
What Really Keeps Poor People Poor - jonbischke
http://jonbischke.com/2011/05/26/what-really-keeps-poor-people-poor/
======
solson
Having been poor (not 3rd world poor, poor by American standards) I found the
most difficult thing is leaving the poverty stricken network. You don't feel
like you've made it until you reject the entire mindset. Until then, you feel
like you've sold out. My mother still makes me feel guilty and shames me every
time I see her. Until you've had a parent who shames you for doing better than
they did, you'll never understand the trap. I tell my upper middle class
neighbors about this and they can't imagine parents who wouldn't want their
children to do better than them. While I still talk to my parents I've dumped
the rest of the network. I protect myself and my family from my old network.
Their whole way of thinking is poison. With many of them you risk violence,
drugs, abuse, sexual abuse, racism, etc. Even if you trust one or two of them
you can never trust who they will bring you or your family in contact with. No
amount of mentoring or example setting has helped, it just breeds resentment.
Their world view traps them right where they are and their rejection,
resentment, and hostility to a better way of life creates their poverty and
isolation. Sending them to Harvard isn't going to make a damn bit of
difference. Well, MAYBE if you sent one or two, but if you sent enough, they'd
just ruin Harvard.

I came to the conclusion many years ago that in America poverty is a
contagious mindset, nothing more. But I do understand that it is a difficult
mindset to escape due to social issues. In all honesty, in most cases the
middle class and rich have good reason not to network with the poor.

~~~
iamelgringo
May I respectfully suggest that there are very different kinds of poverty, and
that not all kinds of poverty are due to cultural choices.

 _I came to the conclusion many years ago that in America poverty is a
contagious mindset, nothing more._

You are making very, very broad generalizations and stereotyping an entire
socio-economic category of people.

My parents grew up in rural Minnesota in absolute poverty. My father didn't
use a toilet or shower until he was 17 and moved to a "large" high school
where they could shower after gym class. He worked his way through 3
Bachelor's degrees and a Master's degree in Education, and then chose a live
of relative poverty to become a minister and work in Central America.

I've had to be financially independent since I was 17. I've worked a job to
pay my own bills since I was 14. I grew up rarely buying clothes at a store,
and wearing hand me downs.

None of that was a matter of contagious mindset.

I worked in the ghetto in Chicago as an ER and trauma nurse for years, and
yes, there are definitely choices that people make that make them continue in
poverty, but there are also systemic issues that make escaping poverty in the
inner city extremely difficult.

In the inner city, it takes a lot more time to take a bus to the grocery
store, purchase food and bring it back home and cook it. Groceries are _tons
more expensive in large cities. Access to banking is more difficult because of
similar reasons, so people use check cashing services, which cost exorbitant
amounts. Transportation is much more difficult, because you end up having to
take expensive public transportation back and forth to work.

Banks make Billions of dollars a year on bounced check fees and overdraft
charges. That means that banking is much more expensive for those people that
can least afford it. Credit card companies make Billions of dollars each year
in over limit fees, and late fees. In fact, people who max out their credit
cards are a creditor's best customer. These are systemic problems that keep
people in poverty. That's not a cultural mindset.

Who would ever dream of commuting 2 hours a day for a minimum wage job. I
worked with plenty of people at Walgreens on Rush and Division in Chicago that
did just that. Those were the jobs available to them.

Yes, people make choices that keep them in poverty. Yes, there are mindsets
that keep people in poverty. But, to ignore systemic, structural problems that
keep people in poverty in America is just plain wrong.

~~~
ctdonath
Life is hard to live in a place where life is hard to live.

There is some push to discuss "food deserts" as a social problem subject to
sociopolitical solutions. Thing is, a desert is what it is because there is
little there to sustain life - and the prime way to deal with that, short of
either imposing expensive infrastructure or accepting grinding bare-sustenance
living, is MOVE: don't be there. Ditto these urban "food deserts" (or "banking
deserts", or ...): the solution isn't trying to impose an infrastructure on a
system which has a natural resistance thereto, and will require enormous costs
with little payback, the solution is to recognize "this is a bad place to
exist in" and get out. Yes, it can be hard to move for many reasons; which is
cumulatively harder - leaving, or staying?

If you're going to commute 2 hours every day, you've already proven you can
move. And people do! There are plenty of towns and cities (Detroit a good
current example) where people finally realized "this isn't working, I'm outta
here" and left, leaving the systemic structural problems behind.

My recurring conclusion on the issue: the problem isn't opportunity, the
problem is people not acting on opportunity. You can't force them to, and if
they won't then nothing will change for them.

~~~
mindcrime
_Thing is, a desert is what it is because there is little there to sustain
life - and the prime way to deal with that, short of either imposing expensive
infrastructure or accepting grinding bare-sustenance living, is MOVE: don't be
there._

I wanted to work in high-tech and eventually be a tech entrepreneur. I lived
in rural East Bumfuck, NC, where the dominant industries were: tobacco
farming, golf courses, shrimping, fishing, and logging. We had no broadband
availability, no (or little) access to VC money, angel money, mentorship from
experienced entrepreneurs, and a limited pool of technology aware people.

I could have stayed there, and moaned about how "we don't have broadband" or
"I can't find any other techies to work with," etc. Instead, I packed up my
stuff and moved to the RTP area which is an environment much more suited to
the kind of life I wanted. (No, it's not silicon valley, but it's better than
where I was).

I know some people don't like to hear "move" as an option, whether it's
because of a sense of entitlement, lack of ambition, or just lack of resources
_to_ move. But it's simply true that - for many people - picking up and moving
is exactly the right choice (maybe a necessary choice) if they want a
different kind of life.

