
Poverty is not a personal choice, but a reflection of society - Mz
https://theconversation.com/why-poverty-is-not-a-personal-choice-but-a-reflection-of-society-79552
======
jimmies
Regarding blaming each other for their misfortune, I have an anecdotal
experience I want to share. I don't know if that's just me or this phenomenal
happens to everyone else as well: That's the "fuck you/who cares/deal with it"
attitude.

The "fuck you" attitude can be summarized as people won't go the extra mile to
help other people. It is the non-sympathy, non-action I get from everyday
people (including the police) when something injustice or misfortune happens
to other people or the common interest. It is also the non-forgiving attitude
when someone makes a dumb mistake. It is selfish and at the same time not
wrong. It reflects somewhat in the Shit Town podcast that I listened to
lately.

I won't go into the details, but personally, I have worked with the local
police recently on two separate incidents, and they were surprisingly bad. It
was different from my previous experiences when I first moved to the US ten
years ago. That "fuck you" attitude is what I experienced and have to deal
with every day when I was in Vietnam, my home country. I'm not shocked, or
that annoyed to have to deal with it every once in a while, but I feel it
wasn't that way when I moved. I feel I get less and less of the extra miles
the more I stay in here. I can't help but feel that people are getting stiffer
and stiffer somehow.

For the context, I am and have been living in the midwest. What's surprising
is that I'm not even depressed, and life is getting easier for me
professionally, personally, and financially. Something just doesn't feel
right. Or maybe I was just romanticizing my early days in the US for me. Or
maybe I'm about to have another mid-life crisis.

~~~
tcbawo
I grew up in a small town in the Midwest and one thing I've noticed is income
stratification has had an impact. It used to be more prevalent for your police
officer, postman, waitress, or hairdresser to be able to afford to live in
your town. Their kids would go to school with your kids, or you might go to
the same church. But a lot more families struggle while others have done very
well. I see a huge disparity in incomes (even within my extended family). This
is amplified by the perception that many achieved this by luck or without hard
work. Unfortunately, I think that makes people much less likely to empathize
with each other.

~~~
analog31
Oddly enough, I'm the first to admit that I've achieved my level of income by
luck, and without hard work. I was lucky to have two educated parents, their
wealth to fall back on, and an affluent, healthy environment to grow up in. My
parents paid for my undergraduate education, and the government paid for my
graduate degree.

I "work" in a nice office, by playing with equations and gadgets, and talking
to people. Meanwhile I see people doing actual physical work, and even
emotionally hard work such as teachers, police, etc. And it is virtually
assured by our society that they will be less affluent than me, despite
working a lot harder.

~~~
unsigner
Being born to two educated parents is not luck on your part, but well deserved
reward for a long, concerted effort on theirs. You're not a random happening
on a clean slate; you're just the latest offshoot of a family.

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
Maybe there is a philosophical divide between us, but this argument sounds
really weird to me.

From his/her point of view, of course being born to educated parents is luck,
if not what else is it? We don't have any choice or any influence on the
matter of who we are born to, and we cannot change it with our effort or lack
of it.

The fact that from their parents' point of view it's not luck, because they
worked for it, strikes me as irrelevant in this context. It can be relevant in
a societal context but the post you reply to was talking about the success of
an individual and how it can come just by luck, without that individual
working especially hard for it.

~~~
slavik81
What isn't luck? I only am who I am today because of a combination of nature
and nurture. My genes and my environment defined who I am. I had no control
over either of those things.

I mean, if I was born on Steve Job's birthday, with Steve Job's genes, to
Steve Job's parents, presumably I would be Steve Jobs. From that perspective,
it's pure luck I'm not a billionaire. And, similarly, pure luck that I'm not
literally Hitler.

~~~
andai
Do we make our own destiny, or does our destiny make us?

