6 ms·

>I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a

by swatow 12y ago

>I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. I have a hard time believing this statement. I know that being poor in the US is very tough, but the author's statement that it is impossible to go from being poor to not-poor doesn't ring true. For example, doesn't the author expect that the full time school they are doing is going to have some financial payoff in the future?

chaostheory 12y ago
> Nobody gives enough thought to depression. You have to understand that we know that we will never not feel tired. We will never feel hopeful. We will never get a vacation.
- current_call 12y ago
  Why is the author going to school?
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    To better her situation. I agree with you. I'm just pointing that people aren't (always) rational and I was referencing a quote that may give you a clue as to why. Look at bdcravens comment as well.
- swatow 12y ago
  The fact that you answered me with this quote confirms something that I suspected but wasn't sure enough to put down in my first post: The author is being unclear about whether the statements she's making are things she claims are true, or things she claims poor people (incorrectly) think are true. These are two very different things, and mixing them together leads to confusion and error.
  - ejk314 12y ago
    I feel like she was pretty clear on that point; the whole first post was her explanation of what she was thinking/feeling when she made 'poor' decisions. The second portion, in response to criticism, was her justification of that mindset.
    - swatow 12y ago
      I didn't see much clarity on this issue in either part. Furthermore, the responses to my post are evenly split too: bdcravens, mrow84, chaostheory and twisties vs monk_e_boy, rayiner and x0x0.
monk_e_boy 12y ago
What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room and some food. Or spend the money today on some burgers and a DVD for the kids. Get hugs and kisses and a full belly. Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. She may go to school, get qualified but it's a huge gamble. And if something happens that means she has to miss school and doesn't pass the exams, that's a lot of wasted money. You have to be in a place where a 3 year plan is achievable. Gambling time and money on self education takes a lot of mental effort. Every day you have to be prepared to be knackered, poor, time deprive your kids, all for the gamble that in the future even with the qualification you'll get a better job. What's the point? Who the hell cares.
- swatow 12y ago
  >What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room and some food. That is ridiculous. If you hadn't saved and you had the car crash, then you would have been carless. Instead you were able to use to car >Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. Why do you think that I think poor people are stupid? Do I literally have to agree with everything any poor person says to avoid this kind of cheap shot? I agree that the payoff from education may be a gamble, but it was just an example of the many ways people can become better off.
  - shaftoe 12y ago
    I'm amused that your comment is getting voted down, ostensibly by people who don't agree. I'll go much farther than you did and say defeatism is for losers. I don't mean that as a judgement, but as a statement of fact. You'll never get ahead when you don't see a point. Life is mostly a mental game. A serious problem for a lot of people (beyond the poor) is that they spend far more cognitive time thinking about how to justify and feel good about their circumstances and decisions than how to improve them. Change comes from within and change is hard.
mrow84 12y ago
I think a more charitable interpretation of the author statements are that she has an overwhelming feeling that she will never not be poor, and that feeling causes her to make poor decisions, rather than believing that it is an inevitability in an intellectual sense. As the author suggests to, in the quote provided by chaostheory, this is akin to, or perhaps actually is, depression. That knowledge that this "feeling" is, to some extent, self-reinforcing, does not diminish its importance, or offer any easy solutions - anything along the lines of telling people to "just get on with things" isn't really constructive.
- swatow 12y ago
  Going with what your interpretation, I would consider wording it like that to be obfuscation by the author. The author is clearly arguing from a left wing viewpoint, and wants to emphasize lack of social mobility. Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. Like you say, if people do feel like this then it's important to understand it. But there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation.
  - twisties 12y ago
    > there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation. When the feeling of hopelessness cripples you into a self-fulfilling prophecy, the two are one and the same.
  - mrow84 12y ago
    It is worth bearing in mind that this was, as noted at the start of the guardian piece, originally written as a reply on a forum. I don't think it is best to interpret what the author has written as a political argument about the objective "external" nature of reality, but rather as a personal, subjective statement of her own experience. I think if you reread it in that light then it'll probably seem much more reasonable. > Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. To me, this statement is synonymous with the "telling people to "just get on with things"" that I was suggesting was not very helpful in my previous post. The key issue is that the things that compound her already difficult situation are not things that are easily quantified like the money in her bank account, but more intangible things like how she feels every day. These things are difficult to measure and so easy to dismiss, but that doesn't make them less significant for the people who experience them. edit: removed a word
