

Bee Sting Theory of Poverty - chegra
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/the_sting_of_poverty/

======
sridharvembu
The core argument amounts to:

\-- quote --

"The core of the problem has not been self-discipline or a lack of
opportunity," Karelis says. "My argument is that the cause of poverty has been
poverty."

\-- end quote --

Being Indian, I have spent a lot of time observing and thinking about poverty
from childhood, and in recent years, doing something about it. I believe he
has hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the problem, yet I
completely disagree with his solution, which is negative income tax i.e direct
government cash to the poor.

Here is where I believe he is right. Poverty is a "phase transition" effect:
there is a point of being too-poor below which you lose all motivation to
better yourself, not only because there are too many problems but also because
those problems are all interlinked, so solving just one feels utterly
pointless. Spend time in any very poor neighborhood and you will see this.
That poverty threshold would be different for different people, and you can
aggregate these thresholds for a distinctly identifiable group to come up with
a "group poverty threshold", which itself is a function of the group's history
and culture. Once you are below that threshold, poverty is very hard to
escape. You can state that as "poverty is the cause of poverty."

Yet, I also completely disagree with his solution - direct cash grant from the
government. To prove the absurdity of it, imagine this on a global scale. Is
the solution to Indian poverty then massive transfer of resources from the
rich world?

So what is the solution then? Here is a sketch: the trouble is there are so
many interlinked problems it is not even clear where to start. It is utterly
chaotic. To overcome it, first create a very small "Zone of Order" (one room,
one household, one neighborhood, one small company, one city ... whatever)
where you establish clear, orderly systems. China called this the "Special
Economic Zone" which they modeled by taking advice from Hong Kong and Taiwan
businessmen.

Once you prove that working, scale it up. You have to bootstrap from that
"Zone of Order", however small that is. At a personal level, it could be just
one small corner of your shack or one hour a day of order, and for a country
like India, it could be one city.

You can generalize this principle: the solution to any self-referential
problem ("poverty is the cause of poverty") is bootstrapping from a very small
seed. In fact, I believe most intractable problems are self-referential.

On a related note, read about "Charter Cities"
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-
poli...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-
incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/)

~~~
mikecane
It's not simply a lack of money. Americans were poor for a long time and yet
progressed. It's the poison of being surrounded by people who don't wish to
progress for whatever reason: it threatens their place in the hierarchy, they
lose control, it creates fear in them, they have self-doubt, they are envious
of others, etc. Individuals can be plucked out of that environment and be
given hopeful surroundings in which to progress. But any individual who
doesn't want to change won't change despite all the help they're given. Try
getting someone to give up drink or drugs when they don't want to despite the
self- and other- harm they are creating. It's like that.

~~~
wisty
The real problem isn't that people are poor (they lack money), but that people
are broke (they have debts they can't clear).

Those debts can be actual money owed or other essential expenses (i.e.
insurance, repairs, education, etc). Once you are broke, then paying off your
power bill won't make a big difference, because you will still have to fight
off the credit card company ... and you will still be broke.

Think of it in terms of a GPA. If your GPA is 1.5 (poor), you still have an
incentive to work hard and raise it to 2.0. But if your GPA is 0.3 (broke),
then even if you work hard you still won't pass. So why bother?

People do drop out for other reasons (drug issues, mental health, and so on)
but the article raises a very important point - people drop out when they are
broke and can't make ends meet (in the near future) even if they work hard.

~~~
starkfist
I've always seen the words broke and poor used in the opposite way you are
using them. Being broke is a temporary situation, being poor is more of a
state of being. e.g. Elon Musk is broke but he's not poor.

~~~
wisty
I'm using them in a similar way. Elon Musk won't solve his problems by getting
a part-time job at Wallmart, so why should he bother? The same is true for a
lot of people who are also broke, but happen to be poor as well.

------
jeb
I've been in a temporary situation where I faced many of the issues I think
poor people face. What happens when you are that poor is that you realise the
huge mountain above you that you have to overcome to going back to where
normal people are, and you just kind of accept where you are now and potter
along and try to survive everyday without considering all too much how to get
out.

For example, I had $4000 debt. There was no way in hell I could ever pay that
money back, considering that I made $900/month which did not cover my monthly
expenses. So let's say a month ends where I spend $800 and only have $100
left. Am I going to stick it towards paying off the debt or just buy some new
shoes or so? That debt is so huge that I know that saving $100 will still take
me so many years, that I just accept the debt and go buy myself some shoes.

Poverty starts when you resign yourself to being poor. A friend of mine is
poor - I called him to lunch and brought out $5000 and I told him that if he
can think of any idea at all for a business, I would invest these $5000 in his
business. I would not check his idea, I would not bother him if it was viable,
I would simply give him the money.