~~~
jimnotgym
Both, with some effort i could get good a poker. Some games I will lose no
matter what because _you can only play the hand you are dealt_

~~~
mch82
And you can only buy in with the money you have to start with.

Everyone should experience losing to a worse player who won by starting with
more chips and therefore had more hands and more opportunities to recover from
error.

Then they should experience a fixed buy in, no rebuy tournament where each
player starts with equal opportunity.

------
jimnotgym
For anyone who wants to investigate the connection between poverty and society
further, I can highly recommend, Rutger Bregman's book 'Utopia for realists'.
It is funny to see cases in history where well researched,cost effective and
progressive social programs have been stopped due to plain prejudice from
those in power.

I keep hearing Ayn Rand mentioned these days. Reading those long tedious books
can give you fodder for some interesting thought experiments, but beyond that
I find the ideas not just damaging, but childishly simplistic. When I hear
that some bigshot tech mogul is a follower of Rand I feel that they are about
to make excuses for their appalling behavior by making appeal to some kind of
authority. I associate Rand with white supremacists and debunked myths

~~~
brightball
Regarding Rand, I hear her referenced more by libertarian detractors than any
actual libertarians.

~~~
dankohn1
Paul Ryan, the primary author of the House healthcare bill, gives out an Ayn
Rand book to all of his interns [0].

Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged are engaging works of science
fiction. I recommend everyone read at least one. And then keep in mind this
quote [1]:

 _“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an
emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real
world. The other, of course, involves orcs. "_

[0] [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-
rya...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/7-ways-paul-ryan-
revealed-his-love-for-ayn-rand.html) [1]
[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-
novels-...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-
can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year)

~~~
droopyEyelids
Brad Keywell, the non-lefkofsky half of Lightbank (incubator for Groupon) also
gives out Rynd books to his employees for christmas.

------
dlwdlw
I'm not sure the proportion, but there do exist certain people who are self
destructive yet also self entitled. It's the state of mind that drives a
person to gamble everything they own. Either the universe agrees with then and
they do become the greatest person they think they are, or more likely, they
fail and wallow in rage. In a way, it's like a child throwing a tantrum,
threatening all sorts of things, knowing that their mom will break down and
acquisce to the demands. In the real world though, this mom doesn't exist.
Some have pity for the child's heart that seaches for meaning and love in a
world without a mother, most see the child's tantrum and are just annoyed at
the immaturity.

The most institutionalized mother replacement is God, the infallible mother of
mother's. A pet theory if mine is that religion served as society's safety net
in this manner and was incredibly important when only a minority of people had
access to knowledge as opposed to the majority today. Knowledge opens the
doors to self actualization through various means. Without it you are limited
to blue collar repetitive jobs, non-creative work. Without this self
actualization path, it's very easy to fall into a spiral of drugs, alcohol,
hookers, etc...

Online Games are the modern day less dangerous replacement for these shallow
meaning makers. It's usage as a stabilizer for the poor is especially apparent
in the Asian countries.

Note that money in the end will always be spent on meaning regardless of rich
or poor. . The poor don't save because they can't see what to do with it. The
immediate meaning makers of drugs and alcohol are much more achievable. I save
and go to Costco because I know moneys power to transform into different
degrees of freedom and creative pursuits. Others desire a family. Some desire
an empire, a middle finger to God. (Pop culture is the main stabilizing force
for the middle class)

~~~
prostoalex
> Note that money in the end will always be spent on meaning regardless of
> rich or poor. . The poor don't save because they can't see what to do with
> it.

The type of "easy come, easy go" behavior is way more prevalent among poor
than rich. I remember reading an article (impossible to dig out with generic
keywords I can come up with) describing a study in savings pattern where they
distributed small amounts of extra cash to poor households. Some of the money
went to cover bills, so deleveraging previous debts, but even at those
households that ended up with a surplus of cash the savings never materialized
into anything meaningful and long-term. Several reasons for that:

1) Accumulated previous debts for things like cars, medical debts, furniture
rentals. Some with ballooning interests, some with predatory late fees that
have their own ballooning interests.

2) Accumulated ongoing liabilities for things such as parental support.

3) Because of the way collection agencies or government can always freeze the
current assets and garnish the paycheck, general distrust of US banking system
and preference for hard, cold cash.

4) General feeling of lack of control over one's finances, and surprisingly
rational decision to blow the extra cash immediately because #yolo, and one
never knows when a relative, an ex, a random bill collector or The Man will
take that money anyway with nothing to show for it.

