High degree of overlap between r/poor and crypto subreddits
subredditstats.com
subredditstats.com
I think this is simply that crypto subreddits are big, and so if you try to find the overlap between r/poor and anything else, a big subreddit will be high on the list. Same reason that r/bayarea is high up on the overlap list for r/poor - at first glance, the assumption is that poor people live in the Bay Area, but then when you reverse that causality and look at what Bay Area people are interested in, r/fatfire, r/costco, r/realestate, and r/cscareerquestions are way higher than r/poor, which again doesn't make the list.
There are 194,177 subs in /r/coinbase and 3,780,323 in /r/bitcoin.
Given the low numbers and selection bias of subreddit membership, it seems hard to draw any meaningful conclusions.
If you assume everyone who subscribes to /r/poor is poor
AND everyone in /r/poor is also on crypto subreddits
AND crypto subreddit users are representative of broader populations (very tenuous assumptions), that means our lower bounds are:
- /r/coinbase is 3.7% poor
- /r/bitcoin is 0.2% poor
Both of those are well below the general poverty rate so... who cares?
/r/poor subscribers probably are not a representative sample of poverty anyways, so these are pretty meaningless statistics.
Reversing the direction doesn't mean much. It just means that users of crypto subs have stronger links elsewhere, like to investing.
If you were going to try to draw a really big conclusion from this (you shouldn't) it would be something like "a large portion of those who are poor are involving themselves with crypto," not like "being into crypto will make you poor."
These are the largest subreddits https://frontpagemetrics.com/top. There's not a lot of overlap.
For whatever demo visits r/poor, they have a significant interest in crypto.
All along the way, there were some people who were calling me a killjoy and saying that everyone on board was in it for the lulz. But the people I saw doing this were not ironic memelords or anything, they were earnest working class folks who were taking the memes at face value and throwing money at what they believed was a chance to take down wall street while make money doing it.
So everybody gets obsessed with the lottery.
For whatever income you define as wealthy, a huge chunk of society can afford to save away 1/23rd of that annually.
Under today's taxes in the US, those gains are tax advantaged compared to income, so take whatever salary you define as wealthy and put away 1/29th of it per year, roughly.
It's not accessible to everyone, but calling it "fucking dire" is just fearmongering people into being even worse off with the lottery.
Individual economics are dire in terms of how much it costs to have basic security with housing specifically.
Median home price in the US was $222k in 2008, its $400k in 2022. Rents have gone up accordingly. Average person sees their paycheck go less far every year, and then add inflation on top of it. Putting away $1k in a year sure doesn't seem like it helps you.
Everything works out pretty well for you if you somehow own a house in the US, just hope you aren't behind the curve on assets.
This is between misleading and untrue. Home prices have gone way up, while home monthly payments haven't, due to the extremely low interest rates on mortgages. This means that downpayments are less accessible, but the rest of the payments are about as accessible as before. Until 2021, monthly payments were actually unusually cheap for the last bunch of years. Probably offsetting the higher down payments and lower inflation.
But the big one is that rents haven't gone up accordingly. I couldn't find 2022 data, but from 2008 to 2020, median monthly rent went up from $783 to $1,104. In 2020 dollars, it went from $941 to $1,104, or 17%. It's significant, but nowhere near the doubling you posted.
As economists sometimes say, "lotteries are a tax on the poor". (Or, "lotteries are a tax on the stupid.")
Of course, I don't visit the smaller memecoin subs which might be like that and same for possibly the Dogecoin one which is the largest one which I imagine might have that type of post.
The hate I usually see in crypto discussions is directed towards index funds or blue-chip stocks.
It is actively managed, meaning that specific stocks are selected to be part of the fund. This is the opposite of an index fund, where the goal is to buy the whole market.
That's why a fund like ARKG can sometime outperform the market, or, like recently, under perform. An index fund would match the whole market performance, no more no less.
I bought $1000 worth of BTC in ~2006. If I'd held onto it I would...probably not be a millionaire today, even if the math says so, because it was band new then, and using them is what makes them valuable.
