Is poverty voluntary?

[nextJin]

It's harder for poor people to get to the middle class than it is for the middle class to move to the upper class but poverty is not voluntary. I wouldn't volunteer to be in poverty. That said it's definitely possible for anyone to move up to the middle class primarily if they understand investments and finances. You can literally drop out of high school and flip burgers for 10 years without ever getting promoted and move up into the middle class.

Granted that's based on total wealth and not yearly income. There are certain attitudes and attributes that keep poor people poor. It's usually just financial planning but education, lifestyles, and poor habits also play a factor.

If every poor person in the country took up Dave Ramsey's approach for instance it would be very interesting to see how that affected the overall economy and "wealth distribution". The top 10% and further the top .01 percent are really only at that position due to compounding interest and serious investment over decades if not longer for people with inherited wealth.

 

[ivwshane]

You are an odd fellow.

Well, thank you for finding data that I had been looking for.




The data is on page 4. It clearly shows that if you look at the 48 month period in a nonconsecutive way, you see the very thing I said. While the average consecutive months may have been 1-4, people go back on after leaving. So...thanks for providing the data I had been looking for. You were a great help in proving my claim.

Yeah I suggest you actually read the report, you are wrong on every count.

And yes, most people are on assistance for less than four months at a time, however they are on it for less than five years total.
No matter how you cut it, rudeguys claim, "society has made welfare a lifetime source of easy income", is false.

 

[realibrad]

You are an odd fellow.

I think you might be confused as to what is going on. Ill go over the posts so you can see what my point was.

This you just said is wrong, and I will explain why. The percent of the population that receives welfare is pretty flat. Its true that people are on it for a few months, and then go off. The problem, is that they then go back on. To say that the average user is only on it for 4 months is misleading, if over a 5 year span the person would have been on it for 20 months in 4 month increments.

I think you took that statement to mean that I was claiming people were on it for 5 years. If you took it that way, then I can see where you would think I was wrong. My point was that if people were to be on welfare for 4 month consecutive spans, left for a month, then went back on for another 4 months then it would be a misleading figure to say that people are only on welfare for an average of 4 month spans.

The data from your last report shows that this is indeed happening, where people go off the welfare rolls, but then go back on. So, when talking about people and welfare, it is misleading to just focus on consecutive months. I was not trying to support Rudeguy, as he can support his own claims. I was pointing out the statement you made was incorrect.

Once again you are talking out of your ass. Not only are a majority of people on assistance on it for less than four months but 71% are on it for less than five years and only 1% are on it for 10 years.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/14/indicators/rpt_indicators.pdf

Page 51 on the report you linked was about average spell duration. TANF was the only welfare program in which the largest group was 4 months of less. SNAP and SSI both had the largest group in the 20+ months category. The caption for the graph also clearly states that "spells seperated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. This would mean that if a person were on a program for 1 month, then off for 2 months, then back on for another 2 months, the average spell duration would be 1.5 months, but the average number of months on the program for a 5 month span would be 60% of the time.

Also, I asked this in the previous post, but what is the link you claimed that I did not read? I only saw one link. I'll gladly apologize if I missed it, but I cannot find a 2nd link.

 

[ivwshane]

I think you might be confused as to what is going on. Ill go over the posts so you can see what my point was.



I think you took that statement to mean that I was claiming people were on it for 5 years. If you took it that way, then I can see where you would think I was wrong. My point was that if people were to be on welfare for 4 month consecutive spans, left for a month, then went back on for another 4 months then it would be a misleading figure to say that people are only on welfare for an average of 4 month spans.

The data from your last report shows that this is indeed happening, where people go off the welfare rolls, but then go back on. So, when talking about people and welfare, it is misleading to just focus on consecutive months. I was not trying to support Rudeguy, as he can support his own claims. I was pointing out the statement you made was incorrect.