Up until today, he has not come to me to pick up the cash. But he still
complains about how he has no money. That's the thing - he is resigned to
being poor. Becoming rich will mean a lot of work, it's an ardous and long
task, and I really don't think he wants to do it, even when the money is
offered to him in that manner.

~~~
Flemlord
Part of your friend's reluctance may simply be a lack of desire to start his
own business. I've made similar offers to select family members (with higher
dollar amounts) and nobody has taken me up on a single offer. When I ask them
why not, they tell me they don't want to take the risk of starting their own
business... then go right back to complaining about their horrible boss/small
salary/current situation.

~~~
migpwr
I think the two of you might be overlooking some of the social pressure
involved in taking thousands of dollars from a close friend. If I made that
offer to any one of my friends, they'd turn it down every time. They might say
it's impossible, or come up with some other excuse, but most of the reluctance
will come from having to see me again if their idea fails.

If you changed your offer to something like, "Hey, I've got about $5k laying
around, and I want to start a business, are you interested? What do you think
_we_ should do?", you'd probably see more action.

I personally think this has more to do with your friendship than the idea of
your friends being mentally "poor".

~~~
jeb
Of course, that could be, but what I am offering him is money I don't need,
FOR OUR FRIENDSHIP. I know that the money is likely to be lost, and I have
already taken that into consideration. I want him to also TRY, also make that
step and stop complaining.

If I really wanted something, and someone offered me the opportunity to do it,
yes, it may fail and I may lose that friendship, but if that stops me, it
means I don't believe in myself enough! It may fail, but it may also succeed!
Yes, failure in this case may also mean losing a friend, so the stakes are a
little bit higher, but as a friend, he knows that I know he is likely to lose
the money. So even if he fails, I will just smile and be happy that at least
he tried.

But it's the same trap, you see? He does not want to do it, because he is
afraid of failing, and losing money and the friendship. So he can say no, and
give that as his excuse, but is that any different from any other excuse?

In this case, I could posit that the risk is even less because I am there to
help him, if the money is gone he will not be in debt, he will just be back to
where he started.

And you know what? Sooner or later, friends who don't stay at the same socio-
economic level drift apart. Yes, there are exceptions, but in most cases
people have friends in the same economic class. So people try to bring their
friends up, like I try to do, and the friends who don't even want to try, will
sooner or later lose that friendship that they don't want to risk.

~~~
sounddust
Taking money from (or loaning money to) a friend is fundamentally a bad idea,
and it's quite possible - given that your friend is poor - that he's already
taken money from a friend who promised that were "no strings attached," and
later lost his friendship when it turned out that wasn't exactly the case. The
fact is that people are generally more emotionally tied to their money than
they realize, and they end up being more upset about losing it than they
thought. I'm not saying _you_ are like this, but most people are, so how would
he be capable of knowing that you're different, especially if he (or someone
he knew) had a negative experience with this before?

It was kind of you to offer the money, but I wouldn't make negative
assumptions about your friend for not accepting it. Consider the possibility
that he has good reasons for not accepting it, and that those might be the
correct reasons - that he may actually be better off without it in the end.

------
Dove
"Poverty causes poverty." I couldn't agree more.

I think the model is exactly right: too many miseries, not enough motivation
to alleviate them. But I don't like the proposed solution of giving away
money; that fosters dependency.

I think the best approach is a personal one. Friends I've had who were poor
were sometimes poor due to circumstances beyond their control, but most often
they had just never learned how to live differently. They hadn't been taught
how to handle money. They didn't understand budgets. They ate fast food; we
cooked. They bought tons of toys; we had fun money, but it was tracked and
budgeted. They bought pre-packaged sausages; we bought potatoes. They failed
to pay bills for months on end, constantly fighting fees and debt collectors.
We tracked and budgeted everything. For some of these people, it was totally
lifechanging just being friends with my family--seeing how we ran a clean
household on a shoestring budget, and saved money.

A poor person who's good friends with a not-really-poor person has a lot of
advantages. Not-really-poor can alleviate some of the worst pain of poverty:
help out when they need a lift or a dinner or an advocate or a place to stay.
But the major advantage is lifestyle modeling. Poor can see what Not-Really-
Poor does that makes it all hang together, that solves all the problems at
once. And he sees how he could maybe get there himself.

Economically mixed neighborhoods, a sense of neighborliness, hobby groups
(say, gaming) that cut across social classes and create friendships. I have
observed these things to effectively combat poverty.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>But the major advantage is lifestyle modelling. Poor can see what Not-Really-
Poor does that makes it all hang together, that solves all the problems at
once. And he sees how he could maybe get there himself.

Hmm.

We pay our mortgage and bills on time (mostly), we cook for ourselves, we use
second hand washable nappies, walk rather than driving (we need a car for our
work though; walking may actually cost more I've never done a complete
analysis but have heard this suggested), have second hand and donated clothes
and toys and furniture, cancelled our TV license, grow some of our own food,
etc., but we're still poor.

How poverty causes poverty for us is that we can't afford as healthy food as
we'd like. We don't have time/money for entertainment (except the net which is
needed for work) and we get excluded from social activities by entry costs (we
can't afford to go out to meals or buy drinks at the pub, etc.).