~~~
niels_olson
I know nothing about you in particular, but your post in whole suggests that
you weren't raised by drug addicts and foster parents.

My bigger point though, is to be _very_ careful of people who say "I grew up
in BFE, Kentucky" and then clarify that to say "really, on a farm, BFE was
just the nearest town." Because the whole context changes when you find out
they grew up on a Kentucky racehorse breeding farm.

In healthcare and the military, you find out that this whole thing about
"moving" implies realizing that's an option. You're off in the toolshed
telling your friends how other people would be better off shoveling snow with
a sand shovel instead of a snow shovel. Meanwhile, our ancestors drawing
animals in caves shepherded those genes to us through countless winters
without ever knowing about the entire class called shovels. Never mind that
shovels aren't very good for a lot hunting problems, berry-gathering problems,
etc.

I understand that moving is legitimate way to recast your social network, but
it's a long way from optimal for a lot of people.

------
daimyoyo
There are a few reasons that poor people remain poor.

Math: The fact is that it's much more difficult to make $10,000 from nothing
than it is to make $1M when you have $1B to use.

Experience: When you're poor, the odds are very good that you don't know
anyone who is successful(let alone "rich") so there isn't the chance to find
out what it takes to be successful. Plus, when you have no experience you need
to work your way up from nothing. If you come from a rich family, odds are you
know people who are willing to take a chance on you based on the references
you have.

Mindset: I came from a very poor family. I always assumed that I would start
work at some horrible entry level job, and work my way up. That's what
everyone in my family had done. It never occurred to me that there was another
way until my mid 20's. Now I'm approaching 30 and I feel like I'm finally on
my way to working for myself.

~~~
ekanes
Actually you can make $10,000 from nothing weeding or mowing. Of course, you
have to be willing to do hard things like get rejected door to door, but it's
extremely possible.

~~~
krschultz
If 'nothing' == 'buying a lawn mower, a truck, a trailer, and a weed wacker'
then you'd be correct. Although I'm not sure which part of the the Bronx you
think I should setup my mowing business in because the last time I checked,
there isn't any grass.

~~~
lionhearted
There was a great comment on here by Mahmud, I think, about how he used to
make a few hundred dollars per day with a bucket of water and some sponges
washing windows.

It is possible to make money with work ethic and no capital.

~~~
krschultz
I'm sure there are many ways to make money with no capital, I was responding
to what I perceive to be the flippant 'if only poor people just WORKED, they
wouldn't be so damn poor' mentality. A hell of a lot of people work their ass
off and are still poor.

I'll go further than that. Hard work doesn't actually correlate with salary. I
know this becuase I have an incredibly easy job while my cousin busts his ass
everyday at two jobs. He works more hours than me a week, and each of those
hours is far harder, and one of his jobs actually involves risk of personal
injury. All of them are outside in the heat. He gets pissed off at me because
he works so hard and I seem to not have to work at all, but at the end of the
day, hard work is not a recipe for sucess. He does stuff that plenty of other
people are willing to do, while I do stuff that a lot of people never bothered
to learn (at some point, they probably decided that they 'didn't like math'
and closed the door for themselves).

Hard work is a necessary but insufficient condition for sucess. Yes, you have
to work your butt off in order to suceed; but you can toil everyday and get
nowhere very easily. You have to work hard on the right things in order to get
ahead.

That realization has a lot of implications. One of them is relevant for this
conversation: working hard may or may not lift you out of poverty. You can't
extrapolate from "he lives in poverty" to "he isn't working hard". I've worked
at a McDonalds, I've pumped gas, I've mowed lawns. All of those jobs were
significantly harder than what I do today, and all of them paid barely enough
to support myself, much less work towards a better future.

