The poor: by chance or by choice?

[Loren Booda]

When you see a homeless, destitute person, do you ascribe their poverty mostly to willful choice, or a series of unfortunate events out of their control?

 

[Astronuc]

There is perhaps a spectrum, but certainly circumstance or chance may have a lot to do with it. AFAIK many (perhaps most) do have some form of mental illness, which could be congenital, or perhaps the product of one's environment.

Tonight there was a discussion on the local public radio about the number of homeless veterans, many of whom have PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Coincidentally there was a report recently about the potential for brain injury in soliders serving in Iraq, which could be as high as 20%.

 

[Moonbear]

Neither. I don't think it's a conscious choice, nor do I think it was a series of circumstances out of their control, except in the case of mental illness. In cases other than mental illness, I think it's mostly a series of bad decision making by someone who lacked education to make better choices.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Neither. I don't think it's a conscious choice, nor do I think it was a series of circumstances out of their control, except in the case of mental illness. In cases other than mental illness, I think it's mostly a series of bad decision making by someone who lacked education to make better choices.

Do you include alcohol and drug addiction under the heading of mental illnesses? Recently I listened to an interview with a former crank addict - a middle-age mother who tried it due to the urging of a friend who said that it would help her lose weight. She said that in six days she went from a mostly happy but overweight soccer-mom, to a desperate drug addict who was willing to leave her children.

Note also the recent study showing that 1 in 4 homeless are vets.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 25 percent of the homeless population in the United States are war veterans, although they represent only 11 percent of the civilian adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday. [continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/homeless.veterans/index.html

As an aside, how much do you want to bet that those who blindly supported Bush and his war will be the first to spit in the faces of homeless vets.

 

[jmnew51]

How do you classify poor.
Income?
Education?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Although I am not destitute, I'm not wealthy either. My situation was thrust upon me by chance in spite of my best efforts to rise above. My wife shares my fate, but in her case it was by choice. She knew what I was when she married me and could have done better in that department. How do I vote for both, the real situation?

 

[arildno]

Well, one could equally well ask:
Affluence: By chance or choice?

If you were born to a golden spoon, given first-rate education opportunities by your parents because they could afford it, being assured a position in your family firm, is it then solely by your own efforts that you end up being successful in life?


As I see it, the importance of choice enters in "making the best out of the circumstances you've been placed into".
But those very circumstances may well limit how far you can get with your own effort.

If you aren't particularly intelligent at the outset, being born in an affluent family won't limit you much, but may well limit your ability to prosper if you were born to a poor family.

 

[Pythagorean]

If I consciously think about it when I see someone in this state, I generally ask the question in the OT, "How did they get there?"

I remember learning in my Poli Sci class that population growth will probably always be greater than food production, and in that regard I assume resources will never match population.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think that it isn't so much that someone consciously thinks to themselves one day "I've decided to be poor". But rather that they do not consider the consequences of their actions and choices, and end up in a poor state because of it.

Personally I come from a family that was below the poverty line my entire childhood. I was still able to go to university, and hopefully will be able to get a good job/start my own business when I'm done here. From my current situation I can't see myself ever ending up homeless, though growing up I didn't have every opportunity that some people from wealthier families have had.

Given carefully reasoned choices, anyone should be able to get out of a bad situation.

Oh yeah, and the opinions in this post do not apply to genuinely disabled people. But where I come from (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), there are plenty of programs for these people to at least have a decent standard of living.

 

[scorpa]

Oh yeah, and the opinions in this post do not apply to genuinely disabled people. But where I come from (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), there are plenty of programs for these people to at least have a decent standard of living.

Very true! I kind of have a hard time with this subject. People with true mental disabilities, war vets...ect I do truly feel sorry for and think they deserve some help. However I have a hard time feeling sorry for most of the others, especially when in this city every street is lined with for hire signs and businesses are pretty well begging people to come and work for them. A lot of the people begging on the streets, whyte ave in particular, seem quite able bodied to me and none of them seem so mentally disabled that they cannot harrass you for money. I'm pretty sure if they can do that they can shovel snow, or do yardwork for some income, even work on a construction crew. However it is pretty hard to make a judgement like that without knowing their story. As for the alcohol abuse and the soccer mom who took drugs to help lose weight, I have little pity for that as that is just stupidity. I feel sorry for her family but not for her.

