What if the “average” person on welfare could start a business and have it just successful enough to allow her/him to earn what they would have made just staying home and collecting welfare? Well, I guess SNAP and other related entitlements.
Would you advise the person to just stay home and collect welfare (see above)? Or continue the business?
Do you know of any studies of how many people who get SNAP benefits eventually make it out of poverty?
Please note: These studies must show the different percentages of successfully making it out of poverty for whites, blacks, chinese, mongolians, serbians, one-armed serbians, japanese people with one eye, 65 year old men, 70 year old women, 70 year old women with 1 dependent, 70 year old women with 2 dependents, single mothers under the age of 30, single mothers over the age of 30 but under 50 and single fathers with a daughter in college or else the study isn’t valid.
Isn’t this what we’re debating? If you think the average poor person has the wherewithal to start a profitable enough business to get off the dole (however you want to define that), why not produce some cites showing this? All I have to do is point to the fact that 80% of businesses fail in the first 18 months to support my side of the debate.
I would never tell someone to not get their hustle on. The five dollars a person makes scooping dog poop out of a pensioner’s backyard is five dollars they didn’t have at the beginning of the day. But chasing every five-dollar opportunity one can find may not be the wisest use of their time. Maybe they’d be better off going to school or filling out job applications. Or finding a more affordable place to live or getting their health issues straightened out.
Poor people suffer from a million different problems. An individual poor person might be able to benefit from million pieces of advice–many of them conflicting (like “Live with your parents” versus “Move to a different city”). I would only tell a person to start a business (or more realistically, a string of odd jobs) if I knew–based on their personal circumstances–that they have what it takes to make it work out. A person who hands out generic Pollyanna advice is foolish and should be ignored.
I have provided a cite
Why do you call working for money a hustle?
Yeah, maybe they would. The business idea is just ONE MORE thing that maybe poor people can do to stop being poor. You know what doesn’t help? Sitting on your ass at home not doing anything but complaining or providing excuses about how you CAN’T do something.
A lot of people think a basic income for all is a good idea. Will that move people out of poverty? they will certainly be getting more dollars, but what if the poverty line moves to the basic income level? Won’t these people still be impoverished? How does that help?
Doing things to increase your worth, net, self, or otherwise, will always better prepare someone better then simply sitting at home collecting money from someone else.
The other strange thing I’ve noticed is how people switch from ALL to SOME when it suits them:
“Community College is affordable and will help someone get on track to better themselves” —> “What??? SOME poor people can’t go to community college because they have 5 jobs or 8 kids or no car, therefore that idea is stupid!”
“Entrepreneurship is one way people can try to over come poverty” —> “What??? Not ALL poor people will become Bill Gates by starting a business, therefore that idea is stupid!”
weird.
I don’t think Kimstu or anyone else in this thread would disagree. If you’re poor–or hell, suffering from any kind of problem–you need to do SOMETHING. No duh. But that’s the challenge, right? You can try a lot of “things” and end up worse than where you started. And once you hit that point, suddenly doing nothing seems to make a lot of sense.
I think basic income would be a great way to invigorate cottage industries. It eliminates a lot of the hurdles poor people currently face with starting their own business.
But not everything increases your worth, net, self, or otherwise. You can do “things”, but there’s no guarantee they will increase anything. Sure, I might be tempted to tell a poor person to do “things”. But chances are I’m not talking to an idiot and only an idiot would not know that you’ve got to do “things” to improve yourself. The problem is always in getting started. If you don’t have help getting started, then a hard but achievable “thing” becomes a daunting and near-impossible “thing”.
The thing about starting a profitable business is that it really is difficult to get started. At least poor kids can lean on high school guidance counselors to help them get started with college applications and vocational training. There’s very little help for the young adult who wants to turn his “hustle” into a legitimate business.
Actually, what you linked to was a study (and a fine study in itself, thanks for posting it) of positive correlation between rates of entrepreneurship overall—i.e., not necessarily entrepreneurship on the part of poor people themselves—and decrease in poverty rates overall.
In other words, where there’s more entrepreneurial activity (on the part of anybody, not just poor people) and consequently a more diverse economy, poverty rates go down. Which is an important and positive result, and we’re all glad to hear it.
BUT IT DOESN’T TELL US JACK-SHIT ABOUT THE REALISTIC PROBABILITIES OF SUCCESS FOR POOR PEOPLE STARTING ENTREPRENEURIAL MICROBUSINESSES THEMSELVES.
