
Being poor changes your thinking about everything - ph0rque
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/13/being-poor-changes-your-thinking-about-everything/
======
teddyh
I'm very much reminded of these:

[http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-
about-...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-
poor/)

[http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-
devel...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-develop-
growing-up-poor/)

[http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-
never-...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-
understand-about-poor-people/)

Especially the last one.

EDIT: Fixed last link

~~~
wolfgke
Having read these articles, there's one thing that I don't appreciate: in
these articles kids of poor people are mentioned. Why in the hell are these
people "producing" children, if they aren't 100% certain that they'll be able
to support them for the years until they are old enough to stand on their own
feet?

Strokes of fate that lead to poverty are one side, but the side is reproding
if you are poor: I consider this as highly irresponsible - for you as for your
children.

~~~
discostrings
Responsibility is a luxury reserved for those who can afford it.

~~~
hosh
That sounds really profound, except it isn't. That assertion is another way of
justifying or rationalizing learned helplessness.

It is true that there are a lot of things that suck, that few people with
access to resources really empathize with those in scarcity trap. Thing is,
people are not as helpless as they like to think they are.

~~~
gutnor
Actually that is a perverse effect of being poor in a consumer driven society,
and it is even worse in a society that value Freedom so highly like the US.

Because being poor is a complete absence of freedom. If you want to get out of
it, you need to follow extremely rigorous lifestyle (like the one published by
MacDonald) for decades, with each mistake costing you years of saving.

That is doable in the country side, but in urbanised area where you are
bombarded 24/7 with adds, tempted by very easy credit, surrounded by toxic
peers in a society that hates you ? If you think it is, then consider that you
also start with a 13 IQ handicap( _).

Picture that as trying to be on a very strict diet while working drunk in your
favourite sweet factory, with everybody around you gorging themselves, even
those that shouldn't.

(_) [http://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-effect-on-
intelligenc...](http://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-effect-on-
intelligence-2013-8)

~~~
hosh
Sure, though I have found that when people talk about freedom these days, it's
really more about power and less about freedom.

------
jloughry
From the article:

 _' Imagine how bad our PhD student theses would be if we said, "It's year
two. Course work is done. Come back in three years with a thesis, and if you
want you could always come and ask me questions, but otherwise that's it.
You're off." Of course it would be awful. That’s just too distant a
deadline.'_

 _' You realize you're describing the experience of 30 percent of all graduate
students in the United States.'_

Ouch. That's just painful.

~~~
pnathan
It's pretty true too. That's more or less how my graduate work worked.

I finished, but it was rough at times,

~~~
javert
For a _master's_ degree? Or have you gotten a PhD and neglected to update your
profile? :P

~~~
pnathan
Yup, for my Master's. :-)

~~~
javert
Wow, that sounds very atypical for a master's degree and, frankly, not
entirely fair.

~~~
pnathan
Well, I feel that I got pretrained for a phd program, which I want to get to
someday. ;-)

------
erict19
I find the underlying behavioral economics fascinating - here's a good
rundown: "Why Can’t More Poor People Escape Poverty?"
[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment-
energy/89377/...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/environment-
energy/89377/poverty-escape-psychology-self-control)

------
alan_cx
And being rich doesn't?

Is it the poor who have power to change things, or the rich?

Which is the bigger group? The poor or the rich?

If it is the poor, then isn't it relatively the rich who think differently?

~~~
afterburner
"Is it the poor who have power to change things, or the rich?"

Mostly the rich. That's the point. Laws get passed to service the wants of the
rich, because they have orders of magnitude more influence. These laws then
screw over the poor, but the rich can't properly sympathize because they just
don't understand, because their world is so different.

~~~
tsotha
I don't see any evidence "laws then screw over the poor". Exactly what are you
talking about?

~~~
afterburner
Deregulation of the financial industry lets risk-hungry banks take ever
greater risks, causes the financial crisis, costs taxpayer money, causes high
unemployment, and leaves the rich back where they started before the crisis
while the poor still suffer.

Dismantling of welfare programs in order to cut costs in order to lower taxes
on the rich stops critical services to the poor and keeps them trapped in
poverty.

Tax liens sold to rich investors lets them practically steal homes (or get
them at bargain prices) and evict the owners in order to flip them off what
are sometimes ridiculously small amounts of debt compared to the home value
owed by the not-well-off (but not ridiculously small compared to their
financial situation).

And that's just off the top of my head... I'll give you a hint, most of the
laws concerned are related in some way to cutting taxes or letting rich money
play more (ie. make more money).

