# Entrepreneurship as a way out of poverty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632 "2016-05-25T05:33:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/141 "2016-05-26T20:34:33Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Even a problem such as 3 bodies orbiting can’t be solved analytically and whatever you model will diverge significantly over time. Yes, but **quantitative numerical approximations still do quite a good job of modeling the behavior of such problems in a given situation**. Physicists encountering a 3-body problem don’t just shrug and say, _“Oh well, an analytical solution is theoretically impossible so we might as well give up trying to figure out anything at all about it quantitatively!”_ You are disingenuously trying to pretend that the impossibility of **complete and 100% certain knowledge** about complex problems means that it’s somehow unnecessary or unfair to seek **realistic approximate quantitative estimates** about such problems. Which is absolute unadulterated bullshit. You are deliberately championing willful ignorance on this subject because you’re afraid that finding out any actual realistic estimates about it might not support your ideological fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/142 "2016-05-26T20:39:40Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > What? I thought the debate was something along the likes of “Is entrepreneurship a way out of poverty?” > > Not “Is it a way out of poverty for 65 year olds with lung cancer and custody of two children?” > > Nor “Is it a way out of poverty for 22 year old college drop outs who can’t find a job?” > > Should every idea for uplifting people out of poverty be broken down into estimated success rate for 1000’s of contrived living conditions that you can come up with? > > “Hey, they are offering factory jobs for people in poverty! That sounds like a good idea!” > > “Yeah, what about poor people WITH NO HANDS? How can they work at that factory, huh? Your idea is stupid!” > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Once you’re done tearing through Strawville, let’s be clear on the issue here. In another thread which I opted not to derail, the issue of widespread, systemic poverty was brought up in the context of “handouts”. Starving Artist offered the argument proffered in the first post, and I saw it as problematic at best. Over and over and over throughout the thread, people have repeated the same thing: “This is not a solution for systemic poverty. It can be a way out for _individuals_, but it is not a useful answer to the question of how to end systemic poverty”. The reason this distinction is important? Because of the _moralizing_. Because ridiculous statements like the ones offered by SA are, essentially, twisted around into a bizarre logical knot that leaves out a lot of steps on their way to being able to blame the poor for their poverty. Here’s the pattern: First they go from “I know a guy who was really successful doing X and did X to escape from poverty” to “You can do X to try get out of poverty”, then it gets twisted even further to “Why haven’t you just done X to get out of poverty? It must be because you don’t try hard enough/are too stupid/are too lazy, _you deserve to be poor_.” See the problem here? And as for your other question: > [@](#): > > Should every idea for uplifting people out of poverty be broken down into estimated success rate for 1000’s of contrived living conditions that you can come up with? Depends. Are we looking for a way to help your buddy Steve, or are we talking about the overall economy and the state of the nation? In this thread, it’s the latter. So with that in mind: _YES_! If we’re talking about proposed solutions to help prevent and deter systemic poverty, and _especially if we’re going to start moralizing about how lazy people are because they haven’t taken these steps,_ then yes, it _should_ bloody well matter what the success rate is. And the failure rate. And the consequences for failure. And whether it has severe diminishing returns (as I heavily suspect this would, for reasons **Kimtsu** has already pointed out). You should be expected to give a damn about whether this solution works for one dude you knew a while back because of his specific circumstances, or for the millions of people who comprise the working poor in this country. [QUOTE=Octopus] I wonder what the left wing response would have been to a topic titled “Working at a Job Can Get You Out of Poverty.” [/QUOTE] “Most of the poor work. It’s called “the working poor” for a reason. Clearly, just having a job is not enough.” As [David Wong](http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/)so eloquently put it: So “anyone can get rich” isn’t just untrue, it’s insultingly untrue. You can’t have a society where everyone is an investment banker. And you can’t have a society where you pay six figures to every good policeman, nurse, firefighter, schoolteacher, carpenter, electrician and all of the other ten thousand professions that civilization needs to survive (and that rich people need in order to stay rich). It’s like setting a jar of moonshine on the floor of a boxcar full of 10 hobos and saying, “Now fight for it!” Sure, in the bloody aftermath you can say to each of the losers, “Hey, you could have had it if you’d fought harder!” and that’s true on an individual level. But not collectively – you knew goddamned well that nine hobos weren’t getting any hooch that night. So why are you acting like it’s their fault that only one of them is drunk? You’re intentionally conflating “anyone can have the moonshine” with “everyone can have it.” And you are doing it because you’re hoping that we will all be too busy fighting each other to ask why there was only one jar. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/143 "2016-05-26T20:40:09Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > It’s “reliable” in that, overall, policy should be written to support entrepreneurship and small business. One man’s “respectable business” is another person’s scourge. Take the squeegee man. Would you like Mr. Squeegee Man setting up business in your neighborhood? I know I wouldn’t. The only place Mr. Squeegee would be tolerated (by citizens or the police) is where he isn’t likely to get a whole lot of business. He’d be better off saving his squeegee energy and just holding up a sign and begging. But I do think governments should be more supportative of small business. I’m totally okay with local governments not requiring licensing for stuff like hair-braiding or yard maintenance. Yeah, if I buy a chocolate cake from some random lady on the street, I really would like some assurance it won’t kill me–so I’d appreciate knowing that the health department has inspected her kitchen recently, which means that random lady needs to pay a licensing fee (and have liability insurance in case I decide to sue her). But it should be a reasonable fee, and the red tape should be minimal. > [@](#): > > Because it’s an activity that produces nothing, not a business. It’s also annoying and makes the neighborhood look like shit. It produces something. Street panhandlers don’t just pocket their earnings. They spend it on nearby businesses (usually of the liquor store variety). Beggars ARE annoying and they DO make the neighborhood look like shit. But so do many “respectable” businesses, especially of the “poor man getting his hustle on” variety. If you’re running an elegant boutique, maybe you don’t want a sidewalk vendor selling cheap handbags setting up right outside your door. So you’ll fight city hall so that an ordinance will get passed limiting sidewalk vendors to the shitty part of town, where they aren’t likely to make much money. The sidewalk vendor and Mr. Squeegee are screwed by the same system. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/144 "2016-05-26T20:46:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, but **quantitative numerical approximations still do quite a good job of modeling the behavior of such problems in a given situation**. Physicists encountering a 3-body problem don’t just shrug and say, _“Oh well, an analytical solution is theoretically impossible so we might as well give up trying to figure out anything at all about it quantitatively!”_ > You are disingenuously trying to pretend that the impossibility of **complete and 100% certain knowledge** about complex problems means that it’s somehow unnecessary or unfair to seek **realistic approximate quantitative estimates** about such problems. > > Which is absolute unadulterated bullshit. You are deliberately championing willful ignorance on this subject because you’re afraid that finding out any actual realistic estimates about it might not support your ideological fantasies. Your own link was unable to determine if there was a net negative or net positive to minimum wage. If “scientists” can’t agree on the sign what confidence should we have in their numbers? And please do tell me what my ideological fantasies are? I know reading is hard, but I’ve said more than once in this very thread that I don’t think free market mechanisms are sufficient for dealing with poverty. And you are being the disingenuous one, still, by insisting that these numbers are accurately calculable. If they were than the debate would be solved as policy makers would have incontrovertible proof that there economic models were correct. We have recessions and depressions here in the United States even though the government has access to thousands of PhD level mathematicians and trillions of dollars of resources to model the economy. If these economic problems were analytically solvable and there is a huge incentive to solve them than why haven’t billion dollar corporations and trillion dollar governments solved them? C’mon now! Kimstu, you merely repeating your demand for unknowable information does nothing to convince anyone other than the most ignorant of multi-variable systems that your demand is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/145 "2016-05-26T20:48:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The logic of your position requires that you should Your understanding of the actual logic of my actual position, as usual, is pretty far removed from reality. > [@Shodan](#): > > either you recognize that begging isn’t work I never said that **I** think begging **is** “work”. What I said, repeatedly, is that I just don’t see why libertarians/conservatives arbitrarily exclude begging from the free exchange activities that they claim to support. If poor people can make $20 more easily by sitting in a Home Depot parking lot with a sign saying “Give us money” than by mowing **manson1972** ’s lawn, then why are conservatives/libertarians upset if they choose to do that? (Or, in other words, what **Richard Parker** said.) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/146 "2016-05-26T20:51:07Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Once you’re done tearing through Strawville, let’s be clear on the issue here. In another thread which I opted not to derail, the issue of widespread, systemic poverty was brought up in the context of “handouts”. Starving Artist offered the argument proffered in the first post, and I saw it as problematic at best. Over and over and over throughout the thread, people have repeated the same thing: “This is not a solution for systemic poverty. It can be a way out for _individuals_, but it is not a useful answer to the question of how to end systemic poverty”. > > The reason this distinction is important? Because of the _moralizing_. Because ridiculous statements like the ones offered by SA are, essentially, twisted around into a bizarre logical knot that leaves out a lot of steps on their way to being able to blame the poor for their poverty. Here’s the pattern: First they go from “I know a guy who was really successful doing X and did X to escape from poverty” to “You can do X to try get out of poverty”, then it gets twisted even further to “Why haven’t you just done X to get out of poverty? It must be because you don’t try hard enough/are too stupid/are too lazy, _you deserve to be poor_.” > > See the problem here? > > And as for your other question: > > Depends. Are we looking for a way to help your buddy Steve, or are we talking about the overall economy and the state of the nation? In this thread, it’s the latter. So with that in mind: _YES_! If we’re talking about proposed solutions to help prevent and deter systemic poverty, and _especially if we’re going to start moralizing about how lazy people are because they haven’t taken these steps,_ then yes, it _should_ bloody well matter what the success rate is. And the failure rate. And the consequences for failure. And whether it has severe diminishing returns (as I heavily suspect this would, for reasons **Kimtsu** has already pointed out). You should be expected to give a damn about whether this solution works for one dude you knew a while back because of his specific circumstances, or for the millions of people who comprise the working poor in this country. > > “Most of the poor work. It’s called “the working poor” for a reason. Clearly, just having a job is not enough.” > > As [David Wong](http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/)so eloquently put it: > > So “anyone can get rich” isn’t just untrue, it’s insultingly untrue. You can’t have a society where everyone is an investment banker. And you can’t have a society where you pay six figures to every good policeman, nurse, firefighter, schoolteacher, carpenter, electrician and all of the other ten thousand professions that civilization needs to survive (and that rich people need in order to stay rich). > > It’s like setting a jar of moonshine on the floor of a boxcar full of 10 hobos and saying, “Now fight for it!” Sure, in the bloody aftermath you can say to each of the losers, “Hey, you could have had it if you’d fought harder!” and that’s true on an individual level. But not collectively – you knew goddamned well that nine hobos weren’t getting any hooch that night. So why are you acting like it’s their fault that only one of them is drunk? > > You’re intentionally conflating “anyone can have the moonshine” with “everyone can have it.” And you are doing it because you’re hoping that we will all be too busy fighting each other to ask why there was only one jar. I’m intentionally conflating nothing. I’ve said multiple times in this very thread I don’t think free market mechanisms, in isolation, solve everyone’s poverty. Free market can’t fix stupid, lazy, or crazy. In order to mitigate the effects of poverty government policy can be useful. But it has to be rational government policy. Not sound good for a vote government policy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/147 "2016-05-26T20:51:33Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Beggars ARE annoying and they DO make the neighborhood look like shit. But so do many “respectable” businesses, especially of the “poor man getting his hustle on” variety. If you’re running an elegant boutique, maybe you don’t want a sidewalk vendor selling cheap handbags setting up right outside your door. So you’ll fight city hall so that an ordinance will get passed limiting sidewalk vendors to the shitty part of town, where they aren’t likely to make much money. The sidewalk vendor and Mr. Squeegee are screwed by the same system. I much prefer the poor beggar on the median being an eyesore to the rich exec making more profit by spilling chemicals into our water supply or cutting corners on food safety. Conservatives probably differ. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/148 "2016-05-26T20:59:28Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Your own link was unable to determine if there was a net negative or net positive to minimum wage. Which tells us something quantitative right there: namely, that whatever the effect is in **either** direction, it’s not massive enough to entirely overwhelm opposing factors. Why are you so obstinately opposed to learning useful information merely because it’s approximate and large-scale rather than 100% precise and certain in every detail? [QUOTE=octopus] And you are being the disingenuous one, still, by insisting that these numbers are accurately calculable. [/quote] I repeat for the _n_th time, _I never insisted on any demonstrably 100% **accurate** quantitative projection, or claimed that it was even theoretically possible to produce one_. All I said is that you need to produce at least an _ **approximate realistic quantitative estimate** _ for the effects of the policy you’re recommending, if you want reasonable people to support it. But you just expect your policy recommendation to be accepted **without** any realistic quantitative rationale to support it, because you accompany it with a generic fortune-cookie maxim such as “Labor adds wealth!”. Uh, sorry, no, that’s not how reasoned debate about policy ideas works. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/149 "2016-05-26T21:00:09Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t know, \*\*Shodan \*\*had a good response too. Can you tell if that is a parody? > > Here’s an actual response up thread to a study that shows many low-income entrepreneurs make it out of poverty after 5 years: > > “What works for a 22 year old college graduate who can’t find a job isn’t necessarily going to work for a 65 year old with lung cancer and custody of two toddlers” > > Is that parody? No. In the context presented, it’s a explanation of the sort of confounding factors a scientist would want to control for before drawing too many conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/150 "2016-05-26T21:01:36Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > One man’s “respectable business” is another person’s scourge. > > Take the squeegee man. Would you like Mr. Squeegee Man setting up business in your neighborhood? I know I wouldn’t. No, I don’t mean squeegee men, panhandlers, buskers and other street people. > [@Voyager](#): > > I much prefer the poor beggar on the median being an eyesore to the rich exec making more profit by spilling chemicals into our water supply or cutting corners on food safety. Conservatives probably differ. Unless you are talking about a corporation that collects homeless people, grinds them up into a multi-purpose nutrient slurry and then dumps them into the water supply, I’m not sure what one has to do with the other or why they should be mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > It’s like setting a jar of moonshine on the floor of a boxcar full of 10 hobos and saying, “Now fight for it!” Sure, in the bloody aftermath you can say to each of the losers, “Hey, you could have had it if you’d fought harder!” and that’s true on an individual level. But not collectively – you knew goddamned well that nine hobos weren’t getting any hooch that night. So why are you acting like it’s their fault that only one of them is drunk? Except the economy is not anything like that really. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/151 "2016-05-26T21:02:12Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Not if you didn’t have any to begin with. …You, uh, really don’t get this? My response was mostly off-the-cuff, because I was hoping you were joking. No, I’m sorry, you don’t get to pretend that starting a business is a no-risk venture for the poor because “all they lose is money and they don’t have any of that anyways”. That makes _no sense_. Even if we assume the absolute best case scenario - the person in question has all the tools necessary, needs no additional starting capital, and has found a way, despite this, to distribute - there was clearly _time_ spent on this failed (i.e. not making enough money) business venture. If they’re serious about it, at least a week or two. This is time where they’re either not making enough money or not making _any_ money. How are they paying the rent? Clearly, there’s either some capital there, in which case that’s money they could have spent on the rent while finding a stable job… Or they’re going to get evicted, something that carries some rather extreme costs with it. That’s the _best case scenario_. Any other case of business failure involves _more_ costs. More money spent investing in the failed venture that had to come from somewhere (hopefully not a bank loan you now can’t afford to pay back). More time spent pursuing a venture that wasn’t successful. More of things the poor _do not have in great supply_. Then again, for some people, I suppose it really _can’t_ get any worse. But the homeless and destitute probably aren’t thinking about entrepreneurship, for a _number_ of reasons. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/152 "2016-05-26T21:02:28Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Which tells us something quantitative right there: namely, that whatever the effect is in **either** direction, it’s not massive enough to entirely overwhelm opposing factors. > > Why are you so obstinately opposed to learning useful information merely because it’s approximate and large-scale rather than 100% precise and certain in every detail? > I repeat for the _n_th time, _I never insisted on any demonstrably 100% **accurate** quantitative projection, or claimed that it was even theoretically possible to produce one_. > > All I said is that you need to produce at least an _ **approximate realistic quantitative estimate** _ for the effects of the policy you’re recommending, if you want reasonable people to support it. > > But you just expect your policy recommendation to be accepted **without** any realistic quantitative rationale to support it. Uh, sorry, no, that’s not how reasoned debate works. You just don’t get it. This is not a difficult concept. Again, if this were provable corporations or governments who have billions and trillions at stake would be able to prove it. Have you no education in chaotic systems? And your side profits from the existence of the poor. Liberals have a vested interest in a captive, poor and ignorant demographic. And don’t you think it’s a bit odd that several times I’ve conceded this is a problem that requires multiple actors to solve and yet you are so adamant on a precise answer for the contribution of only one of the actors for justification of it’s promotion? Quantitatively provide accurate calculations of each government program the left supports. I bet you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/153 "2016-05-26T21:07:44Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Again, if this were provable corporations or governments who have billions and trillions at stake would be able to prove it. But as I keep telling you, this isn’t about any kind of 100% certain **proof** : this is about **realistic quantitative approximation** so we have at least **some** kind of notion what the plausible prospects are for real-world outcomes. [QUOTE=octopus] Have you no education in chaotic systems? [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Oh good, now you’re augmenting your ill-informed snippets of economics buzzwords with ill-informed snippets of physics buzzwords. Once again, **the fact that a problem doesn’t have an exact analytical solution doesn’t mean that it can’t be _approximately quantitatively modeled_ in a useful way.** ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/154 "2016-05-26T21:07:53Z")
Do people really think that the poor need to be told they can do odd jobs to make extra money? On what planet does someone (besides a sheltered rich kid) need to be told something so self-evident? I once had an acquaintanceship with a street urchin. He wasn’t homeless (he resided at a board-and-care place), but he was the kind of guy you’d see hanging out on street corners, not doing anything. He was severely mentally ill–only somewhat functional because of court-mandated medication. So there wasn’t much he could do but watch the world go by. And yet he managed to do a couple of odd jobs a week. Scooping up dog poop from this lady’s backyard was one of them. These jobs were of course “under the table”, because he didn’t want to risk losing his disability payments. I remember all of this because every time I’d bump into him, he would proudly talk about his “work”. He had a major crush on me (something he talked about a lot) and even though I think he was smart enough to know it would never be reciprocated, he still wanted me to know he had some hustle. Hustling is a basic instinct. My neighborhood is full of little boys walking around with lawnmowers and weedwackers, looking for customers. And there’s a little girl around every tree, looking for babysitting opportunities. If you are a regular bus rider in any US city, you’ll see women wearing weaves and hair extensions that Tameka-from-Around-the-Way put in. Poor people, moreso than middle class people, know all about the value of cottage industry. But cottage industries simply aren’t going to take the average person off welfare or foodstamps. If long-established, family owned businesses are struggling to stay afloat in the day and age of Amazon and the Big Box Store, why would we expect poor people to do any better? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/155 "2016-05-26T21:10:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **A lot of the people vaguely boosting entrepreneurship efforts in this thread seem surprisingly facts-averse when it comes to figuring out what the _realistic prospects_ of such efforts would be.** […] > > So when you tell poor people in general _“Just start your own business, there’s lots of money to be made that way!”_, **isn’t it reasonable to consider what are the _realistic odds of success_ of the strategy you’re recommending?