I agree, I support social programs because I hate the rich, and want them to be stripped of absolutely all of their money, not because I have human empathy for those who are worse off than me.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I chose to be intelligent and have a personality conducive to working hard the same time I chose to be straight.
I grew up dirt poor – ok, dust poor. My parents had no expectations of me whatsoever, and to this day I have a seemingly amazing lack of ambition. I grew up running away from street gangs. The only educational advice my father ever gave me was that I should learn to play a musical instrument so I could play for tips on bars or in the street during the times I was unemployed.
I’m smart as a fucking whip, and while I’ve lived a middle class lifestyle for a while, I’m dust poor again because I’ve been unemployed for a year and a half now. I am extremely well read and I have a knack with computers and writing, and without selling my condo or car right now I couldn’t put a thousand dollars together in a pile unless I borrowed it or steal it.
So I don’t buy the OP’s position AT ALL. there are FAR too many variables in both the environment and the individuals to make any reliable correlation.
I will allow for one exception to that. If the poverty is so extreme that malnutrition and physical development during youth is a significant factor, I can well believe there might be a resultant intellectual… stunting is the best word I can come up with.
Wow, you are expressing some totally profound thoughts in this thread. Until now, I didn’t know this freedom existed, and in fact, was about to call the cops on you because you clearly don’t give a damn about anything except yourself. But now I learn that such selfishness is perfectly legal!
I never said such a thing (why would I waste my time and energy on that?), and so this sentence says a lot about really has your got your goat.
Apparently you need my permission to look after you and your own self-interests. Okay, you have my permission. Same with Rand.
Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.
Seems like someone who’s “smart as a whip” would understand that studies linking intelligence and socio-economic status don’t mean that every single poor person is dumb or every single dumb person is poor.
It seems worth noting here that the average income for really smart people is still pretty fucking small.
Poverty level is $22k for a family of four, which means that average income for someone with a 75 IQ is above the poverty line. Out of 44 million poor, what percentage of them have a sub-75 IQ? A better question might be, what percentage of the 44 million poor have IQs higher than Einstein’s?
Also found this graph, which shows the share of the population in poverty. It shows that the percentage of Americans in poverty fell pretty steadily from 1959 to 1970 and then held more or less steady after that.
This is proof that Americans today are smarter and harder working than Americans from the 1950s.
Also, there is some fluctuation in the poverty rate; I suppose this is because huge swaths of the population become more or less intelligent pretty much randomly.
It’s a disgrace that there are 44 million people living below the poverty line in America. If only private charities weren’t forbidden from helping the poor, maybe something could be done about this.
Hmmm…estimates of poverty rates in 1900 in the United States are 40-50%. Half of the entire U.S. population was below the poverty level in 1900! This was probably because in 1900 the government’s huge welfare spending programs squeezed out private charities. That, or there were many more stupid people in 1900 then in 2010.
The poverty rate in Sweden in 6.7%. Ours is around 14%. Obviously Sweden is a failed state, but more worryingly, they have 8% fewer stupid people than we do.
Brazil’s poverty rate is 33%. This is obviously due to Brazil’s obnoxiously high taxes on the rich, of 27%. If only they could bring that down, they would cure themselves of the scourge of poverty.
You’d have a point if IQ was the only trait that affected earnings but as the part of my post you cut out showed, it is not. Being smart (and IQ is just one measure) helps but it’s not everything and I don’t think anybody claims that it is.
In 1900 the poverty rate was 50%. In 1959 it was 10%. Which of “competence, dutifulness, self-discipline, social ability, emotional stability, working longer hours” explains the difference?
Between 2000 and 2011 the number of people in poverty in the U.S. jumped by 10 million people. Were those people less competent, less dutiful, less self-disciplined, less stable then they were 10 years earlier? Did they by choice because of their mindsets work fewer hours?
In Sweden the poverty rate is 6.7%. In the U.S. it’s 14.3%. Which of “competence, dutifulness, self-discipline, social ability, emotional stability, working longer hours” explains the difference?
In Brazil the poverty rate is maybe 35%. Which of “competence, dutifulness, self-discipline, social ability, emotional stability, working longer hours” explains the higher poverty rate?
