
The Grim Biology of Being Poor - rbanffy
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/why-poverty-is-like-a-disease
======
germinalphrase
My wife has worked in the foster care system and in community based mental
health counseling. It's amazing to me 1) how little empathy people in the
community have for these kids who are very clearly being dealt a crappy hand
in life, and 2) how little people realize the ways in which poverty affects a
person's views of reality and their ability to effectively navigate the world.

In another HN thread, there was a discussion of how Utah has been far more
effective at caring for the homeless and protecting economic mobility than the
rest of the country. My take away from that article and discussion was the
stark difference in Utah for _giving a crap_ by the community for the less
fortunate. It is the willingness of the Utah population to make an active
effort to help people in their community on a regular and purely voluntary
basis.

Teachers, social workers, and police officers can keep the train on the tracks
- but they can't solve problems that aren't specifically related to education,
social services, or criminal lawbreaking (despite the fact that _everyone_
expects them to do so).

I don't know how we do it, but we need to start rebuilding community as a
social network of interpersonal support rather than merely a zip code.

~~~
shuntress
"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns
schools? I'm being ripped off!"

It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal
support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like
schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in
those schools).

Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of
"This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always
thinking "It's not my problem".

~~~
benji-york
Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to
understand an opponent's thoughts):
[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html)

~~~
soundwave106
Perhaps understanding, but I found it perplexing. Maybe it's because I was in
more AP / IB classes, but I did not find education "indoctrination" and
"uniform" (so I think his second concluding paragraph was bogus).

I am also not sure what "state religion" David is talking about in the third
concluding paragraph that I was "indoctrinated" into. I will note that the
continuous citation of Britain in the early 19th century is problematic to me,
as the education set up back then was usually run by the Church of England and
other religious institutions ([http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp486-500](http://www.british-
history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp486-500)). Not the best example of a free
market system here.

I personally am not terribly convinced that a completely private system would
work out very well for the under-advantaged in both income and location,
particularly the later. This is an issue even in public schools which have no
profit motive; how would adding a profit motive help groups that are by
definition unprofitable? In America we _already_ have a widening school
inequality issue that in part is due to our use of property taxes as funding.
([https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/propert...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-
taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/)).

I do think that mixed systems (something like charter schools) can work _if_
quality control and accountability is in place. (EG: You hear pros and cons,
but by and large the charter system implemented by New Orleans seems to have
worked.) Elsewise, you're likely to see problems that, at worst, might
resemble the "diploma mills" you see in the United States.

~~~
anigbrowl
David Friedman is Milton Friedman's son and while he's a gifted writer, he
also sees himself as the torchbearer of an ideological tradition which
sometimes leads him into rhetorical excess.

------
tenpoundhammer
I'm a foster parent to 3 kids and have 4 of my own. In my opinion, the primary
problem with poverty is that everyone wants to solve it with money. Poverty
can't be solved by throwing money at it, children in poverty need a stable
environment and loving adults to help them grow and become productive members
of society. Adults in poverty often need intensive counseling, psychiatry,
substance abuse therapy, and a support network of caring individuals. Poverty
in the united states will only be conquered by loving individuals sacrificing
their own time and interests to help others.

~~~
rocqua
I recall reading about research (So this is third hand information) that one
of the most effective ways of solving poverty are simple periodic cash grants.
This was specifically about comparing unconditional cash grants to conditional
once.

The idea being that this steady supply of money allows one to stabilize. This
has 2 direct effects. Firstly, people can feasibly make long term plans.
Secondly, the added baseline means much fewer things are 'sudden death'. If
your car breaks down, perhaps you can get it fixed soon enough that you don't
lose your job. In the same vein, perhaps this money allows you to get a car,
making it possible to find work you couldn't get to with the bus.

There are definitely cases where the lack of money in poverty is a symptom,
but I'd wager that in the vast majority of cases, lack of money is the root
cause.

Whether the humane issues are the cause or symptom of the problem, they need a
solution beyond cash, but cash can do a lot of good.

The prime exception are compound cases. I'd say cases where foster care gets
involved are exactly those cases. These children need emotional and
existential support much more than 'money'. My point is that these cases are
exceptional even within the poor class. For the class in general, money could
do a lot of good.

