20 ms·

Poverty is not a personal choice, but a reflection of society

233 points by Mz 9y ago

hal9000xp 9y ago
As a person who was extremely poor by western standards (in 2002, I earned 10 USD per month in Uzbekistan) and who lived among poor people for 22 years, I can say that poverty is a personal choice, period. Here is my answer on Quora with more details: https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-Gaynetdinov https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-Gayn... I copy this answer here: I born in Uzbekistan in relatively poor family. At age of 18 (2002 year), I started work in internet cafe (~5 computers) as a network administrator (although, I was blatantly ignorant at that moment) for salary … 10 USD per month. I didn’t studied at school and dropped of university since education system in Uzbekistan is just literally fake. Since then, I lived and worked in Moscow, Stockholm and currently in Amsterdam and receive good salary as a software developer (pretty close to upper bound according to GlassDoor). Although, I still don’t have any degree! So I think I’m qualified to answer this question. Short answer: From my long and close experience living among poor people I can say that most people stay in poverty all their live because they are lazy. And in most cases, it’s their fault that they stay in poverty (especially for those who live in english speaking rich western countries like US). Long answer: You may wonder how poor people can be lazy if they do hard manual job 10 hours per day. I think laziness have several different dimensions. In general, I consider laziness as unwillingness to do some actions which could be beneficial for you in long term but require sacrifices in short term. What does it mean for poor hard working people in practice? It means that although they are willing to do hard job for 10 hours per day, they are unwilling to invest their free time to learn skills which can give them higher income in distant future. They consider it’s easier and more realistic to do hard work right now because they almost instantly benefited from their job even if it’s hard labor job than studying something which don’t bring them instant profit and require commitment over very long period of time. It may sound counter-intuitive but it’s fairly logical. If you wash dishes, you guaranteed to get almost instant profit (by end of the day, or week, or month). If you are reading some theory in a book, you don’t get instant profit at all. For them, it seem a big sacrifice to do something and get nothing in relatively short term. Also, they have little time aside from their main job. For them, it looks quite irrational to read some technical books instead of drinking beer and watching football. So poor people are quite lazy for learning new skills and prefer to do any hard job with instant profit instead. All my life, I heard from poor people that I read completely useless stuff and waste my time. Learning mathematics and algorithms for them is completely nuts, useless stuff. I very often heard popular jokes like (this joke was popular in my post-soviet school in Uzbekistan): Why anyone need an integral? Integral is needed only when you need to get some stuff dropped into public toilet (they refer to stick having form of integral symbol). So they drank a beer for years while I studied “useless garbage”. Now, they are still in Uzbekistan struggling to feed their new families and I’m in Amsterdam, able to travel around the world. To me, it’s very unlikely to image highly curious person who are hungry to lean new stuff and still staying in poverty for years. Those who are not lazy to learn get out of poverty soon or later. Just like me :)
- Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
  Interesting life experience. However, I think you will agree that being lazy in the sense you describe is a trait of most humans, rich or poor. Non-poor people are just conditioned by their social environment to study, get a degree, etc. instead of not to. Many successful people would have been poor if they were born in your situation, because they don't have the personality or guts to go against peer pressure. And many of the poor Uzbek people you mention would probably have been successful if they had been born in a social environment where people were highly qualified and studied. Taking this into account, I can agree that it's possible to get out of poverty, but I don't think one can say being poor is poor people's fault.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Isn't that a classic example of survivorship bias.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- foldr 9y ago
  >To me, it’s very unlikely to image highly curious person who are hungry to lean new stuff and still staying in poverty for years. Google 'genius died in poverty'. You don't have to imagine it. It happens.
- drchickensalad 9y ago
  Why do you assume those with debt can afford to invest instead of get immediate payoff so they can survive?
- frenchpress 9y ago
  Your description of 'laziness', in part, sounds similar to lack of mental bandwith – although the latter is not so much a choice or an implied character defect. http://thepsychreport.com/essays-discussion/scarcity-excerpt-mullainathan-shafir/ http://thepsychreport.com/essays-discussion/scarcity-excerpt...
- wwwater 9y ago
  > is a personal choice It is, in the sense, that your personality determines it. But you can't determine your personality. If you are born curious and independent, you'll probably find your way. You cannot chose your genes. This thing about immediate gratification is a lot about genes and environment. If you are born in an environment where only instant gratification is valued, and if you don't get the right genes, there is no chance, you can change your life by yourself.
jimmies 9y ago
Regarding blaming each other for their misfortune, I have an anecdotal experience I want to share. I don't know if that's just me or this phenomenal happens to everyone else as well: That's the "fuck you/who cares/deal with it" attitude. The "fuck you" attitude can be summarized as people won't go the extra mile to help other people. It is the non-sympathy, non-action I get from everyday people (including the police) when something injustice or misfortune happens to other people or the common interest. It is also the non-forgiving attitude when someone makes a dumb mistake. It is selfish and at the same time not wrong. It reflects somewhat in the Shit Town podcast that I listened to lately. I won't go into the details, but personally, I have worked with the local police recently on two separate incidents, and they were surprisingly bad. It was different from my previous experiences when I first moved to the US ten years ago. That "fuck you" attitude is what I experienced and have to deal with every day when I was in Vietnam, my home country. I'm not shocked, or that annoyed to have to deal with it every once in a while, but I feel it wasn't that way when I moved. I feel I get less and less of the extra miles the more I stay in here. I can't help but feel that people are getting stiffer and stiffer somehow. For the context, I am and have been living in the midwest. What's surprising is that I'm not even depressed, and life is getting easier for me professionally, personally, and financially. Something just doesn't feel right. Or maybe I was just romanticizing my early days in the US for me. Or maybe I'm about to have another mid-life crisis.