~~~
AlecSchueler
It could also be that the frivolous purchases mean more to the poor, that they
are something to be excited about and not just an arbitrary indulgence.

I used to be a lot more careful with my money before a few years ago, when I
experienced being too poor to feed myself and routinely went for several days
without even a small snack, just looking at pictures of food for hours on end.

Ever since that time I've found that as soon as I have surplus cash I have a
strong desire to spend it on expensive food or eating out etc. and I often do.
Even the cheapest meal from the local takeaway feels like a huge thing for me
now and fills me with a joy I struggle to communicate.

------
maxwin
It is both a personal choice and a reflection of society. I am not sure which
one has bigger weight. But if you live in the US , are not physically
impaired, and high school educated. Personal choice definitely has much more
weight. I know many friends who come to US from Myanmar. Don't speak English ,
no degrees. But almost all of them live above average several years later. But
they sure need to work really hard.

~~~
Godel_unicode
I anecdotally know far more people who coast and don't do well than I know who
either coast and do well or don't coast and don't do well.

I think part of the problem is a combination of a bias against impugning
others effort because "you don't know their struggle" and just enough counter
examples (where hard work doesn't pay off) to feed confirmation bias.

The question that I have is this: is the growing narrative about the United
States not being a meritocracy a self-fulfilling prophecy. If so, does not
thriving because you believe that narrative a personal choice?

~~~
RobertoG
I think you are complicated the issue too much.

Who cares if a society it's a meritocracy or not? The point, it seems to me,
is, is it a meritocracy that work for most of the people? Because what is the
point of a society that doesn't work for most of the people?

I know that if I train hard every day I could improve my 100m sprinter time. I
also know that never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain
Bolt.

If we live in societies where the life of the average guy improve at the same
time that the pie grows there is not a problem.

If we live in a society where, even when the pie grow my life is worst, and
when I complain, you point to Usain Bolt and say "see? it can be done!"; well,
I don't think that it's going to work for long.

It seems to me that feeling explain a lot of the "populist" movements around
the world.

~~~
Godel_unicode
> never mind what I do, not in a million years I could beat Usain Bolt

Maybe this is just a bad analogy, but if you're objectively worse than Usain
Bolt then in a meritocracy you should justifiably be worse off. That's a bad
expectation anyway, at a population level 0% of people are Usain Bolt. This
ultimately leads to a question I've been thinking about a lot; should we as a
society be okay with a hard working naturally gifted person being higher paid
than an equally hard working non-gifted person.

------
dredmorbius
"It may be said that of this hard lot no one has any reason to complain,
because it befalls those only who are outstripped by others, from inferiority
of energy or of prudence. This, even were it true, would be a very small
alleviation of the evil. If some Nero or Domitian were to require a hundred
persons to run a race for their lives, on condition that the fifty or twenty
who came in hindmost should be put to death, it would not be any diminution of
the injustice that the strongest or nimblest would, except through some
untoward accident, be certain to escape. The misery and the crime would be
that any were put to death at all. So in the economy of society; if there be
any who suffer physical privation or moral degradation, whose bodily
necessities are either not satisfied or satisfied in a manner which only
brutish creatures can be content with, this, though not necessarily the crime
of society, is pro tanto a failure of the social arrangements."

John Stuart Mill, _Chapters on Socialism_

[https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/m...](https://archive.org/stream/chaptersonsocial00mill#page/264/mode/2up)

------
mc32
I have no idea how to solve the poverty issue. I don't think there is a way
other than subsidizing a portion of the population. Even in Soviet Russia you
had some very dedicated people (say scientists and bureaucrats who made things
happen) and you also had very unproductive people who retained jobs they had
contempt for.

That said, with regard to health wellbeing we need a few things:

-Reduce costs (cost per person is astronomical compared to other developed countries)

-Provide Basic Universal healthcare for all citizens (elevate the health of the average person to a sustainable level)

-Allow insurance for people who want to insure against grey swan health issues. Ensure this remains "affordable".

~~~
EdSharkey
Government regulations created the twisted non-market for healthcare that
exists in the united states. Pretty please don't sign us up for more
government.