~~~
tsotha
>Deregulation of the financial industry lets risk-hungry banks take ever
greater risks, causes the financial crisis, costs taxpayer money, causes high
unemployment, and leaves the rich back where they started before the crisis
while the poor still suffer.

Meh. The recession wasn't caused by a financial crisis. The recession and the
financial crisis both had the same cause - a real estate bubble. And I don't
see any indication wealthy people have come out ahead here except for a
handful of people who managed to cash in during the bubble. But that's not a
question of how the law is structured - that happens in every bubble.

>Dismantling of welfare programs in order to cut costs in order to lower taxes
on the rich stops critical services to the poor and keeps them trapped in
poverty.

That's an odd view of the situation. For one thing, services to the poor have
been greatly expanded in recent years. Disability, SNAP, WIC... all that stuff
has been expanded. Also, existing programs like Medicaid have maintained the
same level of service even as costs spiral out of control.

The _only_ thing I can think of that's actually been cut is AFDC, if you
consider a time limit on benefits to be a cut. And that's perfectly reasonable
- it's supposed to be a net, not a hammock.

Also, if you really wanted to trap people in poverty you couldn't do better
than to hand them money for being poor. Lots of people are on benefits for a
few years and then they pull themselves out of poverty. But there's a
significant percentage who'll stay on benefits because that's the path of
least resistance.

> Tax liens sold to rich investors lets them practically steal homes (or get
> them at bargain prices) and evict the owners in order to flip them off what
> are sometimes ridiculously small amounts of debt compared to the home value
> owed by the not-well-off (but not ridiculously small compared to their
> financial situation).

I'm not sure you understand how this works. When you have a lien against your
house and you don't pay it, the lien holder can force the sale of the
property. But the homeowner gets the money from the sale after the lien has
been satisfied.

Nobody's getting screwed here. People who end up with no money 1) didn't pay
their taxes and 2) don't have any equity in the house.

If you didn't have a system where the city/county could take your house for
back taxes nobody would pay taxes.

~~~
afterburner
The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial
industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth.
The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at
all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation.

Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been
more needed. When more people are out of work, more people need welfare, but
that doesn't mean the programs have become more far reaching. And besides, why
on earth do you think I'm only talking about the last few years? Lobbies on
the right are constantly pushing for "dismantling the mommy state", and it has
everything to do with wanting lower taxes. Which is an example of the rich
getting laws passed that screw over the poor, which you seemed incredulous
about.

I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If
people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours
a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them. Social
mobility in the US is among the lowest in the developed world.

Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476)

So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of
your ideology.

~~~
tsotha
>The housing bubble was in part caused by crazy incentives in the financial
industry to make as many loans as possible and sell that debt back and forth.
The ability to do this and make ever larger bets which meant any downturn at
all in housing would be catastrophic was allowed by deregulation.

Those "crazy incentives" were put in place by well-meaning people who confused
middle class signifiers with causative behavior. In other words, people who
thought home ownership was a way into the middle class instead of what it is -
a middle class luxury.

>Welfare programs haven't expanded in the last few years, they've simply been
more needed.

Not true. Before Obama took office you could be on food stamps three months in
a three year period. Now the only limit is your income. Even bigger is
Medicaid, which consumes ever greater portions of state budgets on a per-
capita basis.

>I don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty really means. If
people are choosing to stay on benefits, it's usually because working 60 hours
a week to barely tread water doesn't seem to appealing to them.

That's exactly my point. Of course nobody _wants_ to work hard. But if you
don't take an entry level job you'll never have a job that makes you
comfortable. Thus my comment about social programs trapping people in poverty.

>Tax liens: for the most part it's not corrupt, but I was referring to this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349476)

I understood what you were referring to. The article is written to inflame
passions in people who don't understand the process. If you read through the
HN thread you'll see half the people who read the article think the lien
holder pockets the entire amount from property sales.

>So far you're not really disproving my point, just arguing other aspects of
your ideology.

No, I'm disproving your point, but you're ideological blinkers prevent you
from reassessing your position.

~~~
afterburner
My position that the rich (and their corporations) have more influence on law-
making than the poor, and that this can disadvantage the poor? I think it's
hilarious you find this controversial; it has been the case throughout human
history in all systems of government. Pretending this doesn't happen really
doesn't help except in order to encourage complacency on the part of the poor.

I still don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty means. Even
taking that entry-level job, assuming you can get it in the first place, often
doesn't raise the person much higher. Been trapped in poverty often means you
don't have the background, education, opportunity, or even awareness to go
after that job in the first place.

Tax lien thing: the article never mentioned what happened to the money from
the sale of the house, other than that it was sold by the investor, so I
hardly think it was a matter of political blindness on the part of the
readers. Furthermore, the man was _eveicted_ from his lifetime home over a
$150 dollar bill, and forced to pay $5000 instead, no to mention either lose
the house or lose out on selling the house under more favourable conditions to
a buyer willing to pay more, depending on what is in fact true. Discussion on
that article seems to indicate he did indeed lose the equity, and that this is
a problem in Washington D.C. due to how the law is worded there. This example
proves my point either way.