- tcbawo 9y ago
  I grew up in a small town in the Midwest and one thing I've noticed is income stratification has had an impact. It used to be more prevalent for your police officer, postman, waitress, or hairdresser to be able to afford to live in your town. Their kids would go to school with your kids, or you might go to the same church. But a lot more families struggle while others have done very well. I see a huge disparity in incomes (even within my extended family). This is amplified by the perception that many achieved this by luck or without hard work. Unfortunately, I think that makes people much less likely to empathize with each other.
  - analog31 9y ago
    Oddly enough, I'm the first to admit that I've achieved my level of income by luck, and without hard work. I was lucky to have two educated parents, their wealth to fall back on, and an affluent, healthy environment to grow up in. My parents paid for my undergraduate education, and the government paid for my graduate degree. I "work" in a nice office, by playing with equations and gadgets, and talking to people. Meanwhile I see people doing actual physical work, and even emotionally hard work such as teachers, police, etc. And it is virtually assured by our society that they will be less affluent than me, despite working a lot harder.
imaginenore 9y ago
As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or health issues) is the result of poor choices. Most of it stems from society's lack of planning for the future of the young people. Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want", forgetting to tell them that most of the fun choices lead to very low pay in the future. Young people regularly send $50-250k on financially useless degrees. They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is crowded and tiny. We need much better guidance for the young.
- rifung 9y ago
  > Most of it stems from society's lack of planning for the future of the young people. Doesn't this mean that it's actually NOT the result of poor choices, or at least the type of choices people generally accuse people of like being lazy or spending beyond their means? This seems more like a societal problem. I suppose it's true that it's the result of someone's choices but it seems unfair to pin it on the people who don't know better. Then again, I studied CS because it was practical and work at a great company but I always find myself wanting to do something else. Maybe the problem is that everyone keeps listening to the people who say follow your passion when the reality is that not everyone's passion will lead to something that can pay the bills. Frankly, it should totally be okay to not be in love with your job and do it because you need to.
- jimmies 9y ago
  >As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or health issues) is the result of poor choices. I'm an immigrant too, and I used to think I was in a bad situation. However, I think you don't understand how bad it could get for some American people. Being a poor immigrant won't give you a free pass when you talk about being in a shitty situation. The other day, I talked to an white male American student worked with me in the same lab for an REU program. He was attending college in computer science, not a "fun choice" like you said. He had to deal with and provide food for a drunk dad, an ill mom, and a sister. The whole family depended on him and at the time had no social security. He complained to me about his sister's boyfriend stealing food from his fridge. Now, how the fuck do you blame him for being poor because of making poor choices? What choices could he make? >Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want" They have been told that way since forever. Why should that all the sudden make a difference? >They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is crowded and tiny. You're ignorant in thinking that people can learn art by watching Youtube and go to the library. That's what all the people who did MOOC thought, and guess what happened to the MOOC hype? The reality is way more nuanced than that. People learn to draw by taking long lessons and looking for hours at real scenes, real people, real sculptures in the studio, not watching 10 minutes youtube video and looking at the 2D Instagram picture on the 25 inches screen. We're very far from that "learn shit from Youtube" pipe dream. >We need much better guidance for the young. We need it but we also need people to understand not to blame people for being poor. You were poor due to no fault of your own, so why do you think others are poor because of their fault? You were given your chance to success, so the best you can do is to think that way about other people.
Consultant32452 9y ago
Staying out of poverty is simple. By in large it takes three things: graduate high school, maintain employment, and don't have children out of wedlock. These three things are important to remember whenever we're discussing social policy. Any policy that subsidizes or encourages people to not do those three things is a social policy that behaves like a poverty factory.
- nikmobi 9y ago
  does "out of wedlock" really matter? I think the benefit of marriage in that context, is that there are 2 income generators, instead of a single parent. Isn't that accomplishable without marriage? That said, I don't think you're wrong. Genuinely looking for thoughts on this.
  - kiba 9y ago
    Maybe it's planned parenthood rather than having children that are not planned.
  - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
    Deliberately vs Accidentally is how I'd phrase it.
- sidlls 9y ago
  That's just far too simplistic to be accurate. Poverty is a complex issue and avoiding it requires substantial luck that those who have managed to do so often don't seem to realize they've benefitted from.
  - nandemo 9y ago
    Whether that claim is accurate or not can be judged on data, no? Out of curiosity I googled "graduate high school, maintain employment, and don't have children out of wedlock" and this is the first result: > Let politicians, (...) and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children. Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class. [0] It's not saying anyone can get rich. It's not saying poor people are lazy. It's saying these 3 things will have a major, measurable impact on your future and your children's. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-t...
maxwin 9y ago
It is both a personal choice and a reflection of society. I am not sure which one has bigger weight. But if you live in the US , are not physically impaired, and high school educated. Personal choice definitely has much more weight. I know many friends who come to US from Myanmar. Don't speak English , no degrees. But almost all of them live above average several years later. But they sure need to work really hard.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  I anecdotally know far more people who coast and don't do well than I know who either coast and do well or don't coast and don't do well. I think part of the problem is a combination of a bias against impugning others effort because "you don't know their struggle" and just enough counter examples (where hard work doesn't pay off) to feed confirmation bias. The question that I have is this: is the growing narrative about the United States not being a meritocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy. If so, does not thriving because you believe that narrative a personal choice?