** > > The sloganeering entrepreneurship-boosters in this thread are trying to duck that question by shouting _“Negativism!”_ and _“Defeatism!”_ and _“Liberal!”_ whenever it comes up, but it’s still a very reasonable and prudent question. > [@octopus](#): > > And your side profits from the existence of the poor. Liberals have a vested interest in a captive, poor and ignorant demographic. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/156 "2016-05-26T21:32:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But as I keep telling you, this isn’t about any kind of 100% certain **proof** : this is about **realistic quantitative approximation** so we have at least **some** kind of notion what the plausible prospects are for real-world outcomes. > :rolleyes: Oh good, now you’re augmenting your ill-informed snippets of economics buzzwords with ill-informed snippets of physics buzzwords. Once again, **the fact that a problem doesn’t have an exact analytical solution doesn’t mean that it can’t be _approximately quantitatively modeled_ in a useful way.** Just because you don’t know what wealth is or what a chaotic system is doesn’t mean I don’t. You have clearly demonstrated in this thread that the concept of wealth and wealth generation is beyond you. Your repeated asking for unknowable values for chaotic systems have proven you don’t understand what a chaotic system is. This is undergraduate level economics and differential equations. The fact you don’t comprehend that the generation of wealth leads to an increase of wealth is baffling. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/157 "2016-05-26T21:34:30Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Do people really think that the poor need to be told they can do odd jobs to make extra money? > > On what planet does someone (besides a sheltered rich kid) need to be told something so self-evident? Kimstu. She needs a doctoral thesis. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/158 "2016-05-26T22:08:22Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …Starving my good friend, how are you? Hey, **Bear**! Long time, no see! It’s great to hear from you! I’m tied up with other things right now but will try to get back to you later. Thanks for your post! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/159 "2016-05-26T22:43:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > It is, isn’t it? 🙂 It is actually. I’ve read it 🙂 > [@](#): > > \*What are **realistic** approximate odds of success in following a particular micro-entrepreneurship strategy? And I posted a study I found quickly. But apparently, since it didn’t take into consideration 65 year old men with 5 dependents, a back injury, and one eye, the study isn’t valid. > [@](#): > > You can’t just tell poor people to _“DO SOMETHING!”_ if you don’t have any clear idea of what that something should be or how likely it is to pay off for them. There have been many, many threads about this. I do have a clear idea of what that something should be, or how likely it is to pay off for them. 1. Graduate high school - studies show that high school graduates make more money than those who don’t graduate (I hope I don’t have to find this to “prove” it) 2. Don’t get pregnant before graduating high school (same thing basically) 3. Attend some sort of trade school or community college or regular college (same thing again) 4. Don’t waste money on frivolous items that don’t help you get ahead in life ($150 shoes, $500 rims, brand new trucks, etc) (should be self-evident) 5. Don’t expect to be rich by the time you are 25 years old (again, self-evident) 6. Work really hard and chances are if you have done 1 - 5 above, you will be successful. Rich? Probably not. Middle class? Probably Now, do you disagree that these will pay off for almost EVERYBODY who tries and succeeds? In other threads when i list these, it is a stream of excuse after excuse after excuse about why poor people can’t do ANY of them. And because SOME poor people can’t do one or more, it becomes a bad idea to suggest ANY of them. > [@](#): > > So when you tell poor people in general _“Just start your own business, there’s lots of money to be made that way!”_, **isn’t it reasonable to consider what are the _realistic odds of success_ of the strategy you’re recommending?** Again, i linked to a study about this ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632/160 "2016-05-26T22:46:41Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Do people really think that the poor need to be told they can do odd jobs to make extra money? > > On what planet does someone (besides a sheltered rich kid) need to be told something so self-evident? Here is someone in this very thread who thinks that: > [@Dangerosa](#): > > For someone who has always been poor, some of these jobs are things only middle class people do. If you’ve grown up in poverty, do you even know that people wash and stain decks every year or seal driveways? Does it occur to you that someone might pay you to put up Christmas lights? A lot of these things are things you learn to do or see done because you grew up middle class. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entrepreneurship-as-a-way-out-of-poverty/755632.md?page=9)