~~~
tsotha
>My position that the rich (and their corporations) have more influence on
law-making than the poor, and that this can disadvantage the poor?

Is that a question? Of course wealthy people have more influence, and that's a
good thing, too. If they didn't the poor people would vote themselves everyone
else's money and complain when the economy crashed.

But I don't think the laws "screw" the poor. Whenever the government is taking
money from one person and giving it to a different person you wouldn't call
the second guy "screwed".

>I still don't think you understand what being trapped in poverty means. Even
taking that entry-level job, assuming you can get it in the first place, often
doesn't raise the person much higher. Been trapped in poverty often means you
don't have the background, education, opportunity, or even awareness to go
after that job in the first place.

And yet somehow millions have escaped from that trap. I don't know why you
don't think I understand what you mean here. I'm just skeptical it's a real
thing. Have you considered this may be a case of survivor bias, that people
with the character and discipline to not be poor... are no longer poor?

>Tax lien thing: the article never mentioned what happened to the money from
the sale of the house, other than that it was sold by the investor, so I
hardly think it was a matter of political blindness on the part of the
readers.

Well, that's my point. The article never mentions the homeowner gets the money
from the sale of the house less the lien amount. The whole point of the
article is to upset you - if they tell you everything you'll think "oh, that
makes sense" and turn the page.

>Furthermore, the man was eveicted from his lifetime home over a $150 dollar
bill, and forced to pay $5000 instead, no to mention either lose the house or
lose out on selling the house under more favourable conditions to a buyer
willing to pay more, depending on what is in fact true.

Bad things happen when you don't pay your taxes. Surely this isn't headline
news? Of course if you have any equity at all you don't let someone foreclose
on your house - you sell it first. But the "left with nothing" guy didn't have
any equity, so the particulars of the sale don't matter that much to him. But
we're supposed to emote here without wondering how much money he took out of
the house during the real estate boom.

>Discussion on that article seems to indicate he did indeed lose the equity,
and that this is a problem in Washington D.C. due to how the law is worded
there. This example proves my point either way.

No. The fact that "discussion" has confused you doesn't prove anything.
There's no legal trick wherein you can steal someone's house for $150. The
reason the homeowner isn't getting anything is he doesn't have any equity.

The article was deliberately written to confuse you. The _only_ thing that
should cause you to raise an eyebrow is the amount the lien holders were
charging for legal fees. But those are _normal_ sorts of numbers (ridiculous,
but still normal) when you get sued and have to pay legal costs.

~~~
afterburner
"Is that a question?"

Let's take a look at the original quote from you I was responding to:

"Is it the poor who have power to change things, or the rich?"

Yeah, that was the question.

~~~
tsotha
That's not what I was responding to.

------
frank_boyd
1 thing we should keep in mind:

Being rich is only possible when others are poor.

"Being rich" is a _relative_ situation: If you have privileges because you're
rich, you're not likely to say "I'm going to downgrade my life so all the
others can meet me at the same level (of privileges)".

Why? Because, a little simplified: you wouldn't find anybody to take care of
your garden anymore.

No rich person really has a natural incentive to call for real equality. So,
the idea that we're all born with the same rights is currently still just an
idea and nothing more. It's not respected and implemented:

"The Richest 10% of American Families Got Half of All Income Last Year." [0]

And it's likely to get even worse (for the 90%, that is), as money has this
natural polarizing/monopolizing effect.