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    I think you are complicated the issue too much. Who cares if a society it's a meritocracy or not? The point, it seems to me, is, is it a meritocracy that work for most of the people? Because what is the point of a society that doesn't work for most of the people? I know that if I train hard every day I could improve my 100m sprinter time. I also know that never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt. If we live in societies where the life of the average guy improve at the same time that the pie grows there is not a problem. If we live in a society where, even when the pie grow my life is worst, and when I complain, you point to Usain Bolt and say "see? it can be done!"; well, I don't think that it's going to work for long. It seems to me that feeling explain a lot of the "populist" movements around the world.
    - Godel_unicode 9y ago
      > never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt Maybe this is just a bad analogy, but if you're objectively worse than Usain Bolt then in a meritocracy you should justifiably be worse off. That's a bad expectation anyway, at a population level 0% of people are Usain Bolt. This ultimately leads to a question I've been thinking about a lot; should we as a society be okay with a hard working naturally gifted person being higher paid than an equally hard working non-gifted person.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
haberman 9y ago
The more time goes by, the more I am wary of the false dilemma. Almost anytime I see someone argue "you might think it's because of X, but it's really because of Y," the person speaking is selling a particular ideology. That ideology magnifies Y and minimizes X. It would be perfectly fine to say "you might be aware of X, but you should also be aware of Y." But pieces like this don't do that. They seek to tell you you are wrong if you think X. It doesn't sit will with people who have personally experienced X.
- 5thaccount 9y ago
  These articles also sell it without a solution. "It isn't X, it is Y. I have no idea how to fix Y, or a single policy idea to suggest, but, yeh, definitely Y." We are all obsessed with what policy makes us feel, rather than its impact. Example: Seattle minimum wage laws https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.meer/posts/10103186886066573 https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.meer/posts/101031868860665... let me quote here: > This is the official study that was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle to study the impacts of raising the minimum wage, in a move that I applauded at the time as an honest and transparent attempt towards self-examination of a bold policy. > The losses were so dramatic that this increase "reduced income paid to low-wage employees of single-location Seattle businesses by roughly $120 million on an annual basis." On average, low-wage workers lost $125 per month. So the official government study found this to be an horrific law for the poor. So we'll accept this, roll it back and move on yeh? Of course not! > This paper not only makes numerous valuable contributions to the economics literature, but should give serious pause to minimum wage advocates. Of course, that's not what's happening, to the extent that the mayor of Seattle commissioned another study, by an advocacy group at Berkeley whose previous work on the minimum wage is so consistently one-sided that you can set your watch by it, that unsurprisingly finds no effect. They deliberately timed its release for several days before this paper came out, and I find that whole affair abhorrent. Seattle politicians are so unwilling to accept reality that they'll undermine their own researchers and waste taxpayer dollars on what is barely a cut above propoganda (sic). Now, here's a policy aimed directly at the poor, that we are researching well, and the findings are being thrown out because, well why if not because "my feelings". Maybe it is because the political climate won;t accept the decision, but how is that better than climate deniers on the right? It seems to me both sides of politics are deniers of inconvenient truths. So I am done with articles that aim to explain, raise awareness, shine a light on etc. I want tangible, actionable policy with a measurement framework in place that we as a society both believe and accept. If society tries a UBI, and it proves bad for society for what ever pre-decided reason, we should ditch it. Policy -> measurement -> keep or drop -> repeat. That's what I want. Sadly, that is a bridge way too far these days.
mc32 9y ago
I have no idea how to solve the poverty issue. I don't think there is a way other than subsidizing a portion of the population. Even in Soviet Russia you had some very dedicated people (say scientists and bureaucrats who made things happen) and you also had very unproductive people who retained jobs they had contempt for. That said, with regard to health wellbeing we need a few things: -Reduce costs (cost per person is astronomical compared to other developed countries) -Provide Basic Universal healthcare for all citizens (elevate the health of the average person to a sustainable level) -Allow insurance for people who want to insure against grey swan health issues. Ensure this remains "affordable".
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  Government regulations created the twisted non-market for healthcare that exists in the united states. Pretty please don't sign us up for more government. You know there are 7 big health care providers in my state building spectacular facilities as fast as they can, and they don't have to compete with each other? There's no competition. Every pleb goes dutifully to the assigned provider his employer sends him to. You think it's an accident there's weak consumer protections in the U.S. of A? You think it's just dumb luck that health care has no market forces to control costs? We're all about rapacious crony capitalism here!
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    Reading your comment, it just occurred to me that I don't know if there is any country where healthcare works well without government intervention. We always talk about the USA vs. Europe, but I don't know if there are other examples that we can borrow. When you talk about market directed healthcare, do you have any example in mind?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Has it even been tried in a developed country in the last 100 years? The US has had distorted markets dating back to the 1930s at least.
dlwdlw 9y ago
