3 ms·

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 ba

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.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Beyond the poor that's a feature, not a bug. If you hate your life and you're not having it objectively terrible then it's your mind that's the problem. Objectively improving your life will do nothing. And defeatism may well be unreasonable, but who claimed otherwise? That it's bad is obvious, and stating it helps nobody. Even the author of the article knows it's bad and wrong but does it anyway.
    - chrishynes 12y ago
      I disagree. Taking right action and objectively improving your life will make you feel better. Actions affect emotion. Just like the action of smiling itself has been proven to make you happier, taking steps to make your life better will impact your feelings about it.
      - Heyr 12y ago
        It only does this in certain cases. It can also negatively impact those who wouldn't want to do it. You have to factor in a cost to all of these things - even for something as simple as smiling. For smiling most of the cost is mental, but it's still there. I feel like there's a lack of explanation on "effort" that a person can spend. Like why a person will be able to do some amount of work but then get incredibly bogged down and not feel like doing more, even though they aren't really "tired".
  - swatow 12y ago
    I don't mind downvotes, but it seems that there are two groups, both arguing with me, both probably downvoting, who should really be arguing with each other. The views can be summarized as A) The author is describing the psychology of poverty, how people develop a self-fulfilling belief that it is impossible to escape poverty. Poor people are making objectively bad decisions because they are unable to do otherwise due to the psychological impact of poverty. By failing to understand this, I show that I am callous and unsympathetic. B) The author is describing the external difficulties of escaping poverty, in which various mechanisms make it extremely hard to escape poverty no matter what actions a person takes. By failing to acknowledge this reality, I am showing that I am callous and unsympathetic.
mjfl 12y ago
I don't agree. In the circumstance that all those bad things happen, you are obviously better off if you did save. Get an infection and can't afford antibiotics, you could possibly die, whereas you could survive if you had money. Kid grows up and you can't pay for college, "Oh honey, we didn't expect you to be so smart so we spent the money on burgers."
- forthefuture 12y ago
  I don't think it's as common as you think for parents to pay for college.
  - mjfl 12y ago
    My point remains that it's better to have some money saved up for it than to have nothing.

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.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Beyond the poor that's a feature, not a bug. If you hate your life and you're not having it objectively terrible then it's your mind that's the problem. Objectively improving your life will do nothing. And defeatism may well be unreasonable, but who claimed otherwise? That it's bad is obvious, and stating it helps nobody. Even the author of the article knows it's bad and wrong but does it anyway.
  - chrishynes 12y ago
    I disagree. Taking right action and objectively improving your life will make you feel better. Actions affect emotion. Just like the action of smiling itself has been proven to make you happier, taking steps to make your life better will impact your feelings about it.
    - Heyr 12y ago
      It only does this in certain cases. It can also negatively impact those who wouldn't want to do it. You have to factor in a cost to all of these things - even for something as simple as smiling. For smiling most of the cost is mental, but it's still there. I feel like there's a lack of explanation on "effort" that a person can spend. Like why a person will be able to do some amount of work but then get incredibly bogged down and not feel like doing more, even though they aren't really "tired".
- swatow 12y ago
  I don't mind downvotes, but it seems that there are two groups, both arguing with me, both probably downvoting, who should really be arguing with each other. The views can be summarized as A) The author is describing the psychology of poverty, how people develop a self-fulfilling belief that it is impossible to escape poverty. Poor people are making objectively bad decisions because they are unable to do otherwise due to the psychological impact of poverty. By failing to understand this, I show that I am callous and unsympathetic. B) The author is describing the external difficulties of escaping poverty, in which various mechanisms make it extremely hard to escape poverty no matter what actions a person takes. By failing to acknowledge this reality, I am showing that I am callous and unsympathetic.

mjfl 12y ago

I don't agree. In the circumstance that all those bad things happen, you are obviously better off if you did save. Get an infection and can't afford antibiotics, you could possibly die, whereas you could survive if you had money. Kid grows up and you can't pay for college, "Oh honey, we didn't expect you to be so smart so we spent the money on burgers."

forthefuture 12y ago
I don't think it's as common as you think for parents to pay for college.
- mjfl 12y ago
  My point remains that it's better to have some money saved up for it than to have nothing.