You know there are 7 big health care providers in my state building
spectacular facilities as fast as they can, and they don't have to compete
with each other? There's no competition. Every pleb goes dutifully to the
assigned provider his employer sends him to.

You think it's an accident there's weak consumer protections in the U.S. of A?
You think it's just dumb luck that health care has no market forces to control
costs? We're all about rapacious crony capitalism here!

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
Why do most people in the US seem to never look abroad when it comes to
healthcare?

The US healthcare system is probably the most privatized in the developed
world. The systems in other developed countries (e.g. any European country)
give more weight to the government, and have been shown by all sorts of metric
to work much better. How can you still say "don't sign us up for more
government"?

~~~
humanrebar
> Why do most people in the US seem to never look abroad when it comes to
> healthcare?

The Brits were _just_ debating how much nurses should get paid. When
government runs your organization, math and economics become subservient to
politics.

> The US healthcare system is probably the most privatized in the developed
> world.

It has privatized profits, but the whole system is heavily regulated. Prices
for things are certainly not set on open markets.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> Prices for things are certainly not set on open markets.

You say this, yet Americans pay twice as much for care that is of considerably
lower quality than other civilized countries. Do you think it's a coincidence
that in one of the most privatized for-profit healthcare industries in the
civilized world, we pay more? Sure, other systems have issues and are not
perfect, but that doesn't excuse America's substandard healthcare system.

~~~
humanrebar
Again, it's private and for profit, but it's not market based. It's just a big
ball of bureaucracy, unintended consequences, and corruption (at least in the
sense that the system isn't following its intended purposes). If it were
market based, there would be a trivially discoverable price for commodity
operations and such.

How much does it cost for a skin cancer screening in Topeka? It depends? Well,
that's a routine procedure that isn't really offered in the open market. It
should just have published (and even advertised!) prices so normal consumers
can shop around for quality screenings at fair prices.

I'm very critical of the American healthcare system, if that wasn't clear. But
its failings are certainly not being _too_ market based or _too_ unregulated.

~~~
rrock
"Golly, I may be having a heart attack. I think I should take a moment to shop
around for a cardiologist, so I can get quality treatment for fair prices."

Don't expect market forces to come to the rescue. It doesn't work that way.

~~~
humanrebar
Emergency rooms and insurance makes a ton of sense for heart attacks. They
makes little sense for routine things like cholesterol tests.

 _Some_ things are very expensive but also predictable. Like giving birth. Or
reparative plastic surgery. Or non-emergency heart surgery. People would shop
around for those things as appropriate.

------
haberman
The more time goes by, the more I am wary of the false dilemma.

Almost anytime I see someone argue "you might think it's because of X, but
it's really because of Y," the person speaking is selling a particular
ideology. That ideology magnifies Y and minimizes X.

It would be perfectly fine to say "you might be aware of X, but you should
also be aware of Y." But pieces like this don't do that. They seek to tell you
you are wrong if you think X. It doesn't sit will with people who have
personally experienced X.

~~~
sidlls
Sometimes, perhaps often, "people who have personally experienced X" don't
realize their experience is an exception to the rule.

~~~
haberman
I think this overestimates our ability to establish a solid "rule" when it
comes to a complex social phenomenon.

It's so reductionist to think that complex systems can be boiled down to
simple, all-encompassing explanations. This has failed over and over, from
nutrition to economics. And yet people of all political persuasions still want
to argue that "the REAL problem is Y" and claim smug superiority over anyone
who disagrees.

------
imaginenore
As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell you
with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases or
health issues) is the result of poor choices. Most of it stems from society's
lack of planning for the future of the young people. Young people are
consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you want", forgetting
to tell them that most of the fun choices lead to very low pay in the future.
Young people regularly send $50-250k on financially useless degrees. They
like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could learn in a
library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for painters is
crowded and tiny.

