> Impoverished people aren't poor because they occasionally buy coffee
Impoverished people might be poor because they take everything literally and can't see the big picture though. Yes, frivolous spending absolutely has something to do with poverty. It's so clear and obvious and when I look at every example of a person that I know that could be called poor vs someone that is rich there is the same pattern: The poor ones HATE doing what's necessary, work, personal grooming, cleaning, eating healthy, working out whatever but they LOVE spending money they don't have on things they don't need and that will not make them happy. If you try to stop them from spending, they suffer. But if they spend it's the hedonistic treadmill: increase amount and GOTO 10.
Rich people I know LOVE to work. They would work for free. They get up and go work and if you stop them they suffer. The rich people I know HATE spending money. It causes them physical discomfort. IF they spend, they consider it for quite some time, look for deals or wait for special offers. Subsequently they are very happy with their purchases and keep them maintained and in good order.
> They're poor because there's an economic system currently in place which is slurping as much wealth away from as many people as possible to feed it to just a few.
None of this is true. We are getting wealthier and wealthier from this magnificent system that lifted BILLIONS out of poverty the last 50 years.
> small pleasures
This is a perfect example of the poverty mindset: consume to be happy. There is enough pleasure to be had without spending a single dime, in fact, the most fulfilling activities will net you money directly or indirectly. It's possible to be content without spending money all the time. If you think that the happiness in your life comes down to small or large purchases you are already on the wrong path. Just turn back.
And by the way, the story of lotto winners is instructive: you simply can't spend your way out of the poverty mindset.
"Rich people I know LOVE to work. They would work for free."
Would they work fast food for as many hours?
How about in a call center where half the customers are angry and taking it out on you? How about if they couldn't afford the basics in life from the job? How about if they couldn't afford health care or food, so when working they are always tired?
The rich people you know don't have to deal with the crap poor folks do. They are more likely to be able to take vacations, spend money on things that make them happy (maybe it is their company/job, but it is still spending). They aren't worried that being late to pick up the kids will cost enough to make you have to eat less for the rest of the month, nor that a flat tire means you have to go without electricity.
IF they spend, they consider it for quite some time, look for deals or wait for special offers. Subsequently they are very happy with their purchases and keep them maintained and in good order.
Poor people don't have this luxury. Everyone would rather have comfortable shoes, but if you only have $15 for shoes and can't save up for 6 months for something better, you have to buy the $15 shoes. Even with good maintenance, $15 shoes aren't going to last like $100 shoes.
And by the way, the story of lotto winners is instructive: you simply can't spend your way out of the poverty mindset.
This doesn't prove anything. It proves that poverty deprives you of chances to practice long-term financial planning and unsurprisingly, when impovershed people suddenly get a lump sum of money, they fare poorly with the long-term planning. In contrast, rich folks have regular income. Even if you mess up one month, you have some income the next month. I'm going to guess if lotteries paid out monthly for as many years as jobs do, things would look different. Especially if it had an amount of upfront windfall followed by the monthly salary.
> Would they work fast food for as many hours? How about in a call center where half the customers are angry and taking it out on you? How about if they couldn't afford the basics in life from the job? How about if they couldn't afford health care or food, so when working they are always tired?
Not to speak for Americans but this is the classic immigrant story in America. I, personally, know many people who've done this.
It isn't about "this type of work" or "people taking it out on me". The world is a place. It is a certain way. I have an objective. To have my family better off. So if someone is going to yell, they're going to yell. It's just the constraint. I'm going to adapt to it.
I'm not saying there aren't situations where these aren't viable options. I'm personally an immigrant and would be happy with about any sort of job. I'd be fooling myself thinking said job makes me rich, and I don't have to work two of these jobs to make it. I also don't have to support a family. Luckily, I don't really have to work either, it merely affords us a different lifestyle. Lots of folks are motivated to work such jobs, and make the best of them. However, none of them are rich nor do they have the options and luxuries of the rich.
I'm saying no one would do these jobs for "love of working" if they are rich enough to avoid such labour. For example: You might open a restaurant, but you'd not likely be a cashier at McDonalds with no health insurance, vacation, nor agency over one's life. You might own a hobby farm, but it is highly unlikely you'd be a migrant farm worker if you are already rich. And so on.
You don't fully understand how these "next door millionaire" types operate. They don't look at something and say "that's fast food work". They work at what is necessary for however long it takes. My girlfriend is building her two businesses, she spends nights in the basement sewing piece after piece by the dozens and the days churning out t-shirt design after t-shirt design. If you break down her "working conditions" and "hourly wage" I am pretty sure a fast food job would look better on paper. But she is on a growth path while the average worker (it's not like this is foreign to me) is just looking to get off of work and get spending which is is a path to nothing.