Moreover as we have a mortgage on a house we have maintenance costs which we
can't afford, this is a time bomb really as dilapidation is progressive, early
action avoids more cost later. I should now be doing repairs for winter but
can't really afford them.

We could be poorer, we can afford 3 meals a day again and even some non-
essentials, and largely this has been a choice to value a particular lifestyle
and promotion of creativity over material values.

Basically we don't want for more education on frugal living but I can see that
others do. Indeed we have friends with more money than us (and in particular a
friend on benefits!) that we try and encourage to make savings when we see
them wasting money.

~~~
Dove
Indeed, this is an aspect of poverty often overlooked: when you have no money,
everything is so much harder and more expensive. You can't just hop in the car
and go downtown for the cost of a little gas; you have to do something like
dig up bus fare and wait at a stop for two hours. Tossing a load in the washer
instead of hauling it to the laundromat, dishwasher meaning a device rather
than a person, buying and storing in bulk because you have an extra freezer.
When you're poor, time and money saving devices like these sure would be nice.
And then there's the neglect of routine car and house maintainence that
becomes acute and expensive, doctor's bills when you couldn't even afford
insurance, late fees for missed payments, credit cards that hike the rate on
you when you become a "risk". Seems only the rich could ever afford to be
poor.

I don't know much about life on the cheap in the UK (which, from your
references to nappies and TV licenses, I gather is where you're from). It
sounds to me like you know what you're doing.

Over here (in the US), if someone complained they didn't have enough money to
eat healthy, I'd be awfully concerned. Unless you have an exotic notion of
'healthy' that involves concepts like organic food and complex carbohydrates,
it really is pretty cheap to eat healthy. If you're so poor that you're giving
up things like spaghetti, potatoes, rice, beans, carrots, cheese, and milk for
ramen, and you've been doing it so long that it's impacting your energy and
lifestyle, you're in a really bad way.

Over here I'd encourage you to apply for EBT and look at local food banks. No
shame in it. Helping people avoid that kind of poverty trap is what those
programs are _there for_.

There definitely is a level of poverty where the money saved starts to be
destructive, and it sounds like you're in it. Sorry to hear that. Sorry to
hear you're committed to a mortgate in the midst of that; that makes it hard
to downsize, match your income, and take some of the pressure off. Mortgages
and creative lifestyles can be a bad mix.

I hope you get the cash flow going the right direction sometime soon.

~~~
megablast
I am sorry, I don't agree with this at all. I have never had a car, I have
never had a problem with laundromats, and I have never bought bulk amounts of
food to store in a freezer. For almost a year, I didn't even have a fridge.

These are not the reasons that people are poor, and they did not keep me poor.
These DO NOT make it harder or more expensive to live.

Most people I know do the washing once a week, whether they have a laundry or
not. I can not conceive of a way in which washing ever day can make your life
better or richer.

Catching the bus actually makes things cheaper for you, no need for parking,
insurance, gas, cars, etc...

And bulk buying meat is not going to save you that much. There are a lot
better things you can do for your diet that will save you money, and improve
your health.

~~~
william-newman
When I was in high school, I travelled by city bus while holding two different
ultra-low-end programming jobs. I think you are underrepresenting the
advantages of having a car.

If I expected to be earning and living on less than perhaps $12 an hour for an
extended period of time, I would probably choose to go without a car, likely
by moving someplace like Dallas TX (where I live now, and where the local
wages vs. cost of living seem reasonably favorable) and renting an apartment
very close to a bus line on a major suburban business artery. Judging from my
high school experience, from many observations of foreigners living off their
science grad school stipends, and from everything I've noticed in my years in
Dallas, that'd work reasonably well. But doing without a car would constrain
my life in important ways (including job options, education options, and
general time efficiency) and I'd be very motivated to find economical ways to
reduce the problem, e.g. sharing a car, or getting (and probably learning to
maintain) an economical motorcycle.

------
yummyfajitas
We've seen this article before: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=156177>

It was crap then and it's crap now. Karelis doesn't understand econ, but
criticizes it because econ disagrees with his thought experiments and
political leanings. His theory is nothing but traditional econ with a modified
utility function. It has rather perverse implications (i.e., we should tax the
poor but not the rich), and as the article notes it does not agree with
experiment.

The best reason for completely ignoring Karelis: "ultimately, he believes, the
strength of his arguments is less in how they fit with the economic work
that's been done to date on poverty - much of which he is suspicious of anyway
- _but in how familiar they feel to all of us_ , rich or poor."

~~~
ewjordan
_Karelis doesn't understand econ, but criticizes it because econ disagrees
with his thought experiments and political leanings._

Sounds like a model economist to me - because of his political leanings, he
doesn't like what the oversimplified toy models of the more mainstream
theories tell him, so he invents another toy model with different
oversimplifications, and claims that it's more fundamental. Surprise,
surprise, it happens to reinforce his pre-existing beliefs!