Given the above numbers, can you think of a more reasonable explanation of the differences in poverty levels between 1900s America, 2000s America, 2011 America, Sweden, and Brazil then the levels of competence, dutifulness, self-discipline, social ability, emotional stability, and hours worked?
There are 44 million people in poverty in the U.S. Do you think that number could be reduced, or do you think the number of people who are less competent, less dutiful, less self-disciplined, less stable, lazy is fixed?
Do you think those 44 million people deserve to be poor because they are less competent, less dutiful, less self-disciplined, less stable, and work fewer hours? Do you think they want to be poor?
If your explanation for the causes of poverty is correct, what does that say about solutions for poverty?
Did you guys know that the poverty rate in Sweden is 6.7% vs 14.3% in the US. Obviously Swedes are luckier than Americans.
And it seems Brazilians are less lucky, having a poverty rate of 35%.
Odd that an entire country can be either lucky or unlucky.
Bad choices, cultural/societal pressure, failure to use advantages to make themselves/family better. Personally, I think it’s luck. Not the actual intangible force, but the belief that they are victims of some sort of cosmic vendetta. People in poverty tend to believe that’s all there is for them, and that forces will keep them down. Certainly not the pay day loans they keep taking out. They buy into the bullshit people like Der Tris promote. They don’t see opportunities, they only see barriers.
Consider public education, how long has that existed in the US? It’s available to everyone, including busing and lunch programs. Poor kids have the same opportunity as middle class kids, but do they make the same use of it? It’s just not that hard to get a skilled trade and earn a solid middle class income.
So much of what this discussion comes down to is the importance of parenting. The kids of parents that give a shit do well, regardless of wealth. The kids of parents that don’t give a shit fail out, regardless of wealth.
But if you really want to make this about income and wealth, we can note that the degree to which the parents must care is related to their social status. So a super rich parent might only read to his daughter 1 night a week and she’ll grow up to be a drunk that spends one night in jail. If super poor parent only reads to his daughter 1 night per week she’ll grow up to be a crack addict that spends 5 years in jail.
Since the Great Depression the US has had massive social welfare programs including the world’s largest military. But none of them seem to work, as the poor keep getting poorer. Is there any data showing poverty rate as a function of the top marginal tax rate?
Why is it that even with all their social programs Sweden still has nearly 7% of their population living in poverty? In Canada it’s almost 11%. Why is it that without any social programs Brazil only has 35% in poverty, shouldn’t it be higher?
Since we’re all sharing personal anecdotes, here’s mine: 5 years ago I met a very brilliant man that had a plan for breaking the poverty cycle. He started a private charity that would find people with property that could be rented, then get volunteers to renovate the property (sort of like habitat for humanity). So the owners would benefit from the renovations, and then get rental income from it.
He would then provide those units to people at a below market (subsidized) rate. The goal was to give them that massive financial leg up, by cutting their living expenses. From this point, he then encouraged them to build savings, towards the goal of home ownership. And by that I mean real home ownership where you put 20% down on a 30 year fixed mortgage, that’s less than 25% of you expenses, and plan to live in that house for 5 years or more.
This program had a success rate well over 95%. People that made the switch to living below their means, with a savings plan, broke out of poverty in under two years.
But there was a catch. To get into this program participants had to meet certain basic requirements, one of which was to have held the same job for 6 months. The other was that they had to participate in a once a week training program that met 8 times. Attendance was mandatory, as was completing all the homework assignments. Failure meant removal from the program, no excuses.
You’d be amazed how many people can’t be bothered to show up to 8 classes in a row, even when doing so would mean the end of poverty for them and their children.
During the 8 weeks he would meet with the families and go through finances, and one of the homework assignments was to bring in all your bills, and map out what your monthly expenses are.
He had a very odd approach, for the most part very nonjudgmental. A person would have a power bill of $300 a month (most had power bills likes that), and he would ask them, “what do you think about your power bill?” Most thought it was too high, then he would ask, “is there any way to make it lower?” After some thought most people realized it was within their control. Then he’d ask, “if your bill was $200 per month, is there something you’d rather do with that $100 than spend it on electricity?” And with that people participating would start to look at their finances, make changes, and improve their lives. Of the 14.3% of people in the US living in poverty, how many do you suppose waste money on utilities?