Also it of course depends on location. People in third world countries are very unfortunate and have pretty much 0 chance of ever being able to live life to their full potential and break out of extreme poverty. My heart goes out to those people, and I am so thankful I am not in that postition. However in Canada there no reason for it. You may be below the poverty line, struggling to make ends meet but there is no reason for people to be homeless and begging on the streets.

 

[ranger]

When you see a homeless, destitute person, do you ascribe their poverty mostly to willful choice, or a series of unfortunate events out of their control?

Did you reread your post? Why would one choose to be poor?

 

[Kurdt]

I agree with ranger. There should be no reason for people to choose the 'mostly by choice' option. Nobody wants to be poor and anybody who thinks they've chosen to live their life that way is rather deluded. Regarding mental illness issues then I would have to agree that most people that are homeless possibly have a mental condition. If it wasn't for the support of my parents I'd probably be homeless because I literally couldn't survive and I'm fairly highly educated.

 

[Loren Booda]

I knew a man (quite atypical) that some called "homeless by choice," whether he sought pity, pride or manipulation. He insisted on the right to sue many, including an elderly friend of mine who had the misfortune to take him in. He was sociopathic rather than medically ill. A homeless man whom I took in for a week managed to flood out a bathroom and bedroom. I do not harbor blame for them, but choose not to be responsible for their choices anymore, which their families must have also decided.

By the way, I work part time and generously for a large nonprofit organization that champions those having serious mental illness, and have communicated with many good people experiencing these conditions. I would probably be homeless, then dead from my schizoaffective disorder if not for the kindness of my doctor and parents, and my compliance with medication. For instance, to stop smoking marijuana (self-medication which can cause psychoses) may have been the best choice I ever made.

I included the "choice" option to see how many misinformed people agreed that the majority of poor were there willingly. (About one-third of the homeless are seriously mentally ill, according to Dr. E. Fuller Torrey.)

 

[moe darklight]

looking at some of my friends... I would say that it's not that they choose to be poor, it's that they choose to not do anything about their descent into poverty and crime. They knowingly chose the too-easy path and chose to ignore the fact that they weren't going to stay 15 years-old for the rest of their lives.

So I voted mostly by choice. Because I've met only a few who truly had no say in the matter (at least as far as North America is concerned... the 3rd world is another story), and most of them saw it coming and had plenty of chances and second chances and third chances to redeem themselves that they didn't take.

 

[Zantra]

I agree that the question needs to be reworded. No one "chooses" to be poor. I think some people are apathetic to their situation and choose not to work to overcome their situation. If someone makes poor decisions such as not choosing an education or to live within the rules of society, their poor judgement indirectly causes poverty. When you take into account the mentally ill, neglected, and involuntarily homeless, You're oversimplifying a more complexed issue.

If only we could all "choose" to be rich=)

 

[russ_watters]

There is a problem here in that the OP doesn't match the title. The title says "poor" and the OP says "homeless, destitute". Since I think it is correct that most homeless have some form of mental illness, that is certainly not a choice. But they are a small subset of all poor people.

IMO, taken as an entire group, the poor mostly become poor as a result of their choices. The straightforward corellation between income and education is clear evidence of that. Now some people object to the very idea that someone would choose to be poor (and the way the question is worded makes people uncomfortable), but when someone drops out of high school, that is exactly what they are doing, whether they know it at the time or not.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that because the corellation between income and education is so strong, this question is not a matter of opinion: it is a matter of statistical fact.

 

[J77]

I would say that people never choose to live in poverty.

On the other hand, I would say some people do choose to get by comfortably, over being rich; for example, academia versus industry

 

[vanesch]

When you see a homeless, destitute person, do you ascribe their poverty mostly to willful choice, or a series of unfortunate events out of their control?

I think it is mostly by chance, but in fact, this can easily experimentally be established, although I didn't look into it.

If it it mostly by *choice* then there should only be a low correlation between how people started out in life (wealth of parents etc...) and what's their actual state. If one finds a high correlation (I bet it is...) between the wealth by which one started out, and how one ends up, then clearly this is not a choice, but the chance of being born in the right place.

Of course both causes are present. You can do stupid things (such as party all the time when you had the chance to get a good education and so on, be an impossible character at work so that you always get fired, etc...). Then it is your (stupid) choice. This is what Russ pointed out. But I would bet that most of the time, there's a correlation between the poverty in which one started out one's life, and how one ends up.