Which, you know, is kind of an important difference. Perhaps what it means is that the best strategy for poor people, instead of trying to start up a shoestring microbusiness on their own, is to find a new startup microbusiness in their area launched by someone with better capital backing and latch on to that microbusiness as an employee/contractor/whatever, with the goal of maybe becoming a partner some day when they’ve amassed some savings to put into the business.
:rolleyes: Why it isn’t valid as a response to the questions I’ve been asking in this thread about poor people starting microbusinesses of their own is because it doesn’t actually address those questions, but thanks for playing.
[QUOTE=Slash1972]
I do have a clear idea of what that something should be, or how likely it is to pay off for them.
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)
Don’t get pregnant before graduating high school (same thing basically)
Attend some sort of trade school or community college or regular college (same thing again)
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)
Don’t expect to be rich by the time you are 25 years old (again, self-evident)
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?
[/quote]
Nobody denies that all of those are good ideas, and not just for poor people, either. But again, considered as actual anti-poverty policies they’re at the same level as the fortune-cookie-style homilies that octopus is offering. Don’t get pregnant, don’t waste money, don’t expect to get rich quick: great, but none of that is in itself a source of actual income. (And some of them, like finishing high school or graduating college, constitute an actual short-term cost rather than income, either through tuition charges or having to forego hours of paid work in order to take classes and study.)
So what you’ve got there is a set of moral maxims for someone “who tries and succeeds”. Which is a fine thing to have, and I’m not knocking them for what they are. But they are not the same thing as an actual quantitative assessment of the chances of success for poor people starting businesses.
Honestly, folks, if you don’t have any data or any quantitative estimates, it’s okay just to admit it. What’s not okay is when you pretend that it’s unreasonable to ask for quantitative estimates because it’s theoretically impossible to know the exact answer with 100% accuracy, or when you try to pass off irrelevant data as an answer to the question you’re being asked.
I don’t think doing anything on the list I made would make a person worse than where they started.
Fair enough, but apparently you need studies that show that or else you are talking crap 
We might have to disagree here. A LOT of people are idiots. You think people who spend $500 on rims, or $2500 on rent-a-furniture when they don’t have jobs are smart?
True, maybe not as much help as their should be, but there ARE places that people can go to learn about small business creation and operation. I’ve also read about “microloans” that maybe could help. No studies to back that up though.
Why are you yelling? Did you even READ the except I posted? It SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AND THEIR RISE OUT OF POVERTY!!!#@!$!!!
If a study says 53% of low-income entrepreneurs in the study moved out of poverty within 5 years, I would hazard a guess that they were IN poverty before starting their business. And I would also guess that someone in poverty was poor.
So, according to the study, 53% of POOR PEOPLE who started businesses were elevated out of poverty within 5 years. That, to me, seems like a REALISTIC PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS FOR POOR PEOPLE STARTING ENTREPRENEURIAL MICRO BUSINESSES THEMSELVES!
If you want to know how many POOR PEOPLE are elevated out of poverty within a five year span WITHOUT starting a business, I don’t have that information.
Nope.
There now, see? Just admitting you don’t know something isn’t really so hard. 
But of course, if I were participating in a debate thread to support the position “SNAP benefits are an effective large-scale strategy for enabling poor people to make it out of poverty”, then I damn well should know of some evidence-based studies quantitatively supporting that position, or at least have some realistic fact-based quantitative rationales for why I think that position is plausible.
You and the other facts-averse number-shy vague entrepreneurship boosters in this thread, on the other hand, apparently think that your policy recommendations should be exempt from providing similar evidentiary support in response to scrutiny.
For someone who can write well it’s weird to see such poor reading comprehension. My position from the beginning was that lowering barriers to trade generates wealth. Wealth which your ilk can than redistribute for votes. I’d prefer it was done with a basic income. Amount of people raised out of poverty? Tree-fiddy.
Fair enough, but I HAVE posted some numbers.
I don’t considered them moral maxims, since I can’t know if your basis for morality is the same as mine. Nor do I consider them “actual anti-poverty policies.” I would, however, support policies that enabled the poor to actually do some of them, instead of just blindly giving money to everyone and hope they pull themselves out of poverty.
Nope. The Goldwater Institute would enjoy seeing you draw that conclusion, but that is not what the study actually showed.