Page 51 on the report you linked was about average spell duration. TANF was the only welfare program in which the largest group was 4 months of less. SNAP and SSI both had the largest group in the 20+ months category. The caption for the graph also clearly states that "spells seperated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. This would mean that if a person were on a program for 1 month, then off for 2 months, then back on for another 2 months, the average spell duration would be 1.5 months, but the average number of months on the program for a 5 month span would be 60% of the time.

Also, I asked this in the previous post, but what is the link you claimed that I did not read? I only saw one link. I'll gladly apologize if I missed it, but I cannot find a 2nd link.

You didn't miss a link, you just didn't read the whole report I linked to. You will also notice that I already agreed with your one point that people go back on assistance and I gave even more detail and explained that the majority use assistance for less than 5 years total.

Where I disagree with you is your claim that people stay on welfare for a long period of time regardless of frequency (ie the total time on assistance). As my most recent links show, the average length of time (total time) is less than two years.

I also disagree with you for saying that most people don't end up leaving assistance programs when they find a job. While the data doesn't specifically say a majority get off assistance because of a job (the majority, according to the report, says "other"), it's the number one stated specific answer.

Again, all of this (whether we agree or not on the numbers) is a clear indication that rudeguys statements are incorrect and not based on fact. If you agree with rudeguy then you will need to show the data that people spend a lifetime on government assistance.

 

[rudeguy]

You didn't miss a link, you just didn't read the whole report I linked to. You will also notice that I already agreed with your one point that people go back on assistance and I gave even more detail and explained that the majority use assistance for less than 5 years total.

Where I disagree with you is your claim that people stay on welfare for a long period of time regardless of frequency (ie the total time on assistance). As my most recent links show, the average length of time (total time) is less than two years.

I also disagree with you for saying that most people don't end up leaving assistance programs when they find a job. While the data doesn't specifically say a majority get off assistance because of a job (the majority, according to the report, says "other"), it's the number one stated specific answer.

Again, all of this (whether we agree or not on the numbers) is a clear indication that rudeguys statements are incorrect and not based on fact. If you agree with rudeguy then you will need to show the data that people spend a lifetime on government assistance.

I didn't follow all of you guys' debate, so I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself but what part of my statement was wrong? I'm not ashamed to eat crow and I appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong.

 

[realibrad]

You didn't miss a link, you just didn't read the whole report I linked to. You will also notice that I already agreed with your one point that people go back on assistance and I gave even more detail and explained that the majority use assistance for less than 5 years total.

I broke down page by page the report where you said it addressed the data. You said the data was started on page 51 and that was not the case. There seems to be some miscommunication there, so fair enough.

Where I disagree with you is your claim that people stay on welfare for a long period of time regardless of frequency (ie the total time on assistance). As my most recent links show, the average length of time (total time) is less than two years.

I never made that claim. You might be confusing me with someone else, which everyone has done at some point. Go back and you will see that I never took a stance.

What I did do was to say that the data you were using was not providing a counter to that claim which I think was made by Rudeguy. The original report you posted was about spell duration mainly, and never addressed the long term outside of spell duration.

I also disagree with you for saying that most people don't end up leaving assistance programs when they find a job. While the data doesn't specifically say a majority get off assistance because of a job (the majority, according to the report, says "other"), it's the number one stated specific answer.

This I don't quite understand. Your original report only really looked at single mothers on this topic. Your original claim was...

The number one reason people exit assistance programs is due to an increase in personal income.

I then said...

Also, the major people leave welfare is because they find a job. I see why you would make the assumption its for more money, because it could be, but that is not 100% correct either. When you look at after tax income, it is often that they end up making less money.

My claim was that it was not for an increase in real pay, but for other reasons. Page 57 seems to support my claim, but I think you are confused about what my original claim was.

Again, all of this (whether we agree or not on the numbers) is a clear indication that rudeguys statements are incorrect and not based on fact. If you agree with rudeguy then you will need to show the data that people spend a lifetime on government assistance.

I never claimed to agree with Rudeguy. What I did was to point out the flaw in your argument with the data you provided. What I can say is that there are people who have become dependent on welfare programs. I wont go into what would happen if those programs were not around, but I think even you would agree that there are people who live off of the programs. Where I jumped in was when Rudeguy said the following.