I'm not sure the proportion, but there do exist certain people who are self destructive yet also self entitled. It's the state of mind that drives a person to gamble everything they own. Either the universe agrees with then and they do become the greatest person they think they are, or more likely, they fail and wallow in rage. In a way, it's like a child throwing a tantrum, threatening all sorts of things, knowing that their mom will break down and acquisce to the demands. In the real world though, this mom doesn't exist. Some have pity for the child's heart that seaches for meaning and love in a world without a mother, most see the child's tantrum and are just annoyed at the immaturity. The most institutionalized mother replacement is God, the infallible mother of mother's. A pet theory if mine is that religion served as society's safety net in this manner and was incredibly important when only a minority of people had access to knowledge as opposed to the majority today. Knowledge opens the doors to self actualization through various means. Without it you are limited to blue collar repetitive jobs, non-creative work. Without this self actualization path, it's very easy to fall into a spiral of drugs, alcohol, hookers, etc... Online Games are the modern day less dangerous replacement for these shallow meaning makers. It's usage as a stabilizer for the poor is especially apparent in the Asian countries. Note that money in the end will always be spent on meaning regardless of rich or poor. . The poor don't save because they can't see what to do with it. The immediate meaning makers of drugs and alcohol are much more achievable. I save and go to Costco because I know moneys power to transform into different degrees of freedom and creative pursuits. Others desire a family. Some desire an empire, a middle finger to God. (Pop culture is the main stabilizing force for the middle class)
- SamUK96 9y ago
  I found some of your comments quite insightful, especially about varying stabilising forces for varying income/social classes. I think the old (paraphrased) quote is relavent here: A rich man saves up for a £300 pair of new shoes that will last him a decade, while a poor man buys a £5 pair of boots every month because they wear down quickly. Honestly, being able to fix some things is one of the most important traits to have if you want to save money. Learn some motor maintenance skills (well, with DRM'ed cars now that may be a bit harder), basic shoe repairs, computer repair, woodwork, etc. I think we've lost our way with technology somewhat (and i'm a young millenial!). I see my dad and how he helped build some of the rooms in our house, did basic diagnostics for our car when it acted up, made our home's wooden stair railing from scratch. And he worked as a manager for a small basic factory. I can't see anybody my age being able to even just sand some rough edges down from freshly-cut wood, or being able to jack-up a car. It's depressing what advanced technology and increased societal specialisation has done to us younger generations...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
known 9y ago
I'd say poverty is a reflection of Pyramid schemes.
- ebcode 9y ago
  Like the pyramid scheme on the back of the one dollar bill? That floating eye makes me poorer every time I see it.
  - andai 9y ago
    Sorry if I'm killing a joke or something, but could you please clarify?
    - ebcode 9y ago
      Yep, you're killing it. The Great Seal of The United States [0] is printed on the back of USD $1 bills. The motif on the obverse side of the seal is an uncapped pyramid with a floating eye on top. Thus, the pyramid "scheme". Then, the "All-Seeing-Eye", being some kind of symbol for God, is used to represent authority, or higher power, thus making me, a mortal and a peasant, feel less empowered, thus "poorer". Hope that clarifies things a bit. (note to self: stop joking on HN) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_State...
honestoHeminway 9y ago
I think the most important experience a poor man can have is "Selbstwirksamkeit", the experience, that one can influence ones own destiny and not remain a puppet to be pushed around, slaved and sheparded by bosses, police and landlords. We should make that epxerience part of any curiculum on public schools.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  In America as globalization and large multinational corporations have taken root, workers have lost leverage. The idea that poor people have the strength and stability to not be pushed around or controlled by the rich simply is not possible at the moment. Union-busting, globalization, student loan debt, rising cost of living, and stagnant wages mean poor Americans can do less and less with each passing year.
jimnotgym 9y ago
For anyone who wants to investigate the connection between poverty and society further, I can highly recommend, Rutger Bregman's book 'Utopia for realists'. It is funny to see cases in history where well researched,cost effective and progressive social programs have been stopped due to plain prejudice from those in power. I keep hearing Ayn Rand mentioned these days. Reading those long tedious books can give you fodder for some interesting thought experiments, but beyond that I find the ideas not just damaging, but childishly simplistic. When I hear that some bigshot tech mogul is a follower of Rand I feel that they are about to make excuses for their appalling behavior by making appeal to some kind of authority. I associate Rand with white supremacists and debunked myths
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'll also recommend Hillbilly Elegy (more narrative and focuses on modern rural poverty in America) and Coming Apart (a bit more data driven and explanatory) on this subject.
- brightball 9y ago
  Regarding Rand, I hear her referenced more by libertarian detractors than any actual libertarians.
  - syshum 9y ago
    Largely because Ayn Rand was not Libertarian, she founded Objectivism and has complete disdain for many Libertarians of the time. Objectivism shares many things in common with small subset of Right leaning Libertarian Philosophy Anarcho-Capitalism, but not all Libertarians are AnCaps despite what they (anCaps) claim
  - dankohn1 9y ago
    Paul Ryan, the primary author of the House healthcare bill, gives out an Ayn Rand book to all of his interns [0]. Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged are engaging works of science fiction. I recommend everyone read at least one. And then keep in mind this quote [1]: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." [0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-ryan-revealed-his-love-for-ayn-rand.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-rya... [1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-...
dredmorbius 9y ago
"It may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain, because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority of energy or of prudence. This, even were it true, would be a very small alleviation of the evil. If some Nero or Domitian were to require a hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery and the crime would be that any were put to death at all. So in the economy of society; if there be any who suffer physical privation or moral degradation, whose bodily necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements." John Stuart Mill, Chapters on Socialism https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/m...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