bdcravens 12y ago
I grew up in a roach-infested, food stamp family. My dad was a janitor. Mom didn't work; she has (undiagnosed) mental issues. Home experience was filth and cigarette smoke. We had no car. Sent home dozens of times for head lice while in school. Today I'm a developer and am upper middle-class, some years making what my dad made in 10-15 years. That said, I still fight feelings of being poor. It's a mindset, not a bank account balance.
- dizzystar 12y ago
  That said, I still fight feelings of being poor. It's a mindset, not a bank account balance. This is very true. Even though I have money these days, I still own very little. I just don't recognize the need to own anything valuable, have no desire to own property, nor feel the need to eat at a fine restaurant. Even though I can afford Starbucks with no problems, I still feel like it is an "expensive" place. The last time I made a lot of money, I went off the deep end, told myself I don't deserve it, and blew all of my success. Growing up around the mantra "The root of all evil is money" had a long-term effect on me and generated a ton of issues that I wasn't prepared to face the first time around. I feel like I'm over those issues now, but it always lurks and I feel like I'm standing on the edge of an icy cliff back into the world of poverty.
  - bdcravens 12y ago
    I'm probably the opposite. Growing up I did without, and saw those who had, and longing for the things and the experiences other had. Today I spend recklessly, always having new things... if the new iPhone comes out and someone has it when I don't, 10 year old me who didn't get new toys for Christmas rises to the surface a bit, and I feel inferior. Stupid, I know, but it's there.
  - BrandonMarc 12y ago
    What's sad is, money is not the root of all evil, and it never has been [1]. I know you realize this, but it's worth repeating all the same. Money is a-moral. It has no implicit moral value, regardless of quantity. It's just a tool. When you put it into the hands of a person, then it takes on a kind of life. Think about bricks. Let's say you have a brick. You can throw it through a window, perhaps to scare / hurt / burglarize someone. You can also build a shelter for domestic violence victims. The brick couldn't care less - it's just a brick. What matters is when it's put into the hands of a human, and what that person does with it. As a tool, money simply magnifies what you already are. If you're a greedy, selfish jerk, and you get a bunch of money, you're going to be a colossal greedy, selfish jerk, and the world will be worse for it. The world has plenty of such people. If you're humble, caring, and generous, and you get a bunch of money, you're going to be what people call a philanthropist, and the world will be better for it. The world also has plenty of these people. In both cases, the money is immaterial, and what's good / evil is the actions taken by the person using the money. There are plenty of greedy people without money, and with. There are plenty of generous people with money, and without. Money isn't the dominant factor in how people behave; it only brings out more of what's already in their nature. As an aside, the same is true for all tools. Computers, guns, hammers, and cars can be used for good or bad purposes [2]; it's the person wielding them which makes the difference. As to what you do with money? Well of course, you have to take care of your own basic needs. There's nothing wrong with that. Afterward? If you want to make the world a better place, then money makes you more empowered to do so. It might mean paying someone's utility bill or letting them stay with you while they get back on their feet. It might mean investing in the local homeless shelter, or volunteering your time at a soup kitchen. It's up to you. With creativity, there's no end to the ways you can help the world ... but you can only do so if you have the ability to help, and having money can absolutely be part of that. There are definitely some toxic notions in our culture about money ... that someone with it must be "bad" whereas someone without it must be "good" ... but it's just not true. It's catchy, and with a little envy it's easy to believe it and then rationalize taking rich people's money "just because" (even moreso if you're led to believe some of that is going to come your direction). Still doesn't make it true. You wouldn't see someone with a bunch of bricks and assume something about their character, and you wouldn't see someone with no bricks and make assumptions about theirs, either. It's all just tools ... it's the person (their heart, their character, their actions) which lead to good or evil. ---------------------------------------- [1] for the record, the phrase "money is the root of all evil" is a fudge of an old English, King-James-Bible translation which states "for the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil". In other words, greed leads to evil. For ideological reasons the phrase has been adjusted and misappropriated into the incorrect one - "money is the root of all evil" - we hear these days, but that doesn't make it true. [2] that's right everybody, I said it. Guns do not kill people, any more than cars cause wrecks, keyboards make software bugs, pencils make wrong answers, or forks make people obese. Now cue the usual reactions ...
