the convenience store.

But only for non-Catholics right ?

Uh, no, no it's not. If you smoke a pack a day, that's a habit that will cost you as much as 10 bucks in some areas depending on where you live. That's 300 bucks a month. Why are you poor? Because you smoke.

So she admits she smokes, and you decide she spends $ 300 a month. Smoking apparently relaxes you and stops you feeling hungry. I can see why she might opt for that rather than Valium or Mogadon or whatever drugs she might be able to obtain legally.

Money is a tool.

So like you 'know' what liberals think because you say you were once one (yeah, right...), is this also your voice of experience speaking ?

[Dauphin]

I think that 2/3 of outcomes are due to environment and luck. And maybe just a third are due to actual conscious choices and efforts that each person makes by themselves. These numbers are not supported by anything but my intuition. Though I might even be overestimating the effect of conscious choices.

The old phrase "it's funny, the more I practise, the luckier I get" springs to mind. I think a highly motivated person will make good things happen. Most of us are not motivated and seek justifications of 'if only'. There is also a risk and familiarity factor issue - people play safe and will stay where they are rather than seek to change/move from the environment they are in.

[molly bloom]

I think a highly motivated person will make good things happen. Most of us are not motivated and seek justifications of 'if only'.

You make me think of the myth of genius. Yes Bach and Mozart were both gifted. They both also put a lot of work into being more gifted.

Same with painters and writers. Luck can also play a part- Rembrandt died poor and Vermeer's family was left in financial chaos on his death. Rapid changes in technology, 'downsizing', changes in taste, financial slumps- they all play a part.

[Ben Kenobi]

Blaming the poor for being poor will not help them stop being poor, even if they are responsible for that.

Which explains why the Soviet Union which had these things was poorer than America which did not. Your premise is flawed. You believe that people - when given the necessities of life will seek to improve upon them. The solution is the same as always - freer markets. Why must an education cost 120k? Why can't we, in the age of the internet, get a degree simply through a library card and some elbow grease?

The solution is not for the state to provide for the cost, but rather for the state to simply get out of the way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, lack of contraception. Thanks Mr. Professional Roman Catholic, that's good advice for the poor.

Yes, the contraception of 'keeping your pants on'. I realize that it's fashionable to believe that poor people are stupid with poor impulse control. I think poor people CAN wait until they are married.

Jolly good. And there's just one rate for motels across the whole of the United States ? Thought not.

Is your argument that motels in Texas are on the high end? I'm being generous to her argument.

That's right. Heating cans up in a microwave is an excellent idea. If you like sparks and explosions.

Is Moron your first language?

So she admits she smokes, and you decide she spends $ 300 a month. Smoking apparently relaxes you and stops you feeling hungry. I can see why she might opt for that rather than Valium or Mogadon or whatever drugs she might be able to obtain legally.

It's a poor financial decision.

So like you 'know' what liberals think because you say you were once one (yeah, right...), is this also your voice of experience speaking ?

Perhaps I ought to provide you my essay on Mssr. Wilson written in 12 grade. Yes, I was a liberal.

[Ban Kenobi]

Please do provide the essay. I've always wondered what kind of retarded positions the liberal equivalent of Ben Kenobi would espouse.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've always wondered what kind of retarded positions the liberal equivalent of Ben Kenobi would espouse.

I suggest you study up on Imran's posts.

[regexcellent]

wrong thread

[Aeson]

I believe in causality.

[Sir Og]

The old phrase "it's funny, the more I practise, the luckier I get" springs to mind. I think a highly motivated person will make good things happen. Most of us are not motivated and seek justifications of 'if only'. There is also a risk and familiarity factor issue - people play safe and will stay where they are rather than seek to change/move from the environment they are in.

I think this is a case of the just-world fallacy.

When I speak of luck and environment I mean it in a very broad sense. Not just winning the lottery. I mean the chance of which country you are born in, where in said country you are born in, what gender you are, what career path you choose etc. These are all things that you have no control over. You have control over your career path but you cannot predict reliably if the sector you choose will grow or collapse. Imagine going into debt to acquire some skills which are made obsolete just as you graduate by some new machine. Things like monetary and fiscal policy changes also affect if you are going to be richer or poorer but are practically dependent on chance.

How much of your personal success would you attribute to decisions and efforts you made and how much would be due to luck?

I personally think that I have had numerous big and small advantages accumulating over time that are not related in any way to my efforts and the choices I made. If anything I am lazier than the average person (most probably due to never needing to push myself to achieve things) yet I am pretty sure that I am doing better than at least 80% of the world population. (most probably even more) And I am not even trying hard. I have passed numerous job opportunities because I don't like moving to a bigger city or having a long commute(1 hour).

[Ben Kenobi]

How much of your personal success would you attribute to decisions and efforts you made and how much would be due to luck?

Better question, "what can I do today to improve my overall position?"

[Dauphin]

I think this is a case of the just-world fallacy.
).

Then you misunderstand.

If you are motivated you can increase the probability of success. This is not to say you guarantee success.

This is a question of mobility, not absolutism. Where you start is luck, where you go, up or down, is less so.

[Dauphin]

yet I am pretty sure that I am doing better than at least 80% of the world population. (most probably even more) And I am not even trying hard. I have passed numerous job opportunities because I don't like moving to a bigger city or having a long commute(1 hour).

So you could have achieved higher 'social' status or achieved more? You chose not to.

Not a value judgement, just a comment on choice vs luck on where you are relative to where you started and could have been now.