233 points by Mz 9y ago

As a person who was extremely poor by western standards (in 2002, I earned 10 USD per month in Uzbekistan) and who lived among poor people for 22 years, I can say that poverty is a personal choice, period. Here is my answer on Quora with more details: https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-Gaynetdinov https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-Gayn... I copy this answer here: I born in Uzbekistan in relatively poor family. At age of 18 (2002 year), I started work in internet cafe (~5 computers) as a network administrator (although, I was blatantly ignorant at that moment) for salary … 10 USD per month. I didn’t studied at school and dropped of university since education system in Uzbekistan is just literally fake. Since then, I lived and worked in Moscow, Stockholm and currently in Amsterdam and receive good salary as a software developer (pretty close to upper bound according to GlassDoor). Although, I still don’t have any degree! So I think I’m qualified to answer this question. Short answer: From my long and close experience living among poor people I can say that most people stay in poverty all their live because they are lazy. And in most cases, it’s their fault that they stay in poverty (especially for those who live in english speaking rich western countries like US). Long answer: You may wonder how poor people can be lazy if they do hard manual job 10 hours per day. I think laziness have several different dimensions. In general, I consider laziness as unwillingness to do some actions which could be beneficial for you in long term but require sacrifices in short term. What does it mean for poor hard working people in practice? It means that although they are willing to do hard job for 10 hours per day, they are unwilling to invest their free time to learn skills which can give them higher income in distant future. They consider it’s easier and more realistic to do hard work right now because they almost instantly benefited from their job even if it’s hard labor job than studying something which don’t bring them instant profit and require commitment over very long period of time. It may sound counter-intuitive but it’s fairly logical. If you wash dishes, you guaranteed to get almost instant profit (by end of the day, or week, or month). If you are reading some theory in a book, you don’t get instant profit at all. For them, it seem a big sacrifice to do something and get nothing in relatively short term. Also, they have little time aside from their main job. For them, it looks quite irrational to read some technical books instead of drinking beer and watching football. So poor people are quite lazy for learning new skills and prefer to do any hard job with instant profit instead. All my life, I heard from poor people that I read completely useless stuff and waste my time. Learning mathematics and algorithms for them is completely nuts, useless stuff. I very often heard popular jokes like (this joke was popular in my post-soviet school in Uzbekistan): Why anyone need an integral? Integral is needed only when you need to get some stuff dropped into public toilet (they refer to stick having form of integral symbol). So they drank a beer for years while I studied “useless garbage”. Now, they are still in Uzbekistan struggling to feed their new families and I’m in Amsterdam, able to travel around the world. To me, it’s very unlikely to image highly curious person who are hungry to lean new stuff and still staying in poverty for years. Those who are not lazy to learn get out of poverty soon or later. Just like me :)

Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
Interesting life experience. However, I think you will agree that being lazy in the sense you describe is a trait of most humans, rich or poor. Non-poor people are just conditioned by their social environment to study, get a degree, etc. instead of not to. Many successful people would have been poor if they were born in your situation, because they don't have the personality or guts to go against peer pressure. And many of the poor Uzbek people you mention would probably have been successful if they had been born in a social environment where people were highly qualified and studied. Taking this into account, I can agree that it's possible to get out of poverty, but I don't think one can say being poor is poor people's fault.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Isn't that a classic example of survivorship bias.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
foldr 9y ago
>To me, it’s very unlikely to image highly curious person who are hungry to lean new stuff and still staying in poverty for years. Google 'genius died in poverty'. You don't have to imagine it. It happens.
drchickensalad 9y ago
Why do you assume those with debt can afford to invest instead of get immediate payoff so they can survive?
frenchpress 9y ago
Your description of 'laziness', in part, sounds similar to lack of mental bandwith – although the latter is not so much a choice or an implied character defect. http://thepsychreport.com/essays-discussion/scarcity-excerpt-mullainathan-shafir/ http://thepsychreport.com/essays-discussion/scarcity-excerpt...
wwwater 9y ago
> is a personal choice It is, in the sense, that your personality determines it. But you can't determine your personality. If you are born curious and independent, you'll probably find your way. You cannot chose your genes. This thing about immediate gratification is a lot about genes and environment. If you are born in an environment where only instant gratification is valued, and if you don't get the right genes, there is no chance, you can change your life by yourself.

jimmies 9y ago

Regarding blaming each other for their misfortune, I have an anecdotal experience I want to share. I don't know if that's just me or this phenomenal happens to everyone else as well: That's the "fuck you/who cares/deal with it" attitude. The "fuck you" attitude can be summarized as people won't go the extra mile to help other people. It is the non-sympathy, non-action I get from everyday people (including the police) when something injustice or misfortune happens to other people or the common interest. It is also the non-forgiving attitude when someone makes a dumb mistake. It is selfish and at the same time not wrong. It reflects somewhat in the Shit Town podcast that I listened to lately. I won't go into the details, but personally, I have worked with the local police recently on two separate incidents, and they were surprisingly bad. It was different from my previous experiences when I first moved to the US ten years ago. That "fuck you" attitude is what I experienced and have to deal with every day when I was in Vietnam, my home country. I'm not shocked, or that annoyed to have to deal with it every once in a while, but I feel it wasn't that way when I moved. I feel I get less and less of the extra miles the more I stay in here. I can't help but feel that people are getting stiffer and stiffer somehow. For the context, I am and have been living in the midwest. What's surprising is that I'm not even depressed, and life is getting easier for me professionally, personally, and financially. Something just doesn't feel right. Or maybe I was just romanticizing my early days in the US for me. Or maybe I'm about to have another mid-life crisis.