We need much better guidance for the young.

~~~
jimmies
>As a really poor immigrant to the US who succeeded financially, I can tell
you with absolute certainty, poverty in the US (barring mental illness cases
or health issues) is the result of poor choices.

I'm an immigrant too, and I used to think I was in a bad situation. However, I
think you don't understand how bad it could get for some American people.
Being a poor immigrant won't give you a free pass when you talk about being in
a shitty situation.

The other day, I talked to an white male American student worked with me in
the same lab for an REU program. He was attending college in computer science,
not a "fun choice" like you said. He had to deal with and provide food for a
drunk dad, an ill mom, and a sister. The whole family depended on him and at
the time had no social security. He complained to me about his sister's
boyfriend stealing food from his fridge. Now, how the fuck do you blame him
for being poor because of making poor choices? What choices could he make?

>Young people are consistently being told lies like "you can be anything you
want"

They have been told that way since forever. Why should that all the sudden
make a difference?

>They like, say, art, so they spend 4 years studying something they could
learn in a library or on YouTube, only to find out that the market for
painters is crowded and tiny.

You're ignorant in thinking that people can learn art by watching Youtube and
go to the library. That's what all the people who did MOOC thought, and guess
what happened to the MOOC hype? The reality is way more nuanced than that.
People learn to draw by taking long lessons and looking for hours at real
scenes, real people, real sculptures in the studio, not watching 10 minutes
youtube video and looking at the 2D Instagram picture on the 25 inches screen.
We're very far from that "learn shit from Youtube" pipe dream.

>We need much better guidance for the young.

We need it but we also need people to understand not to blame people for being
poor. You were poor due to no fault of your own, so why do you think others
are poor because of their fault? You were given your chance to success, so the
best you can do is to think that way about other people.

~~~
michaelchisari
I have friends who grew up in situations like that. Nowadays, they are doing
ok. Solidly lower-middle-class, but considering where they came from, that's a
huge deal.

But even with these success stories, I think, nobody should have been in the
situation they were in to begin with. No 16 year old should have to pick up a
second job so they can pay their parents rent. Nobody should have to deal with
a drug addicted parent that has no clinical route to sobriety. Nobody should
have to take on their parents massive debt because their single mother got
breast cancer in her early 40's.

If you want to blame people who make bad choices, fine. But at least try and
remember the people in their orbit who are solid people who could really use
some help dealing with a situation they are in by absolutely no fault of their
own.

~~~
humanrebar
> No 16 year old should have to pick up a second job so they can pay their
> parents rent.

I helped pay the bills as a teenager. It wasn't the worst thing in the world.
It's not preferable, but it's not cancer.

> Nobody should have to take on their parents massive debt because their
> single mother got breast cancer in her early 40's.

Agreed on this, but at some point we're angry at nature, not society. I'm not
sure at what point I'm supposed to be mad at society or individuals or
whatever about natural disasters, disease, and death.

------
honestoHeminway
I think the most important experience a poor man can have is
"Selbstwirksamkeit", the experience, that one can influence ones own destiny
and not remain a puppet to be pushed around, slaved and sheparded by bosses,
police and landlords.

We should make that epxerience part of any curiculum on public schools.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
In America as globalization and large multinational corporations have taken
root, workers have lost leverage. The idea that poor people have the strength
and stability to not be pushed around or controlled by the rich simply is not
possible at the moment. Union-busting, globalization, student loan debt,
rising cost of living, and stagnant wages mean poor Americans can do less and
less with each passing year.

------
known
I'd say poverty is a reflection of Pyramid schemes.

~~~
ebcode
Like the pyramid scheme on the back of the one dollar bill? That floating eye
makes me poorer every time I see it.

~~~
andai
Sorry if I'm killing a joke or something, but could you please clarify?

~~~
ebcode
Yep, you're killing it. The Great Seal of The United States [0] is printed on
the back of USD $1 bills. The motif on the obverse side of the seal is an
uncapped pyramid with a floating eye on top. Thus, the pyramid "scheme". Then,
the "All-Seeing-Eye", being some kind of symbol for God, is used to represent
authority, or higher power, thus making me, a mortal and a peasant, feel less
empowered, thus "poorer". Hope that clarifies things a bit. (note to self:
stop joking on HN)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States)

------
hal9000xp
As a person who was extremely poor by western standards (in 2002, I earned 10
USD per month in Uzbekistan) and who lived among poor people for 22 years, I
can say that poverty is a personal choice, period.