~~~
omginternets
What troubles me the most is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence
such as the research you describe, a _very_ significant portion of Americans
obstinately refuse to consider any and all forms of social aid.

I don't get it. I've tried to listen to their arguments and I just don't get
it.

Currently, the would-be recipients of such aid do not participate in the
economy and cost the taxpayer _billions_ in unpaid ER visits, policing, jails,
property devaluation, etc.

There are exactly two reasons I can think of why someone would oppose helping
such people:

1\. being extremely sheltered and having no understanding of what it's like to
be poor.

2\. an "us-vs-them" mentality (black people, immigrants, white trash, etc)

All I can say is that such attitudes truly reveal something about the moral
fiber of the individuals who hold them. The older I get, the less respect I
have for such persons.

~~~
rocqua
It takes an empirical view, acceptance that simple problems can have
complicated solutions, and more faith in research than common sense for these
arguments to be convincing.

Lacking any of these, the common sense argument that giving poor people money
makes them not want to work has more credence.

All of that disregards the empathy that is required to understand poor people
aren't poor by choice.

~~~
projektir
I don't think it does. There's nothing particularly common sense about "giving
poor people money makes them not want to work". "Poor people should get help"
is much more common sense, in my opinion, and plenty of people hold that view,
as well.

The issue is one of popular belief. People currently believe that everyone is
deeply in control of their lives, which necessarily demands that the situation
of the poor must be their fault. Similar conclusions flow from high
individualism, the idea that nobody can help you but yourself, and that
difficult situations make good people. None of these things are common sense,
they're counterintuitive, actually, so they require a pre-built framework of
thinking to accept.

It's a problem of philosophy, not empiricism. Most people don't care that much
about research and, honestly, given the state of psych research right now,
they probably shouldn't. But you don't need research to come to the simpler
conclusion that a more dangerous environment reduces someone's chances.

~~~
ctchocula
It may not be common sense, but it's very much ingrained into the American
culture. Some examples:

1\. In The Three Little Pigs, the two pigs that built houses out of straw and
hay were eaten by the wolf, but the pig that worked hard and built its house
out of brick and mortar lived.

2\. From 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him
not eat."

3\. In the spring of 1609, John Smith cited the aphorism to the colonists of
Jamestown:

> Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries I hope is sufficient to
> persuade everyone to a present correction of himself, And think not that
> either my pains nor the adventurers' purses will ever maintain you in
> idleness and sloth...

> ...the greater part must be more industrious, or starve...

> You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat
> (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty
> honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and
> fifty idle loiterers.

4\. The sheer number of Ayn Rand followers in political office [1] when the
aim of Ayn Rand's writing is justify why one ought not give a damn about
anyone else (much less the poor).

It makes sense for someone in a scarcity economy like John Smith to hold such
a viewpoint, because otherwise everyone would starve to death. I lament the
fact that even though the US can provide enough housing and food to feed
everyone, we do not have the political will to do so. Even though Bertrand
Russell was no economist, it seems we have arrived at his most insane dystopia
[2] where "half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked" even
though we could produce everything anyone ever wanted with a 20-hour work week
and everyone working.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-
ra...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-rand-
conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley)

[2] [http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html](http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html)

------
HNThrowaway21
I have a particularly unique perspective on being poor and usually when I tell
people the reason why I got to where I am is because of luck, they often don't
believe me or say that luck doesn't play a part.

My father had died when I was a kid. He was a fisherman and his boat capsized
due to problems that should've been recognized and fixed. My family at the
time was poor, however she was able to find a lawyer to work pro-bono and won
a wrongful death suit. Because of that specific suit, I had just enough money
(along with financial aid) to afford going to a local community college and
eventually getting a bachelors degree in computer science. Even then, I lived
in poverty saving most of my money just to afford classes / help my mother and
at times sacrificing my health for a potentially better future.

My father also suffered from mental issues and drug abuse. If this didn't
occur, I'd likely be still in poverty. Naturally I tell very few people, but
it's frustrating interacting in the software world and seeing so few people
understand what it's like to truly be poor. To see your parents struggle and
go nowhere.

------
jackhack
For anyone who wants to understand the mindset underlying poverty (whether
cause, or affect, or a mixture of both), I recommend "Life at the Bottom: The
Worldview That Makes the Underclass" by Theodore Dalrymple. He's British
psychologist who spent his life working with the poor, and came away with some
insightful observations about the culture of this population.

[https://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-
Underclas...](https://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-
Underclass/dp/1566635055/)

------
peterburkimsher
"The reality is that when you’re poor, if you make one mistake, you're done."
\- this was my experience.

I graduated with first-class honours from a top 10 UK university, paid for by
my dad's job at CERN. No companies came offering jobs, except weapons
manufacturers and oil companies. I refuse to support either of those
industries.

I went off around the world on Working Holiday visas, doing a variety of jobs.
Some of those were related to tech, some were not. My résumé grew
dramatically, as each job only lasted for a few months.

I tried to start a Ph.D. programme at KAIST in Korea. I had to spend all my
savings from 5 months in China to pay 6 months of rent up-front for on-campus
accommodation.

Then the professor didn't pay my scholarship. I complained to the
international office. They talked to the professor. The professor then talked
to me, said I'd been gossiping bad things about him to people in the
administration, and kicked me out of his lab.

No professor, no lab, no university, no student visa, no country. Everything
fell apart.

A friend there told me to get a job with his brother in India, which I
accepted. It was only paying 5000 rupees/month (78 USD/month), but
accommodation was provided (food was not). I sent thousands of job
applications to try to get out of there, and finally gave up and posted an
emotional rant on Facebook. A previous colleague saw it, talked to my old boss
in Taiwan, and somehow got me an invitation to work here. Even though my
salary is much lower than it would be in a Western country, I'm terrified that
if I leave, I won't be able to come back. Articles about homelessness and
poverty often show up on Hacker News, and keep convincing me that I should
just stay comfortable. I'll never be able to afford a house or learn to drive,
and I probably can't afford to get married. But at least I have food and
shelter, and that's the most I can hope for.