Instead society has made welfare a lifetime source of easy income and people have discovered that a lot of times it's easier to be poor than to work.

In that comment from post 245 he did not make a claim of how many people are like this, but it is in the data that shows that some do live off of welfare. Your response in post 246 did not in any way counter this statement which was the implicit purpose in your response.

 

[ivwshane]

Ok troll.



You suck at reading, #1:
From the paper you didn't bother reading (I directed you to the charts that back up my claim, the answers to your questions run throughout the whole paper. You failed to read it, not my problem).

From the fucking paper you didn't bother reading:

Longitudinal measures show that program spells typically are short and long-term recipiency is rare. For example, approximately three-fourths of all TANF spells and over half of all SNAP spells lasted one year or less (see Indicator 7). Among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year period ending in 2008, over 70 percent received assistance in only one or two years during this period (see Indicator 9).

I broke down page by page the report where you said it addressed the data. You said the data was started on page 51 and that was not the case. There seems to be some miscommunication there, so fair enough.



I never made that claim. You might be confusing me with someone else, which everyone has done at some point. Go back and you will see that I never took a stance.

Oh but you did.

This you just said is wrong, and I will explain why. The percent of the population that receives welfare is pretty flat. Its true that people are on it for a few months, and then go off. The problem, is that they then go back on. To say that the average user is only on it for 4 months is misleading, if over a 5 year span the person would have been on it for 20 months in 4 month increments. Its late and I am not going to look up the actual figures right now, but you can find them pretty easy. I know its something pretty close to 30% who leave welfare come back around 1 years, time, and over 50% come back in 5 years.

Also, the major people leave welfare is because they find a job. I see why you would make the assumption its for more money, because it could be, but that is not 100% correct either. When you look at after tax income, it is often that they end up making less money.

The implication of your statement was that people are not on welfare for very long, but that is not true. If you wanted to say that people were not on welfare for long consistent periods of time, then maybe.

What I did do was to say that the data you were using was not providing a counter to that claim which I think was made by Rudeguy. The original report you posted was about spell duration mainly, and never addressed the long term outside of spell duration.

Actually it did, you just didn't bother reading it.


This I don't quite understand. Your original report only really looked at single mothers on this topic. Your original claim was...

No, just those particular charts looked at single mothers, you know, the largest users of assistance programs.

I then said...



My claim was that it was not for an increase in real pay, but for other reasons. Page 57 seems to support my claim, but I think you are confused about what my original claim was.



I never claimed to agree with Rudeguy. What I did was to point out the flaw in your argument with the data you provided. What I can say is that there are people who have become dependent on welfare programs. I wont go into what would happen if those programs were not around, but I think even you would agree that there are people who live off of the programs. Where I jumped in was when Rudeguy said the following.

No that's not what rudeguy claimed, his post:

Poverty should be a temporary circumstance. Welfare should be a system to get people out of poverty. Instead society has made welfare a lifetime source of easy income and people have discovered that a lot of times it's easier to be poor than to work.

So welfare is indeed a temporary circumstance and it certainly isn't some societal institution for easy money.

In that comment from post 245 he did not make a claim of how many people are like this, but it is in the data that shows that some do live off of welfare. Your response in post 246 did not in any way counter this statement which was the implicit purpose in your response.

Fanfuckingtastic! And some people fuck goats? Your point and his about some people means exactly what to the discussion? It certainly doesn't mean shit in the context of his post! You can claim it does but you'd be lying to yourself.

You've trolled me long enough, well done! Suck a rooster

 

[realibrad]

Ok troll.



You suck at reading, #1:
From the paper you didn't bother reading (I directed you to the charts that back up my claim, the answers to your questions run throughout the whole paper. You failed to read it, not my problem).

From the fucking paper you didn't bother reading:





You've trolled me long enough, well done! Suck a rooster

Well this poster seems to want to twist what is going on.