Here is my answer on Quora with more details:

[https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-
Gayn...](https://www.quora.com/Are-poor-people-lazy/answer/Eldar-Gaynetdinov)

I copy this answer here:

I born in Uzbekistan in relatively poor family. At age of 18 (2002 year), I
started work in internet cafe (~5 computers) as a network administrator
(although, I was blatantly ignorant at that moment) for salary … 10 USD per
month. I didn’t studied at school and dropped of university since education
system in Uzbekistan is just literally fake.

Since then, I lived and worked in Moscow, Stockholm and currently in Amsterdam
and receive good salary as a software developer (pretty close to upper bound
according to GlassDoor). Although, I still don’t have any degree!

So I think I’m qualified to answer this question.

Short answer: From my long and close experience living among poor people I can
say that most people stay in poverty all their live because they are lazy. And
in most cases, it’s their fault that they stay in poverty (especially for
those who live in english speaking rich western countries like US).

Long answer:

You may wonder how poor people can be lazy if they do hard manual job 10 hours
per day. I think laziness have several different dimensions.

In general, I consider laziness as unwillingness to do some actions which
could be beneficial for you in long term but require sacrifices in short term.

What does it mean for poor hard working people in practice?

It means that although they are willing to do hard job for 10 hours per day,
they are unwilling to invest their free time to learn skills which can give
them higher income in distant future.

They consider it’s easier and more realistic to do hard work right now because
they almost instantly benefited from their job even if it’s hard labor job
than studying something which don’t bring them instant profit and require
commitment over very long period of time.

It may sound counter-intuitive but it’s fairly logical. If you wash dishes,
you guaranteed to get almost instant profit (by end of the day, or week, or
month). If you are reading some theory in a book, you don’t get instant profit
at all. For them, it seem a big sacrifice to do something and get nothing in
relatively short term.

Also, they have little time aside from their main job. For them, it looks
quite irrational to read some technical books instead of drinking beer and
watching football.

So poor people are quite lazy for learning new skills and prefer to do any
hard job with instant profit instead.

All my life, I heard from poor people that I read completely useless stuff and
waste my time. Learning mathematics and algorithms for them is completely
nuts, useless stuff. I very often heard popular jokes like (this joke was
popular in my post-soviet school in Uzbekistan): Why anyone need an integral?
Integral is needed only when you need to get some stuff dropped into public
toilet (they refer to stick having form of integral symbol).

So they drank a beer for years while I studied “useless garbage”. Now, they
are still in Uzbekistan struggling to feed their new families and I’m in
Amsterdam, able to travel around the world.

To me, it’s very unlikely to image highly curious person who are hungry to
lean new stuff and still staying in poverty for years.

Those who are not lazy to learn get out of poverty soon or later. Just like me
:)

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
Interesting life experience. However, I think you will agree that being lazy
in the sense you describe is a trait of most humans, rich or poor. Non-poor
people are just conditioned by their social environment to study, get a
degree, etc. instead of not to. Many successful people would have been poor if
they were born in your situation, because they don't have the personality or
guts to go against peer pressure. And many of the poor Uzbek people you
mention would probably have been successful if they had been born in a social
environment where people were highly qualified and studied.

Taking this into account, I can agree that it's possible to get out of
poverty, but I don't think one can say being poor is poor people's fault.

------
Consultant32452
Staying out of poverty is simple. By in large it takes three things: graduate
high school, maintain employment, and don't have children out of wedlock.
These three things are important to remember whenever we're discussing social
policy. Any policy that subsidizes or encourages people to not do those three
things is a social policy that behaves like a poverty factory.

~~~
sidlls
That's just far too simplistic to be accurate. Poverty is a complex issue and
avoiding it requires substantial luck that those who have managed to do so
often don't seem to realize they've benefitted from.

~~~
Banthum
Its actually a quantitative result from the (left wing) Brookings Institute:
Of the people who do all 3 of these things, 98% are not in poverty.

~~~
sidlls
That may be. The contentious part is how simple that is. It's simplistic to
suggest that it's simple, in other words.