~~~
GFischer
_weapons manufacturers and oil companies. I refuse to support either of those
industries_

That doesn't sound very pragmatic. I definitely would have qualms about
working for a weapons manufacturer, oil companies not that much, but if I'm in
need of a job I'd take them.

When you didn't have a job, had you burned all the bridges with the oil
companies? From top UK university to 78 USD/month sounds hard to believe
(especially if you worked Working Holiday you know that you can make ten times
that working odd jobs anywhere else).

Can you take additional jobs? Even if it's fiverr or mechanical turk or some
other platform?

If you have an UK citizenship you should be able to do well, not sure about
affording a house (I can't either) but renting, learning to drive, etc.
shouldn't be impossible.

I read on a sister thread that you were offered interviews but you had to fly
there, I would try to save for a ticket and cheap accommodation and try to
schedule a bunch of interviews at your target destination. When I was looking
for work abroad (I'm from Latin America) I didn't ask to be flown in, and I
have a CS degree and a Masters.

Maybe you need help from someone (social worker, psychologist) to identify the
issues that are holding you back, if you do have a top 10 degree it's not an
intelligence problem.

~~~
peterburkimsher
How do you "take additional jobs"? Companies just don't reply to me. I was
able to earn $500 USD to buy my plane ticket to Taiwan because I posted my
code about an offline cache of stackoverflow, and someone contacted me to let
me do a small project for him.

The UK will not give me unemployment benefits, because I'm a citizen by
descent.

This was the story of that job search. I have a job now, but I want to make
very clear that it wasn't because I didn't try - it was luck and connections,
not qualifications, that helped me.

[http://peterburk.free.fr/jobsearch/all.html](http://peterburk.free.fr/jobsearch/all.html)

~~~
szukai
I just found your resume off your tumblr. Unless you updated it, I really hope
you get someone to help you revise it. It's not very palatable, imo.

------
nabla9
Dealing with poverty would be much easier if everyone would see it as an
investment.

If you consider a young baby as a investment and future taxpayer, it's easy to
justify large investments into the poverty reduction. If we improve someones
situation so much that he/she pays $100 more taxes per month during his/her
lifetime, or alternatively consumes government resources less, it will have
huge compound effect over the lifetime.