tcbawo 9y ago
I grew up in a small town in the Midwest and one thing I've noticed is income stratification has had an impact. It used to be more prevalent for your police officer, postman, waitress, or hairdresser to be able to afford to live in your town. Their kids would go to school with your kids, or you might go to the same church. But a lot more families struggle while others have done very well. I see a huge disparity in incomes (even within my extended family). This is amplified by the perception that many achieved this by luck or without hard work. Unfortunately, I think that makes people much less likely to empathize with each other.
- analog31 9y ago
  Oddly enough, I'm the first to admit that I've achieved my level of income by luck, and without hard work. I was lucky to have two educated parents, their wealth to fall back on, and an affluent, healthy environment to grow up in. My parents paid for my undergraduate education, and the government paid for my graduate degree. I "work" in a nice office, by playing with equations and gadgets, and talking to people. Meanwhile I see people doing actual physical work, and even emotionally hard work such as teachers, police, etc. And it is virtually assured by our society that they will be less affluent than me, despite working a lot harder.

imaginenore 9y ago

As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or health issues) is the result of poor choices. Most of it stems from society's lack of planning for the future of the young people. Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want", forgetting to tell them that most of the fun choices lead to very low pay in the future. Young people regularly send $50-250k on financially useless degrees. They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is crowded and tiny. We need much better guidance for the young.

rifung 9y ago
> Most of it stems from society's lack of planning for the future of the young people. Doesn't this mean that it's actually NOT the result of poor choices, or at least the type of choices people generally accuse people of like being lazy or spending beyond their means? This seems more like a societal problem. I suppose it's true that it's the result of someone's choices but it seems unfair to pin it on the people who don't know better. Then again, I studied CS because it was practical and work at a great company but I always find myself wanting to do something else. Maybe the problem is that everyone keeps listening to the people who say follow your passion when the reality is that not everyone's passion will lead to something that can pay the bills. Frankly, it should totally be okay to not be in love with your job and do it because you need to.
jimmies 9y ago
>As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or health issues) is the result of poor choices. I'm an immigrant too, and I used to think I was in a bad situation. However, I think you don't understand how bad it could get for some American people. Being a poor immigrant won't give you a free pass when you talk about being in a shitty situation. The other day, I talked to an white male American student worked with me in the same lab for an REU program. He was attending college in computer science, not a "fun choice" like you said. He had to deal with and provide food for a drunk dad, an ill mom, and a sister. The whole family depended on him and at the time had no social security. He complained to me about his sister's boyfriend stealing food from his fridge. Now, how the fuck do you blame him for being poor because of making poor choices? What choices could he make? >Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want" They have been told that way since forever. Why should that all the sudden make a difference? >They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is crowded and tiny. You're ignorant in thinking that people can learn art by watching Youtube and go to the library. That's what all the people who did MOOC thought, and guess what happened to the MOOC hype? The reality is way more nuanced than that. People learn to draw by taking long lessons and looking for hours at real scenes, real people, real sculptures in the studio, not watching 10 minutes youtube video and looking at the 2D Instagram picture on the 25 inches screen. We're very far from that "learn shit from Youtube" pipe dream. >We need much better guidance for the young. We need it but we also need people to understand not to blame people for being poor. You were poor due to no fault of your own, so why do you think others are poor because of their fault? You were given your chance to success, so the best you can do is to think that way about other people.

Consultant32452 9y ago

Staying out of poverty is simple. By in large it takes three things: graduate high school, maintain employment, and don't have children out of wedlock. These three things are important to remember whenever we're discussing social policy. Any policy that subsidizes or encourages people to not do those three things is a social policy that behaves like a poverty factory.

nikmobi 9y ago
does "out of wedlock" really matter? I think the benefit of marriage in that context, is that there are 2 income generators, instead of a single parent. Isn't that accomplishable without marriage? That said, I don't think you're wrong. Genuinely looking for thoughts on this.
- kiba 9y ago
  Maybe it's planned parenthood rather than having children that are not planned.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  Deliberately vs Accidentally is how I'd phrase it.
sidlls 9y ago
That's just far too simplistic to be accurate. Poverty is a complex issue and avoiding it requires substantial luck that those who have managed to do so often don't seem to realize they've benefitted from.
- nandemo 9y ago
  Whether that claim is accurate or not can be judged on data, no? Out of curiosity I googled "graduate high school, maintain employment, and don't have children out of wedlock" and this is the first result: > Let politicians, (...) and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children. Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class (defined as earning around $55,000 or more per year). There are surely influences other than these principles at play, but following them guides a young adult away from poverty and toward the middle class. [0] It's not saying anyone can get rich. It's not saying poor people are lazy. It's saying these 3 things will have a major, measurable impact on your future and your children's. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-t...

maxwin 9y ago

It is both a personal choice and a reflection of society. I am not sure which one has bigger weight. But if you live in the US , are not physically impaired, and high school educated. Personal choice definitely has much more weight. I know many friends who come to US from Myanmar. Don't speak English , no degrees. But almost all of them live above average several years later. But they sure need to work really hard.

