3 ms·

I don't think you can make that argument reasonably. Everything is a priority for everyone on the planet, always. Demand is infinite and supply is finite. Th

I don't think you can make that argument reasonably. Everything is a priority for everyone on the planet, always. Demand is infinite and supply is finite. The world's been like that for as long as people have been around. Monkeys exhibit behaviors that you could argue have to do with some kind of understanding of "fairness" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57497280/video-monkey-angrily-rejects-unequal-pay/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57497280/video-monkey-an... If you have free time to watch TV it's because you're choosing TV as a priority over the extra money that a second job would bring you. That second job would also put a dent in the amount of free time you have to watch TV and be sold a story that you need to buy things in order to be happy. That's all advertising does. Are there people working two jobs and still perpetually living paycheck to paycheck? Absolutely. Hell there are people working 80 hours a week making over $100k a year living paycheck to paycheck. http://www.cnbc.com/id/26645137 http://www.cnbc.com/id/26645137 It seems to me that "poverty" is a combination of where you start out in life and the trajectory that your decisions cause. What I mean is that someone who is born with a $10mm trust fund could easily whittle it down to nothing by the time they're 40 years old. And that a person who starts out with nothing, plus some malnutrition due to growing up in poverty can still get ahead if they make choices to consume less than they earn (no matter how little) and to invest their savings in things that can bring a return. How does someone who makes only $20k per year manage to save money and invest it? I don't know the specifics to be honest. I'm having a hard time finding good investments myself and I make substantially more than that. But I don't think it's right to say that people are 100%, unequivocally victims of circumstance and that once in poverty it's impossible to escape is correct. We as human being don't have any control over where we're born or who our parents are, but we do have some control over the choices we make.

nickthemagicman 13y ago
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just extremely naive and idealistic. You're still operating under the assumption that you have choices when you're in poverty. Imagine working two jobs 80 hours a week and pulling in $2000 at minimum wage. 700-rent 200-car note 80-insurance 500-food 200- utilities 200-gas Where are you going to make 'choices' to get ahead assuming all of your time and money are gone? This is the cycle of poverty that unskilled people live under if you weren't born into a middle class family that can help you get ahead or if you don't get lucky. So barring 'lucky opportunities' impossible is a pretty accurate way to describe poverty in America.
- msandford 13y ago
  I think the reason we don't see eye-to-eye on this is this line right here: > 700-rent 200-car note 80-insurance 500-food 200- utilities 200-gas When I look at that I still see room to squeeze it cheaper. Rent could go down with a roommate (or several). A $200 car note is pretty substantial. $500 for food is also a lot more than needs to be spent. I think that when you look at that, it's a bare-minimum kind of thing and it couldn't possibly get any cheaper. What it boils down to is the will to make the sacrifices necessary to stop having to make all these short-term tactical decisions and be able to start taking a longer view. Here's a lady who talks about having a $30/week food budget for her AND her husband. http://moneysavingmom.com/2012/04/is-it-possible-to-survive-on-a-30-per-week-grocery-budget.html http://moneysavingmom.com/2012/04/is-it-possible-to-survive-... I would also suggest that you don't attack me personally for my views and instead argue why they're wrong. When I disagreed with you I said "I don't think you can make that argument reasonably." When you disagreed with me you said "I'm not sure if you're trolling or just extremely naive and idealistic." You can do better.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    I think this is exactly right. There's almost always somewhere you can cut - when I was a student I lived on $11k per year in today's dollars. $2000/month seems kind of luxurious. And I didn't suffer any of the wrenching decision making overhead in the article. Decisions were easy - "Is there any way I can avoid buying this?" No? Then I bought it.
    - nickthemagicman 13y ago
      College students are like the Kevin Federline's of poverty. They believe that because they lived frugally for a few years while seizing opportunities that a middle class existence opened for them they are now able to speak expertly on poverty and what being on the street is like. And Kevin Federline made it up out of the streets with his dangerous thug dance moves.
      - tsotha 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

nickthemagicman 13y ago

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just extremely naive and idealistic. You're still operating under the assumption that you have choices when you're in poverty. Imagine working two jobs 80 hours a week and pulling in $2000 at minimum wage. 700-rent 200-car note 80-insurance 500-food 200- utilities 200-gas Where are you going to make 'choices' to get ahead assuming all of your time and money are gone? This is the cycle of poverty that unskilled people live under if you weren't born into a middle class family that can help you get ahead or if you don't get lucky. So barring 'lucky opportunities' impossible is a pretty accurate way to describe poverty in America.

msandford 13y ago
I think the reason we don't see eye-to-eye on this is this line right here: > 700-rent 200-car note 80-insurance 500-food 200- utilities 200-gas When I look at that I still see room to squeeze it cheaper. Rent could go down with a roommate (or several). A $200 car note is pretty substantial. $500 for food is also a lot more than needs to be spent. I think that when you look at that, it's a bare-minimum kind of thing and it couldn't possibly get any cheaper. What it boils down to is the will to make the sacrifices necessary to stop having to make all these short-term tactical decisions and be able to start taking a longer view. Here's a lady who talks about having a $30/week food budget for her AND her husband. http://moneysavingmom.com/2012/04/is-it-possible-to-survive-on-a-30-per-week-grocery-budget.html http://moneysavingmom.com/2012/04/is-it-possible-to-survive-... I would also suggest that you don't attack me personally for my views and instead argue why they're wrong. When I disagreed with you I said "I don't think you can make that argument reasonably." When you disagreed with me you said "I'm not sure if you're trolling or just extremely naive and idealistic." You can do better.
- tsotha 13y ago
  I think this is exactly right. There's almost always somewhere you can cut - when I was a student I lived on $11k per year in today's dollars. $2000/month seems kind of luxurious. And I didn't suffer any of the wrenching decision making overhead in the article. Decisions were easy - "Is there any way I can avoid buying this?" No? Then I bought it.
  - nickthemagicman 13y ago
    College students are like the Kevin Federline's of poverty. They believe that because they lived frugally for a few years while seizing opportunities that a middle class existence opened for them they are now able to speak expertly on poverty and what being on the street is like. And Kevin Federline made it up out of the streets with his dangerous thug dance moves.
    - tsotha 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]