$100 per month justifies at least $50,000 in additional investment, $100,000
if you count compound effects, externalities and human capital as a factor in
economic growth.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
> if everyone would see it as an investment.

From a rational perspective a baby born today might never, ever pay back any
investment of this sort. His or her potential employment opportunities may
very well be eaten up by automation. If fact, this is most likely the case
20-30 years from now as AI and robotics continue to advance in some/many
industries.

Instead, we should be seeing all humans as worthwhile creatures and the state
as a method for us to live compassionate lives. Policies like guaranteed
incomes are the saner solution here because they don't depend on seeing people
as investments, often investments they can't pay off.

Not to mention the sick, disabled, elderly, etc who can never ever pay off
these hypothetical investments.

~~~
pc86
The economic fate of a random baby born in a developed country is absolutely
not "most likely" nil due to automation. I think you are drastically
overestimating the rate and scope of AI and robotics.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I'm skeptical we'll need as many workers for $threatened_industries in
2040-2050. I think its a little unrealistic to think we can keep up this ponzi
scheme of employment as-is. Even now a great deal of unemployment is kept in
check by various tax incentives to corporations paid for by taxpayers. Mary is
paying Bob to employ Jane. That's not very sustainable in general, let alone
with automation keeps chipping away at jobs.

I believe worklife in 2050 is going to be very different today. The same way
my dad worked 10-12 hour days normally and I do 7.5 with Friday 'work from
home' which is almost a day off.

------
organon21
I'm grateful to have read such an honest take on a critically important myth.

Solutions seem to be both psychological and political. The situation look
grim.

Psychologically, people within many cultures have developed a pressure point
around self-gratification (the faster the better). Wanting to reap the
benefits of one's full potential is huge nowadays, in a wide variety of ways.
God forbid you don't become your best self, otherwise you may be trapped in
the social pit the author was given a ladder to escape from.

Politically, the Powers that Be effectively mine the vanity, fear, and
resentment that make up modern meritocracy. People's incomes literally depend
on portions of the population being terrified by the prospect of being poor
and/or disdainful of those in poverty.

------
bogle
Very impressive article and I'm glad that he _doesn 't_ offer up Survivor
Bias. Nations that work hard to eliminate childhood poverty would, by this
reasoning, have a considerable, and long lasting, advantage. It's not just a
single generation that will benefit but all the following ones, too.

------
iamatworknow
I agree with the overall theme of this article, but I would also claim that we
can't put all of the blame on the biological effects of being poor. The life
choices we make still play a part (which is, after all, influenced to some
degree by our biology).

As an anecdotal case, my sister and I grew up poor. She's 6 years older than
me but I'm doing significantly better than she is economically. We were raised
in the same environment, had the same nutrition, went to the same school, have
similar genetics. I could relate all to well to the "mom hiding the
foodstamps" line noted in the article.

I think the area where our paths diverged was in terms of the choices we made
as a way of dealing with the stress we faced. She found comfort in other
people, I isolated myself. She got pregnant at a young age, I cut off other
people and focused on my studies. She got married, I worked to get get enough
financial aid to go to college. She got divorced and is struggling to support
two kids, I have a good career but have never had a serious relationship.

It could have just as easily gone the other way for both of us. I could've
gotten some girl pregnant, she could've gone to college and become successful.
Perhaps that's the random element of chance noted by the article's author, but
I still think it came down to the choices we made.

For what it's worth, I don't think I'm better than her at all. It has taken me
years to realize that we both did what we did as a way to deal with our mental
issues. I'm still fucked up in my own way, but I guess I'm lucky in that I
don't have to worry about making my rent payment or putting food on the table
(though, as the article's author also stated, I still feel like the rug is
about to be pulled out from under me and I'll have to live on the street).

One thing that does bother me, however, is that my sister to this day says, "I
wish I could [something]" or "It must be nice to [something]" in response to
what I do. It discredits the effort I put into what I have accomplished. Even
if luck played a small role, I still put in a whole lot of effort. On top of
that she criticizes me for my reclusive nature, which is a real low blow, in
my opinion, and has made our relationship as adults rocky, to say the least.

Forgive my rambling. Just seems like this article was something I could really
relate to.

