I’m not sure I get it, Digital. If you take the fraction of lowest income quartile that remains in the lowest quartile all their lives, it seems a tautology to claim that they have/had no way to move out of the lowest quartile. After all, if they did, they wouldn’t be in the lowest quartile.
What information is gained by excluding all ways of moving from lowest quartile except the lottery, and then claiming that proves that the only way to move from the lowest quartile is the lottery?
The scenario of the lower classes not being able to start businesses (for the most part) or go back to school is not some hypothetical scenario that I’ve pulled from my proverbial butt. I’m thinking of REAL people that I know and I don’t think that they are so far out of the norm: Here’s a few of the type of people I’m talking about:
Melony is 26 and is a mother of three with one more on the way. She is married, but got involved with my brother in law (call him David) who has quit working and has a drug problem. Her husband also only works occassionally, and beats her on a semi-regular basis. Melony doesn’t have a highschool diploma or a GED, or even a Driver’s License. She has epilepsy and cannot even get such a license. She has recently moved back in with her husband because he somehow found a place to rent (they were evicted from their last house). She gets about $800.00 per month in AFDC, and food stamps. She might even be able to qualify for disability, but could never afford the legal process required to possibly obtain the benefits. She does play the lottery once a week when she has the money.
My cousin Mike works for a lock company and earns about 12.00 per hour. He has a highschool diploma, but works about 60 hours at his main job and another 20 hours at a 7 Eleven to afform their small $60,000 two bedroom house. They are Baptist and not unhappy with their lot but dream of having more. It’s a good month when all the bills are paid. They have managed to save about $12,000 for their kids future. His wife earns about $150.00 per week after expenses with a small unlicensed daycare (caring for two kids).
Mr. Elder is a teacher at my old highschool and earns about $55,000 per year. He has seven children and his wife is a stay at home mother. He has taught history for the last 25 years at the Jr. High School level. He owns a modest home (worth maybe 100K). He says that they have enough to pay the bills but almost nothing extra.
In all three cases going back to school is not a realistic option. The same can certainly be said of starting a business. Realistically, in the real world there is basically ZERO chance that they can become millionaires (certainly not before retirement) without the lottery. These people are typical and if anything have a more stable situation than other people I personally know.
I would’ve replied earlier, but the notification of a new post got classed as spam (the horror!) by my email filter.
Anyway, I hope I didn’t come off as snippy. I don’t think the object of the question was to “exclude all ways of moving from the lowest quartile”, although one is certainly free to say that’s what the question does. I acknowledge that and perhaps that’s right. Or, perhaps investing in a mutual fund at $10/week really is the best answer. What bothered me was that responses seemed to have a “social darwinist” attitude underlying them, which I’m just attempting to get around by looking at it from another point of view. (I also have to point out the “fraction of a fraction” bit as trivializing the question.)
While reading the question, I had in my mind Charly from Flowers for Algernon. A bad example, I know, since Charly was mentally retarded, so it narrows the scope to the point of making the question moot (and possibly offensive). However, it informs the thought behind my post nonetheless. Imagine someone who works hard, but honestly has close to no chance (d’oh! Begging the question again!) of earning more. At least, not to the point of becoming “rich”. Imagine other circumstances in which a person is “crippled by circumstance”. A convicted felon, perhaps, with no education. Someone who lives in backwater or depressed area, where those “climbing the corporate ladder” jobs just ain’t to be found. Coming up with specific examples is an exercise I’d not like to pursue, as it’s kind of depressing. But surely this true-to-life person can have aspirations of wealth, right? Not just “living comfortably and holding down a 9-5”, but actual wealth. One could dismiss it as “life isn’t fair” or “they made stupid choices”, but that’s just an evasion and doesn’t do anything except provide a sense of smugness/superiority for whomever says it. Hell, if it’s really necessary for an example to work with, go with a “Mr. Tanner”-esque musician (minus the cleaning store) who pours every cent (minus lottery tickets) into recording their music, but just is never gonna hit it big. Or an acquaintence of mine who, at 50-something, lost their clerking job (due to a fire that forced the business into bankruptcy) and took a job that barely pays the bills to get by. Meanwhile, his marriage went to pot because, let’s face it, not much puts stress on a marriage more than financial trouble. Wife is now hooked on pain-killers, kids reaching college age, etc.
And I’m not trying to say people in these circumstances are doomed to financial ruin; I’m sure that lots of dopers have anecdotes to the contrary. Just that, honestly, I think there is a larger group of people that fit the description in the OP and that the chances of them getting wealthy are approximately nil. Now, given that, are the chances of winning the lottery better than other ways of getting wealthy? (I assume legality here.) Again, I’d say that to calculate statistics, one would have to outline what the “other ways” are, which is daunting at best.
