
Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years with Nearly Nothing Going Wrong - monsieurpng
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/524610/?single_page=true
======
temp-dude-87844
The article is a book teaser for _The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and
Power in a Dual Economy_ , by Peter Temin at MIT. The central point, he
argues, is that the top 20% professional-and-up top crust of American society
has enacted structural gatekeeping processes like many years of education, and
low minimum wages to systematically repress groups by race.

From an economist, this is a surprisingly racial thesis, where a simple
economic one would do: close the door on others after they're already in the
castle. You can see this play out everywhere, from how 'disruption' pivots to
regulatory capture, from how homeowners fiercely guard their property values,
and society self-sorts into cohorts of similar income and circumstance.

We've seen in recent years with working-class people's backlash against
neoliberal ideas of governance and trade, in Europe and the US, that the
economics notion that growth creates wealth at all levels, and wealth isn't a
zero-sum game, is a perception not widely shared among everyday people. The
fact is, most people perceive wealth solely in relative terms: are they better
off than their neighbors, or people with similar life circumstances? Or are
they plagued by the same anxiety and insecurity as people they always thought
of as poorer than them?

Race plays into this, sure, but more in terms of shared history or the lack
thereof, and of being a convenient visually-obvious indicator for a dimension
of difference. The people fighting for the scraps below try to band together
along dimensions they find relatable -- similar upbringing, comparable
treatment by the same sorts of people, similar biases, similar goals and
struggles, and race often correlates with enough difference in these life
circumstances to interfere with relatability. Conversely, outside of the upper
crust of society, different groups all quest for the same opportunities, where
victory of one group is quite often to the economic detriment of another.
Simply, every group is trying to keep another out. Those whose families have
recently ascended to economic security have a vested interest in keeping large
waves of additional risers out, while those competing for opportunities to be
upwardly mobile are fighting over limited capacity in education, employment,
and housing.

~~~
clavalle
While it is the norm (certainly taught as the norm) to profit by coming
together in a transaction where both parties leave with more value it is also
possible to profit by taking value. This can be done through outright robbery
but it can also be done in more subtle (and legal) ways by making a
transaction look more voluntary than it is. When one party is negotiating from
a position of strength (employers) and the other party is negotiating with
their life and physical well being on the line (employees, especially those on
the lower end of the pay scale) then the first party can take more value and
profit from the transaction than if they were both negotiating for a net gain
in value.

So, somewhere along the way, largely by historical accident and inertia, we've
decided as a society that it is ok to keep a huge portion of the population on
the edge of desperation and that if they fall it is their own concern. Any
moves to change this is seen as an attack on business owners and their
profits. This is short-sighted since if people are motivated rather than
forced to produce value there will be more people contributing to the
improvement of the castle and fewer looking at the walls with jealousy and
chip away at it whenever they get the opportunity.

~~~
patricius
Nah, no single decision was made about keeping a huge portion of the
population on the edge of desperation. And companies are not generally to
blame for people's desperation, unless they somehow cheat or commit fraud
(usually in collusion with the state). Furthermore, always assuming that the
employer is always in the position of strength is wrong. Even though Chinese
factory workers are paid very little by Western standards, they are seeing
their wages rise, which is exactly because they are increasingly able to
negotiate from a position of strength.

Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not. There are no degrees
of 'voluntary' if you use the word in the conventional sense.

~~~
lisper
> Lastly, a transaction is either voluntary or it is not. There are no degrees
> of 'voluntary' if you use the word in the conventional sense.

So if I point a gun at your head and threaten to shoot you if you don't hand
over your wallet, you would say that you voluntarily handed over your wallet
because that was a fair price for keeping your head intact?

Most people mean something different when they use the word "voluntary".

~~~
AnimalMuppet
In the conventional sense of the word, no, that transaction is clearly not
voluntary. And I don't think your example is making the point that you're
trying to use it to make.

~~~
lisper
See my response above to Patricius.

------
lifeisstillgood
I call this the Michael Caine, Sean Connery and Tom Jones effect. In the 1910s
Britain was a viciously divided society - with poverty gaps greater than the
US sees now. The Great Depression was somewhat levelling but children born in
the East End of London, Glasgow's Gorbals, or the rural poverty of Welsh
valleys had desperately worse outcomes than those in the middle classes. (Can
you guess where each of the celebrities was born and raised ? :-)

Then came a war that threatened to cut off our food supplies (Nazi UBoats sank
horrifying tonnage of shipping), and to combat it a simple solution was found
cutting through generations of political baggage - rationing. Every citizen
got given a minimum set of healthy food (like two eggs a week, a pound of meat
etc etc).

For some this was government over-reach - for others it was the first time in
their lives they had eaten properly. After the war, a Labour government
introduced a welfare state that prescribed a minimum amount of food,
education, healthcare in an on going fashion.

And what did we get 20 years later? We got tall strong good looking actors and
singers who came to dominate their niches and did so without the rickkets,
malnourishment and disadvantages that had been their older brothers lot. We
got similar results in medicine, science and business, with each area finding
their own James Bond, drawn from a much wider pool of talent.

In short we fed our underclass and turbo charged our growth in the post war
period.

In my view there is a bottle labelled "nitro" attached to the American Economy
that has yet to be turned on. The knob does have razor blades attached to cut
whichever politician tries to turn it, but folks, it will be worth it,
20'years from now