~~~
rconti
The author acknowledges that choices are at play here; what he's arguing is
that your ODDS become a lot lower from being poor.

It sounds like you're equating the ways in which you're fucked up with the
ways in which she's fucked up. That may well be true; on the other hand, your
kind of fucked up might increase the odds of your offspring doing well,
whereas hers might not -- so in that way, your "way" was better even if your
subjective evaluation of your own condition is not any better than your
sister's.

Also, you resent your sister saying "It must be nice...", and I agree, it
would be better if she didn't say that to you. On the other hand, aren't you
(sort of) doing the same thing if you wish you had some social/personal
component that your sister does but you don't?

~~~
iamatworknow
>On the other hand, aren't you (sort of) doing the same thing if you wish you
had some social/personal component that your sister does but you don't?

Maybe I think that at times, but I don't say it to her face (or really to
anyone) in an effort to gain sympathy, which seems to be her motive when
making those comments. I think that's a pretty big distinction.

I definitely agree with your other points, though. I don't want kids, but if I
did I would be in a better position to provide for them that gives them an
advantage over kids that grew up in the sort of situation hers have.

------
pascalxus
The author makes a good point about the difference between merit and luck in
social outcomes.

But, here in America we need not have Food insecurity. With a bit of good
financial planning, you can live off 2$/day/person or less. There's so much
food you can buy for less than 1$/lb: Corn, Oatmeal, apples, banannas, etc.
With many of these combinations, you can reach 2000 calories for less than
2$/day.

And who needs a super expensive cell phone plan? I make do with 9$/month using
USMobile. Driving insurance can be less than 25$/mo if you get metromile.com
There are many ways to be more cost effective. When i was growing up, my
parents would clip every last coupon on the magazine, to get the best deals.

The biggest problem for the poor and everyone else too: is Housing. This is a
huge hurdle that we still need to tackle. There's millions being evicted from
apartments, and most people have to pay way too much housing. But this too is
mostly a manmade/govt/voter issue. With the right land use policies and a
massive reduction in regulations we could open up the floodgates to housing
innovation and allow the price of housing to come down.

~~~
shaggerty
Where I live $2 a day will get you a hand of bananas and a couple ears of
corn, which doesn't seem like it'd be enough to subsist on. What would your
grocery list for a weeks worth of food on a $14 budget look like?

~~~
antisthenes
$2/day on food is a load of shit. It sounds straight up like /r/frugaljerk
advice.

I mean, you won't starve, but it would be one of those things contributing to
the poverty mentality. Children, especially, need meat, physically active
people need creatine, not easily gotten from plant-based foods. Not to mention
fruits and vegetables will add extra (even frozen ones)

A 4-pack of fresh tomatoes alone is $2, at the very least.

Not to mention forcing people to eat boiled corn or lentils every days for
years is damn near cruel.

I guess you could supplement it by dumpster diving for produce, but at that
point you could also make the ridiculous claim of not having to pay for food
at all.

He did get one thing right though: the biggest cost is housing.

~~~
callalex
>Children, especially, need meat, physically active people need creatine, not
easily gotten from plant-based foods.

This is entirely false, some meat marketers have duped you. "Creatine is not
an essential nutrient[8] as it is naturally produced in the human body from
the amino acids glycine and arginine."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine)

There are entire countries that grow up vegetarian and turn out just fine.

------
ccvannorman
I wish this article was less long winded, but I fully agree with the point. So
long as we push the narrative that "You're poor because you just don't try as
hard as privileged kids" is not fixing the problem.

To fix the problem we need to address it as a group, and not shove blame on
individuals. As a privileged person I can clearly see my world would be better
if others had less poverty.

So what's the action item here? I wish there was a "latent voter momentum"
website where I could pre-vote in this direction when laws and candidates come
up.

~~~
Arizhel
What can we do? Nothing really: the main thing to do is to vote better, but we
don't do that, we vote for candidates who make the problem worse. In fact, a
significant portion of lower-income people are making the situation worse for
themselves by voting for politicians who work against their best interests
economically.

