Hacker News Reader

The term we're looking for here is "poverty trap."

A poverty trap is a circumstance where people are forced to take a more costly short term move. The canonical example is buying a $35 pair of shoes twice a year instead of a $50 pair that might last two years.

Obligatory Terry Pratchett quote:

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

It's a fun quote that has some truth to it, but not much more than that.

I think it pretty well encompasses all the criticism that I could levy at this artie.

The truth of it applies to a lot of things though; if money is tight and you have to buy some quantities it means you pay more for

Toilet paper.

Paper towels.

You can’t stock up when soup is on sale. Or tuna. Or other x canned item.

Shoes, do you buy lightly used, or do you buy whatever is on clearance ?

Clothing: nothing from Walmart ever seems to fit right. Used shirts and pants always seem to fit just a little off. Is there a Burlington coat factory, or a Gabe’s, or similar near you? Maybe you can grab something cheap. If not, you may have to spend entirely too much of your paycheck to replace some pieces of clothing you probably have to have for work. (Example of this, I used to know people making barely more then minimum wage, who didn’t have a car, and had to pay way too much to keep buying cheap pants when they got holes in them so they wouldn’t lose their job ).

Yes, that is why I said it has some truth to it. Perhaps I could have been more clear in my criticism.

It is simply a very incomplete description for why some people have more wealth and income than others. It is one piece of a large and complex puzzle.

Yeap. I mainly meant it as a fun alternative to the rather more standard "Obligatory xkcd" posts :D. Also, I'm a huge fan of Terry Pratchett.

Poverty traps are relevant, but they're usually more than a day's pay. The temptation to cheap out is always there, but being stuck with the bad route is mostly relevant to big-ticket items. Bigger than a cell phone, which you can get used or with a zero-interest payment plan among other options.

Well I agree but would add:

If you’re stuck in the short game poverty trap, it’s harder to even realize what your (underlying) big ticket items are.

Or to put it from another perspective: you have to be able to afford to minimalize. In the West, there are no Buddhist temples in the ghettos.

> In the West, there are no Buddhist temples in the ghettos.

Like the boiling frog, that's an attractive illustration that is literally untrue.

That was a metaphor… New Age Zen Buddhists are usually not poor, culturally not related to Asia at all and often don't realize how their practice is a refurbishment of puritan cultural origins.

Do you really think that the majority of people are living their lives in the most optimal way they possibly can? That they aren't sacrificing some amount of long-term benefits for short-term convenience?

I personally know many people, some with very tragic life stories, who find it very hard to work up the motivation to invest towards their future, precisely for the reasons given in the article. Each act in isolation seems so insignificant, and the future feels so abstract. Why bother when you can just sit on the couch and watch youtube instead.

Sure, everyone has reasons for why they ended up where they are now. Everyone has a great story to tell, for why their present circumstances aren't their fault. But ultimately, the only way they can overcome their circumstances is if they feel the motivation to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term investments. Well intentioned do-gooders telling them that their circumstances are hopeless and they are doomed, are not doing them any favors.

>> Well intentioned do-gooders telling them that their circumstances are hopeless and they are doomed, are not doing them any favors.

Of course it will do them favors. The problem is not the people, it's the system. Once people fully recognize that the system doesn't work, they might get the courage to change it. Right now nobody is trying to change the system because everyone blames themselves.

This isn't an either-or. We can work to change the system, while simultaneously doing the best we can to improve our lives, given the current system. You're doing people a huge disservice if you tell them to give up hope and do nothing with their lives until the system gets around to fixing itself.

FWIW, many people are indeed trying to change the system, and I'm fully supportive of that as well. Many Democratic front runners have called for proposals such as single payer health insurance, guaranteed employment, increased minimum wage, and other such proposals. I certainly hope they win and enact those proposals.

Have you read When Helping Hurts? It's a really good exploration of this dichotomy of blame between the people and the systems.

In truth, both are broken.

I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions.

In the first, working late isn't for short term gain (overtime, hitting a deadline) for its own sake, it's for a longer term (or more critical) objective: money for the partner or daycare or college. Especially the college one, setting up that money early by working overtime now means having to work and stress less when that bill arrives. It is the long game.