~~~
nitwit005
When it comes to the traditional problems of poverty such as malnourishment,
freezing in the winter, lack of cloths or shoes, and so on, many countries
have done quite well. Even fairly poor countries have had success there.

The complaints coming out of the US are more about inequality than poverty,
although people confuse the two issues (sometimes intentionally).

~~~
dragonwriter
> The complaints coming out of the US are more about inequality than poverty,
> although people confuse the two issues (sometimes intentionally).

They aren't distinct; poverty is always in relation to a set of standards, and
there are very good reasons to looking to the contemporary context for the
most applicable standards.

~~~
nitwit005
If you set an income standard, sure, it's relative, but you aren't
"relatively" starving, or "relatively" infected with parasites because you
have no shoes. Those are real problems that have nothing to do with how
society choses to view innequality.

------
bdcravens
(anecdotal data point) I grew up in a very poor family. (Like electricity-or-
food, owned no car my entire childhood poor) Always had a love for technology,
however, and bought my first used computer (old 286) at 18. (1995) Bought my
first Windows machine 2 years later. Was always learning and writing code -
school machines, graphing calculator, my computer etc. In 1998 got first "tech
job" doing phone support for ISP/computer store in little rural town in
Oklahoma. Starting doing web sites for them, then learned server-side
(ColdFusion), and by early 2000 was doing contract work in Houston at typical
rates. Definitely broke out of poverty, and along the way, made some very dumb
mistakes (as well as significant medical costs). Still not in poverty.

Counterpoints: my aunt's family was middle class and all educators, so I had a
great example within arm's reach. I'm also a white male, so don't have some of
the social issues that would hindered me otherwise.

~~~
Brockenstein
People who leave high school at 9th grade statistically don't have very good
prospects. My last year of school was the 9th grade. I got my GED at 20 (like
I walked in off the street and took the tests with no prep or anything), went
to college and earned a bachelors in computer science fairly easily.

There's always going to be outliers to any case. People who pull off crazy
things that only 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, maybe 1 out of 1,000 could
possible do if things went just so for them.

Also good for you to recognize some of your advantages and maybe learning
better habits from successful people. Not everyone is able to break the cycle
and circumstances they're born into. And in either of our cases it's probably
wise to be mindful how one event, major enough, could leave us in ruins.

~~~
bdcravens
When I was in high school some circumstances led to a recommendation that I
could drop out and start making money. I never for a nanosecond considered
that as an option. Obviously that's not a perspective shared by all, and even
those who wouldn't choose that may be facing a different reality than I did.

------
seymour333
Personally what I find the most frustrating is finally escaping poverty and
getting pushed firmly against an artificial, middle-class, ceiling where it
isn't possible to become more financially free because of constant inflation
and the choice I made to contribute to society by having a family. Meanwhile
productivity and profitability continue to increase

~~~
cletus
Sorry but I have to pick a bone with you about one of your contentions: having
children is a choice. Are you contributing to society? At a basic level of
course if no one had children we'd cease to exist but at the same time it's
also arguable that there are simply too many of us on the planet to support,
which shifts having children into a more selfish choice.

On a more personal level, I suspect you chose to had kids because you wanted
kids. This is fine. But you're not doing this for the good of society.

Lastly, in the developed world we WAY overspend on child-rearing. Like... it's
ridiculous. It may well be that in the US each child will cost nigh on $1m to
raise. That's... ludicrous. But it also comes about from making a bunch of
unessential choices (eg private school). Again, if that's what you want to do,
fine. But it's another choice.