~~~
grzm
_we vote for candidates who make the problem worse_

Phrasing it this way makes it appear that people are thinking "which candidate
will make the problem worse? I'll vote for that one." I think you'd agree that
the vast majority of people are _not_ doing this. They're voting for
candidates who appeal to them and what they feel is in their best interest.

There's at least one confounding factor that may make it more difficult for
one to understand the voting behavior of another: candidates represent a
prioritized set of values, and that set may not perfectly (actually, very
likely doesn't) match the prioritized set of values of the voter. (There are
single-issue voters out there, and it would interesting to know what
percentage of people are and for which issues.) For example, while a voter may
appear to be voting against their economic best interest, perhaps social
issues are more important to them, and they'll choose a candidate that appeals
to those social issues.

And, of course, there's the biases that are a part of human psychology. We're
not perfectly rational _homo economicus_. People can be influenced to make
decisions that are against their best interests (for whatever value of best
interest you'd like to propose). From that point of view, we can try to get
people to vote better through education and influence. And again, what that
means is up for debate: you could say voting better means for their best
interests economically, but even that leaves open the question of what that
means: short-term outcomes? Long-term outcomes? Economically better for their
children? Grandchildren? Their community? The country? The world?

I grant you, it's not an easy problem to fix. Encouraging people to think
critically as well as putting in place measures of political performance and
more transparency into lobbying and contributions are a few I personally think
would make a difference.

~~~
Arizhel
Oh, I definitely agree that 1) people don't actually think they're voting for
someone who'll make the problem worse, and 2) voters are prioritizing
particular values. Single-issue voters are real; I've met many. They all seem
to be on the right, however: they have two issues, abortion and guns. There's
no shortage of people I've heard say "I won't vote for X because s/he wants
gun control", and all other issues be damned. So it's really easy for that
party to just harp on those issues and get lots of votes from people who just
refuse to think about anything else until they get their way on those. I
really do think that, for those voters, candidates could tell them "I'm going
to work to ban abortion and eliminate all gun restrictions, and I'm also going
to increase your taxes 5-fold while eliminating all taxes for richer people,
and I'm also going to help some companies pollute the land you're living on
and prevent you from taking legal action against them", and these candidates
would still get elected by these people.

However, this doesn't make my initial statement wrong: I said these people are
voting against their best interests economically, and it's true. And it's my
contention that these people are actually stupid because they do this, by
prioritizing a couple of hot-button issues over things that really would
affect them personally in a much more profound way than whether other people
have abortions (RvW has been around for over 40 years now) or whether they can
own machine guns (gun laws in this country are already very lax and no
national candidate has proposed doing much to change that for some time now).

I have no idea how you get people to think critically when they've never done
it before. The only way I've seen that actually works here is for someone to
get a decent education. That just isn't going to happen for some middle-aged
conservative living in West Virginia mining coal. Worse, it's not just
uneducated blue-collar workers voting this way, there's plenty of seemingly-
intelligent people who have bought into very far right-wing politics, for very
different reasons than what I mentioned above. Much of it seems to be outright
racism AFAICT, like the alt-right websites I've seen lately that rail against
interracial dating, pushing racial purity, something straight out of Hitler's
Germany.

~~~
grzm
It sounds like understanding how people arrive at their values and politics is
something that interests you. I found Jonathan Haidt's _The Righteous Mind:
Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion_ [0] very interesting,
one of the most important books I think I've read in the past five years or
so. I highly recommend it.

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

------
keithpeter
The first few paragraphs of OA brought to mind _Path to Power_ , the first
volume of Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography. The chapter on
electrification and the impact it had on women's lives in rural Texas is a
real eye opener.

~~~
mathperson
Fuck yeah bud. Have you read the power broker?

~~~
keithpeter
Started with _The Power Broker_ as I have an interest in planning and had read
Jane Jacobs' book.

I've read all four of the Johnson volumes, and I'm hanging on for the fifth.

For those that are not familiar with Mr Caro's work...

[https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6442/robert-
caro-t...](https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6442/robert-caro-the-art-
of-biography-no-5-robert-caro)

[http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a13522/robert-
car...](http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a13522/robert-caro-0512/)

~~~
mathperson
I am currently 900 pages deep in the power broker and am very looking forward
to the johnson volumes. :)

------
known
I favor
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_around_the_world)

~~~
MadManE
Ok, but why?