> you know don't have to deal with the crap poor folks do.
The infuriating part about it is exactly that a lot of the "crap" that happens to them is self-inflicted. I know this "poor" woman who had a child in order to get a guy who wasn't even the father into a relationship with her (yes, you read that right), then while pregnant smoked and ate only garbage. Now the child has birth defects, likely from the smoking, and at three is already one year developmentally delayed because even though she is on the generous German welfare she didn't see fit to spend any time playing or going outside with him. She has a car that she "needs" because she is so skinny fat that she literally can't walk to the next bus stop. So what does she do when she get's any kind of money? Spends it on new rims, trims and whatever crap people put on their cars to "soup" them up. All of the ideas she has about life are false and destructive and everything she does is wrong. There is no helping her. We really tried but she is literally too dumb to make connections between actions and consequences. Instead all of here brain power seems to go to thinking up stories to feel better about herself. It's impossible. She is a bottomless pit and resources keep pouring into it. She had years on welfare even though she could work. She got gifted three cars by friends. She get's "free" healthcare that will sort out the consequences of her very bad habits. Now the state is paying extra for a special needs kindergarden for her son. It's never enough, it can't ever be enough. What she needs are some of the existential problems you mentioned so that she has to get her shit together.
> Poor people don't have this luxury. Everyone would rather have comfortable shoes, but if you only have $15 for shoes and can't save up for 6 months for something better, you have to buy the $15 shoes. Even with good maintenance, $15 shoes aren't going to last like $100 shoes.
To the larger point : this is the Sam Vimes theory of social economic justice and yeah, it's truly hard to break a vicious cycle. That's why it's absolutely imperative to start a virtuous cycle no matter how tiny because it can make a huge difference over time. Start making your own coffee, save $5 here and there now you have $50. Oh what's that, a WIDGETGARGBLASTER at half price? Well, I'm pretty sure my car will need one soon, I am going to use my nest egg to buy that for cheap. Thank god I had this WIDGETGAGBLASTER because wouldn't you know it, my car broke down just as I was about to go for my job interview.
I mean it's contrived sure but in three steps saving $5 a day already could've made a difference in 10000s of dollars in lifetime earnings.
To the concrete example: under capitalism what's actually true is that you can get garbage for tiny prices, very decent quality at low prices, super value at medium prices and luxury for high prices. The kind of poverty where hard-working people want for basic material things is abolished and it's really weird that people keep arguing as if it still existed. What's a lot closer reality is that the next door millionaire type has $50 leather shoes from ten years ago while the 'poor' person has a $500 dollar sneaker 'collection' financed by credit card debt.
> poverty deprives you of chances to practice long-term financial planning
Clearly this is putting the cart before the horse.
> I'm going to guess if lotteries paid out monthly for as many years as jobs do, things would look different
No, it would be worse. You have a steady, guaranteed income like that you can borrow against it and the instant gratification crowd is going to do just that.
"Americans who graduate high school, work full time (even at minimum wage), and marry before having kids are essentially guaranteed to not live in poverty. These are all choices, not happenstance."
This woman seems to have magically exhibited every moral failing and self inflicted difficulty that the American right wing ever made up. You should probably step back and realize that it sounds totally unbelievable - for instance, you can’t cause an entire years developmental delay in an otherwise healthy three year old simply by not playing with them enough.
It's not made up. You misunderstood about the developmental delays: she gave birth to her son, refused to nurse him, refused to even have him close to her. She did not go outside with him or interact with him in any way beyond what's necessary to sustain life. She was living in a 11 squaremeter apartment with him and did not let him explore, did not take him to the play ground, did not take him to child groups. For a young child this situation basically amounts to sensory deprivation and it's absolutely enough to stunt growth and development.
Oh it's real, I haven't even told you half of her insanity.
Like the time my girlfriend who is her friend tried to help her quit by listening to Alen Carr which had helped us a lot in quitting smoking. Quote verbatim: 'this is brain washing'.
Like the time my step son who would rather bite his arm of then confront someone told her straight up that smoking while pregnant is a shitty thing to do to the baby. She just shrugges, smiles and say I know I know.
Like when she told her baby father to move 700km so he can take their son on the weekends (she was always trying to pawn him off to someone) and then half a year later moved up 500km the same direction to her new boyfriend and now has the state pay for her legal bills from the resulting custody dispute.
It's all real. You can, of course think, that it's all invented by the american right wing to make poor people look bad but if you listen you will hear the same kind of stories from social workers and welfare officials from all over.
You might not want to believe this because it points to a fundamental problem of welfare: bad attitudes, tendencies and habits get worse with more resources and not better.