Godel_unicode 9y ago
I anecdotally know far more people who coast and don't do well than I know who either coast and do well or don't coast and don't do well. I think part of the problem is a combination of a bias against impugning others effort because "you don't know their struggle" and just enough counter examples (where hard work doesn't pay off) to feed confirmation bias. The question that I have is this: is the growing narrative about the United States not being a meritocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy. If so, does not thriving because you believe that narrative a personal choice?
- RobertoG 9y ago
  I think you are complicated the issue too much. Who cares if a society it's a meritocracy or not? The point, it seems to me, is, is it a meritocracy that work for most of the people? Because what is the point of a society that doesn't work for most of the people? I know that if I train hard every day I could improve my 100m sprinter time. I also know that never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt. If we live in societies where the life of the average guy improve at the same time that the pie grows there is not a problem. If we live in a society where, even when the pie grow my life is worst, and when I complain, you point to Usain Bolt and say "see? it can be done!"; well, I don't think that it's going to work for long. It seems to me that feeling explain a lot of the "populist" movements around the world.
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    > never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt Maybe this is just a bad analogy, but if you're objectively worse than Usain Bolt then in a meritocracy you should justifiably be worse off. That's a bad expectation anyway, at a population level 0% of people are Usain Bolt. This ultimately leads to a question I've been thinking about a lot; should we as a society be okay with a hard working naturally gifted person being higher paid than an equally hard working non-gifted person.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

haberman 9y ago

The more time goes by, the more I am wary of the false dilemma. Almost anytime I see someone argue "you might think it's because of X, but it's really because of Y," the person speaking is selling a particular ideology. That ideology magnifies Y and minimizes X. It would be perfectly fine to say "you might be aware of X, but you should also be aware of Y." But pieces like this don't do that. They seek to tell you you are wrong if you think X. It doesn't sit will with people who have personally experienced X.

5thaccount 9y ago
These articles also sell it without a solution. "It isn't X, it is Y. I have no idea how to fix Y, or a single policy idea to suggest, but, yeh, definitely Y." We are all obsessed with what policy makes us feel, rather than its impact. Example: Seattle minimum wage laws https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.meer/posts/10103186886066573 https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.meer/posts/101031868860665... let me quote here: > This is the official study that was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle to study the impacts of raising the minimum wage, in a move that I applauded at the time as an honest and transparent attempt towards self-examination of a bold policy. > The losses were so dramatic that this increase "reduced income paid to low-wage employees of single-location Seattle businesses by roughly $120 million on an annual basis." On average, low-wage workers lost $125 per month. So the official government study found this to be an horrific law for the poor. So we'll accept this, roll it back and move on yeh? Of course not! > This paper not only makes numerous valuable contributions to the economics literature, but should give serious pause to minimum wage advocates. Of course, that's not what's happening, to the extent that the mayor of Seattle commissioned another study, by an advocacy group at Berkeley whose previous work on the minimum wage is so consistently one-sided that you can set your watch by it, that unsurprisingly finds no effect. They deliberately timed its release for several days before this paper came out, and I find that whole affair abhorrent. Seattle politicians are so unwilling to accept reality that they'll undermine their own researchers and waste taxpayer dollars on what is barely a cut above propoganda (sic). Now, here's a policy aimed directly at the poor, that we are researching well, and the findings are being thrown out because, well why if not because "my feelings". Maybe it is because the political climate won;t accept the decision, but how is that better than climate deniers on the right? It seems to me both sides of politics are deniers of inconvenient truths. So I am done with articles that aim to explain, raise awareness, shine a light on etc. I want tangible, actionable policy with a measurement framework in place that we as a society both believe and accept. If society tries a UBI, and it proves bad for society for what ever pre-decided reason, we should ditch it. Policy -> measurement -> keep or drop -> repeat. That's what I want. Sadly, that is a bridge way too far these days.

mc32 9y ago

I have no idea how to solve the poverty issue. I don't think there is a way other than subsidizing a portion of the population. Even in Soviet Russia you had some very dedicated people (say scientists and bureaucrats who made things happen) and you also had very unproductive people who retained jobs they had contempt for. That said, with regard to health wellbeing we need a few things: -Reduce costs (cost per person is astronomical compared to other developed countries) -Provide Basic Universal healthcare for all citizens (elevate the health of the average person to a sustainable level) -Allow insurance for people who want to insure against grey swan health issues. Ensure this remains "affordable".

EdSharkey 9y ago
Government regulations created the twisted non-market for healthcare that exists in the united states. Pretty please don't sign us up for more government. You know there are 7 big health care providers in my state building spectacular facilities as fast as they can, and they don't have to compete with each other? There's no competition. Every pleb goes dutifully to the assigned provider his employer sends him to. You think it's an accident there's weak consumer protections in the U.S. of A? You think it's just dumb luck that health care has no market forces to control costs? We're all about rapacious crony capitalism here!
- RobertoG 9y ago
  Reading your comment, it just occurred to me that I don't know if there is any country where healthcare works well without government intervention. We always talk about the USA vs. Europe, but I don't know if there are other examples that we can borrow. When you talk about market directed healthcare, do you have any example in mind?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Has it even been tried in a developed country in the last 100 years? The US has had distorted markets dating back to the 1930s at least.