rayiner 12y ago
Sometimes I think poor people have a better grasp of statistics than the people who criticize them. If you're a poor kid in the inner city, it's totally rational not to study hard in school. Because even if you're one of the rare success stories that graduates and finishes college, odds are "college" means some third-tier school that's going to jump you into a job market where the majority of fresh graduates are unemployed.
- swatow 12y ago
  Are you sure about that? All the evidence I've ever seen shows a significant payoff to college education. E.g. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/collegepayoff.pdf https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/c... (which breaks things down by race, which should be a good proxy for coming from a disadvantaged background).
  - rcoder 12y ago
    Please re-read what you just wrote about race and consider whether it might have interpretations other than the one you intended. To me you seem to be asserting that race is a priori indicative of socioeconomic status, rather than the (likely intended, but more nuanced) assertion that a larger portion of minority children will come from lower-earning households. Second, I don't necessarily accept the argument that "people who go to college make more money" proves that "college is a good investment". For example, this study found that direct transfer of assets and emulation of behaviors exhibited by wealthy parents had a much stronger contribution to the lifetime earnings of children than education level: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 Lastly, the article you posted makes it very clear that the earnings gap for Latinos and African Americans is significant (20% or more) and pervasive no matter what level of education they attain.
    - swatow 12y ago
      >Please re-read what you just wrote about race and consider whether it might have interpretations other than the one you intended. To me you seem to be asserting that race is a priori indicative of socioeconomic status, rather than the (likely intended, but more nuanced) assertion that a larger portion of minority children will come from lower-earning households. The point is simply that the article tells us something about how the benefits of education vary with socioeconomic status, even though it doesn't directly measure it. People might also be interested in the direct effect of race too, even though no one brought it up so far. >Second, I don't necessarily accept the argument that "people who go to college make more money" proves that "college is a good investment". For example, this study found that direct transfer of assets and emulation of behaviors exhibited by wealthy parents had a much stronger contribution to the lifetime earnings of children than education level: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 I'm very familiar with this literature, I just any studies at hand that correct for this effect. Also, unless I missed it in the body of the article, the article is not measuring the effect of education per se, but the how much education accounts for the elasticity between wealth of parents and wealth of children (i.e. to what extent education explains this effect). I know the results I showed aren't conclusive, they are just all I have on hand. I'm happy to see more evidence on the payoff to education for low SES groups. >Lastly, the article you posted makes it very clear that the earnings gap for Latinos and African Americans is significant (20% or more) and pervasive no matter what level of education they attain. Yes, but I don't think this really changes the argument.
twisties 12y ago
Few things are impossible. Give the author some credit. I think if your takeaway is that the author is claiming mobility is impossible, you've missed the point entirely. The author is explaining to you the self-perpetuating cycle and psychology that keeps poor people poor, despite what they feel are their best efforts. As a person who has struggled with poverty for decades, I find your underlying dismissal of the article as "nah, it's not that bad" based on technical nitpicking pretty offensive.
- swatow 12y ago
  Are you also offended by the replies to my comment by rayiner and monk_e_boy? They are basically agreeing with my interpretation of the statement (although they think that the statement, interpreted this way, is true).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
x0x0 12y ago
Yes. The statement is not literally true; there is, indeed, a person in the united states who has started in poverty and become not poor. It should, however, be pretty clear the statement was not meant to be interpreted literally. Socio-economic mobility in the united states is low, and falling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_... Or read Peter Gosselin's book _High Wire_ http://www.amazon.com/High-Wire-Precarious-Financial-American/dp/0465013791 http://www.amazon.com/High-Wire-Precarious-Financial-America... The thesis is that what we've seen over the last 30 years -- from pensions, to unemployment, to education -- is a broad shifting of who bears risk from the government/populace as a whole to individuals. And this cuts both ways; I definitely know harvard legacy admits who sure as hell didn't get there on merit. And a startup founder who could start his ad company because his parents could loan him $500k without it being a financial crisis if they didn't get it back, and who used his company to run advertising for their chain of auto dealerships. So it's obviously quite possible to start a company without personal wealth, or familial wealth, but it's a hell of a lot easier with it. See, also, eg Bill Gates.