 

[DaveC426913]

Did you reread your post? Why would one choose to be poor?

There are indeed some destitute who choose their situation over working to support themselves. So yes, when considering the alternative - having to work - they do indeed choose to be poor and even homeless.

 

[Gokul43201]

IMO, taken as an entire group, the poor mostly become poor as a result of their choices. The straightforward corellation between income and education is clear evidence of that. Now some people object to the very idea that someone would choose to be poor (and the way the question is worded makes people uncomfortable), but when someone drops out of high school, that is exactly what they are doing, whether they know it at the time or not.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that because the corellation between income and education is so strong, this question is not a matter of opinion: it is a matter of statistical fact.

If you are going this far, can you go a little farther and point us to the statistics that show that most poor people have low education levels? I have looked around a little and not found it, though you'd expect it be somewhere in the census site. And I'm too lazy to get income and education data seperately and apply Bayes' theorem on the converse data.

PS: The converse correlation (that people with little education are more likely to be poor) is easy enough to find, but that is not the subject of this thread.

 

[proton]

I think that most poor people are that way because of bad choices which result from their ignorance and also because of irresponsibility. So, in a sense, they are choosing to be poor, but its partly because they don't know any better, and on the other hand, they don't want to work hard

 

[russ_watters]

If it it mostly by *choice* then there should only be a low correlation between how people started out in life (wealth of parents etc...) and what's their actual state. If one finds a high correlation (I bet it is...) between the wealth by which one started out, and how one ends up, then clearly this is not a choice, but the chance of being born in the right place.

That does not follow as it assumes that people are bound to be like their parents. In a free society, one should theoretically be able to make their own future. Ie, there is a statistically relevant corellation with things like single motherhood, but unless a single mother forces her daughter to have unprotected sex, the daughter is the one making the choice.

Making choices is difficult, but choosing not to decide is still a choice (-Rush). Following in the path of your parents is easier than breaking out of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

IMO, this is a topic that is shot-through with personal preconceptions and unfounded opinions (this doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they may not be based on knowledge of the subject). Not that I'm suggesting anyone here doesn't know what they're talking about, but it does seem that this is a topic particularly sensitive to the slippery slope between knowledge and preconception.

I am just wondering if there's a way in this thread for people to somehow self-monitor, stating what is simply their opinion vs. something more reliable.

 

[russ_watters]

If you are going this far, can you go a little farther and point us to the statistics that show that most poor people have low education levels? I have looked around a little and not found it, though you'd expect it be somewhere in the census site. And I'm too lazy to get income and education data seperately and apply Bayes' theorem on the converse data.

PS: The converse correlation (that people with little education are more likely to be poor) is easy enough to find, but that is not the subject of this thread.

Most people tend to accept the corellation without seeing the data (it is so obvious), but ok:

There is a vast quantity of information compiled on this subject and available with a quick google. Here's a huge resource: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/ch_5.asp

Among other things, it says:

Persons with lower levels of educational attainment were more likely to be unemployed than those who had higher levels of educational attainment. The 2004 unemployment rate for adults (25 years old and over) who had not completed high school was 8.5 percent compared with 5.0 percent for those who had completed high school and 2.7 percent for those with a bachelor's degree or higher (figure 23). Younger people with high school diplomas tended to have higher unemployment rates than persons 25 years old and over with similar levels of education (table 378).

And on income, the table (at the bottom of the page) is difficult to parse for the forum, but a few stats (for men):

(median income)
Some high school: $20,902
High School diploma: $26,653
Some college: $31,734
College degree: $39,238

The poverty line is a moving target depending on the size of your family (another choice?) and location, but for a family of 4 it is currently set at $20,650 in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The high school dropout rate in the US is around 25%. Unsurprisingly, the poverty rate is roughly half the high school dropout rate (considering the median income stats I posted above.

 

[russ_watters]

IMO, this is a topic that is shot-through with personal preconceptions and unfounded opinions (this doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they may not be based on knowledge of the subject). Not that I'm suggesting anyone here doesn't know what they're talking about, but it does seem that this is a topic particularly sensitive to the slippery slope between knowledge and preconception.

I am just wondering if there's a way in this thread for people to somehow self-monitor, stating what is simply their opinion vs. something more reliable.

