The poor: by chance or by choice?

[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

 

[vanesch]

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.

So what matters is not so much "private/public" but 1) choice by the "customer" and 2) personal incentive to do a good job with good results.

If the salary (or other advantages) of the service provider depends on the result, whether this is private or public money, probably the quality of service will improve. There's nothing more frustrating than doing a good job, and notice that this has zilch to do with your paycheck, while lots of futile things seem to have a major influence. I don't think that where the money comes from in the first place plays a major role. Of course, in the private sector, you are bound to have a feedback on results, while in the public sector, this is not mandatory. But what counts is the feedback.

 

[Dale]

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.

IMO, the main difference between public and private is competition. The lack of competition allows all sorts of inefficiencies to persist in the public sector. Innovation and cost reduction is inherently more difficult than simply throwing your competition in jail.

Btw, on the main topic I say "mostly choice". In the US that is mostly a personal choice (to the extent that "poverty" even exists in the US), in 3rd world countries it is mostly the result of the choices of corrupt government officials, but still mostly choice. Poverty caused mostly by nature is pretty rare now and is generally temporary. E.g. after natural disasters and before aid can arrive.

 

[Economist]

So what matters is not so much "private/public" but 1) choice by the "customer" and 2) personal incentive to do a good job with good results.

If the salary (or other advantages) of the service provider depends on the result, whether this is private or public money, probably the quality of service will improve. There's nothing more frustrating than doing a good job, and notice that this has zilch to do with your paycheck, while lots of futile things seem to have a major influence. I don't think that where the money comes from in the first place plays a major role. Of course, in the private sector, you are bound to have a feedback on results, while in the public sector, this is not mandatory. But what counts is the feedback.

It's just that in the private sector your much more likely to find the proper incentives. These incentives are also difficult to "create" sometimes outside of the private sector.

IMO, the main difference between public and private is competition. The lack of competition allows all sorts of inefficiencies to persist in the public sector. Innovation and cost reduction is inherently more difficult than simply throwing your competition in jail.

Yeah, competition is also a big part of it and it definitely ties into the incentives they face. Public sector usually tries to keep out private sector competitors, because otherwise they'd be put out of business. For example, it's illegal for anyone to deliver envelopes. One women in New York city was doing this for an amount cheaper than the post office and gauranteed same day delivery. Her business was set up in her small basement and she had 1 or 2 members of her family helping her run it. She delivered all the mail by foot (maybe she used a bike too, I can't remember). Her customers loved her service, but when the government heard about it, they immediately shut it down by telling her to stop or else.

 

[Economist]

Interesting blog article on the poor.

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/11/more-progress.html

 

[drankin]

As far as the reasoning that a lack of education tends to lead to homelessness (earlier posts in this thread), you can't give people an education like you can give someone food. I believe it works the other way around, they didn't want an education so now they are destitute. The cause is the person, more so than a lack of society's offerings. Certainly, an education is available to those who are willing to work for it, no matter what part of town you grew up in or who your parents were, or if you had any parents at all for that matter.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting blog article on the poor.

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/11/more-progress.html

Yes, I've commented on that before (not in this thread). The poverty line moves with time, and what we consider "poor" today is nonetheless a much better physical condition than "poor" in the past. To me, that makes the current usage of the concept of "poverty" not much more than a political game.

That's not exactly on topic, though...

 

[russ_watters]

Certainly, an education is available to those who are willing to work for it, no matter what part of town you grew up in or who your parents were, or if you had any parents at all for that matter.

Yes, the quality of education complaints are somewhat of a smokescreen - if people aren't availing themselves of the education that is provided for them for free, they don't have any basis on which to complain about the quality of that education.

 

[vanesch]

As far as the reasoning that a lack of education tends to lead to homelessness (earlier posts in this thread), you can't give people an education like you can give someone food. I believe it works the other way around, they didn't want an education so now they are destitute. The cause is the person, more so than a lack of society's offerings. Certainly, an education is available to those who are willing to work for it, no matter what part of town you grew up in or who your parents were, or if you had any parents at all for that matter.

This sounds a bit as letting 4-year old kids cross freely the roads. You can say that those kids that wanted to play with their life and didn't pay attention to the traffic lights got crushed, too bad for them, but it was their choice. And forgetting to say that to some kids nobody ever explained them what the traffic lights meant.

However, that's forgetting that guidance, motivation, care and so on are exactly those factors that help build a desire for education, helps finding out what are the good and the bad ways to get higher up, and then there is of course the parental responsibility to prohibit certain "choices" by a youngster, and to guide him/her in the right direction.

In the same way as an attentive parent will not ALLOW his 4-year old to cross the road freely, in the same way a kid in a good social tissue will be motivated to care about learning and education, will be prohibited to do too many stupid things and will be guided by punishment, motivation and care in the right direction. Indeed, if these elements are present, I agree that if then things turn out sour, it is *his choice and fault*.
But if, as an impressionable kid, you get the *wrong motivations* (like hanging out with the local gang makes me feel good, and being at home getting beaten up by my drunk dad which makes it impossible for me to work for school makes me feel bad) from the start, you cannot say that that is the kid's choice, right ?
Now, it is my impression that most people who end up in terminal poverty and with a total lack of basic education went through the last road. It wasn't *their* fault to have been put on that track, right ?

 

[Economist]

Yes, I've commented on that before (not in this thread). The poverty line moves with time, and what we consider "poor" today is nonetheless a much better physical condition than "poor" in the past. To me, that makes the current usage of the concept of "poverty" not much more than a political game.

Exactly. The "poor" is defined as the bottom 20% or something, and there will always be a bottom 20%. The term poor is such a relative term.

By the way, I posted the article because I think I was talking about this sort of thing on this thread earlier. I apologize if that was a different thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Exactly. The "poor" is defined as the bottom 20% or something, and there will always be a bottom 20%. The term poor is such a relative term.

Interestingly, it also means it is impossible, by definition, to eliminate it or even reduce it.