by swatow 12y ago

chaostheory 12y ago

> Nobody gives enough thought to depression. You have to understand that we know that we will never not feel tired. We will never feel hopeful. We will never get a vacation.

current_call 12y ago
Why is the author going to school?
- chaostheory 12y ago
  To better her situation. I agree with you. I'm just pointing that people aren't (always) rational and I was referencing a quote that may give you a clue as to why. Look at bdcravens comment as well.
swatow 12y ago
The fact that you answered me with this quote confirms something that I suspected but wasn't sure enough to put down in my first post: The author is being unclear about whether the statements she's making are things she claims are true, or things she claims poor people (incorrectly) think are true. These are two very different things, and mixing them together leads to confusion and error.
- ejk314 12y ago
  I feel like she was pretty clear on that point; the whole first post was her explanation of what she was thinking/feeling when she made 'poor' decisions. The second portion, in response to criticism, was her justification of that mindset.
  - swatow 12y ago
    I didn't see much clarity on this issue in either part. Furthermore, the responses to my post are evenly split too: bdcravens, mrow84, chaostheory and twisties vs monk_e_boy, rayiner and x0x0.

monk_e_boy 12y ago

What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room and some food. Or spend the money today on some burgers and a DVD for the kids. Get hugs and kisses and a full belly. Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. She may go to school, get qualified but it's a huge gamble. And if something happens that means she has to miss school and doesn't pass the exams, that's a lot of wasted money. You have to be in a place where a 3 year plan is achievable. Gambling time and money on self education takes a lot of mental effort. Every day you have to be prepared to be knackered, poor, time deprive your kids, all for the gamble that in the future even with the qualification you'll get a better job. What's the point? Who the hell cares.

swatow 12y ago
>What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room and some food. That is ridiculous. If you hadn't saved and you had the car crash, then you would have been carless. Instead you were able to use to car >Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. Why do you think that I think poor people are stupid? Do I literally have to agree with everything any poor person says to avoid this kind of cheap shot? I agree that the payoff from education may be a gamble, but it was just an example of the many ways people can become better off.
- shaftoe 12y ago
  I'm amused that your comment is getting voted down, ostensibly by people who don't agree. I'll go much farther than you did and say defeatism is for losers. I don't mean that as a judgement, but as a statement of fact. You'll never get ahead when you don't see a point. Life is mostly a mental game. A serious problem for a lot of people (beyond the poor) is that they spend far more cognitive time thinking about how to justify and feel good about their circumstances and decisions than how to improve them. Change comes from within and change is hard.

mrow84 12y ago

I think a more charitable interpretation of the author statements are that she has an overwhelming feeling that she will never not be poor, and that feeling causes her to make poor decisions, rather than believing that it is an inevitability in an intellectual sense. As the author suggests to, in the quote provided by chaostheory, this is akin to, or perhaps actually is, depression. That knowledge that this "feeling" is, to some extent, self-reinforcing, does not diminish its importance, or offer any easy solutions - anything along the lines of telling people to "just get on with things" isn't really constructive.

swatow 12y ago
Going with what your interpretation, I would consider wording it like that to be obfuscation by the author. The author is clearly arguing from a left wing viewpoint, and wants to emphasize lack of social mobility. Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. Like you say, if people do feel like this then it's important to understand it. But there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation.
- twisties 12y ago
  > there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation. When the feeling of hopelessness cripples you into a self-fulfilling prophecy, the two are one and the same.
- mrow84 12y ago
  It is worth bearing in mind that this was, as noted at the start of the guardian piece, originally written as a reply on a forum. I don't think it is best to interpret what the author has written as a political argument about the objective "external" nature of reality, but rather as a personal, subjective statement of her own experience. I think if you reread it in that light then it'll probably seem much more reasonable. > Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. To me, this statement is synonymous with the "telling people to "just get on with things"" that I was suggesting was not very helpful in my previous post. The key issue is that the things that compound her already difficult situation are not things that are easily quantified like the money in her bank account, but more intangible things like how she feels every day. These things are difficult to measure and so easy to dismiss, but that doesn't make them less significant for the people who experience them. edit: removed a word

bdcravens 12y ago

I grew up in a roach-infested, food stamp family. My dad was a janitor. Mom didn't work; she has (undiagnosed) mental issues. Home experience was filth and cigarette smoke. We had no car. Sent home dozens of times for head lice while in school. Today I'm a developer and am upper middle-class, some years making what my dad made in 10-15 years. That said, I still fight feelings of being poor. It's a mindset, not a bank account balance.