You could work full time at McDonalds and then put in an extra 20 or 30 hours
a week at another minimum wage job, and not get ahead. Or you can work full
time at McDonalds and go to a vocational school at nights and probably get
ahead. They are both equally hard work, but one will likely lead you to a
better life and one won't. But that doesn't mean the people in the first group
aren't working hard.

~~~
ams6110
Some people are able to perceive that they are working hard but on a
treadmill. They then do something to change that. It may work, it may not. If
not they try something else, until they find a way to get a little more
success out of the hard work. They then repeat the process. It's exactly the
same as an entrepreneur who fails at a start-up attempt but learns and adapts
the next time, only on a smaller, personal-income scale.

Other people never seem to realize they are running in place, or if they do,
they don't have the drive to make any changes and just accept it.

------
izendejas
I come from an officially poor background, but it wasn't until I started
learning about my girlfriend's family back in her native, third-world country
that I really got a sense for what third-world poverty is:

\- Constant verbal, physical, sometimes sexual abuse--the stuff that really
traumatizes people into doing these same things across generations. This isn't
the stuff you learn about in the news because, sadly, to many people living in
those conditions, it's part of life. \- Simply not have any positive role
models at all to look up to. Their role-models are their parents, or their
neighbors who have basically grown accustomed to living in poverty and can
offer no guidance.

And I can go on and on.

My girlfriend and I have simply concluded: "some of these people don't know
any better." If they had better role-models, they'd have a better shot.

So it is about the network in a way, but the author doesn't go enough to
explain why. I'd like to give it a shot based on my observations: the network
effect matters. Escaping one network to join a knowledgeable and competitive
one exposes you to different ways of thinking, makes you question preconceived
notions you have, makes you realize just how badly things really were, etc.
I'm sure others here can relate even more, but coming from a modest
background, it has been truly eye opening to be in the bay area, for example.
There are so many talented, ambitious young people that inspire you every day
to push your selves to the limits, that question your abilities, etc. Most
people, I must say are unfortunate to not even know what YC is,
entrepreneurship is all about, etc.

So for anyone who doesn't really understand poverty (I myself, included), I
really recommend you visit a third-world country and actually live amidst
them. Find a friend who comes from such a background and go stay with his/her
family and him/her. You'll realize just how fortunate you are. By all means,
don't feel bad about this, just gain some conscious about the fact that there
are less fortunate people out there and begin to question what you can do with
your companies, at your job to educate these people.

To finish, for anyone that questions a university's worth... remember this, an
education isn't just the material you learn during lectures or books, it's
what you learn about others and from others that really , also. And this
latter component, I think is the secret to reducing poverty: simple exposure
to new ways of life.

~~~
hessenwolf
The graph is disjoint. I remember when I was in school and teachers were
asking me what I wanted to do in college, and I had known not one single
professional individual ever, other than teachers, with a teacher/pupil ratio
of 33/1. How was I supposed to know?

The problem with being poor is that everybody else you know is poor and also
doesn't have an iota how to get out of it.

~~~
wisty
They know. At least, they have a rough idea. Of course, it wouldn't be much
help to have your mother say "learn to read" if she can't help teach you. The
other problem (which will be well-known by many hn-ers) is that trying to get
out of is discouraged.

Would you make friends with a guy who wants to study in another zip code, or a
guy who wants to stay in the 'hood? If you think you are going to stay in the
'hood, then you are best hanging out with a fellow drop-out.

That's the economic explanation for the jealousy and sometimes hostility that
social climbers get.

Whether or not the economic explanation is correct, it's hard to argue that a
black kid in a black school who acts white may get beat up for it.

~~~
stcredzero
Sounds like there may be an "evaporative cooling" effect.

[http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beliefs/)

------
pessimizer
I think I'm going to be the only person commenting here who's going to cop to
getting jobs all the time based on nothing but middle class social
connections. I've gotten jobs through uncle's girlfriends/father's frat
brothers/my drinking buddies. Honestly, most people I come in contact with
know somebody with or have the ability to give me work, and I have the ability
to get some of them work just by being a piece of the network for now, but
probably after I'm further along in my career, directly. I have no doubt that
if I become a business owner, or pursue a managerial track, I'll be expected
to do the same thing for other people and their kids.

How else are you expected to get the million years of experience on everything
expected at every job? The only entry-level jobs I see advertised are for
entry-level geniuses.

I don't think that this can be artificially created by a third party for
adults.

The advice that I would give to actual poor people: make friends with people
with money. Wrack your brains to think of ways to do things for them for free
so you can become a part of the favor trading network. Drink with them a lot -
unless they're religious people, then pray with them. Only date people who
have a family that has money. More money is better than less money. Avoid
people with no money.

~~~
MartinCron
Somewhat less cynical advice that I'll give to young people: Go to college, at
least for a little while, and get a part-time job or an internship. Companies
will hire a college student with little to no experience, but not a college
graduate with little to no experience.

Many people only figure this out when it's too late.

~~~
pessimizer
Agree completely.

Also, college and internships are the best places to create social
relationships with people with money. Remember that even though you may be
intimidated by all of the fanciness and money around you in those
environments, this is a period of time that rich people are actually slumming
(assuming you're not at an expensive private/ivy league college) and will
likely come into contact with more people that are out of their class than at
any other point in their lives. A good number of people you can meet in highly
contested internships are in the last non-managerial/executive job they'll
ever have.

~~~
MartinCron
That's a more cynical take on it than I was intending.

I was thinking of one's college internship as an opportunity to get practical
experience and prove yourself as a competent person instead of just a place to
add rich folks to your network.

~~~
pessimizer
I totally understood your intention and agree. I didn't mean to recharacterize
your comment as saying that college and internships were _just_ a place to
meet people with money; I meant to add that they were _also_ maybe the best
place to meet people with money.

------
charlesju
This whole line of arguments is very strange to me.

