5 ms·

Poor people aren’t stupid

by eli 5y ago

capableweb 5y ago
That's not what I said either. Again, the Reddit thread is about people with a small amount of money winning a large amount of money. A person like Saurik working for a bug bounty and getting paid for it is not nearly the same scenario.
toolz 5y ago
If you're poor and gambling, then you're making a stupid financial decision. So the odds of you being financially stupid seem likely to be high.
- phphphphp 5y ago
  For most people, gambling isn't a financial decision, it's an entertainment decision. The value of thinking about winning (regardless of how unlikely it is) is worth the $1 cost of a lottery ticket, so labelling gambling a "stupid financial decision" is like labelling owning a TV while poor a "stupid financial decision"... but poor people deserve entertainment as much as rich people.
  - toolz 5y ago
    Gambling is not a human right, no one deserves to be able to waste resources they have no matter how much they may or may not enjoy it.
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      What? So startups should not be allowed? 90% of them fail after all. The odds of a startup being successful is literally gambling.
      - fire 5y ago
        I feel like the difference is that companies are generally intended to be a concerted effort of one or more individuals, as opposed to an actual roll of the dice. Like without getting into nits, you can actually directly effect the direction and value of a company, but you can't affect the roll of dice or the output of a random number generators. Risk in and of itself doesn't imply the entire thing is gambling; that said, investing by itself would be way closer to gambling in that context, imo
      - toolz 5y ago
        Are you being sarcastic? I said it is not a human right - no one should guarantee anyone the ability to start a business as it isn't societies responsibility to pay the cost of some individuals risk tolerance. I'm saying the opposite of what you seem to be implying. I'm saying anyone can gamble or start a business, but it's no ones responsibility to make sure they have the option to do so.
        MathCodeLove 5y ago
        Who are you arguing against? I don't think anyone is implying that gambling itself is a fundamental human right.
    - samatman 5y ago
      Time to trot out my favourite paraphrase of Babbbage: I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement. Suppose another ape and I are out enjoying the State of Nature, and we both should have a round troy ounce of silver in our pockets, with heads and tails as an agreed convention. Suppose I were to say to the other ape, "on whose face does Fortune shine her rays?" and we were to flip both rounds, such that whomever showed heads had the better of it: were it both of us, we would exchange, but one head and one tails, well, one ape will leave the gamble richer and the other skint. Tell me toolz, how should you prevent this encounter without committing a human rights violation? Show your work, please.
      - toolz 5y ago
        Why would I prevent this encounter? Did two adults consent to behavior they both felt benefited them? Who are you or I to suggest our ideals are better than theirs? All I've said is that you, nor I, should be responsible for making this behavior possible - you seem to have misinterpreted my intent completely if you think the absence of a right is the same as a mandate against someones ability to participate freely as they wish with other consenting adults.
        kortilla 5y ago
        You’re confusing rights and entitlements.
  - emiliobumachar 5y ago
    The people who buy a lot of tickets are overrepresented among the winners, to the exact proportion of the size of the ticket pile.
  - karamanolev 5y ago
    I'd argue that for most gambling, it's not a decision, but an addiction or false hope financial decision. Those that treat it as a entertainment don't really gamble that much money. Not sure if that's true by number of gamblers, but my gut says it's mostly true weighed by the amount of money gambled away. I say mostly, because we don't count rich kids / oligarchs wasting money for fun, who might dominate the value chart.
- memonkey 5y ago
  This applies to people who are gamblers. Most people who are the poorest are usually the ones who know exactly where their dollars are going. They can tell you exactly how much a carton of eggs and milk are.