And you're right, as written it's not nuanced, but that's why there are questions to answer.

Why do I go out with friends every Monday/Wednesday instead of doing BJJ like I used to? Precisely the same as your answer: That's when they're available to hang out with (reliably). And yes, it's a hit to my fitness, but I haven't abandoned the gym I'm just doing it less (and not BJJ). My mental and emotional health is important, along with my physical health. So this socialization is (for me) part of my long term objectives, not just because I can.

I think you've turned those "short game" situations into "long game" situations by how you've answered the questions.

This is precisely the point I wish to make; without these nuances of understanding the tradeoffs, the article weakens its argument. While it is entirely possible for a person to prioritize short-term vs long-term in a way that isn't advantageous to themselves, the situations provided do not explicitly state the argument the author tries to make with them.

It seems like you maybe have slightly missed the point by overly focusing on the examples in the article though.

Not when the article says flat out:

> In its simplest form, the long game isn’t really debatable. Everyone agrees, for example, we should spend less than we make and invest the difference.

Which conveniently brushes aside the fact that there are good reasons not to play the long game.

Here's a very non-standard example: If I do not have nor can I afford health insurance, then I shouldn't invest the difference between expenses and wages:

As time goes on the probability that I have a bankruptcy due to medical bills approaches unity, so any money I save I will likely never get to see the results of.

Emphasis on "In its simplest form"

I read that as "in general" it is accepted that one shouldn't spend more than what one can afford. Generally on luxury. But if it's a necessary need. Then you will indeed need to make a deal with the sharks.

I'll copy paste the last paragraph:

> In everything you do, you’re either playing a short term or long term game. You can’t opt out and you can’t play a long-term game in everything, you need to pick what matters to you. But in everything you do time amplifies the difference between long and short-term games. The question you need to think about is when and where to play a long-term game.

> Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone.

Under what circumstances do you need the latest smartphone to get a job?

> Consider this hypothetical: Due to working 12/14/16 hour days normally, I can only see my friends when I go out drinking with them on certain days of the week. My job is extremely stressful and my friends are my only emotional support.

You can't function without going out drinking several times per week? I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for that.

A lot of businesses and banks communicate electronically with people, not just phone calls but texts and emails. A smartphone is possibly (short of using a public library) the cheapest way to get access to those sorts of things as the world becomes increasingly digitized and connected (versus having a computer that is less portable, and can't access the internet on its own without pairing with a phone or finding a public wifi hotspot or paying for a separate internet connection, assuming you have a stable home to establish that in).

Totally. That's why I said 'latest' smartphone. You can get lower end smartphones for a pretty reasonable price.

So I'm not a homeless person nor have I ever experienced it. But there are various homeless sites I've seen across the internet.

The general recommendations I've seen are:

1. Get a good smartphone, its required to get a job these days.

2. Get a gym membership so you can get a place to shower and look good for your potential jobs.

But smartphones are consistently on the recommendation lists for the homeless. Its not a secret, its their life. People in poverty already know the importance of smartphones.

In my experience: its more useful to ask questions from people actually living in homeless / poverty conditions. They tend to know more about homelessness / poverty than people who have never experienced it. In general: people who are on poverty websites / homelessness websites are incredibly resourceful and understand how to play the long game very well.

--------

In any case, short-game vs long-game is a basic issue that's understood at all levels of wealth. Some people are just bad at playing the long game.

But in any case, a good phone, with up-to-date internet access to keep connected to today's workforce is ABSOLUTELY necessary, even at the lowest levels of poverty (ie: homelessness) in today's culture.

I don't think I disagreed with any of that.

Under what circumstances do you need the latest smartphone to get a job?

Note that the article did not mention a smartphone. The article mentioned any phone, include pay-by-minute or similar.

You can't function without going out drinking several times per week? I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for that.

Unfortunately, the stress and pressure of poverty or borderline poverty is a wonderful bed for which addiction can take place. Especially given that the culture of america promotes drinking regularly as a past time.

> Note that the article did not mention a smartphone. The article mentioned any phone, include pay-by-minute or similar.

If all you need is a commodity phone, that is quite cheap and isn't really going to impact your playing of the "long game".