I think it would be nice to have high expectations for our highest colleges to
admit a large amount from the lowest quartile of society, but this is not the
natural next step in the process of solving poverty. The next step is how do
we get more of those individuals to graduate from high school, go to
vocational schools, etc. This is just another example of the intellectual
elite trying to overlay their standards on problems, resulting in impractical
policies and priorities, that do nothing to solve underlying problems.

------
trebor
You can be broke and you can be poor. Being broke just means you don't have
money—been there, left that. But I equate poor with the mindset that
repeatedly produces being broke and living paycheck to paycheck.

If you want to make money and stop being poor you have to stick with a tight
budget. Stop spending more than you make, and evaluate whether or not you need
that super-cool iPhone you just adore. At $70 a month a single iPhone could
put food on your table, or the money you save by downgrading to a clamshell
"stupid phone" could help pay off the credit card.

Money doesn't solve _money management_ problems. Solve how you manage your
money and you automatically keep more. A spendthrift with great social
connections is still poor.

------
motters
I think these things were identified several decades ago by sociologists.
Namely that poverty isn't so much about money or level of education, as
popularly supposed, but is primarily about "social exclusion", where there are
few or no opportunities for someone of modest upbringing to break into other
kinds of social circle.

My grandparents generation had a very acute understanding of social class, and
it played a central role in their lives in a variety of ways. I think the
kinds of issues which they faced are now returning.

~~~
mkr-hn
Networking doesn't happen exclusively among people who overestimate their
importance. Just about any kind of volunteering can lead you to something
worthwhile. If one wants to get into an "elite" circle, they can get into a
political campaign as a volunteer for a good start.

------
Joakal
Many factors in poor staying poor.

The High Cost of Poverty: Why the Poor Pay More:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html)

Poor people spend 9% of income on lottery tickets; here's why:
[http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/05/31/poor-people-
spend-9...](http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/05/31/poor-people-spend-9-of-
income-on-lottery-tickets-heres-why/)

Missing poverty's new reality: There's a lot less of it:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/01...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012504735.html)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Your first link is full of fail.

 _You [a hypothetical poor person] don't have a car to get to a
supermarket..._

70% of the poor own a car, 25% own two cars.

 _When you are poor, you don't have the luxury of throwing a load into the
washing machine..._

64% of the poor do have that luxury.

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf>

It only gets worse from that point on. The poor can't get free supermarket
discount cards?

~~~
sethg
I’m not going to look for an answer right now in that 642-page book, but I
suspect that a significant fraction of poor people live in suburban or rural
areas, where owning a car is an absolute necessity for holding a job, and
owning two cars would be damn near a necessity in families where both parents
work outside the house.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The poverty rates for metro and nonmetro areas are not dramatically different
(12.5% vs 15.4%).

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB59/EIB59.pdf>

Some quick math suggests about 30% of poor people live in nonmetro areas.

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Population/>

Since you seem unwilling to browse any sources I cite, I'm not going to bother
looking up suburban poverty.

If you are interested in understanding poverty in the US, you should skim that
642 page report. It's a fantastic report and it answers many questions one
might have about the material conditions of the poor (and many other
categories of people).

------
hxa7241
Is it access to the networks, or that the networks are a fixed size?

To put it another way: one might say the reason people cannot get into
university is they score too low on their grades -- so the solution is to get
everyone the training to enable them to score higher. Except then the
universities will simply set the entrance threshold higher.

~~~
ctdonath
It's not access to networks. It's not doing anything with the opportunity when
they do have access. I see this a lot: those who view access as a mere
possession go nowhere; those who view access as a means to an end advance.
This, in the popular discussions of how to aid the poor, is woefully under-
addressed - probably because for all the things you can do for someone (and
feel good about doing), the one critical core factor is self-motivation: you
can't make someone do what they need to for their own good.

This nation provides tremendous access to networks and other opportunities for
the poor. Maybe not unlimited access to the top networks from the bottom (the
classic "can't afford Harvard" red herring), but there is more than enough
access to get out of poverty. The funding is there, the doors are open, the
paths are clear, assistance is eager - but if someone won't take the steps
that only they themselves can take, they won't get anywhere.

I see stark examples of this over and over. It's not lack of access, it's lack
of personal motivation.

~~~
stcredzero
_the one critical core factor is self-motivation: you can't make someone do
what they need to for their own good._

I doubt that all of the poor lack all personal motivation. For one thing,
there is considerable social disincentive for people who unintentionally
signal that they are poor.

I remember reading one account of a poor woman who had no idea she could walk
into a downtown skyscraper. She always thought that she'd have to check in at
the desk or present some sort of ID. This is true for some buildings, but not
for all of them.

In the case of attractive women, I'm sure the number of guys who would
actually talk to her and ask for her number are much smaller than the number
of guys that want to.

------
tritogeneia
Networking can mean two different things and the author's conflating them.

1\. You have a connection with a successful professional and so you're closer
to promising job opportunities.

2\. Your social circle contains a lot of rich people who have the habits and
lifestyle typical of the rich, and you absorb a lot of their behavior by
osmosis, which helps you succeed.