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  No. People buy lottery tickets for a lot of reasons. It is a fun bit of escapism and entertainment that costs just a few dollars. You're making the assumption that everyone plays the lottery because they think it is a smart financial decision.
  - toolz 5y ago
    I don't assume nor do I have to assume anything about someones intent to know that gambling is stupid. Entertainment can be had in so many forms today that even the poorest of the poor in developed countries can have choice paralysis from having so many options. Gambling is a stupid waste of resources, if you enjoy doing stupid things I have no moral/ethical qualms with your choices, but it's still stupid.
    - mrep 5y ago
      I don't really like gambling outside of playing poker with my friends but your comment is reeking with a bias for what you define as "Entertainment".
    - heliodor 5y ago
      Gambling is not a waste of resources. It is a transfer of resources from one entity to another. It's a zero-sum game. On an individual level, gambling is roughly breaking even in the long run (say, 95% retention of the resources).
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Gambling is not a waste of resources. Yes, it is. > It is a transfer of resources from one entity to another. It's a zero-sum game. All real gambling consumes as well as transfers resources, and is, therefore, negative sum.
        heliodor 5y ago
        > Yes it is. No it's not. Are we "debating" like in first grade or what is this?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  If I'm about to be evicted or declare bankruptcy, does having $1 really change anything? Meanwhile, does having a small chance of staying in my house change anything? It's easy to say "well, lotteries have a negative expected payoff". And that's true, but it can still have a less negative payoff than a payday loan or having your car repossessed.
  - IanCal 5y ago
    This is a good example of why utility curves are not, well, lines. The utility of $2*X is not exactly twice $X. It can be more or less, and that can differ between different people.
throwuxiytayq 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boeingUH60 5y ago
Not the guy you replied too, but I don't think he was implying that poor people are stupid. It's more like people who work for their money and earn it step-by-step are better suited to manage and grow it further. Earning money gradually gives you leeway to slowly adjust your lifestyle to your upgraded monetary status. I'm not sure this is a sound analogy, but imagine someone picking up cigarettes for the first time and building up tolerance over time as they go from one cig a day to two, three, four and so on. Now, compare that to someone suddenly smoking 10 cigs per day. The latter person is more likely to get wrecked from the side effects. Edit: I checked your profile and saw that you're the co-founder of Industry Dive, damn. I love your newsletters and websites!...especially Payments and Banking Dive.
xeromal 5y ago
The poster you replied to didn't say stupid. He said money coming from work and money coming from gambling are going to have different outcomes.
GaylordTuring 5y ago
You mean they aren’t stupid by necessity or that there isn’t a correlation on the population level?
jokethrowaway 5y ago
That's a generalisation and it's invalid like all generalisations. That said, it's more likely that someone whose life ended in poverty is not as smart as someone who can live comfortably. IQ generally correlates with income (you can google a few studies). There are surely tons of reasons that can push smart people into poverty (bad health, poor environment leading to poor choices) but that shouldn't obscure the general trend. That said, I think over a certain IQ, other traits of your personality or the environment will have the predominant effect in determining whether you'll end up poor or not. Similarly, over a certain amount of money, I'm sure there will be more variance. Making 5k more than your peers doesn't mean you're smarter than them - and the fact that you're all able to earn a living and save some money means you're all smart.
kortilla 5y ago
No, but they usually don’t have great money management skills due to not having said money to manage. It’s not any different than warning first time farmers about all of the ways running a farm can go bad.
faangiq 5y ago
Why don’t they get jobs at FAANG then?

