The Psychology of Poverty: Where Do We Stand? [pdf]
nber.org
nber.org
I recently started college at 38 as an adult who grew up in a poverty stricken area. Food insecurity was a problem in my childhood. Thing like sitting food like milk in between the screen door to avoid running the fridge during the winter. Or hitting up food Pantry's at the local churches.
Interestingly my "case study" I had to write for academic writing was on the link between finance and health. After all my reading and research about nutrition, toxic stress, and environmental conditions I'm surprised that I made it. All that to say, food insecurity doesn't come up often in the conversation. How does a poor kid with shitty parents who don't feed him develop a working brain? And is it their fault if their mental shortcomings effect their mental stability and behavior as a adolescent?
It's depressing when I create something I'm proud of and when I show it to others it in their perception it is part of an economy. That is in my opinion the true poverty trap.
I know you're being poetic, but poverty is a very real thing.
There comes a point where you need to worry about food on the table before worrying about self-actualization and "value-of-itself" for what creative thing you've done.
I kind of think these are just middle class issues rather than poverty; but you're right that this means different things to different people.
> Decisions small and large, accumulate and create a much bigger impact than most people imagine. Now imagine having to make these decisions consistently for two decades until you can see the return on it - like say your kids actually getting a better job or you becoming an entrepreneur or finding a career ...etc.
I think there's an element of "little bit at first, then all at once" -- i don't think it's that these individual items that "make wealth" but rather, they would be symptoms of different states of mind regarding stress, risk, etc.
I climbed out of poverty and met my wife who's "comfortably middle-class" -- she has no appetite for risk (see dr straight away, get name-brand products, college first) and i have a much larger appetite for risk (wait and see, bulk-buy products, work first).
Interesting to think about, thanks for the comment; i wonder if there is/should be a study / analysis on those questions.
I don't think so. I grew up squarely middle class (and the question was never "can we afford health care or collage", but a weeklong trip to Disney world set our vacation budget back several years (to the point we could not take vacations, or only took small road trips).
The idea of not being able to afford basic health care or a university education should be utterly alien to the middle class.
Poverty is never "do I buy a washing machine or buy something else" it's "can I afford to go to the laundromat this month".
You just described the difference between lower-middle and middle class.
Poverty is when you have to quit your job yet again because your CCMS paperwork got screwed up and the daycare won't take your kid after school.
Poverty is when you have to make visits to the food bank on a regular basis for commodities because the price of food is outstripping what EBT is offering.
Poverty is when you don't have a strong attachment to any of your physical possessions even if you've worked long and hard for them because one medical problem could make it impossible for you to afford your rent, so you might as well not become too attached to anything that you'll eventually lose.
Poverty is when you either keep your cash on you at all times or you pay a 3% fee to a debit card company to keep preloading a prepaid card because the banks don't think you're creditworthy enough to open an account.
Poverty is when you make stupid decisions with money when you have it because there are just so many occasions when you don't.
Poverty is getting CPS visits because even though you put your kid in the best clothes that you could afford, some teacher decided that today was the day she was going to white knight your child away from you.
Poverty is being ashamed to be dragged through a book fair only to be the only child to not purchase anything because you don't dare ask your momma for money given how much she struggles.
Poverty is when you gut through toothaches and abscesses because you don't have dental insurance and nobody does that work for free.
That's poverty.
What you described is an inconvenienced life.
One could just as easily compare your poverty with that of people in the poorest places in the world.
Oh, your kids get to go to school? Our kids spend their days digging through rubbish heaps. Oh your kid was taken away by CPS? Our kid died from inhaling toxic fumes from melting down the old computer parts they found digging through the rubbish heaps. Oh, you have a debit card fee? We're don't even have ATMs, or banks.
Poverty is a spectrum. Just because X is poorer than Y doesn't mean Y isn't also poor.
Food scarcity, shelter scarcity, basic health need scarcity, location impermanence, government impunity on your freedom. Poverty.
Now, if you are able to see the value in something despite not having a firm monetization strategy, that just puts you in the same mental frame as the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. Jeff Bezos said something about how you should do what matters and find the profit later, it was written on the wall somewhere. SpaceX still might not be profitable (not sure), but the promise of 100kt of payload to LOE with recoverable lower and upper stages? Its worth the weight!
I think you meant to say revenue?
> Now, if you are able to see the value in something despite not having a firm monetization strategy, that just puts you in the same mental frame as the greatest entrepreneurs in the world.
It is also the same mental frame every starving artist shares too. They are able to see the value in what they do despite not having a firm monetization strategy.
Yes, thanks.
>It is also the same mental frame every starving artist shares too. They are able to see the value in what they do despite not having a firm monetization strategy.
