Is poverty voluntary?

[rudeguy]

So again, how do you square it being part of the problem with it being strongly inversely correlated with the problem? Doesn't that imply the exact opposite? If not, why?

I keep debating things you said and you keep trying not to.

Please show how its not part of the problem.

You have posted no statistics that weren't lies. The only fact you posted, that "people who didn't work hard starved to death" was a lie. If you want me to debate the facts, post them.

 

[fskimospy]

Please show how its not part of the problem.

You have posted no statistics that weren't lies. The only fact you posted, that "people who didn't work hard starved to death" was a lie. If you want me to debate the facts, post them.

Nice try on shifting the burden of proof. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made a specific statement, so why not explain how it fits in with the evidence?

I keep trying to debate you, but you keep refusing to back up what you said.

 

[rudeguy]

Nice try on shifting the burden of proof. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made a specific statement, so why not explain how it fits in with the evidence?

I keep trying to debate you, but you keep refusing to back up what you said.

I've already answered you question twice.

We'll go for 3 times since you're having an extra stupid day:

People didn't need as much money as they do today.


Now to prove my point: we'll look at the OP. He is proud that he doesn't have to work. He's proud that the people like me who do work pay his way. If you'd like to dispute facts, do it. I'm not in the mood to play your stupid games today.

 

[fskimospy]

I've already answered you question twice.

We'll go for 3 times since you're having an extra stupid day:

People didn't need as much money as they do today.

Now to prove my point: we'll look at the OP. He is proud that he doesn't have to work. He's proud that the people like me who do work pay his way. If you'd like to dispute facts, do it. I'm not in the mood to play your stupid games today.

That doesn't make any sense, because we don't judge past poverty on current living standards. They were in poverty relative to their day.

So no, that is not a reason. Any others?

 

[rudeguy]

That doesn't make any sense, because we don't judge past poverty on current living standards. They were in poverty relative to their day.

So no, that is not a reason. Any others?

you are a moron.

In the past, we didn't track poverty. We didn't have measures like we do today.

So my response to your question is: pudding.

 

[Subyman]

you are a moron.

In the past, we didn't track poverty. We didn't have measures like we do today.

So my response to your question is: pudding.

So you believe there was a nice middle class sector with low poverty in the 1800's or are you saying we can't know because there aren't any statistic (even though no one in this thread has tried to pull up that data)?

IMO, it is a good question but neither of you guys have brought any data to the table. I'll sit back and wait for you guys to do the leg work because I'm actually interested in the question :biggrin:

 

[brandonb]

In my experience poverty is generally voluntary.

In fact, I don't know a single person in my life that is in poverty that hasn't chosen to be in that spot.

I will give an examples of both poor and rich.

1) My GF's mother. She works very hard. Full time nights as a nursing assistant. For the last 7 years that I know of (and longer). She's in poverty though. Why? Because her daughter is 27 years old (not my GF but her sister), and still lives at home. This daughter does not pay rent, does not work (maybe a total of 5 days in her entire life), is on "disability" because she is extremely obese at nearly 500 pounds. This daughter also brings home every animal she finds on the street and says its a stray and thinks its her duty to take care of the animal. To top it off, this daughter also has her boyfriend living in the house. So now this old lady has to take care of not only herself, but her daughter, her boyfriend, and about a dozen animals. She refuses to kick them out. My GF and her mom get into fights about this regularly. Even though the daughter takes 100% advantage of her. This daughter has x boxes, play stations, cell phones, a car, more than likely eats like a horse, etc etc etc. She will not kick her out and/or teach the daughter any responsibility. Just takes in up the rear end. She will never better herself because any extra money she ever gets or saves, the daughter always convinces the mother to spend on her in some way.

2) This is the COO of the last company I worked for and when our network has a security problem some people found payroll files and I found out he made $450,000 a year. Rich by many standards. He started as every other young man in life and worked his way up through the corporate ladder. A long the way he studied human psyche and read books like Dale Carnegie about how to win friends and influence people. He was a wrestler in high school/college and won state championships etc. He would make sound financial decisions in his life. He'd never buy a car brand new, he'd always wait 3 years for it to depreciate before he'd buy one. He never buys top of the line computers for home, instead he'd buy cheap pieces of shit until it broke or didn't run his apps years later. He said when he sold his house, the realtor agent would typically make 6%. He said if his house sold within 30 days he'd pay them 7% instead. This was so he didn't have to pay mortgage for months waiting for the house to sell when he already bought a new house. Realtors are going to be much more likely to push someone into buying a certain house if they got more commission. It sold within 30 days. He reads the Wall Street Journal, and reads about what other companies are doing on how they're saving money and people in general.