He also noticed that most participants would have three jobs, sort of a sad commentary on our times. But most people need two 30 hour jobs to make enough money, and for some reason people will often take a third. He would look at that third job and ask them to calculate how much it costs to have that job. Bus fare, child care, lots time, etc. Participants would evaluate if they’re actually making money on that extra job or if they’d be better off helping their kids with homework.
BTW kids were made part of the program as well.
I was brought in to look at nutrition, cooking, and food budgeting. Each session had a family style meal, with a budget of less than $2 per person (and there were always left overs). Afterwards we’d discuss the meal, it’s components, the costs. We’d look at the difference between ground beef that’s 75% lean vs 95% lean. Boneless skinless chicken breast vs thighs, legs, and whole birds. We’d look at how to make use of low cost vegetables, how to keep fat content down, and how to avoid marketing traps. Most of the participants had insanely high food budgets, that were extremely easy to reduce.
In all of the threads on [progressive] taxation, the point is made that the rich can spare $100 with less pain that a poor person. Which is true, but that makes me wonder why a person living at the poverty level would so easily waste hundreds of dollars per month by living windows open in the winter, lights on during the day, food on the counter to spoil.
Oddly enough, so much of it seems to go back to parenting. Think about all those standard things your parents kept telling you has a child: don’t waste food, eat your vegetables, turn off the lights behind you, pick up your clothes, close the fridge door, put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat, pay your bills on time. Those things really matter when you’re living at the poverty level. None of them represent “luck.” But they are all things that prevent the poor from getting a head.
So we’re not genetically predisposed to luck? Is it possible that sense of self-entitlement leads to disproportionate levels of power?
Yes, those Swedes are lucky; they’re lucky that they were born in Sweden. And those Brazilians are unlucky; they’re unlucky that they were born in Brazil.
So, what makes it luckier to be born in Sweden than in Brazil?
Why do 30% more Brazilians make worse choices than Swedes?
Exactly; being poor is the cool thing to do in Brazil but an uncool thing to do in Sweden. Coolest of all: dying of malnutrition in a favela.
Why do 30% more Brazilians than Swedes fail to take advantage of opportunities to make themselves better?
Can you think of more *substantive *differences between Sweden and Brazil that result in different poverty rates in those two countries? Are personal failings really the only reason you can think of for people to be poor? When the poverty rate in the US dropped from 50% to 10%, was it because of the sweeping changes in character in this nation?
Oh, and I found this picture of lazy poor people failing to take advantage of the opportunities available to them, the lazy basterds.
So in the US when poverty rates fell from 50% to 10%, that was because 40% of American people stopped deciding to let themselves be held down? And the Swedes are less likely to let themselves be held down? And the Brazilians are more likely to let themselves be held down? And last decade 10 million more people decided to let themselves be held down again?
You think education quality is the same in poor neighborhoods as in middle-class neighborhoods? Don’t read the following quote; it’ll upset the fact balance in your brain: “We have the problem of unequal access to and funding of education, largely as a result of school funding and control at the local level. Such significant local control virtually automatically assures that students in poor neighborhoods get lower quality teachers, facilities, and educational support.”
And if it’s not that hard to get a skilled trade, why are there 44 million people in poverty in the US right now? Are 44 million people just not aware how easy it is to earn a solid middle-class income? Maybe someone should go tell them. I’m sure they’ll be grateful.
So Swedes are better parents than Americans who are better parents than Brazilians?
And parents in the US 100 years ago were shit compared to parents in the US 70 years ago? And parents seem to have gotten worse, considering 10 million people fell below the poverty line this decade. Maybe you’ve hit on the solution to poverty; have the Swedes adopt our kids. That might actually work, considering that the kids would then grow up in Sweden (coughand have access to Swedish social programscough)
You think higher marginal tax rates increase poverty? Brazil has a top marginal tax rate of 27%; is that why their poverty rates are so low?
