Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt_wulfeck | Hacker News Reader

You don't think personal change represents any elevation from poverty? I think we certainly agree it can play a major role into poverty descent.

View on HN

Not really, no. In the US, it's mostly about your family, although there are exceptions of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the...

> The correlation between parents' income and their children's income in the United States is estimated between .4 and .6.

> If a parent's income had no effect on a child's opportunity for future upward mobility, approximately 20% of poor children who started in the bottom quintile (in the bottom 20% of the US range of incomes) would remain there as poor adults. At the other end of income spectrum, if children were born into wealthy families in the top 20%, only 20% would stay in that top income category if their mobility opportunities were equal to every other child's in the country.

> But long-term income statistics show this isn't happening. Mobility opportunities are different for poor and wealthy children in the US. Parental incomes and parental choices of home locations while raising children appear to be major factors in that difference. According to a 2012 Pew Economic Mobility Project study 43% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Similarly, 40% of children raised in the top quintile (top 20%) will remain there as adults. Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults. Around twice as many (8%) of children born into the top quintile fell to the bottom. 37% of children born into the top quintile will fall below the middle. These findings have led researchers to conclude that "opportunity structures create and determine future generations' chances for success. Hence, our lot in life is at least partially determined by where we grow up, and this is partially determined by where our parents grew up, and so on."

That is a correlation, not causal. Maybe (just throwing something out there) poor parent's children continue to be poor because the poor parents can't teach their children the appropriate life skills to save and earn enough money?

But that would be a causal influence.

It's dangerous to cast blanket statements like that.

Some people end up in poverty by bad choices, sure. I don't think it's safe to assume that most "deserve" to be in poverty because of their choices. I think the more common scenario is mental illness develops > bad events happen due to mental illness and lack of treatment > job loss > more bad events/choices made out of desperation > repeat

And add in the fact, that until recently, insurance was available for only specific destitute or employees whom worked at jobs that provided insurance.

And we have a party that wants to dismantle everything, including Social Security.

As far as I'm concerned, both parties are mutually destructive. (Destructive competition.) Two peas in a pod since the 90s.

I agree, but after reading articles like this I always leave with the impression that the personal change doesn't need to be encouraged by the society, and must come solely from the individual. Like other commenter said in the post, some people like the mentally unstable can't change without a lot of outside help.

do you athleticism at the pro level is achieved by personal abilities alone? what if you grew up in a society that doesn't value basketball for example, you will never have opportunities and support to develop a physical ability to reach pro level status. Societal conditions play a critical role in my example

In 2014, "Vulnerable Populations" made up 80% of the poor in the USA. That essentially means children and the elderly.

On top of that, it's like another 7% of people that are in poverty that are fully employed!

http://www.demos.org/blog/10/23/15/2014-vulnerable-populatio...

You live in a class based society, poor people are poor because they were generally born into it and denied the privileged of the education necessary to escape it. Stop victim blaming.

Just because it correlates with family doesn't mean personal change mythology isn't central. Different families have different mythologies.

The family stat is worthwhile to indicate that individual differentiation isn't a good explanatory factor, which is important to note.

To me the takeaway is that personal and family level interventions will be inadequate and neighborhood-level coordination is a good place to start.

Neighborhood mythology around personal change could very well be an important tool, I don't know.

I like to tell this to all the billions of people starving on the street around the world.

Poverty is not structural. It's the individual's responsibility.

Poor people just need some change from within to elevate themselves out the favelas of Rio, the Dharavi in India, the west side of Chicago.

The cancer they get from drinking polluted water, the failure of their body after being exposed to the elements, their family member getting murdered, dismembered, and hung from a bridge by cartels....could have been prevented if they had only just elevated themselves.

Poverty is the individuals fault. </s>

Who's saying it's their fault? The only thing I'm saying is that both descent into poverty and ascension from it can be due to personal action. Why do we have to choose 100% one cause or the other?

Your argument highlights a sensational occurrence to disparage an large group of people.

It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists, or all people on food stamps are lazy...

It's not an overtly lie, but taken statistically... it's definitely a lie....and false and misleading.

Poverty is without a doubt structurally caused around the world.

There are obscure cases of people who cause themselves to be in poverty but most people do everything in their power not to be in poverty...and are in poverty because they don't have opportunities...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com