There 2 examples. The difference. One is trying their best to save money and make money and is on this constant quest to improve himself. The other is not exactly lazy, but makes poor decisions or doesn't want to assert themselves because its either 1) Too hard, 2) Might ruffle feathers, 3) Fears the unknown, 4) Doesn't know where to start but isn't taking any responsibility to figure that out.

This mindset really is the difference between the rich and the poor from all my experiences. It can all be boiled down to that.

 

[rudeguy]

So you believe there was a nice middle class sector with low poverty in the 1800's or are you saying we can't know because there aren't any statistic (even though no one in this thread has tried to pull up that data)?

IMO, it is a good question but neither of you guys have brought any data to the table. I'll sit back and wait for you guys to do the leg work because I'm actually interested in the question :biggrin:

I brought enough data to the table to backup my point. Eskimoshill once again expects us to take his word for things. Even after his main point was proven to be a lie.

 

[Naer]

In my experience poverty is generally voluntary.

In fact, I don't know a single person in my life that is in poverty that hasn't chosen to be in that spot.

I will give an examples of both poor and rich.

1) My GF's mother. She works very hard. Full time nights as a nursing assistant. For the last 7 years that I know of (and longer). She's in poverty though. Why? Because her daughter is 27 years old (not my GF but her sister), and still lives at home. This daughter does not pay rent, does not work (maybe a total of 5 days in her entire life), is on "disability" because she is extremely obese at nearly 500 pounds. This daughter also brings home every animal she finds on the street and says its a stray and thinks its her duty to take care of the animal. To top it off, this daughter also has her boyfriend living in the house. So now this old lady has to take care of not only herself, but her daughter, her boyfriend, and about a dozen animals. She refuses to kick them out. My GF and her mom get into fights about this regularly. Even though the daughter takes 100% advantage of her. This daughter has x boxes, play stations, cell phones, a car, more than likely eats like a horse, etc etc etc. She will not kick her out and/or teach the daughter any responsibility. Just takes in up the rear end. She will never better herself because any extra money she ever gets or saves, the daughter always convinces the mother to spend on her in some way.

2) This is the COO of the last company I worked for and when our network has a security problem some people found payroll files and I found out he made $450,000 a year. Rich by many standards. He started as every other young man in life and worked his way up through the corporate ladder. A long the way he studied human psyche and read books like Dale Carnegie about how to win friends and influence people. He was a wrestler in high school/college and won state championships etc. He would make sound financial decisions in his life. He'd never buy a car brand new, he'd always wait 3 years for it to depreciate before he'd buy one. He never buys top of the line computers for home, instead he'd buy cheap pieces of shit until it broke or didn't run his apps years later. He said when he sold his house, the realtor agent would typically make 6%. He said if his house sold within 30 days he'd pay them 7% instead. This was so he didn't have to pay mortgage for months waiting for the house to sell when he already bought a new house. Realtors are going to be much more likely to push someone into buying a certain house if they got more commission. It sold within 30 days. He reads the Wall Street Journal, and reads about what other companies are doing on how they're saving money and people in general.

There 2 examples. The difference. One is trying their best to save money and make money and is on this constant quest to improve himself. The other is not exactly lazy, but makes poor decisions or doesn't want to assert themselves because its either 1) Too hard, 2) Might ruffle feathers, 3) Fears the unknown, 4) Doesn't know where to start but isn't taking any responsibility to figure that out.

This mindset really is the difference between the rich and the poor from all my experiences. It can all be boiled down to that.

If poverty is voluntary, why is the vast majority of people poor? Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're not there

 

[fskimospy]

you are a moron.

In the past, we didn't track poverty. We didn't have measures like we do today.

So my response to your question is: pudding.

Are you claiming that we have no way of knowing if in the past a higher proportion of the population was in poverty than there is now? We didn't track it in the systematic way we do now, but there are plenty of estimates. It was really bad.

It's interesting that in your previous excuse you implicitly accepted that poverty was higher in the past, you just said it didn't matter because they didn't need money. When challenged on that you just declare that we don't know that poverty was higher.

 

[rudeguy]

If poverty is voluntary, why is the vast majority of people poor? Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're not there

If poverty ins't voluntary, why do you choose not to work?

 

[Texashiker]

If poverty is voluntary, why is the vast majority of people poor?

Several reasons.

1. The public education system does not teach people how to make money. Schools teach kids that they need to get an education and go to work for someone else. From the very start kids are misled on the path to riches. They are pointed in the wrong direction. A lot of times that direction is towards poverty.

Parents and teachers ask kids what they want to do with their lives? I am 47 years old, my true love has always been archeology. Good luck finding a nearby job that pays well doing archeology in southeast Texas.