The quote above is a perfect example. I clearly lay out my claims, and his by quoting our original posts. I literally broke down page by page his paper and yet he still claims I did not read it. His paper clearly is about spell duration, and not about people returning to welfare rolls. At this point I am not sure if he understands what that means.


Post 285.

I did, it starts at page 51 and continues. I'm not sure what more you want from me, I found the data, I linked to the report, I read the report, I specified page numbers. If you are really interested in the truth then you will need to do some work on your own.

My response on post 292.

OK, so I looked over the data from page 51-63. Page 64 starts into the number of people considered to be in poverty.

So, the data you seem to think supports what you claimed is from 51-63 it would seem.

Page 51 is about length of spell. It does not say anything about people returning, just the avg number of months people were on welfare in consecutive months.

Page 52 is about food stamps in the same format with data up to 2011 but is also about the consecutive months people were on it. It does not say anything about people returning.

Page 53 is about "welfare spell duration with no labor force attachment". This is also about consecutive months, and does not say anything about people returning.

Page 54 is the same thing as page 53 but with more complete data. It has nothing to do with people returning to welfare.

Page 55 starts to get interesting. Up until now, nothing has addressed my earlier claim about people returning. The data here though is about mothers so not a great representation of everyone.

Page 56 breaks down the data on mothers. It appears that from 1999-2008 (2008 being the most recent data) 71.5% of mothers received some welfare for 1-2 years. 20.5% received some welfare for 3-5 years. 6.9% received some welfare for 6-8 years. This is starting to support my claim that people return.

Page 57 is about events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells for mothers. This addresses another claim I made but the group is only limited to single mothers.

30.3% left because of higher earnings. Your claim was that this is the typical reason people left.
"Forty-six percent of welfare exits during the 2004-2006 time period were not associated with any of the events listed above within the same period observed." This would prove wrong your claim, as 46% is larger than 30.3%

Page 58 is a further break down of page 57 and it again supports my claim.

Page 59 is about events that led to the entry of welfare programs

Page 60 is a break down of page 59.

Page 61 is blank.

Page 62 is about "predictors and risk factors associated with welfare receipt"
Everything else has nothing to do with your or my claim.

So, where do you think you see the data that shows I was wrong in the report?

I am pretty sure the answer is that there is not. You likely found a report that you did not fully understand. The relevant data was not all that relevant as it mainly dealt with mothers, and not all persons on welfare, but the data that was there supported my claim.

So...?

Now he is moving the goal post to say that its actually through out the entire paper and not his original claim of page 51 on. When people make claims they should have the data, and even when they provide data you should read it. He clearly used data that did not support his claim and the 2nd links he provided actually did nothing to further his claims. You can challenge a poster far more effectively if you have data. Some people, however, will try and divert, but if you stick to the data, you can prove they are wrong as I did. You will get called a troll sometimes but that is usually a pretty good sign they do not have an argument.

 

[Dessicant]

Seems like the right wing mentality is that being poor is somehow a choice and not an issue of circumstance. The progressive liberal socialist stance that i take recognizes that poverty is violence of the worst kind and to alleiviate that requires thorough control of scarcity and that equates wealth redistribution. An untrained propagandized mind will say that is communism but they fail to realize that soviet communism had a heirarchical brutal pyrimid structural and the brutality wasnt/isnt a result of wealth redistribution but the general violent culture of the time or place. Marx was right all along about capitalism and i think this calls for an updated form of communism. The ecology of the esrth, stability of the society, and the sustainability of the human race depend on it.

Poverty is an individual problem to be solved by the individual with the lack of wealth. Are we all equal from birth? Of course not. Neither are planets or microbes. Inequality is an existential state. Some of us are born with talent and promise. Some are born without much of either, but discover that hard work can overcome a lack of innate ability. Some are born ordinary and discover that they are too lazy to overcome much of anything. Some are born to rich parents and never need to work. Others are born to welfare drug addicts and are cursed from the start.