dizzystar 12y ago
That said, I still fight feelings of being poor. It's a mindset, not a bank account balance. This is very true. Even though I have money these days, I still own very little. I just don't recognize the need to own anything valuable, have no desire to own property, nor feel the need to eat at a fine restaurant. Even though I can afford Starbucks with no problems, I still feel like it is an "expensive" place. The last time I made a lot of money, I went off the deep end, told myself I don't deserve it, and blew all of my success. Growing up around the mantra "The root of all evil is money" had a long-term effect on me and generated a ton of issues that I wasn't prepared to face the first time around. I feel like I'm over those issues now, but it always lurks and I feel like I'm standing on the edge of an icy cliff back into the world of poverty.
- bdcravens 12y ago
  I'm probably the opposite. Growing up I did without, and saw those who had, and longing for the things and the experiences other had. Today I spend recklessly, always having new things... if the new iPhone comes out and someone has it when I don't, 10 year old me who didn't get new toys for Christmas rises to the surface a bit, and I feel inferior. Stupid, I know, but it's there.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  What's sad is, money is not the root of all evil, and it never has been [1]. I know you realize this, but it's worth repeating all the same. Money is a-moral. It has no implicit moral value, regardless of quantity. It's just a tool. When you put it into the hands of a person, then it takes on a kind of life. Think about bricks. Let's say you have a brick. You can throw it through a window, perhaps to scare / hurt / burglarize someone. You can also build a shelter for domestic violence victims. The brick couldn't care less - it's just a brick. What matters is when it's put into the hands of a human, and what that person does with it. As a tool, money simply magnifies what you already are. If you're a greedy, selfish jerk, and you get a bunch of money, you're going to be a colossal greedy, selfish jerk, and the world will be worse for it. The world has plenty of such people. If you're humble, caring, and generous, and you get a bunch of money, you're going to be what people call a philanthropist, and the world will be better for it. The world also has plenty of these people. In both cases, the money is immaterial, and what's good / evil is the actions taken by the person using the money. There are plenty of greedy people without money, and with. There are plenty of generous people with money, and without. Money isn't the dominant factor in how people behave; it only brings out more of what's already in their nature. As an aside, the same is true for all tools. Computers, guns, hammers, and cars can be used for good or bad purposes [2]; it's the person wielding them which makes the difference. As to what you do with money? Well of course, you have to take care of your own basic needs. There's nothing wrong with that. Afterward? If you want to make the world a better place, then money makes you more empowered to do so. It might mean paying someone's utility bill or letting them stay with you while they get back on their feet. It might mean investing in the local homeless shelter, or volunteering your time at a soup kitchen. It's up to you. With creativity, there's no end to the ways you can help the world ... but you can only do so if you have the ability to help, and having money can absolutely be part of that. There are definitely some toxic notions in our culture about money ... that someone with it must be "bad" whereas someone without it must be "good" ... but it's just not true. It's catchy, and with a little envy it's easy to believe it and then rationalize taking rich people's money "just because" (even moreso if you're led to believe some of that is going to come your direction). Still doesn't make it true. You wouldn't see someone with a bunch of bricks and assume something about their character, and you wouldn't see someone with no bricks and make assumptions about theirs, either. It's all just tools ... it's the person (their heart, their character, their actions) which lead to good or evil. ---------------------------------------- [1] for the record, the phrase "money is the root of all evil" is a fudge of an old English, King-James-Bible translation which states "for the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil". In other words, greed leads to evil. For ideological reasons the phrase has been adjusted and misappropriated into the incorrect one - "money is the root of all evil" - we hear these days, but that doesn't make it true. [2] that's right everybody, I said it. Guns do not kill people, any more than cars cause wrecks, keyboards make software bugs, pencils make wrong answers, or forks make people obese. Now cue the usual reactions ...