It's really hard to extend the benefits of the second kind of "networking" to
more than a few poor people, and usually they have to be children. (Prep for
Prep, college admissions decisions.)

On the other hand, it would be quite possible to develop online institutions
to help with the first kind of networking. Create alternative, non-college
ways to signal ability, and create ways for employers to connect with those
able but isolated people. (I'm working on a project that has applications in
that direction.)

------
aantix
This article has me reminiscing about the recent Linked-In IPO; I remember
reading that the IPO was offered to favorable clients of the brokerage
underwriting the IPO.

I don't know how many "favorable" offerings are presented each year or what
their performances are, but if the IPO is purposelessly undervalued to make
their clients richer, how does one compete with that? I doubt a $100 or 10k
account would draw enough interest to gain access to these "Favorable"
offerings.

~~~
pavlov
These favored clients are huge customers like funds. They pay the brokerage
millions of dollars just in transaction fees every year.

In this context, an undervalued IPO every once in a while is more like a perk
to a valued customer -- it's the equivalent of the bouquet of flowers or
bottle of wine a company might send to a regular Joe.

~~~
anamax
> In this context, an undervalued IPO every once in a while is more like a
> perk to a valued customer -- it's the equivalent of the bouquet of flowers
> or bottle of wine a company might send to a regular Joe.

Yes, but that perk is paid for by LinkedIn.

~~~
pavlov
LinkedIn agreed to the IPO price. Presumably they felt that undervaluing the
stock had enough PR benefits.

(These stories about the IPO pricing, where LinkedIn gets to be portrayed as
honest entrepreneurs ripped off by an evil bank, surely is an additional PR
victory they gained from this move.)

------
dgreensp
He stretches the point a bit far. When he's talking about "isolation" broadly,
I can maybe see the point -- lack of role models, mentors, references, people
to help get your foot in the door at your first job. (I have no idea if this
is "what really keeps poor people poor.")

Then he uses "network" to mean what you get at Harvard or Yale, and suggests
that this is a gating factor, that masses of people have everything they need
to rise out of the bottom quartile, if only we could give them a letter of
admission to Harvard. This seems odd.

~~~
entangld
I don't think it's that much of a stretch. When you're poor and you're around
other poor people there is no one there to recognize your potential and bring
you into the fold (job, connections, inform you of opportunities available).
You're just a clever person other poor people know.

There's a big difference between knowing small business owners in the
neighborhood and knowing friends of wealthy and or well connected people. When
you're poor you are isolated. You have to do everything from scratch and it
takes a LONG time to figure out by yourself, what generations of people have
already figured out.

The Harvard example could easily be a proxy for other institutions frequented
by the elite.

~~~
chernevik
Networks expand returns on ability. They allow people to find better places
for their skills, better access to employees and capital and expertise. But
they do very little for people who lack ability in the first place. An "in"
with a hedge fund or VC or a big law firm won't get anyone anywhere without
the ability to deliver the goods. Networks work by filtering. That country
club golf partner doesn't think to mention his buddy in your field if he
doesn't think that buddy will find you impressive. And if he did, his buddy
wouldn't be very interested in his introductions.

~~~
entangld
I think you're logic is a little too strict.

Beginner positions, almost by definition, are lower responsibility and offer
some leeway. Networks may expand returns on ability, but they can only guess
at the real ability of a new person. Resumes anyone? Many startups right now
say they are looking for "cultural fit" first and foremost, so even ability
has limits. It would be convenient to assume that there are so many high
skilled and irreplaceable people, but they're probably at the top of
organizations, not the entry-level.

We're talking about people getting first chances which requires the networks
to take a chance as well. No one knows how good anyone is until they're
actually working.

~~~
chernevik
" a little too strict" -- I'm trying to be more concise, but my precision
hasn't caught up yet.

First, my point was that people don't succeed simply on network entry. I hope
this is understood but I don't see it much reflected in the comments.

Second, the point of networks is to reduce the guesswork. The network knows if
Joe carried his college workgroups but sucked at tests, or if he aces tests
but flakes out. It knows how his sense of commitments and responsibilities
matches up against network norms. A lot of people "in the Harvard network"
have been _rejected_ by that network b/c it knows them and doesn't like what
it sees.

~~~
entangld
In the Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell said most people are referred by
acquaintances, not close ties. Networks give you access to these people and
their information is not perfect.

I'm only arguing your first point that networks expand returns on ability.
This is just like VC's in the startup world. There are some very good startups
that get few meetings with big investors because they have no connections.
Even if you have a good product (or are smart), you can go unnoticed. Network
expands ability, but the network's vision is limited to the acquaintances of
the few people who are in it.

------
mindcrime
_So can we change this? I think we can. It starts with recognizing the problem
for what it is and doing what we can to teach kids from impoverished
backgrounds not just how to read and write but how to become upwardly mobile
in their networking_

I'm pretty sure the problem is more complex than _just_ lack of awareness of
the importance of a certain approach to networking... and I'm someone who has
been down this path - having grown up "dirt poor" in rural southeast NC, and
having escaped to a solidly middle-class lifestyle. But I absolutely agree
that this is _one_ component of helping people escape poverty, and I'd
definitely like to see (and perhaps participate in) some sort of initiative to
help raise awareness of this point, especially among younger folks.