[0] [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/richest-
one-...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/richest-one-tenth-
american-families-got-half-all-income-last-year/69260/)

~~~
PeterisP
The "wouldn't find anybody to take care of your garden anymore" approach isn't
that valid today - just look at the lifestyles of rich people and compare them
to earlier times.

The "0.1%" are far more wealthy than ever before - however, they are not
employing more people for their personal needs. Assistants, butlers, maids,
chauffeurs, live-in nannies/governesses, dedicated gardeners, etc. are a very
rare breed nowadays used by tiny numbers of ultra-rich, while a hundred years
ago many "upper-middle" class specialists (doctors, lawyers, civil servants)
employed other people for their personal needs.

In fact, I'd say that it's entirely the opposite - the rich don't need or want
the common people anymore, they can do almost without them; so they're not
associating with them and not redistributing the wealth to "common laborers"
by paying for their services, almost all of the wealth is invested in capital
not in labor. So labor as such loses; the lower class would be better off
being employed as gardeners rather than rotting without income, but they
aren't. The top 5% can't afford them, and the top 0.1% need/want just a few.

------
guspe
Most of the comments here focus on poverty but the author is talking about a
broader subject, he is talking about scarcity. Being poor is but one of the
forms to experience scarcity. And this is a brilliant idea.

What intrigues me is that poverty is essential to the dynamics of capitalism.
Some are rich because some are poor. Modern capitalism operates on a very
abstract layer and my basic comprehension of economics is not enough to
understand how this relationship between rich and poor translates to modern
times but I have I feeling it still holds true.

That said, and here's an inconvenient idea, what if some are lonely because
others have too many friends? In the same way the richness of some breeds the
poverty of others, what if the abundance of some breeds the scarcity of
others? I hope you understand this doesn't imply guilty on any side. It just
hints at a somewhat cruel dynamics underlying the commodification of life.
Doesn't it?

------
jalayir
I've noticed this where I come from in India, in the feudal badlands of Awadh.
We have a saying, "You think like a peasant". It means you lead a frightened
existence, and you're completely risk-averse. The answer is a gradual
gentrification of the populace accompanying industrialization, as Germany has
achieved over the past hundred years. One aspect of gentrification is that the
populace acquires a tremendous respect of and desire for education for
learning's sake. This is rare in most countries, and it is the one thing about
German culture that really stands out.

------
hosh
I really like this article. There are a lot of good insights I will be mining
over the next several weeks.

One interesting thing is how it connects with John Boyd's concept of OODA.
Boyd talks about "stacking" the opposing force's OODA loop and injecting it
with misinformation to get it going. It more or less describes, for example,
the predatory loans. It's also interesting to see this kind of dynamic play
out in the TV shows, _Burn Notice_ and _Leverage_.

------
swalsh
My Wife and I just bought a house, so the conversation about kids has come up.
I guess i knew child care was expensive, but after talking to my coworkers it
turns out they spend on average 20k a year (this is MA). That figure blows my
mind. How can someone not on an engineers salary afford this?

~~~
gregd
There are a multitude of things that are expensive. You've hit upon one of the
major ones.

Unfortunately, you'll have to crunch the numbers if you wish to have children.
It may be in your best financial interest for one of you to quit your job and
stay home with the kids, at least until they start school. Yes, you'll be
broke all the time, but damn if your kids won't benefit in the long run from
it. This is what my wife and I had to do. We had our two kids two years apart.
She quit a pretty good job to stay home and raise them because by the time it
was all said and done, she would have brought home less than $1000/month after
daycare for two children...one of which was a baby.

------
unono
The root cause of poverty is the incompetent government education system - The
Teacher's Union. Most public school teachers I've come across have contempt
for the businessmen (people who create the wealth) and for poor people
(teachers tend to be limousine liberals).

The first country or state to disband the current teaching system and replace
with a competitive system will skyrocket to success. This is a no-brainer, but
it's so to difficult implement because there's so many of the 'government
handout' teachers voting they swamp the rest of us.

~~~
reverius42
I would think in order to qualify as a "limousine liberal", you'd have to be
able to afford a limousine.

I think you'd more likely see a teacher driving one, to supplement their
income.

~~~
unono
Boo-hoo, teachers, who cannot clearly demonstrate how they actually add
economic value to anything, want to be paid even more than their current
$52,000 median salary.

Meanwhile, fisherman, who hold the most dangerous job, have a median salary of
$25,000.

Firefighters, whose job is to enter dangerous buildings, $45,000.

Fast food workers, $18,000.

~~~
theorique
You seriously don't see any economic value associated with the education of a
child from age 6-18?

We can argue about what specific subjects are best to teach in school, and
what a teacher ought to be paid, but don't you think that, broadly speaking,
educating children provides _some_ economic benefit to a nation?

~~~
unono
Child care workers who watch children when parents aren't present make
$19,000, that's maybe more appropriate. [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-
and-service/childcare-w...](http://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-
service/childcare-workers.htm)

Where are the proper studies (with 1000s of participants) showing teachers can
do a better job than babysitters who hand out an ipad with learning software
to every student?