If you read the next sentence you can see I was gently incepting that along with the idea that successful people see value before they see the price they can attach to it. To even waste your time performing the economic calculation to determine the numbers you must first be motivated by something, there is a period of time however short between the idea and its technical analysis, the value you see and its monetization. Hey, that doesnt mean monetization isnt important, but it can be forestalled for important reasons like exploring the field or gaining experience, just as much as unimportant reasons, those, being subjective to the one paying the bills.
That is however still a system of debt and scarcity. A system of abundance would account for how many of the gifts you have given have been retained. Then add orthogonality to your retainment. That system of value does not destroy information that makes us happy. It assigns resources to where they can be refined to additional value.
What of other types of pollution? Why wouldnt we be taxing the environmental damage of mercury or lead? These items are in fact heavily regulated today, and yet it was with the help of the local government and their power over utilities that flint michigan was poisoned with lead; this is something a private company could be more easily sued for, as opposed to the government with sovereign immunity. Why would we expect this system of weights and measures to not be captured like other systems of political power? Try to imagine the negative consequences of the corporate capture of power over the prices of all goods in the market, what effect that could have over relatively powerless people just trying to eat.
To the second part, scarcity is not something that can be changed; no matter how much you produce of something it is still ultimately limited in its supply.
This is a debt based system though, and it doesn't have to be; all dollars are created when a debt is issued, like a home loan or government debt, and these debts are issued at an interest rate, it is systemically guarenteed that there will always be more debt than dollars to pay it off. Taken this to its logical conclusion, you get the repo-men/corpus style society of everyone being a slave to bankers, its not markets that do this, its exogenous debt that can never be repaid without entering more debt. With a commodity money or a money with commodity backing, this is not possible; the banks cannot issue debt for a bar of gold they never had, and when their debts turn out to be malinvestments they cant be bailed out by a central authority, meaning they will only issue debts that they can reasonably expect to be paid off, rather than the predatory practices of today.
I'm very glad that these sort of papers come out and are reasoned about. The "psychology" is perhaps the ONLY aspect that keeps poverty going, and it's made worse by people removing agency, introducing pointless stress, and in general just poo-pooing any attempts to climb out of the pit.
Is there any basis for that? What about overwhelming bills and other liabilities, lack of marketable skills, illnesses (including addictions), lack of opportunities, lack of parenting and education, of food, etc.
The data overwhelmingly says differently: The predictor of success is not psychology but pre-existing wealth and opportunity. Internationally, the difference is even more overwhelming.
In my experience, it is a (condescencing, lazy) fantasy of the wealthy that poverty is just a matter of thinking differently, that anyone can do it because, after all, the wealthy person didn't have those obstacles. I say it's lazy because it doesn't take much examination of the data to see what wealth depends on.
We need a basic income.
If everyone implements it, then it's pointless, because currency only works when there's a potential difference (much like electricity).
Basic income detracts from the conversation; we're talking about issues and you've got your favourite solution that is inevitably going to be shoe-horned into the conversation.
No: Just because the butcher and the baker and the candlestick-maker all get a minimal $X per year does not mean that you've created a village of economic clones where trade is dead and currency is pointless.
They will continue to have different ways of making money, different assets, different needs/expenses, different price-preferences, etc.
These are all issues that can be overcome with an absurd amount of effort, but are often exacerbated by the psychology of the individual and their surroundings/family/support.
Removing all agency from the person gives them a reason to stay in poverty as it is far more comfortable to know that "i am poor" and not be responsible for it, compared to facing discomfort and climbing out of the pit.
The basis of this is my own experience (as you quoted yours) as I grew up homeless along with my mother and sister. I have lived this life, and I'd be very surprised if you had any real, (non-phoney) experience with what you're talking about. My mother is now dead, I escaped first and am now well off; I am bringing my sister out of poverty by trying to combat those very issues (addiction, lack of skills, education).
In this day and age it is VERY easy to give an abundance of support for addiction, Education is free (via youtube and the like), learning to do things, bill support, financial services. -- The number one blocker is getting her to get up, keep calm, carry on, and get through to complete any single item on that list. I can send her all the money in the world and it doesn't mean jack shit. I bought her a $1500 computer so she can learn about emails, and she hocked it for $300 because she was short for cash one day.
I find "pre-existing wealth and opportunities" a much lazier answer then you'd find everybody would generally trend upwards; which we have to a small margin. But it's most often that rich families meet inter-generational demise.
It is much easier for us all to be poor, than for us to all be rich; we can take comfort that "we just got dealt a bad hand, it's not our fault".
[...]
>I find "pre-existing wealth and opportunities" a much lazier answer
How is this consistent? It seems self-evident that if one person faces issues that the other didn't and those issues require "an absurd amount of effort" to overcome, the first person was at a significant disadvantage.
You’re making a “b” argument. GP is making an “m” argument, while acknowledging the effect of “b”.
That is an argument that no one in this thread has made. Poverty is obviously not inescapable.
It may depend on what you mean. It's not inescapable to some - they escape it. It maybe inescapable to others; most don't escape it.
Could you point to someone who has advocated that? IME it's a strawperson.