~~~
Xeoncross
> there are simply too many of us on the planet to support

No, we could easily support 10 times this many people. The problem is that
people are "selfish" and will starve, steal, and kill others for power or
property. Starvation isn't because of the lack of food or resources - its the
governments, rebels, gangs, and guerrilla fighters.

~~~
echlebek
That's quite a claim. It's not at all clear that the world can support 70 bn
people.

~~~
Xeoncross
As people are now I would agree. I meant simply producing enough food for 73
billion people.

------
poster123
"Temin argues that, following decades of growing inequality, America is now
left with what is more or less a two-class system: One small, predominantly
white upper class that wields a disproportionate share of money, power, and
political influence"

Temin avoids mentioning Asians, who have a higher average income than whites,
despite many being relative newcomers to the country. That would undermine the
narrative of a static class structure.

~~~
Brockenstein
However when you factor in their level of education, they're still making less
than their white (male) peers.

>One small, predominantly white upper class that wields a disproportionate
share of money, power, and political influence"

predominantly...

Stop to consider the number of Asians in the U.S., now take the number of
Asians that have a higher than average income than Whites. Now take the number
of Whites who earn the same average income or greater than our Asian subgroup.
You're not convinced that the group of relatively above average income earners
is going to be predominantly white?

You can look at the demographics in anything that you think qualifies people
as upper class. Government, at the state or national level? Upper management
at Fortune 500 companies? I mean pick anything and if you find any results
that don't reflect predominantly white, and almost certainly predominantly
white male I'll be shocked and pleasantly surprised that we've made that much
progress.

Your point only undermines Temin's narrative if you blithely ignore all the
other information.

------
vinceguidry
> The MIT economist Peter Temin argues that economic inequality results in two
> distinct classes. And only one of them has any power.

Nobody studies history anymore. This has always been the case, and the ratio
of haves to have-nots has only improved with time, as has the quality of life
of the have-nots. That ratio may have been a little better in the golden years
after WW2 in the USA, but it's still way better now than it ever was before
WW2.

Modernity truly is the tide that lifted all boats.

------
soared
>upper class of FTE workers ... has strategically pushed for policies ...to
bolster the economic success of some groups and not others, largely along
racial lines

> His final recommendation is to address systemic racism

Not a good start from Temin. Its not like the entire upper class is outwardly
racist like the first quote implies. If you want to reduce racial/class
divides, maybe making the upper class appear to be a purposefully racist enemy
isn't the best way to go.

~~~
BLanen
Sorry you got so offended.

Learn what systemic racism is and how it's not what you got offended by.

~~~
soared
I'm not offended - my point is that if you want to break down a barrier
between two groups of people, why would you demonize one side?

~~~
danaliv
Systemic racism means a system produces racist outcomes, not necessarily that
its participants are racist individuals.

~~~
soared
The author never mentions this. The wording (purposefully or not) makes it
seem like the upper 20% is purposefully racist and knowingly holding down the
lower class.

~~~
BLanen
So the author has to explain every concept even if it can be assumed most
reading understand certain terms?

------
xivzgrev
I don't think there is a mass conspiracy going on. I do think there are
disvirtuous circles going on. Ex one school is located in a bad area over time
gets less funding, becomes less attractive, fewer people with means want to
send their children there, school gets less funding etc.

It's not just rich people who oppose poor people. It's also poor people. Think
of the guy who is scraping to get ahead and sees someone he knows totally
taking advantage of the system and not working, or is involved in criminal
activity. This was a good article on it:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-
we-cant-stop-hating-
poor/&ved=2ahUKEwjd08D42q3aAhUIvlMKHV31CeoQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw39P5_o6d_CBFjSzR2xfhSM)

~~~
sseveran
Where I grew up in Baltimore the problem wasn't the funding of the schools.
Indeed, when I was in school Baltimore City spent just a bit less per pupil
than Montgomery county which was one of the 10 wealthiest counties in the
nation. However the money was spent very differently. So while I would agree
that there are real systemic problems I don't think there is any amount of
money that could be thrown at Baltimore City that would really change the
outcomes in a meaningful way. And that is what makes me the most sad about it.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
how can you spend money so differently in one district to another ? Teacher
salaries, buildings, books seem to be the likely highest costs wherever you
are.

~~~
dashundchen
Spending per pupil alone doesn't tell the whole story.

In the US, it's common for school districts in high poverty areas to end up
providing services that in other countries would be provided via state welfare
or privately.

So free school lunches and breakfasts, physical and occupational therapy,
counseling and nursing for students, transportation for handicapped, social
workers etc all get wrapped up in a district budget, with the largest chunk of
spending going towards the highest need students. Add up the higher rates of
childhood poverty and special needs in urban areas and the per pupil spending
becomes a poor measure of what is actually spent on education for the average
student.