The solution to all this inequality: Nothing. There is no solution, because there is no problem. We will always be unequal, and some of us will never have access to great wealth. The best system to deal with inequality: Freedom. Everybody gets to figure it out for themselves. Some will never do that, and will remain ordinary and poor and then they will die. That is just and that is correct. Inequality is NOT AN ISSUE to be solved by collectives.

A good solution to maximize the chance of an individual to overcome the PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL problem of poverty is to leave him alone and NOT TAX HIM. Minimal taxation and no redistribution is the correct policy.

Equality of income and wealth should not be a goal of society. Freedom should be the goal, so that those with motivation have some possibility to change their circumstances.

Giving people free stuff taken from others kills both the giver and the recipient. It is bad policy, it comes from bad motivation, it is based on a single emotion: ENVY.

We should stop worshiping the envious.

 

[Moonbeam]

Poverty is an individual problem to be solved by the individual with the lack of wealth. Are we all equal from birth? Of course not. Neither are planets or microbes. Inequality is an existential state. Some of us are born with talent and promise. Some are born without much of either, but discover that hard work can overcome a lack of innate ability. Some are born ordinary and discover that they are too lazy to overcome much of anything. Some are born to rich parents and never need to work. Others are born to welfare drug addicts and are cursed from the start.

The solution to all this inequality: Nothing. There is no solution, because there is no problem. We will always be unequal, and some of us will never have access to great wealth. The best system to deal with inequality: Freedom. Everybody gets to figure it out for themselves. Some will never do that, and will remain ordinary and poor and then they will die. That is just and that is correct. Inequality is NOT AN ISSUE to be solved by collectives.

A good solution to maximize the chance of an individual to overcome the PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL problem of poverty is to leave him alone and NOT TAX HIM. Minimal taxation and no redistribution is the correct policy.

Equality of income and wealth should not be a goal of society. Freedom should be the goal, so that those with motivation have some possibility to change their circumstances.

Giving people free stuff taken from others kills both the giver and the recipient. It is bad policy, it comes from bad motivation, it is based on a single emotion: ENVY.

We should stop worshiping the envious.

I'm sorry for whatever it was that happened to you. A sense of justice and equality aren't based on envy, they are genetic in most people. They derive from a feeling of empathy that defines what it means to be human. The poor do not vote. It's folk with means like me who vote liberal to tax my wealth to pay for the welfare of others, intentionally. I also help old ladies across the street, even though it's not good for them or for me. We can't have them becoming dependent, or me late for something.

You identified two problems. People without a capacity to feel for the needs of others and think only of themselves do not like being taxed to help others. They still feel poor and will always feel that way no matter how much they have. For this reason they rationalize not giving to others because direct giving creates dependency, or so they say. With this excuse they resists being taxed, but that is not the answer any more than giving a drunk money isn't going to for alcohol. The cause of poverty is self hate that manifests as ignorance and self destructiveness. It is that which needs to be cured and that can be fixed only with wisdom and knowledge. What drives success is success, the feedback from effort and reward. In order to help the poor who are poor from self destructive attitudes, a system of reward for effort must be made. The task is enormous because self hate is endemic. Most people have no idea how to lessen the burden of self hate because they can't see their own and that causes them not to want it to be cured. "Please oh please, don't open that can of worms."

 

[werepossum]

I'm sorry for whatever it was that happened to you. A sense of justice and equality aren't based on envy, they are genetic in most people. They derive from a feeling of empathy that defines what it means to be human. The poor do not vote. It's folk with means like me who vote liberal to tax my wealth to pay for the welfare of others, intentionally. I also help old ladies across the street, even though it's not good for them or for me. We can't have them becoming dependent, or me late for something.