Isn't this the way the game is always played in the soft sciences, where we
can't actually figure anything out for reals?

~~~
yummyfajitas
I say he doesn't understand econ, simply because he says "traditional
economics doesn't apply" and then describes a theory which is traditional econ
with a simple mathematical modification.

Also, the theory of diminishing marginal utility has been tested empirically
many times. While quite a lot of econ is the theory spinning you describe, DMU
is pretty solid and accepted by economists of all political stripes (it's the
primary argument for progressive taxation, among other things).

~~~
jbooth
If traditional economics applied to the poor, a whole lot of things would be
working a whole lot differently now.

So it seems he's right about that. Whether he actually understands economics
or not. And it's likely that he does understand traditional economics to some
degree, it's not hard, he prob took intro, micro and macro like everyone else.
Those models quite clearly do not apply to the poor or else we'd see a
different poor.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Those models quite clearly do not apply to the poor or else we'd see a
different poor._

Could you explain this statement in more detail?

~~~
jbooth
If traditional economics, specifically "Econ 101" (which is actually what he
disparages in the article) applied, the poor wouldn't be so dumb with their
money, wouldn't be the biggest buyers of lottery tickets, drop out of school
disproportionately just for being poor, etc.

According to "Econ 101", people are supposed to pursue their rational self-
interest and maximize utility regardless of their conditions. Which is a bit
of a problem with all of economics, and a _huge_ problem when it comes to
applying it to the poor.

Does that make sense?

I read an interesting paper a few months back about the lottery ticket thing.
This guy's theory was that it actually was rational, because many poor people
don't have access to bank accounts, they just buy a scratch ticket every day
and that's effectively a probabilistic bank account. Dunno that I buy it. But
a neat thought.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Traditional economics characterizes the poor as having a very high discount
rate. Thus, they assign a low value to events which might happen in the future
- that is, a high paying job in 5 years is less valuable than using meth now.

In much the same way, I (a middle class person) would rather have $100 now
than $102 in 50 years.

As for lotto tickets, traditional econ says the poor derive utility from
playing lotto, not just from winning. Am I foolish and not obeying the laws of
economics for buying video games, which have an expected payoff of $0?

~~~
jbooth
So, the original author's point was that the discount rate thing applies
differently than you're applying it.

They're not choosing less satisfaction now rather than more satisfaction
later. They see things as hopeless (too many bee stings), throw their hands in
the air and say screw it. A 0% chance of a high-paying job in the distant
future discounts to 0 utility at present for any discount rate.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Karelis isn't talking about discount rates at all.

He is claiming the poor have a flat utility function with a kink at zero.
I.e., the ability to cure 1 bee sting (out of 5) now is worth nothing to them,
only the ability to be bee sting free holds utility.

~~~
jbooth
I think to understand the point I'm trying to make, we could re-examine your
previous statement: "Am I foolish and not obeying the laws of economics for
buying video games, which have an expected payoff of $0?"

If the laws of economics predict that you shouldn't buy that video game, then
you're not foolish -- they are.

People's behavior changes radically when you give them experimental situations
that involve gaining or losing money -- they're way more risk averse with
losing 100$ then they are with changing their odds of winning 100$. This isn't
baked into the assumptions that economics makes, and neither are a million
other wrinkles of human behavior.

"What economists say" isn't the be-all and end-all, it's just another prism to
be used.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_If the laws of economics predict that you shouldn't buy that video game, then
you're not foolish -- they are._

The laws of economics make no such prediction, and they make no corresponding
prediction about lottery tickets. That's the point.

There are places where the laws of economics don't work, I just don't believe
that your previous post (or Karelis article) identifies any of them.

------
biggitybones
I think a lot of us can empathize with this theory. Motivation increases as a
tangible milestone is in the near term and if nothing is within a reachable
distance it becomes increasingly difficult to start down the path. It's
similar in concept to all of the problems people have completing a project
because the end goal is no where in sight.

The interesting part is how you use this theory to help the impoverished. Can
you just throw specific vouchers at the situation to alleviate some of the
problems, as the end of the article suggests? I don't think this is feasible -
it moderately resembles the Gulf coast debacle right now. Sure you can stop
some of the problems, but rarely does it solve everything.

The book sounds interesting, but all the reviews state that the author lacks
data to back up his intuitive claims. I'd love it if he could provide some
hard evidence to the theory, though I bet the most intuitive social claims
often are hard to prove scientifically.

------
CWuestefeld
_"It's Econ 101 that's to blame," Karelis says. "It's created this tired,
phony debate about what causes poverty."_

This question is based on faulty assumptions. There is no _cause_ of poverty:
it is the natural state. Tens of thousands of years ago, all of our ancestors
were running around barefoot and naked. Just a few generations ago, none of
our ancestors even had refrigeration nor access to antibiotics.

So every one of us comes from a line of people who didn't enjoy nearly as much
luxury as we've got today. The reason we're no longer in that situation is
because we (that is, ourselves and our progenitors) have worked our way out of
it.

~~~
timwiseman
I think you have a point. Most of the people in poverty in America right now
are materially better off than almost everyone 500 years ago, and most of the
poor in America remain better off than most of the people in say Afghanistan.