No, they don't. And social workers and welfare officials that I know do tell stories like this - about the parents of children now in state care. Infants don't get left with mothers who refuse to nurse or hold them. Children who are found to be suffering from such severe neglect that they are developmentally delayed don't get left with those parents. I have no doubt you believe what you're saying, and I have no doubt that you are misinformed.
Yes, they absolutely do. How is this even a question? You don't cure a drug habit by giving the person more money cause they'll just buy more drugs. You don't cure a reckless driver by given them a faster car. You don't cure a reckless spender by letting them spend more. It's not even a question you would contest if there was something on the line for you except defending your ideology
> state care
Of course child welfare services (Jugendamt) is on the case. They gave her a case worker that used to stop by to make sure it didn't get too bad. Of course she thought the job of that person was to Nany her son so she went through about three case workers in as many years. Btw, she picks fights with everyone. But the state of Germany is (rightfully) very reluctant to take kids away. Even with this amount of neglect it's hard to be sure that fostering the kid would produce better results plus we have double sordid history with this kind of thing. [1] [2]
Doctors tell her in no uncertain terms what she needs to do but wouldn't you know it, she always reacts exasperated "how dare he say it's not normal that a child doesn't call for his mommy at 2 years old, I DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.". She feels like she is a perpetual victim of all these people who are really trying to help her.
> I have no doubt that you are misinformed.
I am perfectly informed as I get near daily updates on this case. I am going to be honest, knowing this person has absolutely shifted my view from a systemic one to a personal one. You can't make a welfare system that can fix this. It's literally better to have none at all because any welfare system is just paying people like her to become ever more useless and degenerate.
Fun fact: one of the single most effective interventions for homeless people who take drugs is to give them a place to live. It's an amazing example of how giving people resources helps them stop relying on unhealthy coping mechanisms.
What you describe is quite literally a textbook cause for removing the child from the mother in German law - an immediate risk to their opportunity to develop cognitively or emotionally. You may well be describing an amazing case where some half dozen welfare professionals have all seen a case that clearly evaluates to 'this child needs to be removed' and all done nothing, but ... the odds are low. And the idea that you can't be misinformed because of the frequency of updates? Oh dear.
I am sorry that hearing about this woman has impaired your ability to think about welfare as a system. Perhaps you should avoid the topic until you recover your ability to think beyond her.
> single most effective interventions for homeless people who take drugs is to give them a place to live
Have a fun citation for me on that? Is it effective in absolute terms or just "most effective"?
> unhealthy coping mechanisms
It's very telling that when you can't get past indivual behaviour anymore you still find a way to put it on the environment. I wonder why there is one group of people, let's call them "victims" where everything they do is readily excused and dismissed, like turning west coast cities into open air toilets. It's like they have no agency at all. It's almost as if the left habitually dehumanizes the subjects of their 'empathy' in the process of advocating their policies.
> an immediate risk to their opportunity to develop cognitively or emotionally.
No, children are not just taken away in Germany. Period. As long as the child is fed, clothed and free from overt signs of physical abuse it's a process and she is in it.
The most charitable thing to say is that you are halucinating some deep knowledge about child wellfare practices in Germany in order to prop up your ideology which can't deal with the existance of this one women, let alone the fact that she is a representative of a large class of people on similar paths.
> Perhaps you should avoid the topic until you recover your ability to think beyond her.
I think you should avoid any topic as long as you mistake your ideology for actual knowledge of the real world and the real people in it.
Impoverished people might be poor because they take everything literally and can't see the big picture though. Yes, frivolous spending absolutely has something to do with poverty. It's so clear and obvious and when I look at every example of a person that I know that could be called poor vs someone that is rich there is the same pattern: The poor ones HATE doing what's necessary, work, personal grooming, cleaning, eating healthy, working out whatever but they LOVE spending money they don't have on things they don't need and that will not make them happy. If you try to stop them from spending, they suffer. But if they spend it's the hedonistic treadmill: increase amount and GOTO 10.
Rich people I know LOVE to work. They would work for free. They get up and go work and if you stop them they suffer. The rich people I know HATE spending money. It causes them physical discomfort. IF they spend, they consider it for quite some time, look for deals or wait for special offers. Subsequently they are very happy with their purchases and keep them maintained and in good order.
> They're poor because there's an economic system currently in place which is slurping as much wealth away from as many people as possible to feed it to just a few.
None of this is true. We are getting wealthier and wealthier from this magnificent system that lifted BILLIONS out of poverty the last 50 years.
> small pleasures
This is a perfect example of the poverty mindset: consume to be happy. There is enough pleasure to be had without spending a single dime, in fact, the most fulfilling activities will net you money directly or indirectly. It's possible to be content without spending money all the time. If you think that the happiness in your life comes down to small or large purchases you are already on the wrong path. Just turn back.
And by the way, the story of lotto winners is instructive: you simply can't spend your way out of the poverty mindset.