You identified two problems. People without a capacity to feel for the needs of others and think only of themselves do not like being taxed to help others. They still feel poor and will always feel that way no matter how much they have. For this reason they rationalize not giving to others because direct giving creates dependency, or so they say. With this excuse they resists being taxed, but that is not the answer any more than giving a drunk money isn't going to for alcohol. The cause of poverty is self hate that manifests as ignorance and self destructiveness. It is that which needs to be cured and that can be fixed only with wisdom and knowledge. What drives success is success, the feedback from effort and reward. In order to help the poor who are poor from self destructive attitudes, a system of reward for effort must be made. The task is enormous because self hate is endemic. Most people have no idea how to lessen the burden of self hate because they can't see their own and that causes them not to want it to be cured. "Please oh please, don't open that can of worms."

Shens. Telling old ladies that they walk so slow because of self hate is not "helping them across the street."

 

[nextJin]

Poverty is an individual problem to be solved by the individual with the lack of wealth. Are we all equal from birth? Of course not. Neither are planets or microbes. Inequality is an existential state. Some of us are born with talent and promise. Some are born without much of either, but discover that hard work can overcome a lack of innate ability. Some are born ordinary and discover that they are too lazy to overcome much of anything. Some are born to rich parents and never need to work. Others are born to welfare drug addicts and are cursed from the start.

The solution to all this inequality: Nothing. There is no solution, because there is no problem. We will always be unequal, and some of us will never have access to great wealth. The best system to deal with inequality: Freedom. Everybody gets to figure it out for themselves. Some will never do that, and will remain ordinary and poor and then they will die. That is just and that is correct. Inequality is NOT AN ISSUE to be solved by collectives.

A good solution to maximize the chance of an individual to overcome the PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL problem of poverty is to leave him alone and NOT TAX HIM. Minimal taxation and no redistribution is the correct policy.

Equality of income and wealth should not be a goal of society. Freedom should be the goal, so that those with motivation have some possibility to change their circumstances.

Giving people free stuff taken from others kills both the giver and the recipient. It is bad policy, it comes from bad motivation, it is based on a single emotion: ENVY.

We should stop worshiping the envious.

Eh I honestly feel it's just ignorance and poor choices. Being born to the lowest of the low in this country you can get to the middle class working a minimum wage job for 5-10 years.

Severe debt, bad habits and not saving are why people are ultimately poor. The rich get richer due to large investments and compounding interest. Or course the spread is going to get far larger over time.

 

[werepossum]

Poverty is an individual problem to be solved by the individual with the lack of wealth. Are we all equal from birth? Of course not. Neither are planets or microbes. Inequality is an existential state. Some of us are born with talent and promise. Some are born without much of either, but discover that hard work can overcome a lack of innate ability. Some are born ordinary and discover that they are too lazy to overcome much of anything. Some are born to rich parents and never need to work. Others are born to welfare drug addicts and are cursed from the start.

The solution to all this inequality: Nothing. There is no solution, because there is no problem. We will always be unequal, and some of us will never have access to great wealth. The best system to deal with inequality: Freedom. Everybody gets to figure it out for themselves. Some will never do that, and will remain ordinary and poor and then they will die. That is just and that is correct. Inequality is NOT AN ISSUE to be solved by collectives.

A good solution to maximize the chance of an individual to overcome the PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL problem of poverty is to leave him alone and NOT TAX HIM. Minimal taxation and no redistribution is the correct policy.

Equality of income and wealth should not be a goal of society. Freedom should be the goal, so that those with motivation have some possibility to change their circumstances.

Giving people free stuff taken from others kills both the giver and the recipient. It is bad policy, it comes from bad motivation, it is based on a single emotion: ENVY.

We should stop worshiping the envious.

While I tend to agree in principle, in practice I see some major problems. For one, most poor Americans don't really believe they can succeed. They see very successful people, but all their lives they've been told that those people "won life's lottery" or inherited wealth or are somehow fundamentally different from themselves. Without showing them some path from where they are to where they want to be, in manageable chunks they can understand, very few will even try, and many of those won't know how to make any headway. For another, America has been fundamentally transformed. Most of the jobs where an uneducated person can move into the middle class simply by virtue of hard work are gone, either off shore or replaced by automation, and most of those remaining are filled by illegals who owners know will work harder for less. One can move up by hard work, certainly, but no matter how industriously one flips burgers or stocks shelves one cannot move up into management without being literate and knowing basic math and business principles. For a third, gaining these useful skills is relatively expensive, especially if one has made life mistakes such as breeding before building a nest, or if one simply draws the short straw in life. Funding even a community college education is beyond the means of most poor people and they aren't good risks, so unless we take from others and make that available to them, such advancement probably can't happen.