rayiner 12y ago

Sometimes I think poor people have a better grasp of statistics than the people who criticize them. If you're a poor kid in the inner city, it's totally rational not to study hard in school. Because even if you're one of the rare success stories that graduates and finishes college, odds are "college" means some third-tier school that's going to jump you into a job market where the majority of fresh graduates are unemployed.

swatow 12y ago
Are you sure about that? All the evidence I've ever seen shows a significant payoff to college education. E.g. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/collegepayoff.pdf https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/c... (which breaks things down by race, which should be a good proxy for coming from a disadvantaged background).
- rcoder 12y ago
  Please re-read what you just wrote about race and consider whether it might have interpretations other than the one you intended. To me you seem to be asserting that race is a priori indicative of socioeconomic status, rather than the (likely intended, but more nuanced) assertion that a larger portion of minority children will come from lower-earning households. Second, I don't necessarily accept the argument that "people who go to college make more money" proves that "college is a good investment". For example, this study found that direct transfer of assets and emulation of behaviors exhibited by wealthy parents had a much stronger contribution to the lifetime earnings of children than education level: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 Lastly, the article you posted makes it very clear that the earnings gap for Latinos and African Americans is significant (20% or more) and pervasive no matter what level of education they attain.
  - swatow 12y ago
    >Please re-read what you just wrote about race and consider whether it might have interpretations other than the one you intended. To me you seem to be asserting that race is a priori indicative of socioeconomic status, rather than the (likely intended, but more nuanced) assertion that a larger portion of minority children will come from lower-earning households. The point is simply that the article tells us something about how the benefits of education vary with socioeconomic status, even though it doesn't directly measure it. People might also be interested in the direct effect of race too, even though no one brought it up so far. >Second, I don't necessarily accept the argument that "people who go to college make more money" proves that "college is a good investment". For example, this study found that direct transfer of assets and emulation of behaviors exhibited by wealthy parents had a much stronger contribution to the lifetime earnings of children than education level: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314 I'm very familiar with this literature, I just any studies at hand that correct for this effect. Also, unless I missed it in the body of the article, the article is not measuring the effect of education per se, but the how much education accounts for the elasticity between wealth of parents and wealth of children (i.e. to what extent education explains this effect). I know the results I showed aren't conclusive, they are just all I have on hand. I'm happy to see more evidence on the payoff to education for low SES groups. >Lastly, the article you posted makes it very clear that the earnings gap for Latinos and African Americans is significant (20% or more) and pervasive no matter what level of education they attain. Yes, but I don't think this really changes the argument.

twisties 12y ago

Few things are impossible. Give the author some credit. I think if your takeaway is that the author is claiming mobility is impossible, you've missed the point entirely. The author is explaining to you the self-perpetuating cycle and psychology that keeps poor people poor, despite what they feel are their best efforts. As a person who has struggled with poverty for decades, I find your underlying dismissal of the article as "nah, it's not that bad" based on technical nitpicking pretty offensive.

swatow 12y ago
Are you also offended by the replies to my comment by rayiner and monk_e_boy? They are basically agreeing with my interpretation of the statement (although they think that the statement, interpreted this way, is true).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

x0x0 12y ago

Yes. The statement is not literally true; there is, indeed, a person in the united states who has started in poverty and become not poor. It should, however, be pretty clear the statement was not meant to be interpreted literally. Socio-economic mobility in the united states is low, and falling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_... Or read Peter Gosselin's book _High Wire_ http://www.amazon.com/High-Wire-Precarious-Financial-American/dp/0465013791 http://www.amazon.com/High-Wire-Precarious-Financial-America... The thesis is that what we've seen over the last 30 years -- from pensions, to unemployment, to education -- is a broad shifting of who bears risk from the government/populace as a whole to individuals. And this cuts both ways; I definitely know harvard legacy admits who sure as hell didn't get there on merit. And a startup founder who could start his ad company because his parents could loan him $500k without it being a financial crisis if they didn't get it back, and who used his company to run advertising for their chain of auto dealerships. So it's obviously quite possible to start a company without personal wealth, or familial wealth, but it's a hell of a lot easier with it. See, also, eg Bill Gates.