2. People give up. No, you can not have it all. After struggling for years to move up the financial ladder people give up on being able to find a good paying job.

Example - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-women-having-130000783.html

This goes back to the education system. Kids are not taught to be creative or how to move on their ideas. Instead, kids are taught to do as they are told.

The focus over the past few years has been on women being able to balance work and family. Welcome to the real world. Men have not been able to find a balance for hundreds of years, why should women all of a sudden be granted what men have worked for and still unable to have?

3. People give up on making more money. They settle for what companies like mcdonalds and walmart pay.

 

[brandonb]

If poverty is voluntary, why is the vast majority of people poor? Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they're not there

Most people are generally lazy if given the opportunity. To get ahead in life usually requires a lot of hard work. Most are not up to it.

 

[fskimospy]

Several reasons.

1. The public education system does not teach people how to make money. Schools teach kids that they need to get an education and go to work for someone else. From the very start kids are misled on the path to riches. They are pointed in the wrong direction. A lot of times that direction is towards poverty.

Parents and teachers ask kids what they want to do with their lives? I am 47 years old, my true love has always been archeology. Good luck finding a nearby job that pays well doing archeology in southeast Texas.

2. People give up. No, you can not have it all. After struggling for years to move up the financial ladder people give up on being able to find a good paying job.

Example - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-women-having-130000783.html

This goes back to the education system. Kids are not taught to be creative or how to move on their ideas. Instead, kids are taught to do as they are told.

The focus over the past few years has been on women being able to balance work and family. Welcome to the real world. Men have not been able to find a balance for hundreds of years, why should women all of a sudden be granted what men have worked for and still unable to have?

So why is almost everyone in Africa poor?

Let me guess, in Africa they really are held back by circumstances but here they aren't.

 

[WackyDan]

If you do not have the skills to reach the level needed to land you a great job you need the right contacts, for which family and friends help a lot, which in turn is a question of luck

You need both my friend. I've known some highly skilled people that were so introverted and awkward socially that they sucked at interviews, and relationships/networking.

Every person I've met who lacks a college education but makes a great living and is moderately to highly successful have a number of traits that got them there. It may be part of their personality, but the environment they were brought up in certainly produced those results.

I'm perfectly fine with someone not getting ahead if they can't muster the drive/ambition that other's have. I don't believe we need to coddle them, or make things "fair". There are people out there that think because one person has the balls to negotiate for higher pay that it is unfair to those more timid.... Fuck that noise.

Welfare on the other hand is sinister in that it creates multi-generational dependency among families. As much as I think welfare (all social programs) gets it wrong and needs to be re-tooled, I don't blame the welfare queens and multi-generational welfare recipients as I used to. It is what they know... It is what they are taught. Push comes to shove, and you'll see which ones rise above.

 

[Texashiker]

So why is almost everyone in Africa poor?

The same reasons why asians are usually creative and good at math. A lot of it boils down to genetics.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a.html

There's a gene cluster linked to advanced mathematics skills, information processing, logic, analytical intelligence, concentration skills, obsession–compulsion and Asperger's syndrome.

Something wasn't right. She was linking genes for advanced mental skills to Neanderthals. "I'm confused," I said when she paused for a breath. "You're correlating genes linked to modern human intelligence with Neanderthal populations.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is the real answer to the OP:

Poverty is a choice the majority of the time. Poverty is not a disease, its a circumstance. If you don't want to live in poverty, you don't have to. The problem is that it takes hard work a lot of the time and Americans have been given such a sense of entitlement that they don't think they should have to work hard to have nice things.

I won't call anyone out but there are MULTIPLE people in this thread who live in poverty solely because they don't want to have to work. I did not come from money, I don't have a degree, I didn't have someone hand me a $50k/year job out of high school. I started at the bottom of the bottom, worked hard, learned everything I could, and climbed like a mother fucker. The owner of the company I work for now had the same experience. He came from nothing. Some podunk town in the middle of a snowfield in MN. Now he owns a company that will hit close to $750M in sales this year. The vast, VAST majority of my friends did not come from money. They all put their noses to the grindstone, started off poor, then worked their asses off.

The government and media have convinced the public that all they need to do is go to college, get a degree, then they will be handed a well paying job as soon as they get their degree. We've had how many generations now believe that lie? How many of these kids are coming out of college with no useful skills or knowledge? They aren't capable of running a register at McDonalds but they believe they should be paid $70k/year because they have a degree.