> Unfortunately, the stress and pressure of poverty or borderline poverty is a wonderful bed for which addiction can take place. Especially given that the culture of america promotes drinking regularly as a past time.

So just don't engage in it? The point of this article is that through power of will you can achieve great things. You've got to actually exercise some will to do them, though.

What if they have no power of will? These things can be beat out of a person over their life experiences and genetic predispositions. If it's never been beat out of you it's easy to it on your high horse. As Werther argued in Goethe's, Sufferings of Young Werther, you wouldn't ask someone to get over cancer through power of will.

Yeah. If you are born in the slums. Your chances are ultra slim. You might as well be a chicken born in Human farms.

This is why we the lucky intellectuals who have time to discuss this over hacker news have a responsibility over those who are dealt with a really bad hand.

https://chomsky.info/19670223/

- The Responsibility of Intellectuals

- Noam Chomsky

- The New York Review of Books, February 23, 1967

A big part of whether or not people have the power of will is whether or not they grow up inculcated in the myth of will power. Asian cultures are very very good at this, for instance. The US used to be very good at it. Yes, sometimes circumstances make it difficult to develop will power. That doesn't mean those people get off the hook for trying.

Consider the hypothetical: My partner has health issues that requires me to earn more money to support us both/cannot work. ... I work at a startup and if we succeed my partner will be set for life.

That sounds like a risky tradeoff -- if you're taking a paycut in return for some possible future return, you're essentially gambling, since no matter how hard you work, you have limited power to affect the outcome. The company may succeed and ear you a lot of money... or it may fail due to market forces outside of its control.

I work for a startup (though it's late stage enough that they pay market salary), but my partner works at a more traditional job.

The problem with your hypotheticals is that for most people who would claim that they apply to them, it would be safe to bet that they have reversed cause and effect.

For example multiple longitudinal studies have found that alcoholics usually begin to drink heavily, then develop life problems, then revise their memories and remember it as they developed life problems before they started to drink. Therefore if you talk to alcoholics, they will usually claim that they were driven to drink. They aren't exactly lying - this is how they remember it. But that usually isn't what happened.

Seems like you're getting lost in the details, and missing the overall point they were trying to convey...

> Essentially, I'm not impressed by the reasoning displayed here.

Agreed, the examples aren‘t perfect. But what I liked about the article was it’s intended interoperability and non-specifics.

It thus clarifies it’s main statements (for me at least):

- starting the long game appears never as worthwhile as keep playing the short game

- but playing long, compounds day by day

- but sadly, playing short does so too

Other commenters already mentioned it: those are the same mechanics of the poverty trap

The last paragraph:

> In everything you do, you’re either playing a short term or long term game. You can’t opt out and you can’t play a long-term game in everything, you need to pick what matters to you. But in everything you do time amplifies the difference between long and short-term games. The question you need to think about is when and where to play a long-term game. A good place to start is with things that compound: knowledge, relationships, and finances.

And if you have played the short game for awhile already. Then the choice of short vs long is now harder as you point out.

Lifestyle is big factor, imo. There is a lot of things people pay for nowadays that isn't "a must". Especially paying tons of money for a wedding (I never understood why people would go thru all that hassle, but I do appreciate the beauty in it, but too extravagant I think). Paying tons of money for a wedding ring that you would likely drop in a sink or misplace anyway. Any tons more.

Your hypothetical situations are fair, but the author never said that no-one should ever play the short game. They are simply highlighting the (possibly) under-appreciated power of the long-game, and encouraging people to try and favor it more when they can.

I agree that the long game is under-appreciated but an article that does not appropriately address the nuances of the reasons for its under-appreciation is not really useful or wise.

Well, o-wise one. Maybe for you. But for a non-wise pleb like me. I think this article is really great for introducing the indentifiers "short-game" and "long-game" to me. I think it's a great way to describe this concept.

> Why wait to pay for a phone in cash, when you can put it on your credit card?

> Consider this hypothetical: I don't have the cash, ever, but I need the phone to get a better job so I could pay off the debt I enter when investing in a phone.

Companies don't want them green bubbles too?

Yeah, perhaps rather than privation, a better middle ground would that laid out by the epicurean philosophy.

There are always exceptions to the rule