But if you want graphs of top marginal tax ratesand poverty rates, here you go. But don’t look at them! They show that higher marginal tax rates loosely correspond to lower poverty rates, so if you look at them Rand Rover will have to kill you. Speaking of Rand Rover, wasn’t he supposed to show me proof that tax rates were negatively correlated with unemployment? Gosh, wonder why he hasn’t sent that proof through yet.
A 6.7% poverty rate is worse than a 14.3% poverty rate, right?
You think Brazil doesn’t have any social programs? Here’s a paper, but you shouldn’t read it; it suggests that social programs might alleviate poverty, when any right-minded person knows that the poor don’t need social programs–they need a stern talking-to about grasping opportunities.
I agree, that’s why I chose my parents with such care before I was born. I picked rich caring parents who could teach me about the world, and those lazy basterds who couldn’t take the time to do that much deserve to be poor (props to Voyager).
Edit, can you explain the thought process that starts with “poor people don’t understand personal finance” and ends with “we need to cut social programs”? I would think that would result in the opposite conclusion.
Well, yeah. By being born in Sweden. Just as it’s luckier to be born in America than in Somalia.
Somalians are a wise people who know a thing or two about not wasting money on social programs. I can think of some people who should be sent there to learn from them (and then lets not let them back).
How many times must it be explained to you how “luck” is being used in this context? You can change the context all you want to trivialize the points being made, but that only serves to justify people not taking you seriously. That aside, although I am not an expert on Sweden, I would guess that they are luckier in the sense that the costs of failure are lower for individuals, and the opportunities for success are more abundant.
What an incredible disingenuous statement. Public schools in poor areas generally do not provide the same opportunities to their students as rich (or even middle class) schools do. Last time I looked, there were basically no failing schools in wealthy areas. To act as if all schools are created the same is just nonsense. They certainly don’t offer the same opportunities or value-added.
Here is a study that correlates income inequality and poverty. Not exactly what you asked for, but one can recognize that top tax rates can be a means of affecting income inequality. Not the study says the following:
So it seems clear that there is some evidence that tax rates and poverty are related. More importantly, when there is more inequality, there is less social mobility, so the poor do not have many opportunities to improve their lot in life.
Again, its not just about social programs, it’s a complete cultural shift from people thinking you get what you deserve in life (bad and good), to one where people appreciate the luck involved in everything. It’s going shift to viewing success as less of an individual story, and more of a societal one. In the US, we love to boast about having the world biggest economy, and the greatest number of billionaires, but overlook the fact that those things say more about the US as a whole than they do about each individual billionaire. Yet, these people are compensated in a way that seems to signal that their individual merits are what is noteworthy, rather than the landscape that allows such creativity and productivity. That’s a problem.
What a weak straw man… Did I claim that these proven correlations between personality traits and income somehow explain all causes of poverty, especially when comparing different decades (and centuries!) and completely different countries? Did I claim that nothing could be done to reduce the number of poor people? How did you ever arrive at such ridiculous conclusions from the results of these studies? I’m sorry if you cannot accept that these traits do affect income and prefer to deny the reality.
BTW, according to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf, the poverty rate in 1959 was around 22%, not 10%.
in my experience working in a public school system with a 50% high school dropout rate, the key to students’ performance has been adult involvement, especially on the part of their parents. in poor communities, the parents may have to work many hours a day to support their families, leaving less time for them to be involved with their child’s education. this means the student isn’t held accountable for his schoolwork at home and so it becomes unimportant, so they lack motivation to achieve. thus their performance decreases, test scores go down, less money is allocated to the school, and the students lose access to resources, and the cycle perpetuates itself. not saying the whole problem is that simple, but i do believe it accounts for a lot of the achievement gaps between income brackets. it also more or less assumes an urban environment, if only because i have no experience with poor rural communities. i just know from working with them that even the lowest-achieving students, including those with special needs, learning disabilities, etc, are much more often simply wanting some kind of incentive, intrinsic or extrinsic, for them to achieve than actually lacking intelligence, and that when there is greater involvement with and importance attached to their achievement, they are much more likely to do better.