It's a tragedy of the commons problem I believe.
that might be hard to do:
>On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network was created when Nakamoto mined the starting block of the chain, known as the genesis block.
> It's the best way to save/grow an emergency fund. And if you can hold indefinitely, then you can grow true financial freedom by saving even just 5 dollars at a time, anytime you can spare to do so in Bitcoin. Don't think of it as an investment, think of it as a savings account that works and doesn't lose buying power thanks to inflation.
0. https://www.reddit.com/r/poor/comments/m0yo9l/buy_even_10_do...
If you believe the post, the author is giving this advice because it worked for them. There are a lot of people like that.
I had no idea people outside of tech were taking this stuff so seriously, I can understand a bit better why some people have essentially made it their life's mission to denounce crypto as a scam.
I know a Navy dentist who told me back in February that he was putting all of his disposable income every month into Cardano. One of the Staff Sergeants I work with made ~$15k back when Doge spiked to the moon, and all of our Lance Corporals discuss the latest coins daily.
People who think they're poor aspire for a substantially better existence and have lives of fear and uncertainty.
That's the real correlation here, it's why there's also a strong correlation of purposefully optimistic subreddits and other types of fear abatement.
What does uplifting news, Walt Disney world, firearms, mgtow, and cryptocurrency have in common?
They all collectively feed the same desires, not necessarily describe the financial holdings of the participants
I'm under no illusions: the money I made from Bitcoin didn't come from nowhere. It came from people losing their savings and gambling money they shouldn't.
Try to see overlaps for r/frugal or r/bitcoin if you really want to see if poverty is linked to crypto
Far more interesting (if predictable) is the list overlapping subs with r/povertyfinance subscribers: https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/povertyfi...
Hope may be the most basic human emotional need.
To the devs: please use `replaceState()` instead. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/History_API...
...But also consider why you need to manipulate history when the link is visited directly. I'd imagine that's a side effect that should be extracted from that function.
Seems wrong to try to shame them like this.
The reality is that it's very, very difficult to understand crypto in any real sense. And that's without considering that whichever side of the argument you lie on - crypto is a weak proposition insofar that so is gold and cash.
Fun fact: 90% of USD doesn't physically exist according to the Fed itself.
That's way crazier than bitcoin.
Experts don't have a good answer for this either (except making its designer and early miners/buyers rich).
Best to read up on it for more explanation. As it's over a decade old it should be trivial to find commentary in your preferred language and level of analysis with only the simplest of queeries.
That's why I bought into bitcoin over a decade ago. It's not the banks' tool.
It doesn’t mean that bitcoiners are more likely to be poor. It doesn’t really mean poor people are likely to be on btc either if r/poor is just not representative. But the initial statement does seem solid.
The size of the group doesn’t really impact this assuming it’s not tiny.
All the typical props of the interior decoration of the modern loser’s mind, in one place.
[0]: chill, dude! Your masculinity is non-toxic, probably. In fact the term acknowledges non-toxic masculinity as the default , since otherwise there wouldn’t be a need to add the modifier.
Edit, to reply to the flagged troll: the women seem to all be at /r/povertyfinance: https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/povertyfi.... The connected subreddits there tell a somewhat different story. Of pragmatism instead of stewing in grievances and hoping for an easy way out.
I’d speculate that ‘r/poor really doesn’t have too much actual poverty, but rather it’s a social poverty the members feel, which they hope to get out of by becoming billionaires (and/or “negging”). /r/povertyfinance is about actual poverty, where you’re trying to find out if you can still eat that food or how to fix the car without spending money.
We all have iphones, for example, because Jobs wanted to get rich.
/r/btc is actually the bitcoin cash subreddit (though they welcome conversation of other cryptos). Most people in that sub probably hold very little bitcoin if any (except perhaps those who joined by accident).
In /r/bitcoin you get banned for discussing other cryptocurrencies, so I'd wager most of the subscribers hold more bitcoin than anything else.
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/povertyfi...
r/povertyfinance has 975K subscribers.
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/povertyfi...