Some sort of program, directed at high-school kids, that teaches skills
specifically related to networking, economics, entrepreneurship, and all the
"stuff" needed to advance economically, would be - IMO - tremendously
beneficial.

That said, I believe the point that solson made about mindsets does stand. I
grew up with plenty of people who were as poor as I was, and I was willing to
make certain sacrifices, and commit to doing things in order to raise my
standard of living... many of my peers weren't, and they still live in the
sticks and they're still poor. And I honestly don't believe that I'm
necessarily (smarter|more talented|more insightful|whatever) than most of
them. But I had a different attitude and different ambitions, and - to my mind
- that was the single biggest difference.

Edit:

As an aside, though, I'll throw this out... some of my friends who are still
"poorer" than me in the financial sense, may actually be happier. I, for
example, have never married or had kids, because I was too busy working and
trying to make a better life for myself. And now that I'm working on a
startup, I work more than ever and have basically quit worrying about dating
or anything for a while... OTOH, my friends back home have wives and kids to
come home to, play with, go out with, etc. But I have more money. So who's
really better off? I would say that's a real grey area. <shrug />

------
RK
_at the top places, two-thirds of the students come from the top quartile and
only 5 percent come from the bottom quartile_

Whenever I see a statistic like that, the first question I want answered is:
what is the trend over time? Maybe this is actually a big change with only 1%
coming from the bottom quartile 10 years ago, indicating the future situation,
etc.

~~~
drats
The long term trend is quite extraordinary with regard to the total number
going into higher ed (which form networks too, although not the same as the
elite institutions).

"Two percent of Americans aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in a university at the
beginning of the 20th century. At nearly the end of the 20th century, beyond
60 percent, or 14 million students, were enrolled in 3500 four year or two
year colleges."

<http://ajha.org/early-history-of-universities-in-america.htm>

------
bane
Having been poor (U.S. standard) during much of my elementary and middle
school years, and then escaped to a relative level of upper middle class
comfort...there is one defining characteristic between my peers from back then
who made it out of that situation, and those who are still there decades
later: a broken decision making process best and the inability to plan
exemplified in the famous Marshmallow test.

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

It brings to mind a very recent discussion I had with a close friend from
those days, one who hasn't managed to break out of a cycle of being poor. He
was telling me how excited he was about a new idea where he was going to
enroll himself and and his 12 year old son into an expensive martial arts
school for some father-son bonding time every week.

I remarked back, "but you barely make rent every month (and you split rent
with 3 other adults in a relatively inexpensive area), your cell phone is
routinely shut off for non-payment, your credit is so bad you can't even
qualify for the highest interest lowest balance credit cards allowed by law,
your cars are perpetually broken down/repossessed etc. you have a pending
lawsuit for non-payment to a doctor because you couldn't pay your medical
bills, etc. etc. etc. how on earth do you expect to pay for this? If I were
you, I'd figure out how to resolve my financial situation first so that you
can then do those kinds of father-son things you want at your leisure."

"Well how do I do that?"

"Instead of spending $250 a month on this, why don't you spend half as much
and go to the local community college and finish up your associates (he's
already finished a semester, so it was only another year, year and half left),
translate that into a higher paying job or promotion or whatever, pay off your
crap, buy Dad and Son Kung Fu?"

"Look, I only have a short window of opportunity here."

"What do you mean?"

"Well, the lease on the house me and 3 other adults split the rent on is up in
2 years, and because of my money issues I don't know if I can afford to stay
living close to my son after that, I may have to move out of state to a
cheaper area, I'm seriously considering the Detroit area since the cost of
living is low. So I want to do this now, while I can."

This has been a typical conversation over the last 20 years with my friend. A
decision point comes up, we'll talk about it, on one hand he'll have an
opportunity to improve his lot in life, but he'll have to sacrifice a little
now in order to reap rewards later, on the other hand, an emotionally
satisfying marshmallow.

Invariable he'll _always_ pick the marshmallow. He's interested in the
immediate "feeling" of a decision, unable to project an expectation of a
better "feeling" later on. The result is, 20 years later, an otherwise
intelligent, honest, _good_ guy nearing middle age has:

\- no career progression of any sort, he's actually never worked a full-time
job

\- he's been fired many times from promising jobs because he was "bored" and
pretended to be sick from a mystery illness until they let him go

\- has a couple kids he can't support properly

\- can't afford a place on his own with living arrangements so complex it
would take 4 or 5 long blog posts to explain

\- has had a handful of cars repossessed or sold off out of his control

\- continues to buy known unreliable vehicles that require constant repair,
costing him precious money and time away from work

\- did a solid semester at college (with decentish grades) before dropping out
because he didn't have enough time to play WoW - he was very proud of having
finally cancelled his account...for the 3rd time.

\- spends considerable portions of his income on videogames and online
subscriptions

\- buys random unnecessary crap all the time, "yes that RC helicopter is cool,
why is your phone shut off again?"

\- has innumerable small medical bills currently in collections, with one
pending lawsuit (btw, the one he's getting sued for? Almost the exact cost of
a WoW account for a year)

\- etc.

Each of these issues can be explained by the Marshmallow test, because to
properly deal with any of them requires the ability to defer gratification in
the immediate as part of a plan, something, even with decades of coaching,
he's unable to do, and thus remains poor.