I see in this subject a knee-jerk reaction that people say 'no one would choose to be poor', which is true, but misses the point entirely. The question asks if people are poor by choice, meaning do their choices cause them to be poor (whether they understand the causality or not when they make the choice). It seems to me that people are quite simply uncomfortable with the idea and reject it without basis, when (for the US anyway), the statistics show a clear corellation.

 

[Gokul43201]

Most people tend to accept the corellation without seeing the data (it is so obvious), but ok:

There is a vast quantity of information compiled on this subject and available with a quick google. Here's a huge resource: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/ch_5.asp

Among other things, it says: And on income, the table (at the bottom of the page) is difficult to parse for the forum, but a few stats (for men):

(median income)
Some high school: $20,902
High School diploma: $26,653
Some college: $31,734
College degree: $39,238

The poverty line is a moving target depending on the size of your family (another choice?) and location, but for a family of 4 it is currently set at $20,650 in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The high school dropout rate in the US is around 25%. Unsurprisingly, the poverty rate is roughly half the high school dropout rate (considering the median income stats I posted above.

Russ, you didn't read my post carefully. Assuming I didn't miss anything, all the tables on that page (and the portions you quoted) only support the converse correlation, which I've already seen the data on. I have yet to see a table that says something like among the lowest income quintile, x% are high-school dropouts, y% have a high-school diploma and z% went to college. If this is covered in the page you linked to can you show me where?

This is what we are discussing in this thread, and this is the statistic you need to provide to show that most poor people are that way because they didn't get an education.

We want P(A|B), where A=uneducated, B=poor. You have shown me data for P(B|A). I realize I could calculate this stuff from the data in the tables and some other census data, but that seems like too much work right now.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see in this subject a knee-jerk reaction that people say 'no one would choose to be poor', which is true, but misses the point entirely. The question asks if people are poor by choice, meaning do their choices cause them to be poor (whether they understand the causality or not when they make the choice).

Even this is granting too much.

There are some who prefer to live "free" rather than work. In fact, they prefer to live on the streets rather than in hostels, because even hostels have too many restrictions. They are quite aware of the correlation between their actions and their situation.

Inconceivable as it may be to us societal mainstreamers, there are those who do choose to be poor.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you didn't read my post carefully. Assuming I didn't miss anything, all the tables on that page (and the portions you quoted) only support the converse correlation, which I've already seen the data on. I have yet to see a table that says something like among the lowest income quintile, x% are high-school dropouts, y% have a high-school diploma and z% went to college. If this is covered in the page you linked to can you show me where?

Sorry, missed that you were looking at it from the other side. Still, the corellation in the direction we usually see it is so strong it heavily implies that it works both ways. Ie, if half of all high school dropouts make less than $20k, that's pretty much the entire population of poor right there. Though I'm sure there are some people with college degrees who live below the poverty line, it can't be very many.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sorry, missed that you were looking at it from the other side. Still, the corellation in the direction we usually see it is so strong it heavily implies that it works both ways. Ie, if half of all high school dropouts make less than $20k, that's pretty much the entire population of poor right there.

Yes, that's sort of what I expected...but I'd have had to dig through stuff to find out what fraction of the population actually drops out (I thought this was a small number but I could be wrong). I'd have thought the data in this form is important enough to have someone tabulate it and put it out there.

 

[Four]

If you are going this far, can you go a little farther and point us to the statistics that show that most poor people have low education levels? I have looked around a little and not found it, though you'd expect it be somewhere in the census site. And I'm too lazy to get income and education data seperately and apply Bayes' theorem on the converse data.

PS: The converse correlation (that people with little education are more likely to be poor) is easy enough to find, but that is not the subject of this thread.

I think I remember seeing a document that shows how people with poor nurterer have a higher probability of getting poorer education which implies from what you have found that that are likely to be poor.

Edit:

Found it http://www.councilecd.ca/cecd/home.nsf/pages/EYS2

According to the study there is a correlation to poor nurturers and poor education.

Anyway Search for "early years childhood" or something similar. I couldn't find it yet. I saw it on www.citynews.ca in family section.

Long article I'll post quotes later goodnight

 

[Huckleberry]

When you see a homeless, destitute person, do you ascribe their poverty mostly to willful choice, or a series of unfortunate events out of their control?