The numbers only indicted that a rise in entrepreneurial startups led to to a decrease in poverty. At no point did it indicate actual evidence that it was the poor people who were becoming entrepreneurs. So if a person who was already above the poverty line established a new business and began to hire more people, those employees would find themselves climbing out of poverty, but, despite the glowing anecdote with which the article began, they provided no actual evidence that the entrepreneurs, themselves, were initially among the poor. I am sure that many are and I think that that is great, but a person who is already above the poverty line and who has the resources to initiate a new business, while providing more jobs to help others escape poverty, is not actually an example of a person escaping poverty himself or herself through entrepreneurship. The employees escaping poverty are not entrepreneurs. That is the flawed logic in your claim that Kimstu is pointing out.
If your drug-addicted mother tells you that you need to drop out of school and help her raise your younger siblings or else take out your no-paycheck-having ass somewhere else, then guess what? You probably will drop out of high school. Because being homeless is worse than being a drop-out.
If your father tells you that no daughter of his is going to abort his grandbaby or else you need to take your hell-bound ass somewhere else, then guess what? You probably won’t abort that baby. Because being homeless is worse than being a teenaged mother.
If you spend your savings funding these endeavors and they don’t result in jobs that allow you to recoup your losses, then guess what? You are worse off than where you started. If you turn down job opportunities for the sake of finishing your degree and end up with nothing, guess what? You’re the victim of opportunity costs and you’re worse off than where you started.
On this, I agree. If you’re poor, you shouldn’t be being fancy namebrand anything. And yet SOMETIMES it makes sense to invest in oneself. For instance, it is reasonable to spend some money on a luxury like a nice suit or hair-do if these things increase the likelihood of opportunity. No one gets hired looking like a bum. No one gets picked up by a financially secure suitor if they look like a bum. $500 rims are indefensible. But most poor people aren’t even thinking about that kind of shit. (I’m guessing that a young man who can afford $500 rims but is otherwise poor is an entrepreneur. Just not the kind you’ll find gracing the cover of Forbes magazine).
Eh…I don’t know. I’d probably put a bunch of other factors on the list. Like “Don’t be born by to irresponsible, needy, or unlucky parents”, “Avoid bad luck at all costs”, and “Don’t listen to crappy advice.” In other words, it is easy to come up with a prescription for a good, “successful” life. But if it said prescription was easy to implement, there wouldn’t be all these cautionary tales walking around for you to point and laugh at.
Can you explain what this means then:
Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but I was sure it says “more than half [of low-income entrepreneurs] had moved out of poverty in five years”
Does it not say that?
Because apparently you have a hard time understanding what I write in a normal font. Of course, you’ve now failed to understand what I wrote in the big font too, so so much for that approach.
[QUOTE=Slash1972]
Did you even READ the except I posted?
[/quote]
Yes, I read the whole study.
[QUOTE=Slash1972]
It SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS LOW-INCOME PEOPLE AND THEIR RISE OUT OF POVERTY!!!#@!$!!!
If a study says 53% of low-income entrepreneurs in the study moved out of poverty within 5 years
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Apparently you’re the one who didn’t read the study, at least not carefully. The 53% figure comes from a referenced study by the Aspen Institute, not data in the study you actually linked to.
If you go to the trouble of actually finding some more information about that particular study, you’ll find that their participants were people who were operating their microbusinesses for the full study period of five years.
Which tells us nothing about how realistically likely it is that the average poor person who attempts to start a microbusiness will even be successful enough to have the business still running five years later.
(Nor, since the study dealt with a very wide distribution of 1500 subjects across the entire US, does it tell us anything about my other question of how much new microbusiness a local economy could absorb and support at a given time.)
Still, I have to admit that even that mostly-irrelevant data is more data than either Starving Artist or octopus has managed to provide to support their voluminous fact-free assertions about entrepreneurship and poverty, so thanks for that, at least.
I’m going to just respond to this, because the rest are simply worst-case scenario contrived excuses about why maybe SOME people can’t do something.
I simply stated that graduating from high school generally leads to better pay than NOT graduating high school. Do you doubt this?
You are using a contrived example of ONE person that you made up as a way to show that poor people can’t graduate from high school. Sure, SOME can’t, but so what? MOST can. Therefore a policy that promotes the ability of MOST people to graduate high school is a good one.
Do you personally KNOW someone in this position?
Which is why I carefully called it a report when I first mentioned it. If I said study later, than that’s on me.
I made no claims about this question
It does have this line:
The survival rate of microbusinesses was 49% after 5 years — comparable with survival rates for businesses with similar characteristics and owners.
I would take that to mean 49% of microbusinesses were still going after 5 years.
I don’t believe this is an accurate reading of the Aspen study. Some of the people in the study didn’t last the full 5 years:
Bolding mine.
Again, who ever said it was EASY?? Where does this fanciful notion that everything is supposed to be easy come from?