The teaching system is a 19th system. It's like if the tech industry continued
on with using telegraphs and morse code for everything.

~~~
theorique
I think education is definitely ripe for disruption.

There's a lot of "but it's _always_ been done that way", and teachers' unions
are very quick to play the "think of the _chilllllldrun_ card". Lots of
entrenched bureaucracy and budgets that people don't want to lose.

------
goggles99
Being poor in America is a state of mind. Do you think that the majority of
people in the world today would consider themselves "poor" if they suddenly
traded places with a "poor" American?

Do you think that the majority of people would think that it was "too hard to
bear" if they had to work, live in low rent apartment AND go to school?

America's poor are the worlds wealthiest.

The sad state of mind that people fall into is all about relativism. They are
poor relative to X people. They are disadvantages relative to X groups. They
have to work harder than X people so this is suddenly an insurmountable feat.

Put nearly ANY (truly) poor immigrant in the US and watch the magic work.
Watch this insurmountable feat accomplished again and again. Watch this
success propagate for a couple of the immigrant's generations. Then watch the
values that they brought, the very reasons that made them succeed them washed
away by American influence.

I have seen this first hand on many many occasions. I would like to see a
study of immigrants and how hard they work compared to the inner city people
of America. I would like to see the difference in choices that they made.

Why don't we see this. Why don't we see the government publish and advertise
what poor people must do to escape poverty. Advertise how the immigrants do it
without wellfare. You never see it (and probably never will).

~~~
ap22213
"Being poor in America is a state of mind."

Having spent most of my childhood living with my mom and my three siblings on
her meager $8,000 / year income, I'd say I have to agree. Poor is a state of
mind.

But, I'll argue that it's not a state of mind that the poor take on
themselves. "Poor" is a distinction that others will give to you, not the
other way around. Being poor is about being relegated by the other members of
society. It's about being isolated, segregated, and honestly, constantly
dealing with all sorts of mean-spirited people who believe they could have
made better decisions...obviously.

Please try to imagine living a world where you're the lowest status person
around, where the kids and adults look upon you in disgust. Imagine no support
network, few friends, and a life void of most conveniences. Is it better than
the poor of other countries? Maybe. I don't know. But, at least, I would hope
that they have some sort of community. Being poor in America is about being
alone and laughed at, while suffering.

~~~
goggles99
I am not convinced of your opinion. It may be true for your own life - but in
general I don't think that this is accurate.

Are you saying that a poor kid does not start to realize that they are poor by
their own observations pretty early on? Mom, can we eat at that restaurant.
Mom, why don't we get a car like other people have? Mom, why don't we have a
telephone like people on TV do? Why am I wearing worn out clothes, socks and
shoes? Why do we eat lentils, rice or beans for every meal? ETC...

I grew up poor and knew we were poor from very early on. Not because anyone
stigmatized me either. It was blatantly obvious. If everyone else around me
and on TV had was in the exact same financial circumstances that we lived in.

Even in your case, I don't see the point of your statement. Is it to place
blame on the haves for persecuting the have nots? This is America. I realize
that being poor may negatively affect social status among peers, but I don't
consider this a limitation. Look at immigrants/refugees. Not only do they act,
look, eat, smell and talk differently. They are also minorities and poor. They
have far less going for them at first glance. They are stigmatized for a host
of reasons.

A deeper look reveals that they have two assets that most inner city kids do
not have. A strong determination to work hard/succeed and a strong family
presence to reinforce and encourage that determination.

My guess is that if you had a strong full family with a father at home who
taught you kids to believe in yourselves and not to listen to naysayers things
would have been much different in your life (even if you still were dirt poor)

Why do I think that? Because that is my story. There are popular poor kids and
there are unpopular rich kids. Same with fat kids, skinny kids, athletic,
clumsy, ugly, handsome ETC. The biggest determining factor is how much self
confidence they have. When people truly believe in themselves, they will rise
to the top. Their peers will believe as they do. That they are valuable to
others.

The government "nanny" will continue to try to replace God and family, but it
will never even come close to succeeding. The more the government tries, the
worse things get. No amount of money will ever replace what a child gets from
being reared in a good healthy and loving family.

Nothing will ever keep a family together like a true belief and faith in God
can. Broken families are a result of selfishness. The government does nothing
but promote more selfishness.

~~~
ap22213
I call bullshit.

Reading through your past posts, I see that there's a trend. You have a
distinct, extreme ideology of free market libertarianism. And, you try to
cherry pick reality to fit into your ideology. You're not convincing anyone
that way.

Poor immigrants and minorities with two-parent households don't succeed any
more (and probably less) than poor white kids with single parents.

------
AsymetricCom
I get the feeling that our friends in marketing are already well aware of this
type of psychology.

~~~
hayksaakian
And in fact, it can be used to avoid targeting that demographic.

Remove options that are specifically attractive to less wealthy / poor people
and you increase the average wealthiness of your demographic