I think that due to unfortunate events in a person's life they never develop the will to choose not to be destitute. War veterans aren't the only people who can become traumatized. An abusive or neglectful childhood can cripple a person emotionally to the point that they are incapable of acting within social standards. From what I've witnessed, society doesn't care about an individual's unresolved personal issues. To some extent, our experiences define who we are. A person does not have complete control over their experiences, especially at an early age. They may not be mentally ill, but nonetheless feel separated from society.

There is a high correlation between barking and the number of bones a dog has buried in the backyard. If cats barked more then they would have some bones. If cats can't bark then that's their problem.

 

[Evo]

Working in telecommunications where there have been so many mergers in the past few year, I've seen people go from making $250,000.00 a year to $20,000 a year in the blink of an eye.

For many they are poor by chance. Many of these have PHD's but chose this career for the big payouts. Unfortunately, the big payouts never happened.

 

[vanesch]

This is what we are discussing in this thread, and this is the statistic you need to provide to show that most poor people are that way because they didn't get an education.

We want P(A|B), where A=uneducated, B=poor. You have shown me data for P(B|A). I realize I could calculate this stuff from the data in the tables and some other census data, but that seems like too much work right now.

This was also my point. Maybe in the US, things are different, but in many European countries, your education level (or the street value of your diploma, which might be slightly different) is essentially set by the income level of your parents. In order to get a good education, you need:
1) to live in the fancy (expensive) parts of town, to go to the good local public school, where you meet other kids from parents who are educated/stimulating/wealthy, and so the level of the classes is high, and the teachers can do a good job OR
2) go to a private school where selection levels are such that only kids from parents who are wealthy can even get in (fee, and social selection)

If you cannot get 1) or 2) you will go to
3) a public school in a bad neighborhood where there is total lack of discipline in the classroom, a terrible lack of level, and the teachers cannot deliver high-level courses (but just try to teach 15-year olds how to write their name, matter of speaking).

As such, you build up a kind of "passive" during your adolescence and even before, which will lead you to be unable to get 1) into any good school/university and even if you got in 2) not having sufficient background to keep up with the level of teaching there.

Also you will suffer from a very poor general culture, which will probably get you down in most interviews for a job (or even won't get you to an interview, given that your lettres of motivation will be very badly written etc...).

Now, of course, there's always the little exception of the kid who had everything to get lost, and had sufficient courage and intelligence to get himself through the ordeal, but it remains the exception. You also have the exception in the other direction of the spoiled brad rich kid who ends up as a dropout everywhere.

But most of the time you have a strong correlation between the wealth of the parents, and how well a kid does in the educational system.

 

[J77]

Working in telecommunications where there have been so many mergers in the past few year, I've seen people go from making $250,000.00 a year to $20,000 a year in the blink of an eye.

For many they are poor by chance. Many of these have PHD's but chose this career for the big payouts. Unfortunately, the big payouts never happened.

That is chance, but chance with respect to they should have known the gamble they were getting into, working in what was such a rapidly expanding industry.

I was at a large photonics conference when the bubble was still expanding -- circa 2000 -- companies were offereing people six figure sums to jack in their PhDs to come work for them.

Risky business, like working in e-business or, equally so, in the City.

 

[Gokul43201]

In order to get a good education, you need:
1) to live in the fancy (expensive) parts of town, to go to the good local public school, where you meet other kids from parents who are educated/stimulating/wealthy, and so the level of the classes is high, and the teachers can do a good job OR
2) go to a private school where selection levels are such that only kids from parents who are wealthy can even get in (fee, and social selection)

If you cannot get 1) or 2) you will go to
3) a public school in a bad neighborhood where there is total lack of discipline in the classroom, a terrible lack of level, and the teachers cannot deliver high-level courses (but just try to teach 15-year olds how to write their name, matter of speaking).

This is not terribly different from urban parts of the US (except for the last bit).

 

[scorpa]

This was also my point. Maybe in the US, things are different, but in many European countries, your education level (or the street value of your diploma, which might be slightly different) is essentially set by the income level of your parents. In order to get a good education, you need:
1) to live in the fancy (expensive) parts of town, to go to the good local public school, where you meet other kids from parents who are educated/stimulating/wealthy, and so the level of the classes is high, and the teachers can do a good job OR
2) go to a private school where selection levels are such that only kids from parents who are wealthy can even get in (fee, and social selection)

If you cannot get 1) or 2) you will go to
3) a public school in a bad neighborhood where there is total lack of discipline in the classroom, a terrible lack of level, and the teachers cannot deliver high-level courses (but just try to teach 15-year olds how to write their name, matter of speaking).