I'll note that in my state, the balakanized school district situation in many
metros leaves suburban districts too small to provide these services
themselves, and they'll often send their highest need students into the bigger
urban district.

Here's an article describing some of this disparity among districts in the
Cleveland, Ohio area.
[http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and...](http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and_special_needs_eat.html)

------
bigjimslade
Ok the linked article seems to be a short synopsis of a book, one which I did
not read nor have intention to.

But dear Lord the article was so full of government fluff, obvious and trite
blather of what has been tried and failed, over, and over, and over again.

It is nothing but why we need government to fix the very problems it created,
and makes even worse with its choking regulations, legislation, and self-
serving laws.

My very own grandfather broke into the roofing business around age 11, growing
up in abject poverty. He didn't much care for sitting in a school house. He
made a good living eventually, becoming one of the largest employers in town,
a respected local businessman who would hire anyone willing to work, and give
them a fair shot.

Today, though, his life would be completely unable to be lived, legally,
anyway. Between the government's silly attempts at paperwork for immigration
tracking, taxes, labor laws, minimum wage laws, the list goes on and on and
on, it would be impossible. The barriers to entry for the poor but motivated
ensure nothing more than the permanent existence of the poor.

The article is frankly disgusting in its puerile and obviously wrong
insistence that what we need is more of the above.

~~~
supreme_sublime
It blows my mind that "low minimum wage" is listed as a reason why minorities
don't earn more money. It is well known that increases in minimum wage result
in higher unemployment. It is very basic supply/demand. In fact minimum wage
laws were originally implemented in the south specifically to price minorities
out of the market. [0]

It seems utterly nonsensical now to act as if they are some great boon to
minorities and will help them rise out of their current collective
predicament. The best thing for people with low skills is to allow them to
enter the market to gain skills. Pricing them out of the market and legitimate
employment pushes them to black markets as there is no legal way to
participate in gainful employment. Which will thereby increase incarceration
rates and contributes to the problem of fatherless homes, something we all
know is a very undesirable outcome.

[0] [https://nypost.com/2013/09/17/why-racists-love-the-
minimum-w...](https://nypost.com/2013/09/17/why-racists-love-the-minimum-wage-
laws/)

------
justherefortart
The hardest part is changing people's patterns when they get money (I have
this same issue to a lesser degree than my friends that had poorer childhood
experiences).

That spend it before you lose it thing is really difficult to overcome.

~~~
seymour333
This is pretty true. I'm always watching my sister-in-law, who can barely make
ends meet, buy stupid shit. Big TV, new furniture that she can barely get
credit approval for, clothes that have brands and logos on them that are twice
as expensive as plain clothes that are usually better quality.

A lot of it looks like compensation for being on the poverty line. Like her
self-esteem can't take the hit of buying the sensible items that she needs so
she can get ahead. Doesn't realize she's getting in her own way.

I think culturally we're taught to have nice things and that becomes the goal
instead of acting sensibly and doing the right things. Would probably need a
couple of generations of kids who value a healthy savings account and an on-
track budget more than whatever shiny things they encounter in the media they
consume. That's a tall order

~~~
JAFTEM
IME growing up on the poverty line and now working as a dev and living
comfortably, I get serious guilt trips whenever I spend money I don't need to
spend.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Perhaps this could help explain why you grew up poor and are now living
comfortably, while other people grew up poor and are still poor.

------
johnrichardson
I don't see the word 'IQ' mentioned anywhere in that article. And yet, it's
the single biggest determinant of lifetime success. Unfortunately, it's also
highly heritable, so environmental interventions have a fairly marginal effect
on it.

~~~
pulisse
_Unfortunately, it 's also highly heritable, so environmental interventions
have a fairly marginal effect on it._

(a) The Flynn Effect demonstrates that IQ is quite responsive to environment.

(b) The heritability of a trait is not a measure of the degree to which that
trait is genetically determined: Highly heritable traits can be environmently
malleable. (The heritability of height is 0.8, but nutrition, childhood
sickness, etc. have a huge effect on height.) Conversely, traits with low
heritability can be strongly determined, genetically. ("Number of eyes" is a
trait with low heritability, for example.)

(c) The measured heritability of IQ isn't especially high. It's usually found
to be in the vicinity of 0.3.

~~~
lazerpants
Regarding C, isn't that just for children? As I recall it's something like 0.5
or higher for adults.

~~~
johnrichardson
You're right. Some studies have found it as high as 85%.