With that said, the close tie in to material wealth is your place in society.
A good hunter-gatherer might have none of the luxuries we take for granted
now, but he probably has the respect of those around him and looks around and
sees he is well off compared to his comrades. He is likely to be happy, and to
feel that his work is paying off.

A poor person in a ghetto may look around and see many others that are much
better off than he is. He may see that many people outside the ghetto give him
no respect, and that even many of the well meaning ones look at him with pity.
He may react to this with determination to improve and leave the ghetto. But
he may react with anger or resignation, and he may feel (whether accurate or
not) that no amount of work will help him change his lot in life. He is vastly
better off in a material sense than the hunter gatherer, but worse off in
terms of his place in society and his (perceived) ability to improve that
place.

It is this emotional response to the social issue, much more than their
material situation, that is cogent to the situation.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Most of the people in poverty in America right now are materially better off
than almost everyone 500 years ago, and most of the poor in America remain
better off than most of the people in say Afghanistan._

Or even better off than most of the people in America, 1960.

~~~
starkfist
Is this true? My grandparents were poor in 1960 yet had a big house and a
decent car, a coffee maker, a big yard, etc. Why are poor people better off
now? Because they have the internet?

~~~
yummyfajitas
The poor of today also have the house and the car. They also have air
conditioning, a washer dryer, a microwave, cable TV and other such things. No
one had that in the 1960's. In fact, a big chunk of the 1960's poor didn't
even have a flush toilet.

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-
poverty-in-america)

I got curious why you mentioned that your grandparents had the coffee maker.
It's because they were actually pricey in the 60's: $29.95 or $215 in 2009
dollars! A coffee maker was actually pricier than a wii.

[http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd...](http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd959405/Vintage_Ad_1960_Toastmaster_Toaster_Coffee_Maker_Fry_Pan)

~~~
mkramlich
and free libraries, etc. You're way better off being poor in the USA than in
the middle of Africa, for example.

------
Ratufa
This sounds very much like some of the theories that one hears when talking
about the causes of procrastination when faced with an overwhelming task. For
example, the quoted section here:

[http://lifehacker.com/5508417/the-overwhelming-wave-that-
mak...](http://lifehacker.com/5508417/the-overwhelming-wave-that-makes-us-
procrastinate)

One difference between the two cases is that the situation with many of the
poor may be such that the problem they are facing may be unsolvable (i.e. it's
not just a matter of 'getting to work') or at least unsolvable given the
current framing of the problem. This means that the rational solutions that
people suggest for procrastination problems, such as breaking the current task
into small chunks, are not rational solutions to the problems the poor face.
Hence the bee sting theory.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Single page:

[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/...](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/the_sting_of_poverty/?page=full)

------
dopamine
Karelis seems to describe a psychological condition known in animal and human
psychology as "learned helplessness":

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness>

The key insight is that poor people feel that they lack control over their
condition. Thus, any marginal effort is perceived to be 'useless'.

If you don't feel like checking the above link, read the following excerpt and
draw your own analogies:

\---- In part one of Seligman and Steve Maier's experiment, three groups of
dogs were placed in harnesses. Group One dogs were simply put in the harnesses
for a period of time and later released. Groups Two and Three consisted of
"yoked pairs." A dog in Group 2 would be intentionally subjected to pain by
being given electric shocks, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. A
Group 3 dog was wired in parallel with a Group 2 dog, receiving shocks of
identical intensity and duration, but his lever didn't stop the electric
shocks. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because
it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. For Group 3
dogs, the shock was apparently "inescapable." Group 1 and Group 2 dogs quickly
recovered from the experience, but Group 3 dogs learned to be helpless, and
exhibited symptoms similar to chronic clinical depression.

In part two of the Seligman and Maier experiment, these three groups of dogs
were tested in a shuttle-box apparatus, in which the dogs could escape
electric shocks by jumping over a low partition. For the most part, the Group
3 dogs, who had previously "learned" that nothing they did had any effect on
the shocks, simply lay down passively and whined. Even though they could have
easily escaped the shocks, the dogs didn't try. \----

------
pmichaud
This is an extremely intuitively satisfying explanation to me, and I've been
on both extremes.

~~~
oz
Agreed. Upvoted.

When I was younger, I used to look at poor people and condemn them for being
lazy and irresponsible. It's when I started paying bills that I realized that
many lower middle-class lives hang by a thread - a missed paycheck can
sometimes be catastrophic.

I often wonder what I would do if I were poor. I'd have hope-I'm a smart kid,
eloquent, so I could dig myself out of it. But what of those who, through no
fault of their own, are not so lucky? To me, it is an absolute marvel that
they don't engage in more mayhem.

If you follow international news, you've probably watched the drama unfold
here in Jamaica over the extradition of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke. A resident
of Tivoli Gardens, the inner-city community where Coke was from declared on
local news that 'Jesus died for us, so we will die for Dudus.' Many people I
know were upset by her statement, because they don't understand. Sure he was a
criminal. Sure he was involved in drugs and murders. But when he's the one
sending your six kids to school, paying for medical care for your grandmother,
and providing swift and effective justice, let's just say your loyalties will
not be to the state that has repeatedly signaled its lack of care. Fuck the
'social contract.'