Poor people aren’t stupid

by eli 5y ago

Poor people aren’t stupid

That's not what I said either. Again, the Reddit thread is about people with a small amount of money winning a large amount of money. A person like Saurik working for a bug bounty and getting paid for it is not nearly the same scenario.

toolz 5y ago

If you're poor and gambling, then you're making a stupid financial decision. So the odds of you being financially stupid seem likely to be high.

phphphphp 5y ago
For most people, gambling isn't a financial decision, it's an entertainment decision. The value of thinking about winning (regardless of how unlikely it is) is worth the $1 cost of a lottery ticket, so labelling gambling a "stupid financial decision" is like labelling owning a TV while poor a "stupid financial decision"... but poor people deserve entertainment as much as rich people.
- toolz 5y ago
  Gambling is not a human right, no one deserves to be able to waste resources they have no matter how much they may or may not enjoy it.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    What? So startups should not be allowed? 90% of them fail after all. The odds of a startup being successful is literally gambling.
    - fire 5y ago
      I feel like the difference is that companies are generally intended to be a concerted effort of one or more individuals, as opposed to an actual roll of the dice. Like without getting into nits, you can actually directly effect the direction and value of a company, but you can't affect the roll of dice or the output of a random number generators. Risk in and of itself doesn't imply the entire thing is gambling; that said, investing by itself would be way closer to gambling in that context, imo
    - toolz 5y ago
      Are you being sarcastic? I said it is not a human right - no one should guarantee anyone the ability to start a business as it isn't societies responsibility to pay the cost of some individuals risk tolerance. I'm saying the opposite of what you seem to be implying. I'm saying anyone can gamble or start a business, but it's no ones responsibility to make sure they have the option to do so.
      - MathCodeLove 5y ago
        Who are you arguing against? I don't think anyone is implying that gambling itself is a fundamental human right.
  - samatman 5y ago
    Time to trot out my favourite paraphrase of Babbbage: I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement. Suppose another ape and I are out enjoying the State of Nature, and we both should have a round troy ounce of silver in our pockets, with heads and tails as an agreed convention. Suppose I were to say to the other ape, "on whose face does Fortune shine her rays?" and we were to flip both rounds, such that whomever showed heads had the better of it: were it both of us, we would exchange, but one head and one tails, well, one ape will leave the gamble richer and the other skint. Tell me toolz, how should you prevent this encounter without committing a human rights violation? Show your work, please.
    - toolz 5y ago
      Why would I prevent this encounter? Did two adults consent to behavior they both felt benefited them? Who are you or I to suggest our ideals are better than theirs? All I've said is that you, nor I, should be responsible for making this behavior possible - you seem to have misinterpreted my intent completely if you think the absence of a right is the same as a mandate against someones ability to participate freely as they wish with other consenting adults.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        You’re confusing rights and entitlements.
- emiliobumachar 5y ago
  The people who buy a lot of tickets are overrepresented among the winners, to the exact proportion of the size of the ticket pile.
- karamanolev 5y ago
  I'd argue that for most gambling, it's not a decision, but an addiction or false hope financial decision. Those that treat it as a entertainment don't really gamble that much money. Not sure if that's true by number of gamblers, but my gut says it's mostly true weighed by the amount of money gambled away. I say mostly, because we don't count rich kids / oligarchs wasting money for fun, who might dominate the value chart.
memonkey 5y ago
This applies to people who are gamblers. Most people who are the poorest are usually the ones who know exactly where their dollars are going. They can tell you exactly how much a carton of eggs and milk are.
odonnellryan 5y ago
No. People buy lottery tickets for a lot of reasons. It is a fun bit of escapism and entertainment that costs just a few dollars. You're making the assumption that everyone plays the lottery because they think it is a smart financial decision.
- toolz 5y ago
  I don't assume nor do I have to assume anything about someones intent to know that gambling is stupid. Entertainment can be had in so many forms today that even the poorest of the poor in developed countries can have choice paralysis from having so many options. Gambling is a stupid waste of resources, if you enjoy doing stupid things I have no moral/ethical qualms with your choices, but it's still stupid.
  - mrep 5y ago
    I don't really like gambling outside of playing poker with my friends but your comment is reeking with a bias for what you define as "Entertainment".
  - heliodor 5y ago
    Gambling is not a waste of resources. It is a transfer of resources from one entity to another. It's a zero-sum game. On an individual level, gambling is roughly breaking even in the long run (say, 95% retention of the resources).
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Gambling is not a waste of resources. Yes, it is. > It is a transfer of resources from one entity to another. It's a zero-sum game. All real gambling consumes as well as transfers resources, and is, therefore, negative sum.
      - heliodor 5y ago
        > Yes it is. No it's not. Are we "debating" like in first grade or what is this?
HWR_14 5y ago
If I'm about to be evicted or declare bankruptcy, does having $1 really change anything? Meanwhile, does having a small chance of staying in my house change anything? It's easy to say "well, lotteries have a negative expected payoff". And that's true, but it can still have a less negative payoff than a payday loan or having your car repossessed.
- IanCal 5y ago
  This is a good example of why utility curves are not, well, lines. The utility of $2*X is not exactly twice $X. It can be more or less, and that can differ between different people.

throwuxiytayq 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

boeingUH60 5y ago

Not the guy you replied too, but I don't think he was implying that poor people are stupid. It's more like people who work for their money and earn it step-by-step are better suited to manage and grow it further. Earning money gradually gives you leeway to slowly adjust your lifestyle to your upgraded monetary status. I'm not sure this is a sound analogy, but imagine someone picking up cigarettes for the first time and building up tolerance over time as they go from one cig a day to two, three, four and so on. Now, compare that to someone suddenly smoking 10 cigs per day. The latter person is more likely to get wrecked from the side effects. Edit: I checked your profile and saw that you're the co-founder of Industry Dive, damn. I love your newsletters and websites!...especially Payments and Banking Dive.

xeromal 5y ago

The poster you replied to didn't say stupid. He said money coming from work and money coming from gambling are going to have different outcomes.

GaylordTuring 5y ago

You mean they aren’t stupid by necessity or that there isn’t a correlation on the population level?

jokethrowaway 5y ago

That's a generalisation and it's invalid like all generalisations. That said, it's more likely that someone whose life ended in poverty is not as smart as someone who can live comfortably. IQ generally correlates with income (you can google a few studies). There are surely tons of reasons that can push smart people into poverty (bad health, poor environment leading to poor choices) but that shouldn't obscure the general trend. That said, I think over a certain IQ, other traits of your personality or the environment will have the predominant effect in determining whether you'll end up poor or not. Similarly, over a certain amount of money, I'm sure there will be more variance. Making 5k more than your peers doesn't mean you're smarter than them - and the fact that you're all able to earn a living and save some money means you're all smart.

kortilla 5y ago

No, but they usually don’t have great money management skills due to not having said money to manage. It’s not any different than warning first time farmers about all of the ways running a farm can go bad.

faangiq 5y ago

Why don’t they get jobs at FAANG then?