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

------
mr_overalls
From the article: > The first are skilled, tech-savvy workers and managers
with college degrees and high salaries who are concentrated heavily in fields
such as finance, technology, and electronics—hence his labeling it the “FTE
sector.”

Am I the only one who's wondering why "electronics" is its own category,
instead of being lumped under "technology"?

~~~
jpindar
Nowadays, in some circles, the word technology has been redefined to mean
"websites". And maaaaybe other software, but that's borderline.

So electronics, rockets, robots, lasers, medicine, skyscrapers etc. etc. are
no longer considered technology.

I hate this so much, but language evolves. What can you do?

------
noetic_techy
> That’s a 16-year (or longer) plan that, as Temin compellingly observes, can
> be easily upended.

I personally think the entire college level education system needs a do-over.
Stop requiring people to get expensive degrees, when a decently accredited
micro degree system would work. Who gives a fuck if you're more well rounded
coming out of college when you're in massive student loan debt. You just
created a giant glass ceiling that keeps the poor who are trying to break
through even poorer. A handful of Ivy League Universities should be for the
elites and the rest of us should have the option to bypass this system
altogether. I'm one of these FTE's, and I look back at my college degree as
30% worth the time, and 70% a waste of time, and all of that time cost me a
lot.

------
RickJWagner
According to the non-profit Brookings Institute, there are 3 keys to avoiding
poverty. (Of those that follow these rules, only 2% are in poverty.)

\- At least finish high school \- Get a full-time job \- Wait until age 21 to
get married and have children

We should all be committed to spreading this message.

[https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-
poor-t...](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-
should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/)

------
RickJWagner
According to the non-profit Brookings Institute, there are 3 simple rules to
avoid poverty:

\- At least finish high school \- Get a full-time job \- Wait until age 21 to
get married and have children

Of those that follow these 3 rules, only 2% are still in poverty.

[https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-
poor-t...](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-
should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/)

------
internetman55
I'm sure white people do control a lot of jobs or whatever, but I'm still
always confused about people talking about white males in tech or techbros
etc. when probably 50-75% of my coworkers (F50 tech company) were Asian (note
that whites make up 75% of the population and Asians 5% by the 2010-2015
census data i found on wikipedia)

~~~
gameswithgo
71% of programmers in the USA are white. However asians are over represented
in the field:

[https://datausa.io/profile/soc/151131/](https://datausa.io/profile/soc/151131/)

~~~
throwajay
so whites are underrepresented, and the data supports the idea that racism
isn’t a great explanation. interesting

~~~
cimmanom
When there are more than two groups, Group X can be overrepresented without
Group Y being underrepresented.

~~~
thaumasiotes
That is certainly true, but the numbers this subthread provides are that
whites hold a 75% share of the population and a 71% share of programmers.

------
turc1656
The first sentence already contains a lie. _" A lot of factors have
contributed to American inequality: slavery, economic policy, technological
change, the power of lobbying, globalization, and so on."_ Slavery ended more
than 150 years ago. To claim that it is a contributing factor to _current_
economic inequality is absurd. Racism and discrimination, sure. But not
slavery.

~~~
mikeash
Slavery did not go quietly. Alternate structures were constructed to continue
exploiting the former slaves. Jim Crow was dismantled within living memory,
and even that did not stop all of it.

~~~
turc1656
This sounds like racism and discrimination (which I mentioned as separate
issues). And they are indeed separate. A country need not have had slavery as
an institution to have racism and discrimination.

EDIT - I would also like to point out that a fundamental point of this article
was that the economist discovered it was basically more fair and easier to
escape poverty prior to 1970.

~~~
stevenwoo
The United States is kind of special in that we enshrined slavery in our
founding document in 1787 and this insinuated itself into the fabric of
society in a multitude of ways. Apartheid era South Africa may be the only
equivalent for the past 150 years.

------
randyrand
As Ben Shapiro likes to say, to move out of poverty you have to do 3 things.
1\. graduate high school. 2\. get a job. 3\. don't have kinds until you are
married. If you do those 3 things you will not stay in poverty 99.8% of the
time.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdEMw_lDUx0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdEMw_lDUx0)

Also, the headline does not ever appear in the article itself. huh?

~~~
awalton
> If you do those 3 things you will not stay in poverty 99.8% of the time.

I know a _lot_ of people in poverty, having come from it myself. I refuse to
believe this without a direct citation.

~~~
supreme_sublime
I believe [https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-marriage-the-
way...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-marriage-the-way-to-end-
poverty-and-welfare/) is the research that is being referred to.