Ideal theory and real life seldom match.

 

[Mai72]

I think a lot of it is habitual. Most of the poor and even middle class are horrible at saving money. They spend a lot of money on the lottery, and they spend money on useless crap.

I had read that the poor think in short terms. They think immediate gratification. What can I get now. The wealthy think long term, such as investments and savings.

I didn't see anyone mention media consumption. People who are poor typically watch way more TV than successful people. I've met quite a few wealthy people and most weren't TV viewers. They were always reading. That's not the case with people who are poor. Most don't read.

Finally, its what we do on a day to day basis that determines where we stand later in life. Put in the time and you'll have a much better chance of succeeding financially.

 

[nextJin]

I think a lot of it is habitual. Most of the poor and even middle class are horrible at saving money. They spend a lot of money on the lottery, and they spend money on useless crap.

I had read that the poor think in short terms. They think immediate gratification. What can I get now. The wealthy think long term, such as investments and savings.

I didn't see anyone mention media consumption. People who are poor typically watch way more TV than successful people. I've met quite a few wealthy people and most weren't TV viewers. They were always reading. That's not the case with people who are poor. Most don't read.

Finally, its what we do on a day to day basis that determines where we stand later in life. Put in the time and you'll have a much better chance of succeeding financially.

Pretty much, they just don't know how to accumulate wealth (ignorance)

http://richhabits.net/20-learned-habits-that-will-make-your-child-rich-or-poor/

 

[Mai72]

Pretty much, they just don't know how to accumulate wealth (ignorance)

http://richhabits.net/20-learned-habits-that-will-make-your-child-rich-or-poor/

Did you ever hear of the latte effect? Basically, it says that money that people typically spend on their daily coffee habit can be invested, and thru the miracle of compound interest they can have a sizeable savings within 20-30 years.

We have a very popular store near me called WaWa. People love to buy coffee their in the morning. A 16oz cup cost $1.20 People also will buy other items like a donut and a sizzli. A sizzli is a morning sandwich. You can easily spend $5 a day. Now, imagine doing this 5x a week for 20 years. Many people do this.

IMO a lot of this is because we're conditioned to spend money. This is why it's so important that saving and investing money needs to be taught at a young age. Most people aren't that fortunate. I was never taught about saving money. My parents were spenders. My dad is still a spender. Hell, I remember when he was a contractor for the county making $15k in 2 weeks. He was delivering those huge voting booths in the 90s.

The poor and the middle class aren't as fortunate as the wealthy. They don't have good role models. They don't have someone to teach them how to invest and save. Luckily today you can find all the information on saving and investing online. But, they have to be aware that they need to change and most aren't willing to do it, because that would mean a drastic change in how they view money.

I will check out the link you provided. Thanks.

 

[Moonbeam]

Shens. Telling old ladies that they walk so slow because of self hate is not "helping them across the street."

Why make this kind of post? Have you no dignity? The point I was making about helping old ladies across the road was to show that it is neither done from envy not does it cause them to become dependent or harm me. I do not tell old ladies they walk too slow or that they hate themselves.

 

[ivwshane]

It's a tough job trying to convince people to save money (an issue for everyone not just the poor), when today's best interest rates get you around 1% and the payoff won't be for 30 years.

Did you ever hear of the latte effect? Basically, it says that money that people typically spend on their daily coffee habit can be invested, and thru the miracle of compound interest they can have a sizeable savings within 20-30 years.

We have a very popular store near me called WaWa. People love to buy coffee their in the morning. A 16oz cup cost $1.20 People also will buy other items like a donut and a sizzli. A sizzli is a morning sandwich. You can easily spend $5 a day. Now, imagine doing this 5x a week for 20 years. Many people do this.