That last part sounds just like my K-12 school, except mine wasn't in a bad neighbourbood, it had no excuse to suck the way it did. I did well there because I taught myself, the teachers were to busy trying to deal with the other 99% of the student population who could have cared less about school to teach anything, not to mention the fact that we got the teachers that were so horrible they couldn't make it in a real city school so they got shipped out to us.

As for the kids from lower income groups, do they not have access to student loans, scholarships and bursaries where you are from? I know here kids that are from lower income groups can get student loans to cover most if not all of their expenses that are interest free until they graduate, there are tons of bursaries and scholarships avaliable to students with demonstrated financial need. I have a few friends from more well off families whose families refuse to help them out with their education and cannot get these loans because of their families financial status. The students from lower income groups actually have an easier time getting a university education in this case. I'm not saying all is easy and wonderful for them but they can definitely get an education if they want it bad enough. A lot of people here don't get educations though because they don't see the point, why go to university when you can make just as much not or not more working in the oilfield straight out of high school?

 

[Astronuc]

Working in telecommunications where there have been so many mergers in the past few year, I've seen people go from making $250,000.00 a year to $20,000 a year in the blink of an eye.

For many they are poor by chance. Many of these have PHD's but chose this career for the big payouts. Unfortunately, the big payouts never happened.

Looking at Enron and Worldcomm - people lost jobs and life savings - by chance.

As for poor, they may not have sufficient education to know what choices they do have.

There is significant disparity amongs schools in the same district or geographical location, and in some cases, that limits opportunity.

For some people it's more a matter of the choices made, and in other cases, it's purely circumstance or chance.

 

[vanesch]

As for the kids from lower income groups, do they not have access to student loans, scholarships and bursaries where you are from?

Well, I wasn't talking about "lower-income groups", but rather to "social disaster area", with the only social structure in which a kid can find any "social tissue" is the local drug-dealing gang or something, because at home there's just a poor miserable slut and a lot of kids, who's just living from a few social security allowances and mainly from the money that the bigger brothers bring in through dealing, and big sister through prostitution or the like. The kind of kid that never learned any good manners, and only learned to respect violence. At the start, it wasn't his fault, or his choice.

Those kids are not going to get any student loans or anything: they will never make their way in the educational system or in any "regular society". They will probably reproduce their home situation.

This is the typical situation in (often immigrant-rich) ghettos where unemployment reaches 60% or the like.

Of course, for the bright kid from "lower income groups", there are possibilities. However, they still have to be exceptionally bright, to achieve what is "normal business" for kids from easy-going parents. But they will be able to make their way probably.

 

[Economist]

Poverty: chance or choice?

Both.

In some cases it's chance, and in other cases it's choice, and maybe in other cases it's a mixture of the two.

Excuse me for not reading the rest of the replies, but what exactly are we talking about here when we say poverty? People who are poor on the whole Worlds terms? Or people who are poor on American terms?

People always talk about poverty in America, which is usually defined as being in the bottom 20th percentile. The bottom 20th percentile in America actually live fairly well, especially compared to other countries, or even America 100 years ago. I'm assuming many of us here on this forum are students, which means that a lot of us probably live below the poverty line. However, I bet many of us still have our own place (dorm or apartment), have decent clothes, eat well, and some probably even have a car.

I always wonder what people will be saying in another 100 or 200 years. There will probably be "poor people" who have the same standard of living of someone who made $100,000 - $200,000 salary in 2007. And everyone will feel so sorry for them and talk about the injustice of it all. This makes me laugh, because it shows how relative the term poor is. By the way, I'm not saying people shouldn't feel bad for the poor, I'm just trying to add another perspective that I personally can't help notice. If people want to feel bad for the "poor" 200 years from now, that's fine by me.

Check out this really short article:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/10/progress.html

I've also seen similar things which point out that something like 60% of the Americans living below the poverty line have a car, and another 15% have two or more cars.

 

[staf9]

This really all depends on the situation you were born into. However, in essence I'm saying both:

It's chance if you were born into a class of poverty which has no possible way of moving up in the world (be it through a rigid caste system or something else).