> is VERY easy to give an abundance of support for addiction
My understanding from people who work in that field is that it's very hard. The evidence seems pretty overwhelming: Lots of addicted people and despite efforts around the country, over decades (centuries?), in communities desperate to solve the problem, nobody has found a way to do it. If you have the answer, you should share it.
YouTube is laughable as support for addiction.
> it's most often that rich families meet inter-generational demise.
Are you saying that children in wealthy families "most often" end up poor?
> It is much easier for us all to be poor, than for us to all be rich; we can take comfort that "we just got dealt a bad hand, it's not our fault".
Who has said that?
You are so concerned about respecting agency, but then this also? Like this is so at-odds I’m not entirely sure whether you’re presenting it as an example of how aid to the poor doesn’t help, or an example of how if you’d respected this person’s agency your $1500 spent could have been $1500 in aid instead of $300.
Money doesn't mean anything if you don't know how to use it, neither does a computer for that matter, evidently.
If you're so sure that just giving them money would help, go give your money to someone who needs it.
[edit] to clarify my phrasing, I mean that just because you brought that into the thread, doesn’t make it fair game for the kind of post I made, which was too harsh by a long shot even if it hadn’t been about something personal.
Saying "the game is rigged, don't bother playing, wait until xyz happens" is, in my estimation, the issue, because it gives apathy. Poverty and whatever flavour of government benefits are constantly changing: the only way out is through themselves, as hard as it may be.
And like the sibling comment said, I'm coming exactly from this background. I've seen people both get out, and stay in, poverty. This is the only discerning factor that seperates the two.
Nobody said that.
What does that mean? No prep school, health care, high school, parenting, nannying, family trips to Europe? Are the kids just left on the street?
People I know who have done that stopped supporting kids after college, at least for awhile, or older generations left it to their kid to work their way through college - not a viable option these days. But the first 18 years have all the benefits of wealth.
And anyway, how many families are we talking about? Go to the local rich neighborhood and ask - my guess is you won't find more than maybe 1% or less.
we are talking a small amount. You won't find them in rich meiborhoods, they often live in poor neiporhoods, but the parents have money.
They are not sufficient by themselves, but they certainly help. Experiencing another place is some of the most effective learning people can do. It broadens the mind to possibilities far beyond what's normally around you; it teaches that your personal world is not the world, but just one of very many.
It also enculturates people to a socio-economic class. They can carry on a conversation at the party - or the work lunch or job interview - when people talk about their travels.
I think it’s far less-true that not-poverty is sustained by psychology. That is, a fair proportion of the not-poor would remain poor if placed in the circumstances of poverty.
This suggests that removing or relieving the circumstances of poverty might also work, at least for some set of those in poverty, even if it is indeed largely (within some substantial boundaries) sustained by a kind of psychology.
I worked so hard for that and I get slapped while the government hands out tax benefits to corporations like they’re beads at Marti Gras.
Poor people can’t afford a good car so they buy a crap one. Why do they need a car? Because they can’t afford to live near the city center where jobs are. Why can’t they take the bus? Shift ends at 1030, last bus at 10. Oh also it takes 2.5 hours on the bus vs 20 min in the car. Which means less time to make money. God help you if you’re in school too. Oh study on the bus. Great. Sure actually did that. You ever study on the bus? It blows.
So yeah, car as soon as you can scrape up a couple grand. Crap car blows a head gasket. Now you’re in the hole for 6 months. Don’t have the savings? Predatory interest rates. Miss a payment because it’s that or miss rent and freeze to death? Now your interest rates are even higher.
Why does poverty exist? Because our system makes it exist. Sure there are psychological reasons, and mental health reasons and addiction reasons, but I tell you what, digging out is hard. Super hard.
If it were less hard to dig out, we’d have a hell of a lot less poverty.
I had to stop my sister from buying yet another $500 shitbox. Told them to get affairs in order and sort out finance to get a proper good car, something modern, and get it insured.
Finally got to a point where we got paperwork going and started filling out forms, and... Well it turns out the partner had $25,000 debt that he was hoping would just go away if he could ignore it (consoles, phones, nikes, et al)
(So in the end I got them a good, used 2019 i30 car, and helped them get it insured, and showed them that this would've been a simple weekly transaction had they had their affairs in order.)
I have a belief that "the system" wants to have poor people around, purposely keep them down. Someone's gotta receive "benefits" to keep the system moving.
This is my way of fighting against the system, LOL.
What encouraged him to get the tooth dealt with?
Poverty really hurts my soul to see. I talk about the homeless and drug addicted a lot. If there was something I could do that I would be certain would help in a large scale, I would 100% devote some time to it.
In Canada, I'm glad to see that people living in poverty dropped from 15% of the population to 8% [1]. In 2011, having considered living in my car but being taken in by some friends instead, I'd like to add I have long lasting resentment that takes some chunk of my thinking always.