------
accountyaccount
I grew up with a single mom on food stamps, and while we weren't the poorest
kids around — I still feel incredibly out of place living in a tech hub that's
filled mostly with people with middle class or upper-middle class backgrounds.

I was really shocked when I had the realization that it was a cause of a lot
of my social discomfort. Your income level has a drastic impact on your
outlook on life and mental health, which is immediately connected to physical
well-being. I'm not nearly as comfortable relaxing, taking a vacation, or even
ordering a more expensive (and healthier) lunch... despite being privileged
enough to have it now.

It would make an incredible difference within a generation if an already
first-world country like the US could ensure a basic quality of life that
included maternity care, vacation, and healthy food as a standard.

------
Danihan
>We tell the poor that they have the chance to escape if they just work hard
enough; that we are all equally invested in a system that doles out rewards
and punishments in equal measure. We point at the rare rags-to-riches stories
like my own, which seem to play into the standard meritocracy template.

I don't know anyone who "tells the poor" that. I think most people understand
that capitalism is a rather brutal, territorial game. And being raised in a
good household is a massive advantage.

~~~
blackbagboys
To the contrary, this mentality is alive and well in America. HN's own
yummyfajitas usually drops in on these kinds of threads with a lot of links
proving that the poor deserve to be poor due to their own poor decision-
making.

~~~
ythn
Why does it have to be so black and white? On the one hand personal
responsibility goes out the window and nothing is anyone's fault. Poor? Not
your fault. Addicted? Not your fault. On the other extreme personal
reponsibility accounts for everything. Poor? Your fault. Addicted? Your fault.

There must be a balance between the two.

~~~
biofox
A voice of reason! I don't know why these discussions become so polarised, so
quickly. Most of the time, it seems if two competing theories have supporting
evidence, then there's probably some truth to both of them.

Nature or nurture? Free market or regulation? Individualism or collectivism?
Career or family? Fat or carbs?

The truth, or optimal choice, always seems to lie somewhere in the middle...
some combination of the two. Yet, more often than not, we immediately devolve
into partisan camps fighting for one side.

~~~
anigbrowl
Because American society has been sorting itself into camps of radically
different worldviews over the last several decades, as is easily observed in
the decline of Congressional bipartisanship. _American Nations_ by Colin
woodard is _the_ best history book I've read on the origins of these competing
worldviews. Email me at gmail if you want links to unpublished and rather
turgid but substantively fascinating research on the topic by a former intel
analyst (not me).

------
Arizhel
Well that's not too hard: it's because the right-wing party and its helpers
push an ideology that rich people are better people who worked hard for their
money and deserve it all, that wealth "trickles down" to poorer people, and
that the reason these people are poor isn't because of plutocracy, but rather
because of immigrants and minorities "stealing their jobs". We saw this in
spades in the recent election.

I'm getting downvoted because this site is a haven for alt-right and
libertarian people who believe this stuff. One of the key people in
YCombinator is Peter Thiel, a noted libertarian right-winger and Trump
supporter. And the tech industry in general is a hotbed of right wing politics
and the closely-related libertarianism, which is why all the news about
misogyny in tech workplaces is no surprise.

~~~
RightMillennial
You think HN is a haven for the alt-right? Or even the regular right for that
matter? Libertarians I'll buy but HN is definitely left-wing. Were you not
here for the whole Trump election? Did you not see all the shit Thiel got for
supporting Trump?

~~~
Arizhel
Oh, I don't disagree that there's lots of left-wing and progressive people
here too, just as on any tech site. But there's a ton of extreme libertarians
and alt-right people too; maybe not a majority among the users, but still a
very significant presence, and exercising downvotes.

~~~
rconti
Maybe the downvotes are because of the fairly aggressive political stance? I
happen to agree with you, though I felt the tone and substance of the original
post was not all that helpful; I probably would have downvoted it too, if it
were not already at the bottom, and if additional content hadn't been added
that is making it feel like a more worthwhile discussion.

Often people do downvote that with which they disagree, but that's not the
intended purpose of the vote; keep that in mind when reading your own 'score';
it may not be the opinion but the content or tone that people are rejecting.