Now you know why they called him "The President."

~~~
MartinCron
* To me, it is an absolute marvel that they don't engage in more mayhem.*

The way the gap (chasm, really) between rich and poor keeps growing makes me
worry about more mayhem in the future. People who feel persistent despair and
lack of hope (regardless of if that feeling is "right") don't operate in the
same universe of "rational decision making". That behavior ranges the full
span of self-destructive (what the article was about, mostly) to full on
sociopathic.

This is not to say that I have any new or novel ideas on how to fix the
problem.

~~~
oz
Exactly! The core issue is _lack of hope._ When hope is gone, all is lost.

And then you see someone driving by in their brand new Mercedes, and you can
see in their faces that they've never had to work a day in their lives, it
fills you with a boiling rage at the unfairness of the world. To hell with
law. To hell with society. I'm gonna get mine. To be honest, it's difficult to
blame them.

Note, I've never been poor. Growing up, the only times I went hungry were when
I was too lazy to cook - there was always food in the house. So I was kind of
naive. I remember my father (he was a pastor) once telling a congregation that
he told the Lord that if he ever reached a point where he couldn't feed his
family, he would just run away. So I didn't really know the facts of life.

Now, the veil is being lifted.

This, perhaps, is where religion is most useful. If you can convince the poor
that there is some sort of 'divine plan,' then people can come to terms with
their suffering.

On my way to work each morning, I pass people in the streets, begging alms.
They gather at the stoplights, and come to the car windows with their hands
outstretched. That is their life, day in day out. Are their lives _really_
worth living? I'm not sure. I'm just not sure.

Maybe Schopenhauer was right about life. I tend toward nihilism quite often
these days.

------
drats
I've always liked the idea of "learning or earning" whereby if you become
unemployed you get a welfare benefit to study for 3, 6 or 12 months in
university or vocational training and then guided through improving your CV
and then you hit the job market again. But I come from, and live in, various
countries where there is decent welfare, universal healthcare and deferred
interest-free loans or token fee university education so that's in place more
or less anyway although it could be formalized and streamlined more. A lot of
infrastructure would need to be put in place for such a system to work in the
USA.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>But I come from, and live in, various countries where there is decent
welfare, universal healthcare and deferred interest-free loans or token fee
university education so that's in place more or less anyway although it could
be formalized and streamlined more

Where?!?

------
thwarted
Guh, I can't read this on my nexus one because www.boston.com keeps
redirecting me to a mobile site that doesn't have the content.

~~~
tocomment
I couldn't emphasize more, I hate it when websites do this. What are they
possibly thinking! GRR it really grinds my gears.

~~~
jpcx01
Agreed. Nypost does it as well. I can't even comprehend how stupid their IT
dept could be to allow this to go on for so long.

------
edanm
"But ultimately, he believes, the strength of his arguments is less in how
they fit with the economic work that's been done to date on poverty - much of
which he is suspicious of anyway - but in how familiar they feel to all of us,
rich or poor."

I love this statement. I'm absolutely sure that the majority of theories to do
with psychology/economics are based on intuition, much more than they are
based on "hard facts" (because it's very hard to get hard data on these kinds
of things). I'm happy he at least admits it.

------
fanboy123
There have been some poverty studies in India that shows that the lack in
belief that "things could be different" may be the cause of some irrational
behavior.

What I wonder from the article is what happens if you take a poor person and
pay off everything and get them started with an education. Do they fall right
back into debt? I have always suspected that having a child while a teenager
is too big of a cost to dig your way out of.

~~~
techiferous
in India

This may not translate well into the U.S., since India has a history of a
strong caste system that enforced poverty. "Things could be different" was not
true for the Harijans.

~~~
fanboy123
That was part of the study. Researchers observed more irrational actions
compared to say rural china or vietnam. Having that feeling that things wont
change will cause you to give up and do what is deemed irrational.

------
megaman821
Most of the social help programs that I have seen so far, except for
unemployment, are overrun by scammers. I lived in a section 8 apartment for a
while and the same people qualifying for $25/month rents were driving
Escalades. For these people there is nothing at this point in their lives that
is going to change they way they live and think. Educating their kids is the
only way to break the cycle of poverty.

~~~
dgabriel
> the same people qualifying for $25/month rents were driving Escalades

I have not known this to be true. The handful of people I know who qualify for
section 8 don't own cars, or have 15yo beaters.

~~~
megaman821
I can't say I have done a formal study, it is just an observation in a single
city. The Mint Blog published some numbers on illegal immigrants where it was
claimed that over 60% of section 8 was claimed by them. Most of them get paid
in cash so it is easy to adjust whatever they make to meet the section 8
qualifications. Also a lot of the households have more than one adult working
so going over the $30k qualification threshold doesn't take that good of job
if it is split between 2 or 3 people.