It's choice if you were born into any situation where there is the possibility of success, even if you start off in poverty as long as there isn't some major obstacle (see caste system reference) in your way then it becomes a choice.

At least, this is just my opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

Looking at Enron and Worldcomm - people lost jobs and life savings - by chance.

What? No way. Rule #2 of investing is diversify. People who put their whole life savings into Enron (regardless of what the brass said) were idiots.

For losing their jobs, sure that can be considered by chance. And I'd venture to say that most people will lose a job at least once in their life. But losing a job does not make a person poor: not being able to a good new job is what makes a person poor.

As for poor, they may not have sufficient education to know what choices they do have.

Except, of course, the choice to ge that education. I'm talking high school: it's free.

 

[russ_watters]

This was also my point. Maybe in the US, things are different, but in many European countries, your education level (or the street value of your diploma, which might be slightly different) is essentially set by the income level of your parents.

It is the same in the US, but IMO, it is a bigger problem that 25% of the population doesn't even avail themselves of the education provided to them for free. One can't complain about not having good opportunities when they didn't take advantage of the ones that were provided for them.

But most of the time you have a strong correlation between the wealth of the parents, and how well a kid does in the educational system.

Yes, but there are two parts to that corellation. The first is what you said - that rich parents can pay for a good school. But the second is equally important: the rich parents care about school and push their kids to succeed at it.

 

[Economist]

As for the poor, they may not have sufficient education to know what choices they do have.

I disagree with this, and (more importantly) find it insulting.

 

[EnumaElish]

There is a high correlation between barking and the number of bones a dog has buried in the backyard. If cats barked more then they would have some bones. If cats can't bark then that's their problem.

This is an epitome of reverse causality, unless it is sarcasm. (Hint: The dogs are barking to defend their bones.)

 

[Huckleberry]

This is an epitome of reverse causality, unless it is sarcasm. (Hint: The dogs are barking to defend their bones.)

The habitually destitute people I've met were not lazy. Most weren't very well educated, but they were not unintelligent. They were clever individuals, well suited for survival in their environment. A PHD doesn't help anyone survive on the street, but knowing how to run a good con game might. If living this lifestyle were so easy then there would be a lot more people doing it. It's a lifestyle full of uncertainty and danger that is stigmatized by society.

I can easily agree that education correlates to income, however, a lack of education is an effect of this lifestyle, not the cause. One prostitute that I spoke with told me that she believed she would be dead in 5 years. Someone who has consigned themselves to that fate isn't interested in improving their situation. She didn't feel accepted by society and felt no obligation to live up to social expectations. Her lifestyle was all about immediate gratification, hopelessness, loneliness and disdain for society. Oddly enough, when approached with curiosity and understanding as an individual she was quite a pleasant and engaging person, but I have no doubt that had I made any judgement toward her that I would be subject as an individual to the same scorn that she felt for society. I don't expect that she is capable of changing who she is simply by willing it to be so. I believe it is highly unlikely that she will ever have an education, save any of the money she is making, quit her addiction to drugs, or raise a healthy family. Bad choices? Perhaps, but I just don't think it's that simple. Cats don't bark and we shouldn't expect them to.

Does anyone know how common underdeveloped frontal lobes are among the habitually poor and homeless, or what the cause of the underdevelopment might be? That would be a correlation that I could possibly buy.

 

[vanesch]

Yes, but there are two parts to that corellation. The first is what you said - that rich parents can pay for a good school. But the second is equally important: the rich parents care about school and push their kids to succeed at it.

Sure. I even think that's more important! Well educated parents can educate their kids probably even better than any school can. But so it's your "luck" to have well-educated parents who care or not. You don't choose your parents.

 

[Economist]

Sure. I even think that's more important! Well educated parents can educate their kids probably even better than any school can. But so it's your "luck" to have well-educated parents who care or not. You don't choose your parents.

The question is how strong (or weak) this correlation is. Many people have uneducated parents, but they still want to get JDs, MDs, PhDs, etc. And other people have highly educated parents (such as professors) and they don't care much about education.

I am not saying that there is no correlation (because obviously there is). But the real question is the degree of this correlation, and more importantly trying to tease out causality. Many people on here seem to be speaking that it's axiomatic that educated parents causes educated children.