~~~
rprospero
I've seen the same thing and I've experienced your frustration. However, I
also want to offer a counter-point to your argument. You keep coming back to
the marshmallow test and how he can't make a sacrifice today for a greater
benefit tomorrow. My question is whether he would send a $5,000 banking fee to
a Nigerian prince today for a million dollar money transfer next month? Would
you?

Delayed gratification is only effective if you believe that you will be
rewarded for it. I'm betting that you've never sacrificed a calf to Zeus.
That's not because you lack self control, but because you don't believe that
you would receive any benefit, not to mention one that would out weigh the
cost of the calf. In the same way, your friend is "rationally" choosing to
spend $250 a month on a bonding experience with his son instead of spending
$125 a month on a failed degree that won't land him a better job. Either way,
he's going to get fired, lose his house, and be forced to move to Detroit, but
the first lets him move to Detroit with some happy family memories while the
other has him moving to Detroit with a worthless piece of paper.

Now, we know that he can prevent his constant economic crises. We've done it
for ourselves. Your friend, though, knows that correlation is not causation
and the relationship between our self-sacrifice and our economic well being is
as tenuous as the relationship between uncle Ernie's lucky Elvis shirt and
that time hit the jackpot on the penny slots. As long as financial disaster is
"unavoidable", he'll continue to make the only "smart" choice and immediately
spend the little money that he does have before he loses that, too.

~~~
bane
_As long as financial disaster is "unavoidable", he'll continue to make the
only "smart" choice and immediately spend the little money that he does have
before he loses that, too._

I think this is a great insight into _why_ making sound decisions and delaying
gratification seems to be such a problem for him and many people stuck in an
endless cycle of bring poor.

------
sili
A number of my professional friends participate in mentoring programs for
young underprivileged kids. From what this article talks about, such programs
should have a good potential at making a difference, at least for those that
go through it.

------
kalmi10
I know a homeless person who says that he would not work for less than x
money/day, where x is more than what the average person earns here in Hungary.
(He used to earn a lot. He used to be a baker.)

------
dkarl
_“We claim to be part of the American dream and of a system based on merit and
opportunity and talent,” Mr. Marx says. “Yet if at the top places, two-thirds
of the students come from the top quartile and only 5 percent come from the
bottom quartile, then we are actually part of the problem of the growing
economic divide rather than part of the solution.”_

Mr. Marx's job is educating, hopefully as well as possible, people who already
have a great educational advantage. Anyone working at Amherst or any other
elite college who thinks they can be part of the solution by directly
educating underprivileged kids is indulging in fantasy. Access to higher
education is not the problem; preparation is. A poor person who is prepared to
succeed at an elite college has already risen beyond "underprivileged" and is
on a trajectory to the upper middle class.

More precisely, if Mr. Marx is wrong to imply that there is some kind of
"merit" and "talent" that makes one capable of handling higher education but
is not affected by a child's opportunities and environmental influences.
Amherst does not admit people based on their genetic potential or even their
winning personality. They try to take social disadvantage into account when
judging applicants' academic preparation, but in the end they limit admissions
to students who can succeed at Amherst. If Mr. Marx wants to directly help
people who are disadvantaged then he should quit Amherst and join some
organization that works with people who are not and could not be Amherst
students.

------
ctdonath
It's not just having access to networks, it's using them. Can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make him drink.

All too often I see, from first hand experience, the poor and the middle class
having the same opportunities: broadly speaking, the latter take advantage
thereof, the former don't.

Sure, some networks are not accessible. Many are, and if one does not take
advantage of what opportunities one does have, then more will not become
available.

~~~
afterburner
This is also a network effect: being around people who always take advantage
of what's around them teaches you to do the same.

------
rglover
I think the author makes a good point here, but unfortunately networking is
only a mere fraction of this equation. More than anything, in order for
impoverished students to better understand the situation, someone needs to
tell them. Explain how our current social structure is unfair and doesn't
yield any advantage. Is it grim? Of course. But without a heads up how the
hell are these kids going to protect themselves? When you're that young,
everything seems attainable (even if just a little bit). Unfortunately, as
these kids transition out of high school into adulthood, they begin to realize
that they may not have a better path. By instilling thoughts early on,
explaining the necessity to focus on school work and the value that it
provides your life (also explaining what's actually available, i.e. the
networks discussed here) could prove to be a motivator for lots of kids. In
order to be educated you need to be educated.

------
zacharytelschow
"'We claim to be part of the American dream and of a system based on merit and
opportunity and talent,' Mr. Marx says. 'Yet if at the top places, two-thirds
of the students come from the top quartile and only 5 percent come from the
bottom quartile, then we are actually part of the problem of the growing
economic divide rather than part of the solution.'"

