2 ms·

You pretty much just repeated the same thing back, so yes, I think that is your opinion. > If someone has enough money that wasting it on gambling is a problem

You pretty much just repeated the same thing back, so yes, I think that is your opinion. > If someone has enough money that wasting it on gambling is a problem They don't have enough money, which is precisely the point. The link I shared shows how lower income people spend dramatically more of their money on lotteries and gambling. > their problem is that they are irrational gamblers. How do you think they got that problem? Why do you think they continue to have that problem? It seems to me, that you think it's because they aren't rational enough about managing the money they do have, which...is what you said before: poor people are poor because they're irrational. You don't seem to factor in the idea that certain groups of people are taken advantage of by bad actors, and that these people become accustomed to this exploitation, and learn helplessness in the face of it. I think the points I'm making here are pretty obvious truths to anyone that has interacted with / from a lower income background, where gambling, lottery tickets, and other "vices" are widespread. These aren't rational financial decisions, they're consequences of being exploited by more powerful forces. A working class person addicted to gambling isn't going to suddenly go, "Oh, I should just invest this money into an index fund." That is entirely alien to that culture and group of people. It's not something they were taught, it's not something their friends do, and it's definitely not something the institutions around them are interested in doing. Now, if you said that, "then the goal should be to educate people so they invest their money and don't just gamble it away," then sure, that's a noble one. But as you said: > Sucks to be them

roenxi 1y ago
Just putting it out there that I have a better grasp of my opinion than you do. Let me try this a different way. Which part of your comment do you think I don't know about/disagree with and, with reference to something I said, why? Let's just pick one thing that you think is clearest, but be specific. EDIT You'll notice I haven't disagreed with anything you've said so far this thread, apart from where you have mischaracterised my opinions and your attribution of the root cause to hopelessness and lack of opportunity. > which...is what you said before: poor people are poor because they're irrational. I didn't say that.
- shkkmo 1y ago
  > If someone has enough money that wasting it on gambling is a problem, then they clearly had no business giving up hope because "the system" doesn't have the ability to make their lives better. The system that makes their lives better is the money they just wasted, but invested in something productive. This seems to be pretty clearly saying that you think poor people only gamble with money they don't need and if they didn't gamble they would be able to stop being poor by investing that money. That seems a pretty clear statement that you think that poor people who gamble wouldn't be poor if they didn't irrationally gamble money that they should have invested in their future. You say you have a "better grasp" of your opinion. I say you don't have a good enough grasp of it to present it in an understandable way since this "misinterpretation" of your view seems to match pretty well with what you've actually said.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Well that is progress because now you're attributing something to me that is close to what I do believe, which is poor people who gamble probably are poor because they make terrible financial decisions. I mean, you linked an article earlier suggesting that there are people who spend more than 5% of their income on lotto tickets [0]. No mystery why they're poor, they make bad decisions with money. In percentage terms, 25% of income in savings is probably the magic line where suddenly the whole thing becomes financially self-sustaining. 5% is not an inconsiderable chunk of that. Someone who just donates that sort of chunk to a gambling company is not competent with money. But that isn't "poor people", and it isn't reasonable to just assume that poor people are all incapable. Most are perfectly reasonable people who happen to be poor despite generally being responsible with what money they do have. And presumably not throwing away 5% of their income for no good reason. I suppose I might be over-estimating poor people, but that isn't any reason for you to start misrepresenting my beliefs. > I say you don't have a good enough grasp of it to present it in an understandable way since this "misinterpretation" of your view seems to match pretty well with what you've actually said. Bullshit. You claimed my opinion was "poor people are poor because they're irrational". That is both a ridiculous statement and a gross mischaracterisation of what I said. Realistically I probably should get an apology, although getting you to understand what I actually wrote is enough for me. [0] If you read the article closely though, that isn't actually mathematically guaranteed. Means can be deceptive like that.

roenxi 1y ago

Just putting it out there that I have a better grasp of my opinion than you do. Let me try this a different way. Which part of your comment do you think I don't know about/disagree with and, with reference to something I said, why? Let's just pick one thing that you think is clearest, but be specific. EDIT You'll notice I haven't disagreed with anything you've said so far this thread, apart from where you have mischaracterised my opinions and your attribution of the root cause to hopelessness and lack of opportunity. > which...is what you said before: poor people are poor because they're irrational. I didn't say that.

shkkmo 1y ago
> If someone has enough money that wasting it on gambling is a problem, then they clearly had no business giving up hope because "the system" doesn't have the ability to make their lives better. The system that makes their lives better is the money they just wasted, but invested in something productive. This seems to be pretty clearly saying that you think poor people only gamble with money they don't need and if they didn't gamble they would be able to stop being poor by investing that money. That seems a pretty clear statement that you think that poor people who gamble wouldn't be poor if they didn't irrationally gamble money that they should have invested in their future. You say you have a "better grasp" of your opinion. I say you don't have a good enough grasp of it to present it in an understandable way since this "misinterpretation" of your view seems to match pretty well with what you've actually said.
- roenxi 1y ago
  Well that is progress because now you're attributing something to me that is close to what I do believe, which is poor people who gamble probably are poor because they make terrible financial decisions. I mean, you linked an article earlier suggesting that there are people who spend more than 5% of their income on lotto tickets [0]. No mystery why they're poor, they make bad decisions with money. In percentage terms, 25% of income in savings is probably the magic line where suddenly the whole thing becomes financially self-sustaining. 5% is not an inconsiderable chunk of that. Someone who just donates that sort of chunk to a gambling company is not competent with money. But that isn't "poor people", and it isn't reasonable to just assume that poor people are all incapable. Most are perfectly reasonable people who happen to be poor despite generally being responsible with what money they do have. And presumably not throwing away 5% of their income for no good reason. I suppose I might be over-estimating poor people, but that isn't any reason for you to start misrepresenting my beliefs. > I say you don't have a good enough grasp of it to present it in an understandable way since this "misinterpretation" of your view seems to match pretty well with what you've actually said. Bullshit. You claimed my opinion was "poor people are poor because they're irrational". That is both a ridiculous statement and a gross mischaracterisation of what I said. Realistically I probably should get an apology, although getting you to understand what I actually wrote is enough for me. [0] If you read the article closely though, that isn't actually mathematically guaranteed. Means can be deceptive like that.