By the way, we also need to realize that many people with uneducated parents are poor. And poor people live in poor cities. And people who live in poor cities go to public schools. The public schools are a monopoly run by government which does a horrible job providing these children with an education. It doesn't have to be this way. Poor children could get a much better education if they were given school vouchers to attend whichever school they wanted (including private schools). The reason inner city schools suck so bad, is that generally they have little incentive to provide the best service. Furthermore, they are heavily regulated and filled with red-tape. Let someone who's income rests on providing these kids an education and watch this trend reverse. Oh and before anyone tries to tell me that "inner city schools need more money." I don't but that argument. Many studies have shown that public school funding has went up (and yes they controlled for inflation), yet results have stayed the same. Furthermore, some of the worst inner city school districts in the US have some of the best funding per student, in fact, often times these schools get the funding per student double of private schools.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Gokul & russ -
re: dropout rates
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007024.pdf is dropout information.

From what I see here people of all income ranges dropout of high school, and the total dropout rate averages above 20%. You can read the details. And I'm with russ - dropping out is a choice that pretty much guarantees a lifetime of low earnings. So in that sense it is a choice to be poor. Plsu, the report claims people from lower income groups drop out of scchool more than those in higher income groups.

Also see this which challenges the percentages in the study above (indicates graduation rates are lower)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0621/p03s02-ussc.html
However I can't seem to find the actual report... anybody?

 

[vanesch]

The question is how strong (or weak) this correlation is. Many people have uneducated parents, but they still want to get JDs, MDs, PhDs, etc. And other people have highly educated parents (such as professors) and they don't care much about education.

Sure, but you're still talking about "uneducated *human* parents", while I'm talking about "near-animal-like" social conditions at home. (I probably exaggerate a bit, but it is to make my point). It is not because your dad works as cheap labor in the factory, and your mom goes out doing cleaning or something, and the revenue level of your family is quite low, that you cannot get a decent education, as long as there is some reasonable social tissue, as long as you've learned some elementary rules of good behaviour, and you've learned to express yourself correctly, respect others, etc...
I think that - although there is a correlation there between lower levels of education of parents and of children - that for the sufficiently bright kid, there's a way "up" possible.

I was rather talking about those places where *basic education* as a human being in a respectful society are missing. It's what I qualify as "animal-like behaviour", like in youth gangs, totally destroyed social tissue at home, no good manners, no correct ways of expressing one-self, life guided by violence and impulsiveness,...

It is very hard to get out of *that*, and I'm not sure that there's any educational system that can cope with that. Unless you take away those kids to some kind of military training camp where they are re-educated the hard way before bringing them back to society, but that poses other kinds of problems.

It doesn't have to be this way. Poor children could get a much better education if they were given school vouchers to attend whichever school they wanted (including private schools). The reason inner city schools suck so bad, is that generally they have little incentive to provide the best service. Furthermore, they are heavily regulated and filled with red-tape. Let someone who's income rests on providing these kids an education and watch this trend reverse. Oh and before anyone tries to tell me that "inner city schools need more money." I don't but that argument. Many studies have shown that public school funding has went up (and yes they controlled for inflation), yet results have stayed the same. Furthermore, some of the worst inner city school districts in the US have some of the best funding per student, in fact, often times these schools get the funding per student double of private schools.

I fully agree with that, and the situation is exactly the same in France. Except for a strange cultural difference which puts the best schools in the inner city, and the disaster places in the suburbs.

It is not so much the question of public/private, but rather the fact that there is no "return on result". In fact, given that in suburb schools (bad schools) they get bad students, everybody finds it normal that there are no good results.

 

[Economist]

It is not so much the question of public/private, but rather the fact that there is no "return on result". In fact, given that in suburb schools (bad schools) they get bad students, everybody finds it normal that there are no good results.

I think public vs private is a very important distinction. The various incentives they face are completely different, and their results are often very different. Come on, you guys have been to the DMV. Is that the kind of service you want? Who has better service, the post-office or UPS? I'm telling you, private schools would do a much better job at educating students because if they don't, parents will pay to send their children to other schools. Check out the 20/20 special below titled "Stupid in America." One kid is a senior in high school, and reads at an 8th grade level, and is not improving. His mother is so frustrated because everytime she has to meet with the school, they're like "your son is doing well and improving, blah blah blah" and she's like "well what about his reading level?" Yet, they fail to help this kid. So 20/20 sends him to some private company that helps with reading, and he was improving within days.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6488468587715702384&q=john+stossel+stupid+in+america&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0