IMO a lot of this is because we're conditioned to spend money. This is why it's so important that saving and investing money needs to be taught at a young age. Most people aren't that fortunate. I was never taught about saving money. My parents were spenders. My dad is still a spender. Hell, I remember when he was a contractor for the county making $15k in 2 weeks. He was delivering those huge voting booths in the 90s.

The poor and the middle class aren't as fortunate as the wealthy. They don't have good role models. They don't have someone to teach them how to invest and save. Luckily today you can find all the information on saving and investing online. But, they have to be aware that they need to change and most aren't willing to do it, because that would mean a drastic change in how they spend money.

I will check out the link you ptovided. Thanks.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did you ever hear of the latte effect? Basically, it says that money that people typically spend on their daily coffee habit can be invested, and thru the miracle of compound interest they can have a sizeable savings within 20-30 years.

We have a very popular store near me called WaWa. People love to buy coffee their in the morning. A 16oz cup cost $1.20 People also will buy other items like a donut and a sizzli. A sizzli is a morning sandwich. You can easily spend $5 a day. Now, imagine doing this 5x a week for 20 years. Many people do this.

IMO a lot of this is because we're conditioned to spend money. This is why it's so important that saving and investing money needs to be taught at a young age. Most people aren't that fortunate. I was never taught about saving money. My parents were spenders. My dad is still a spender. Hell, I remember when he was a contractor for the county making $15k in 2 weeks. He was delivering those huge voting booths in the 90s.

The poor and the middle class aren't as fortunate as the wealthy. They don't have good role models. They don't have someone to teach them how to invest and save. Luckily today you can find all the information on saving and investing online. But, they have to be aware that they need to change and most aren't willing to do it, because that would mean a drastic change in how they spend money.

I will check out the link you ptovided. Thanks.

Once I had a niggardly friend who had no life, was single and saved every penny, investing it in Exon stock. He amassed a small fortune by the time he was about to retire but he died of cancer and left everything to his profligate sister.

 

[nextJin]

It's a tough job trying to convince people to save money (an issue for everyone not just the poor), when today's best interest rates get you around 1% and the payoff won't be for 30 years.

Maybe in a savings account, most all other avenues for investing show a larger return than 1% unless you want to invest in government bonds for whatever reason.

 

[Mai72]

Maybe in a savings account, most all other avenues for investing show a larger return than 1% unless you want to invest in government bonds for whatever reason.

I thought the average was 4%.

I thought this video did a pretty good job on saving money thru the book "The Richest Man in Babylon."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKnbpGnir8c

 

[MongGrel]

I thought the average was 4%.

I thought this video did a pretty good job on saving money thru the book "The Richest Man in Babylon."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKnbpGnir8c

Twat.

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe in a savings account, most all other avenues for investing show a larger return than 1% unless you want to invest in government bonds for whatever reason.

Yes, but I'd argue that your average American doesn't know how to invest in other, better avenues.

 

[nextJin]

Yes, but I'd argue that your average American doesn't know how to invest in other, better avenues.

That's my point, it's just simple ignorance. I'm not using it in a derogatory manner. Simply investing in Mutual Funds or IRAs, etc is pretty easy folks just don't even grasp the concept.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Seems like the right wing mentality is that being poor is somehow a choice and not an issue of circumstance. The progressive liberal socialist stance that i take recognizes that poverty is violence of the worst kind and to alleiviate that requires thorough control of scarcity and that equates wealth redistribution. An untrained propagandized mind will say that is communism but they fail to realize that soviet communism had a heirarchical brutal pyrimid structural and the brutality wasnt/isnt a result of wealth redistribution but the general violent culture of the time or place. Marx was right all along about capitalism and i think this calls for an updated form of communism. The ecology of the esrth, stability of the society, and the sustainability of the human race depend on it.

Look up this proverb, "It is easier to make $one million into $two then to make $1 dollar into $2." What it takes to eliminate poverty is an even playing field.