I don’t know; it just seems to me that there really is a large percentage of the population that begin on the bottom and won’t be making it up the ladder ever, for whatever reason. Am I wrong in saying that there is such a large population? If so, fine. If not, though, work from that class.
As I said, the question made me pause and ponder. I think I’ll look at Joe Average buying lottery tickets at the gas station a little differently from now on, which’ll cause me to ponder this more. Your mileage may vary.
But again. even with the lottery they still have basically ZERO chance of becoming millionaires, depending on how you define “basically zero.” To win the lottery would be a fluke. I sure can’t think of any likely ways the people you describe could become rich. The question is whether there are other, equally fluke-y, unlikely ways that a person like that might get rich that are still at least as likely as winning the lottery.
Well, not to sound insensitive but Melony and Mr Elder sound like maybe they might have made a few judgement errors in their lives. Seven children is quite an expense. Three children are also expensive when you are involved with a drug addict who won’t work. Cousin Mike sounds like the only one who is actually being sensible by saving and puting equity into a house. Not everyone becomes a millionaire, but that doesn’t mean you can’t live in relative comfort if you plan accordingly.
Problem is people want it NOW. They don’t want to work or sacrifice. If you are lazy or shiftless or dullwitted, I imagine that the lottery might look like a good deal.
Just to give you a tangible example of how low your chances of winning are, do this the next time you are in a casino:
Go to the roullette table with $5
Pick a number
See if you can hit a number 3 times in a row.
If you do, you will win $214,375 dollars. (pays 1 - 35)
Your odds are about 1:2M that you will actually win this.
And again you’re missing a point that’s been made several times already. There are several gambles that offer a far higher chance of being a millionare than the lottery. Penny stocks are a better gamble. Roullette is a better gamble. The progressive slot machine jackpot is a better gamble. (Heck, the ONLINE progressive slot machine jackpots are better gambles, you don’t even have to leave the living room!) The lottery is a sucker’s bet.
-lv
Your numbers don’t add up. It does pay $214,375, but it has a 1:38[sup]3[/sup] chance of occuring, which is 1:54,872; not 1:2M.
This is also a good example for addressing the point about how many lottery winners there actually are, seemingly making the lottery a realistic bet.
Instead of 3 wins in a row, consider hitting a number twice in a row. Every number has a 1:38 chance to hit, so hitting any number twice in a row is 1:38[sup]2[/sup], which comes out to 1:1444. But if you go to any casino and watch the roulette wheels, you will see each wheel board (displaying the last 10 spins) will show a “doubler” (two identical spins in a row) roughly every 38 spins, or about once an hour.
The naive might point to this doubler occuring every 38 spins and conclude that it can’t be that bad odds to do it, but they are failing to understand basical probability. The fact that there are thousands of lottery winners is the same as the fact that there are doublers every 38 spins in roulette. They are both completely irrelevant to any one individual trying to win.
How about visiting old folks in the retirement home, and hoping one of them will give you something in their will?
How about standing on the sidewalk in a wealthy area of town and hope to be hit by a rich guy’s car?
How about auditioning for American Idol?
How about joining the army as a private, working up the ranks, going to OCS and making general, then run for president?
How about going to your church and asking for money?
How about refusing to have kids with drug addicts?
How about selling your television set and spending the time you used to spend watching TV at a second job?
How about selling everything you own, and moving to Hollywood for your shot at fame and fortune?
How about selling almost everything you own to finance your independent movie., then take the finished movie to Sundance and hope to get a multi-million dollar project based on the strength of your first project?
How about eating a McDonalds every day for ten years, then suing McDonalds for making you fat?
How about starting a rock band, playing the local bars on weekends and sell your home-recorded CDs online and on iTunes, when word of mouth spreads start playing stadium shows.
All of the above seem much more likely to work than playing the lottery, and they don’t require starting a business. Note that starting a business is still the best way to make a lot of money.
I must have screwed something up in my spreadsheet.
Roland, I still dispute the fact that winning the lottery is THE MOST likely way that people like you describe can become millionaires. Odds are that at least some of these people have wealthy parents or other relatives that they will inherit from. Even millionaires have screwups for kids sometimes.
Assuming that you are going to exclude those too, here is one for you. One of my very best friends from high school went to a party and got shitfaced one night. He decided to drive home on his own of course even though he could barely climb into the car. He was a mile from home when he encountered some train tracks. You have probably guessed that he got creamed by a train. He spent three months in a coma but lived. He looks normal but even his family admits that “he just ain’t quite right in the head”. He sued the railway company because the railroad crossing didn’t have any flashing lights or a drop-down guard. The jury awarded him $3 million and he is now a millionaire. Any idiot can find a railway crossing without adequate protections and pull out in front of a train. I think you will agree that is much more of a sure thing than winning the lottery. That is what I would do if I were you.