dlwdlw 9y ago

I'm not sure the proportion, but there do exist certain people who are self destructive yet also self entitled. It's the state of mind that drives a person to gamble everything they own. Either the universe agrees with then and they do become the greatest person they think they are, or more likely, they fail and wallow in rage. In a way, it's like a child throwing a tantrum, threatening all sorts of things, knowing that their mom will break down and acquisce to the demands. In the real world though, this mom doesn't exist. Some have pity for the child's heart that seaches for meaning and love in a world without a mother, most see the child's tantrum and are just annoyed at the immaturity. The most institutionalized mother replacement is God, the infallible mother of mother's. A pet theory if mine is that religion served as society's safety net in this manner and was incredibly important when only a minority of people had access to knowledge as opposed to the majority today. Knowledge opens the doors to self actualization through various means. Without it you are limited to blue collar repetitive jobs, non-creative work. Without this self actualization path, it's very easy to fall into a spiral of drugs, alcohol, hookers, etc... Online Games are the modern day less dangerous replacement for these shallow meaning makers. It's usage as a stabilizer for the poor is especially apparent in the Asian countries. Note that money in the end will always be spent on meaning regardless of rich or poor. . The poor don't save because they can't see what to do with it. The immediate meaning makers of drugs and alcohol are much more achievable. I save and go to Costco because I know moneys power to transform into different degrees of freedom and creative pursuits. Others desire a family. Some desire an empire, a middle finger to God. (Pop culture is the main stabilizing force for the middle class)

SamUK96 9y ago
I found some of your comments quite insightful, especially about varying stabilising forces for varying income/social classes. I think the old (paraphrased) quote is relavent here: A rich man saves up for a £300 pair of new shoes that will last him a decade, while a poor man buys a £5 pair of boots every month because they wear down quickly. Honestly, being able to fix some things is one of the most important traits to have if you want to save money. Learn some motor maintenance skills (well, with DRM'ed cars now that may be a bit harder), basic shoe repairs, computer repair, woodwork, etc. I think we've lost our way with technology somewhat (and i'm a young millenial!). I see my dad and how he helped build some of the rooms in our house, did basic diagnostics for our car when it acted up, made our home's wooden stair railing from scratch. And he worked as a manager for a small basic factory. I can't see anybody my age being able to even just sand some rough edges down from freshly-cut wood, or being able to jack-up a car. It's depressing what advanced technology and increased societal specialisation has done to us younger generations...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

known 9y ago

I'd say poverty is a reflection of Pyramid schemes.

ebcode 9y ago
Like the pyramid scheme on the back of the one dollar bill? That floating eye makes me poorer every time I see it.
- andai 9y ago
  Sorry if I'm killing a joke or something, but could you please clarify?
  - ebcode 9y ago
    Yep, you're killing it. The Great Seal of The United States [0] is printed on the back of USD $1 bills. The motif on the obverse side of the seal is an uncapped pyramid with a floating eye on top. Thus, the pyramid "scheme". Then, the "All-Seeing-Eye", being some kind of symbol for God, is used to represent authority, or higher power, thus making me, a mortal and a peasant, feel less empowered, thus "poorer". Hope that clarifies things a bit. (note to self: stop joking on HN) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_State...

honestoHeminway 9y ago

I think the most important experience a poor man can have is "Selbstwirksamkeit", the experience, that one can influence ones own destiny and not remain a puppet to be pushed around, slaved and sheparded by bosses, police and landlords. We should make that epxerience part of any curiculum on public schools.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
In America as globalization and large multinational corporations have taken root, workers have lost leverage. The idea that poor people have the strength and stability to not be pushed around or controlled by the rich simply is not possible at the moment. Union-busting, globalization, student loan debt, rising cost of living, and stagnant wages mean poor Americans can do less and less with each passing year.

jimnotgym 9y ago

For anyone who wants to investigate the connection between poverty and society further, I can highly recommend, Rutger Bregman's book 'Utopia for realists'. It is funny to see cases in history where well researched,cost effective and progressive social programs have been stopped due to plain prejudice from those in power. I keep hearing Ayn Rand mentioned these days. Reading those long tedious books can give you fodder for some interesting thought experiments, but beyond that I find the ideas not just damaging, but childishly simplistic. When I hear that some bigshot tech mogul is a follower of Rand I feel that they are about to make excuses for their appalling behavior by making appeal to some kind of authority. I associate Rand with white supremacists and debunked myths

humanrebar 9y ago
I'll also recommend Hillbilly Elegy (more narrative and focuses on modern rural poverty in America) and Coming Apart (a bit more data driven and explanatory) on this subject.
brightball 9y ago
Regarding Rand, I hear her referenced more by libertarian detractors than any actual libertarians.
- syshum 9y ago
  Largely because Ayn Rand was not Libertarian, she founded Objectivism and has complete disdain for many Libertarians of the time. Objectivism shares many things in common with small subset of Right leaning Libertarian Philosophy Anarcho-Capitalism, but not all Libertarians are AnCaps despite what they (anCaps) claim
- dankohn1 9y ago
  Paul Ryan, the primary author of the House healthcare bill, gives out an Ayn Rand book to all of his interns [0]. Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged are engaging works of science fiction. I recommend everyone read at least one. And then keep in mind this quote [1]: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." [0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-ryan-revealed-his-love-for-ayn-rand.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-rya... [1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-...

dredmorbius 9y ago

"It may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain, because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority of energy or of prudence. This, even were it true, would be a very small alleviation of the evil. If some Nero or Domitian were to require a hundred persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery and the crime would be that any were put to death at all. So in the economy of society; if there be any who suffer physical privation or moral degradation, whose bodily necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements." John Stuart Mill, Chapters on Socialism https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/m...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]