There are definitely people that have fallen on hard times and people on
disability that needs the help section 8 provides, it just makes me angry that
they are in the minority of people being helped.

------
FlemishBeeCycle
Poverty will always exist, because poverty in its truest form is the
perception of inequality.

As timwiseman said:

>With that said, the close tie in to material wealth is your place in society.
A good hunter-gatherer might have none of the luxuries we take for granted
now, but he probably has the respect of those around him and looks around and
sees he is well off compared to his comrades. He is likely to be happy, and to
feel that his work is paying off.

Imagine a world where every citizen was equipped with one spoon. They only
needed one spoon, and they only ever used one spoon. Now say a few citizens
acquire _two_ spoons. They never use these spoons, and they don't need them.
But suddenly, everyone who only has one spoon starts to feel inferior.

If we woke up tomorrow and everyone had the same amount of wealth, it would be
necessary to redefine poverty. The feelings that accompany poverty would still
exist, albeit for a different perceptible difference between people.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-
news/3315638/Rela...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-
news/3315638/Relative-wealth-makes-you-happier.html) I can't find the original
study, but this article references it.

------
hakl
He was on C-SPAN Book TV in 2007:
<http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/200788-1> In true C-SPAN tradition the
video has 21 views :).

If you don't have flash you can get the video with RTMPDump
(<http://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu>):

rtmpdump -W
[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlay...](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf)
-s
[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlay...](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf)
-r
rtmp://video.c-spanarchives.org:1935/fastplay/../trimmed/200/200788/200788-1_01.flv
-o 200788-1_01.flv

rtmpdump -W
[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlay...](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf)
-s
[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlay...](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf)
-r
rtmp://video.c-spanarchives.org:1935/fastplay/../trimmed/200/200788/200788-1_02.flv
-o 200788-1_02.flv

------
popschedule
interesting story: I lived in Los Angeles from the age of 19 to now age 26. My
mother died this past november. Before this had happened, I was living my life
in Los Angeles. I had big ambitions and I knew where they were taking me. Work
was in abundance, during which I had been working for myself for three years
developing websites, and working on my startups. It was picture perfect in
ways that work would come to me.

Now, I live in Sherman Texas, A very small town where I grew up and once
dreamed of big things, expensive things which would become mine to keep. The
loss of my mother was very difficult, yet I have now opened a new candy store,
and leased a large office loft downtown. I've gone through every penny in the
transition. One of the most important things that I realize now is that-
things in life do not last, whether it be riches of material wealth, love,
spirit, or my own motivation. One thing can I can be certain of is my own
mindset, temporary defeat, and a loss of hope- or the ultimate poverty.

I currently have a broke down car that beeps as I drive it as if it were a
time bomb, too much office space, and an inheritance of real-estate that has
become a burden in expenses that I can no longer keep up with. Every new
project that comes my way somehow disappears before my eyes (I've never had
this much trouble closing a deal).

If you are poor, look up, you're still alive. This life is a series of
challenges, breath a fire that ignites your soul. Live to have hope, and
continue dreaming. The difference between the rich and the poor is ones drive
to act upon a dream, and fight without a moment of doubt.

The poor now, and the poor tomorrow are two different people, the ones who
lift their own spirit, and the ones who drown in their spirit of misery.

------
stcredzero
I think the sort of poverty I sense around big company development is of the
same sort. Employees are often beset by clueless management, crushing
bureaucratic paperwork, WTF bad code, useless demoralized coworkers, &c...

This results in people saying stuff like, "If you find yourself in a warm tub
of shit, just have the good sense to stay there where it's warm and no one's
likely to attack you." Yes, I actually had a coworker say that to me once.

The attitudess of such workers are very much like the attitudes of those in
poverty as described by the article.

------
shin_lao
The question is: why do you let your car have many dents?

Why some people fall deeper into poverty and some other get out of it? Is it
just a question of luck? Of help? Of energy? Of will?

~~~
hapless
First, let us correct your assumptions: Very few Americans get out of poverty.
Social mobility rates are surprisingly small in the United States. The
American Everyman is very likely to die in the class into which he was born.

Secondly, not falling into poverty in the first place really is a question of
help. Wealthy people (read: almost all HN users) have networks of wealthy
people to assist them when times get hard -- parents, children, siblings,
friends.

The poor do not. Poor folks have networks of other poor folks. If I lose my
job and my house, I have a year of cash and goodwill to live on, couch-surfing
and stretching savings. If a member of the working poor suffers a setback on
the way out of poverty, he could be back to square one, or worse, in a matter
of weeks.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_Very few Americans get out of poverty. Social mobility rates are surprisingly
small in the United States. The American Everyman is very likely to die in the
class into which he was born._

Not true:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Economic_mobi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#Economic_mobility_in_the_United_States)

~~~
bluedanieru
_Moving between quintiles is more frequent in the middle quintiles (2-4) than
in the lowest and highest quintiles. Of those in one of the quintiles 2-4 in
1996, approximately 35% stayed in the same quintile; and approximately 22%
went up one quintile or down one quintile (moves of more than one quintile are
rarer). However, 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely
to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile. On
the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top
quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the
fourth quintile. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1%
chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the
children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%.

