Why Do People Stay Poor? [pdf]

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #236

frickinLasers wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently we're not reading the same comment. In this example, the rich person pays cash for the 20-pack and probably earns interest on the savings. They have no need to pay interest on a loan. The poor person pays cash for the 2-pack and then pays again next month, and maybe takes out a payday loan to afford the rent after they have to call in sick, and there's your high APR. This is not a benefit. What am I misund…

The entire premise, where I suggested this was an easy mutually beneficial profit opportunity, for the rich person to lend to the poor person to make the bulk purchases? I'm not sure you're keeping up with the exchange here.

Post by twblalock » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #267

twblalock wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the point. Who do you think would be more likely, and more in need, to raid their children's trust funds? This would be yet another program where the poor don't get what was promised to them and the rich do just fine. Rich kids would get their $250k, and poor kids would find out exactly how their parents were able to pay the rent the whole time they were growing up. If you want to help poor kids you…

Even the worst case you’re describing sounds like a win to me, relative to the present. If gaming the system looks like “the child doesn’t have to worry about stable housing while growing up”, that seems like an upside. But I’d caution against the idea that lower-income parents are so predisposed to both gaming the system and stealing money from their children, which seems like an unintentional undertone of your comm…

Post by jgalt212 » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #247

rayiner wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think spending the money on a “professional educator” would be squandering it. This country has huge inequities, and I don’t think you can solve it by throwing money at college educated (disproportionately white) people.

Especially in postsecondary education, which is artificially limited and will absorb some factor of all the additional subsidies it's given.

Post by twblalock » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #286

twblalock wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If gaming the system looks like “the child doesn’t have to worry about stable housing while growing up”, that seems like an upside. To be clear, you are talking about children's trust funds being raided as a good outcome. How would you feel if that violation of your rights happened to you, and it didn't happen to other children, and then some adult told you that it was ok that it happened?

Probably about the same as I’d feel if I had no chance of affording college because my family was below the poverty line and I spent my teenage years working part time to help pay the rent, all the while knowing that other children lived lives of relative luxury.

Post by twblalock » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #288

twblalock wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your answer ignores the hypothetical trust fund you were supposed to get, which would be enough to pay for college (if your parents hadn’t stolen the money from it). This is actually a pretty good example of how bad it would be if parents raided their children’s trust funds, which is something that would definitely happen. Kids who had their money stolen wouldn’t be able to go to college.

It’s worth restating that I don’t agree that a significant percentage of lower income families would raid their child’s trust funds. I think that perpetuates an inaccurate stereotype that people with lower income are somehow more inclined to unethical behavior, or more willing to steal from their own children. But I directly addressed the impact of both the hypothetical trust fund and the hypothetical theft: if my hy…