Is your college a meritocracy based on talent or a means of attempting to
right social wrongs, Mr Marx? If it's the former, then the income of student's
parents should be irrelevant and you should only be wringing your hands over
lesser talented pupils getting in over more talented ones. If it's the latter,
I can see your concern - patterns of behavior beget success and children often
emulate their parents, leaving you stuck with those blasted high achievers.
Tough break, that.

------
stcredzero
I think there's a similar mechanism by which geeks end up "too geeky".

[http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-
defend...](http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-
ideas/)

<http://amzn.com/0300090331>

------
api
I've thought this for a long time.

It's not the haves vs. the have-nots. It's the connecteds vs. the connected-
nots.

~~~
zacharytelschow
This contentious relationship you state implies a fixed pie economy in which a
person can get rich only at the sake of his fellows. Any thinking person would
roundly reject such a notion.

On a similar topic is an essay by Paul Graham that you may enjoy:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html>

~~~
api
You are technically correct. There is no finite pie. But there is a finite pie
in our minds.

We behave instinctively as if there is a finite pie. We push our boots in
others' faces instinctively, try to keep them down, shut them out, push them
away, because our genes _think_ the pie is finite.

Social networks do act so as to keep outsiders down. Not because it's
rational, but they do.

------
programminggeek
Poverty is not an academic problem. It's a human problem. There will always be
poverty. It can't be solved. To solve poverty you must solve human greed.

~~~
j123
This I think is the wisest comment I've read here. We live in an age where
many people earnestly believe they can reengineer society. They identify
aspects of human nature which they don't like and think it's open to
reeducation. There is such a thing as human nature. Tabula rasa is a myth.

~~~
pessimizer
Society has been re-engineered any number of times, to good and bad effect. If
you think that how it is where you are right now is how it is, has been, and
always will be everywhere, you're wrong. Society is made of people, including
visionaries and others who are captivated by their visions and have the
ability to implement them. Contemplating human society is not the same as
contemplating the stars.

~~~
philwelch
Society isn't engineered, it evolves. If you try to engineer society it'll
never come out quite the same way you intended; there are always unintended
consequences because people are so messy and complicated.

Primary example: society is continually engineered to eliminate poverty, and
yet poverty persists.

~~~
pessimizer
Society evolves. Society is often engineered. The attempts often turn out
badly, or well. Many societies are engineered to reduce poverty, and many
societies have.

------
fatherlinux
Honestly, it is just so much more complicated than a two paragraph post on
hacker news. This is ridiculous. The title is awesome, like scientists just
made some startling new discovery. Ridiculous!

------
MarkPNeyer
how about a social network algorithm that connects the least connected people
with the most connected? imagine VC's having dinner with homeless people.

------
dolvlo
I think the person who wrote this article should read about the history of
imperialism and colonization of the non-white world. The quote: "...doing what
we can to teach kids from impoverished backgrounds not just how to read and
write but how to become upwardly mobile in their networking" really
demonstrates a lot of historical ignorance.

Anyway, regarding this topic, there's an entire field of academia which
regularly studies intergenerational economic mobility (Sociology). Would
anyone familiar enough with the field like to provide us with a paper on this
topic? (Preferably about the US)

------
mcdaid
The latest attempt in the UK to deal with the problem

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8540055/Schools-win-
rig...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/8540055/Schools-win-right-to-
turn-away-middle-class-children.html)

~~~
hugh3
I read as much of the title as is in the truncated URL and really hoped it
would be "Schools win right to use corporal punishment".

------
jinushaun
Blah blah white people. Blah blah blah black people. Same old story of white
guilt by the NYT

I'm neither white nor black, but I was definitely poor. Grew up in the ghetto
with gang violence. The problem isn't "access" or outreach programs for poor
people—the problem is and always will be the parents. My parents stressed the
importance of education and now I do well. My friends' parents didnt, and most
of them barely graduated high school. Some even dropped out.

~~~
ajscherer
It's wonderful that your parents stressed the importance of an education. If
only your education had stressed the importance of actually reading a piece
before responding to it! Perhaps then you would have noticed that this piece:
isn't in the new york times; doesn't talk about outreach programs for poor
poeple; only mentions race via quoting a 1999 Malcom Gladwell piece

The post argues that the income-boosting effect of going to a top college
isn't due to the education one receives, but instead is due to the possibility
of inclusion in a network of people who are all more likely to find success.
In other words the friends you meet at a top college are a much better
influence than the friends you meet in the hood, and having a good network of
friends is more beneficial to your career than what you learn in the
classroom.

Of course if you escaped the ghetto to do well you probably know everything
there is to know about how poverty works. Other people's thoughts are just
sort of a speedbump on your way to let the truth shine here on hn.

~~~
MartinCron
_instead is due to the possibility of inclusion in a network of people who are
all more likely to find success._

I recently looked into the University of Washington Technical Management MBA
program and the University was pretty brazen about admitting this. They spent
far more time talking about networks and ROI than academic rigor.

Business schools are all about networking and the social aspect. I feel that
as an introvert, I got a lot less out of my undergraduate business education
than many of my classmates did.