According to one study, the income of a person's parents is a great deal more
predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries.
France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more
relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have
less mobility._

It's a point of contention, at any rate.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
The exact degree of economic mobility might be a point of contention, but I
see very little merit in the statement that "very few Americans get out of
poverty" or "The American Everyman is very likely to die in the class into
which he was born." The data says otherwise.

~~~
bluedanieru
Perhaps more likely than in much of the developed world, however. There
doesn't seem to be any reason to think the US has _high_ economic mobility.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Again, how is this relevant in the context of the claim that there is almost
no economic mobility in the US?

This is sort of like claiming that we have hardly any people in the US because
China and India have so many more. We still have hundreds of millions.

~~~
bluedanieru
It's relevant because we're talking about poverty in the context of policy and
values, and if the US is falling short on poverty metrics compared to the rest
of the developed world, then it's evidence we're doing something wrong.

------
tmsh
Bee stings is a bad analogy. It's more like trying to retain and adapt human
dignity among exponentially more inefficient human processes. I agree with
this article only insofar as multiple bee stings are exponentially more
painful. But I disagree with it insofar as bee stings represent 'pain' instead
of logistical nightmares and high risk situations, which is what poverty, the
further down you go, increasingly involves.

I also disagree strongly that poverty leads to irrationality. That is a very
dangerous and arrogant line of thinking -- and obviously reflects a lack of
understanding with the rational choices poor people face.

~~~
mkramlich
My take is that irrationality (by somebody) or bad luck (by somebody) leads to
poverty. Which leads to more irrationality. Which leads to more poverty. And
so on. It can be a vicious cycle that is hard to escape from, mentally and
financially.

------
uast23
The theory of "car dent" and "no of dishes in sink" are kind of justified but
the "protagonist" of the article i.e. no of bee stings does not fit with the
theory of poverty at all. Does not matter if someone has one or ten bee
stings, people get it cured for sure.

~~~
dinedal
Suppose you get X bee stings (problems) in one day, and you have a bee string
rate of Y per day normally. If you can only afford to buy cures at a rate of Z
per day (let's be optimistic and assume it's greater then Y) it will take you
X-(Z-Y) days to cure all your bee stings.

Now, a bee sting sucks, but it doesn't kill you. In fact, life without any bee
stings is, let's say, Q times better then with. Yet, the difference between 1
bee sting and N bee stings is pretty much nil, they all hurt. The only real
benefit occurs when you cross the threshold that lets you have no bee stings
at the end of each day.

The theory, as I understand it, proposes that given a big enough X, a person
with a small (Z-Y), won't bother with curing bee stings, regardless of Q.

~~~
uast23
My comment was meant for the literal meaning for "Bee sting". What if I
replace "bee sting" with a "cut finger". You will say whether it is one finger
off from your body or 10 fingers off... it hurts the same!!!... so no need to
pay attention.

In theory your/author's logic sounds good... but practically it does not make
sense. I would still say that the analogy of car dents OR no of dishes in the
sink is a better way to present it. Its a little impractical to count
"physical/bodily" pains in numbers.

~~~
dinedal
I think you're taking the bee sting far too literally.

Although I do agree that the bee sting isn't exactly the best fit for an
analogy, I don't agree the dishes in sink / car dents is any better.

------
nazgulnarsil
[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/06/why_do_the_poor....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/06/why_do_the_poor.html)

------
10ren
when overwhelmed, reduce your frame/perspective so you can focus on one thing
at a time.

------
DanielBMarkham
Lots of great comments here. I tried to refrain from commenting but it is a
topic close to my heart.

I would simply add that as somebody who has been poor and upper-middle-class,
and switched back and forth repeatedly, that there is a difference between
poverty and despair.

Anybody can get poor. Some folks who are poor can get out of it given the
right conditions, but folks who have given over to despair cannot get out of
it, no matter what you do for them or what the conditions are.

People pass from poverty into despair very easily, unfortunately. This is
closely related to the "what kind of reality do you want to live your life
in?" question, where the issue is not what the externalities are, but rather
what types of things do you want to assume and keep in your heart -- that
working hard has it's own merit, that being honest is a better way to live,
that educating yourself makes for a richer life, that trying new things can
lead to good results. These may never ever be proven by personal experience:
in fact, for many poor people it will all just result in more of the same. But
by _believing_ them, as a group, the group does better than by not believing
them. The belief has an effect of its own.

------
InclinedPlane
Poverty is the realization of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as applied to
economics. The easiest way to become poor is to do nothing, it works almost
every time.

------
wanderingknight
Marx figured this out over a century ago and these people are still puzzled
about the "answer"?

------
csomar
>> Social conservatives have tended to argue that poor people lack the smarts
or willpower to make the right choices.

I think the lack of smartness is what makes people poor. I heard lot of
stories of people who inherited millions and finished as poor as a blue collar
employee.