At the same time the government is handing out more money than ever to anyone who wants it. Free food, free money, free house, free internet, free cell phone...why would any rational person want to put in years of hard work to get what they want when they can go to the government and get it all for free? And they won't have to deal with all the bullshit that goes along with working: asshole bosses, schedules, rules. No way they will deal with all that when the government is happy to hand them all they need.

Americans are lazy. Americans are too afraid of not being politically correct and telling the lazy fucks to get off their asses and get jobs. Americans are too afraid of being called a monster just for telling the truth.

Well I'm not one of those people. I'm tired of having to pay all your lazy fucks' way. I have my own family to support, I don't need to support yours as well. Get a job and help pay for all the debt we've racked up paying for you lazy bastards. Get a job and help pay for the people who really need help. Just get a damn job already.

You don't have a degree and own your own business????????? You worthless fuck.

 

[ivwshane]

Most people are generally lazy if given the opportunity. To get ahead in life usually requires a lot of hard work. Most are not up to it.

And this is based on what?

 

[IGBT]

Today, government spends 16 times more, adjusting for inflation, on means-tested welfare or anti-poverty programs than it did when the War on Poverty started. But as welfare spending soared, the decline in poverty came to a grinding halt. As Chart 2 shows, the more the government spent, the less progress against poverty was made.

How can this paradox be explained? How can government spend $9,000 per recipient and have no apparent impact on poverty? The answer is that it can’t.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.


Living Conditions of the Poor in America[5]

Consumption by Poor Families. Since the Census Bureau dramatically undercounts the actual incomes of the poor, it should be no surprise to find that the U.S. Department of Labor routinely reports that poor families spend $2.40 for every $1.00 of their reported income.[6] If public housing benefits are added to the tally, the ratio of consumption to income rises to $2.60 for every $1.00. In other words, the “income” figures that the Census Bureau uses to calculate poverty dramatically undercount the economic resources available to lower-income households.

Amenities. Because the official Census poverty report undercounts welfare income, it fails to provide meaningful information about the actual living conditions of less affluent Americans. The government’s own data show that the actual living conditions of the more than 45 million people deemed “poor” by the Census Bureau differ greatly from popular conceptions of poverty.[7] Consider these facts taken from various government reports:[8]

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, at the beginning of the War on Poverty, only about 12 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly three-quarters have a car or truck; 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.[9]
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and a quarter have two or more.
Half have a personal computer; one in seven has two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
Forty-three percent have Internet access.
Forty percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
A quarter have a digital video recorder system such as a TIVO.
Ninety-two percent of poor households have a microwave.

For decades, the living conditions of the poor have steadily improved. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward price trend following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product becomes widely prevalent throughout the population, including poor households. This is a general sign of desirable economic progress.

Liberals use the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that even though poor households have air conditioning, computers, cable TV, and wide-screen TVs, they still suffer from substantial material deprivation in basic needs such as food and housing. Here again, the data tell a different story.

 

[Moonbeam]

The same reasons why asians are usually creative and good at math. A lot of it boils down to genetics.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453562a.html

It's Italians that have the greatest abundance of Neanderthal genes, no?

 

[waggy]

You don't have a degree and own your own business????????? You worthless fuck.

while i know you just being sarcastic the idea you need a degree or a business to be succesfull is insane.

being able to pay your own way, pay taxes and be a productive member of society is a success.

When you sit on welfare and handouts when you are healthy and able to work is a big problem.

 

[brandonb]

And this is based on what?

Human Evolution.

People will naturally be lazy to save energy unless it needs to be expended. Why waste fuel unless you need to? Do you believe in science and evolution?

 

[Texashiker]

It's Italians that have the greatest abundance of Neanderthal genes, no?

Good guess, but no.

http://www.ibtimes.com/neanderthal-...-multiple-breeding-events-studies-say-1822230

Scientists have long hypothesized why East Asians on average carry 15 percent to 30 percent more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans

 

[Moonbeam]

while i know you just being sarcastic the idea you need a degree or a business to be succesfull is insane.

being able to pay your own way, pay taxes and be a productive member of society is a success.

When you sit on welfare and handouts when you are healthy and able to work is a big problem.

You mean like Romney who spends a fortune avoiding taxes, fixing tax laws that favor the rich, and has taken 47% as much in hand outs as 47% of the takers? Romney is a piece of shit, not a success.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So why is almost everyone in Africa poor?

Let me guess, in Africa they really are held back by circumstances but here they aren't.

It's quite obvious you've never been to many African nations. Most Africans do not consider themselves to be poor. As long as they can provide for their families they are quite happy and live with less stress than most in the US. The same is true for many countries throughout the world. The "Poor" in the US receive more in benefits than the middle class who more than likely work 55 hours or more a week in 3rd world countries.