Hacker News Reader

Comment by jack-r-abbit | Hacker News Reader

> And logically, if the poor as a group were good with money, they wouldn't be poor.

Sorry, but that is not really logical. Many people are poor simply because they don't earn enough money. There is a difference.

View on HN

By "as a group" I meant most. Most poor people I know are poor because of their choices or because of the place they live. Neither of which are fixed with cash.

Some poor people are just born into bad situations and stay that way. You can't extrapolate your limited experience onto all of them.

My experiences are limited but consistent. If you can provide even more evidence pointing consistently the opposite direction, I'd not only be convinced, but I'd be thankful. However, I don't think that's easy to do.

Sampling bias tends to be consistent. It is likely to be the case that, given a similar starting point, those who tend to make better decisions will tend to do better. Given that it is also likely the case that your friends and family started in a somewhat similar place, this can seem to be the effect that dominates. That is not incompatible with the notion that the bulk of poor people are not there because of a persistent habit of making bad decisions.

All the evidence points the opposite direction... in the United States, you are unlikely to escape the economic circumstances that you are born into, especially if you are born into the top or bottom quintile: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-e...

The difference is in the culture you learn. So of course if you grow up poor, you're more likely to be poor. For example, you would think payday loans are normal if that's how you grew up.

The problem with the "evidence" you're using is that it can be interpreted many ways. It's merely a correlation.

In circumstances closer to controlled experiments where I actually gave someone money, they usually wound up worse off in a couple months, not better, unless I made sure the money went towards fixing a real problem.

Of course culture plays a role, as does education level of one's parents, access to opportunity such as good health care and higher education, the role of the criminal justice system in your community, the stress of dealing with basic material needs, etc, etc. Point being the cards are stacked against you if you are born into poverty, and those who escape it are basically the exceptions that prove the rule. So if we were sane, we'd focus our attention on leveling the playing field so as to lower the barrier to entry into the middle class, and not focus attention on blaming poor people for having poor values.

I'm with you on trying to improve the odds for poor people. My argument is merely that throwing money at them won't fix their situation. I'm not just trying to blame the poor but to explain why throwing money at them won't work.

I would assume, then that you don't know many poor people.

Based on the relationship between poverty and ethnicity, I'd say it's related to much more than their choices.

> Most poor people I know

Which, clearly, are a representative sample of the poor people in the society at large.

> are poor because of their choices or because of the place they live. Neither of which are fixed with cash.

Since changing the place you live often is generally not free of cost, I don't see how that follows for the "place they live" group.

To the extent that the "choices" group is past rather than current choices, I don't see how that works for that group, either. (Heck, even with current choices, choices are constrained by the available options, which cash does change.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com