What really drives the poor • Hacker News Board

Re: What really drives the poor

#101

Post by j_baker » Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 9:35 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #83

j_baker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 9 months, he had completed his goal, and a family member fell ill. Wait, what was this? He got faced with a situation he couldn't handle with wise decision-making, saving, and elbow grease and had to tap into his riches to get himself out? You know, the real problem is that he got a nice apartment and car. If he lived in a shack and walked everywhere, I bet he'd have been able to help his family member out. Was he…

The only reason he had to help his relative when they fell ill is because although he was playing poor, he technically still had the money. Refusing to help the family member for the sake of making a point would be highly unethical. Had he actually been that poor (only 5k in his name at the time), then he would have been under no real obligation to drop everything and support that family member.

I see. So you're saying if he did really only have 5k to his name, that family member wouldn't have gotten any help from him and could have died. But hey, he'd have been in the right though, wouldn't he have? That's what's important after all. The family member's concerns are only secondary.

Re: What really drives the poor

#102

Post by burgerbrain » Sun, Jun 26, 2011, 9:55 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #101

burgerbrain wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason he had to help his relative when they fell ill is because although he was playing poor, he technically still had the money. Refusing to help the family member for the sake of making a point would be highly unethical. Had he actually been that poor (only 5k in his name at the time), then he would have been under no real obligation to drop everything and support that family member.

I see. So you're saying if he did really only have 5k to his name, that family member wouldn't have gotten any help from him and could have died. But hey, he'd have been in the right though, wouldn't he have? That's what's important after all. The family member's concerns are only secondary.

He certainly wouldn't be in the wrong. 5k won't get you anything as far as medical care in the US goes. If he were unable to do anything, how could he possibly be in the wrong for not doing anything?

He could have continued to pretend like he only had 5k, and like someone with only that much money been unable to do a thing, but then he would be wrong. What he did was not, and what anyone else would have had to do wouldn't be either.

Re: What really drives the poor

#103

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Jun 27, 2011, 1:44 AM UTC

ckarelis wrote: post #94

yummyfajitas wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the proponents of this theory would carry it to it's logical conclusion: we should tax the poor more heavily than the middle class. Sure, we might be imposing one extra screaming guy on them. But so what? The harm to them is minimal, only $0.01 of diminished utility. This is the logical conclusion to Karelis' bee sting theory of poverty. Yet neither he nor any of his proponents are willing to follow their theo…

From Charles Karelis. This objection is treated in my book. I show that it would take only a small transfer from the richest people in the U.S. to the poorest to relieve their poverty entirely, which would have the greatest positive impact on aggregate well-being of all the options. The conventional wisdom, that the poorest people have the greatest marginal utility for a dollar, salves the conscience of the middle cl…

Maybe it's treated in your book, but your post here is dodging the issue. It's also internally contradictory:

I show that it would take only a small transfer...

The inconvenient truth is that only sizable transfers can make a significant difference...

So instead of dodging the issue, could you answer this question: if the small or large wealth transfers you describe are politically unfeasible, would you favor taxing the poor as a second best alternative? If not, why not?

Re: What really drives the poor

#104

Post by roundsquare » Mon, Jun 27, 2011, 3:20 AM UTC

Duff wrote: post #54

paganel wrote: post #38

I barely made it half-way through the article, it sounded like an United Colors of Benetton add adapted into a Nobel-winning Economics paper. Just a couple of gems that made me skip it: """ they may well be more driven by ideas, simply because they have less information about the world outside """ So, supposedly, us, the rich people, live in the "real" world, why them , the poors, live in a world from which they cann…

I share your disgust. Personally, I have a real problem with academics or journalists who go on a junket to a third world country and act like the people around them are animals in some zoo. Look at any western family for a similar period of time and no doubt you will spot all sorts of bizarre dysfunctions or irrational behavior, regardless of wealth. People are people.

I disagree. These people are academics who want to help the poor. They go in and try to figure out what could help them and then write about it to help policy makers. It would be nice if policy makers could just figure out what works and do it, but that isn't working, so someone needs to run experiments. What would you prefer they did instead?

Re: What really drives the poor

#105

Post by roundsquare » Mon, Jun 27, 2011, 3:43 AM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #6

They finally hit on the real story halfway down: "“Generally, it is clear that things that make life less boring are a priority for the poor,” they write in their new book." Yes, the poor spend their money unwisely when they have extra. That's the real reason. If a rich person finds themselves down on their luck, they knuckle down and work really hard to get into a situation where they can afford to buy luxuries. It…

"At 9 months, he had completed his goal, and a family member fell ill. He quite before the 1 year, but he had already completed his goals and was on his way to a good life."

Unexpected costs, such as medical costs, are one of the biggest hurdles to digging one's self out of poverty. Poor people don't access to insurance to help smooth out their costs. Of course, bad decisions play a part as well, but its not as easy as this guy's experiment made it seem to get out of poverty.

Re: What really drives the poor

#106

Post by j_baker » Mon, Jun 27, 2011, 6:58 AM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #102

j_baker wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see. So you're saying if he did really only have 5k to his name, that family member wouldn't have gotten any help from him and could have died. But hey, he'd have been in the right though, wouldn't he have? That's what's important after all. The family member's concerns are only secondary.

He certainly wouldn't be in the wrong . 5k won't get you anything as far as medical care in the US goes. If he were unable to do anything, how could he possibly be in the wrong for not doing anything? He could have continued to pretend like he only had 5k, and like someone with only that much money been unable to do a thing, but then he would be wrong. What he did was not, and what anyone else would have had to do wo…

Agreed. Dead family members are ok as long as you can't be blamed for their deaths.

Re: What really drives the poor

#107

Post by burgerbrain » Mon, Jun 27, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #106

burgerbrain wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He certainly wouldn't be in the wrong . 5k won't get you anything as far as medical care in the US goes. If he were unable to do anything, how could he possibly be in the wrong for not doing anything? He could have continued to pretend like he only had 5k, and like someone with only that much money been unable to do a thing, but then he would be wrong. What he did was not, and what anyone else would have had to do wo…

Agreed. Dead family members are ok as long as you can't be blamed for their deaths.

Clearly you are being purposely dense.

Re: What really drives the poor

#108

Post by ckarelis » Mon, Jun 27, 2011, 3:58 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #103

ckarelis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Charles Karelis. This objection is treated in my book. I show that it would take only a small transfer from the richest people in the U.S. to the poorest to relieve their poverty entirely, which would have the greatest positive impact on aggregate well-being of all the options. The conventional wisdom, that the poorest people have the greatest marginal utility for a dollar, salves the conscience of the middle cl…

Maybe it's treated in your book, but your post here is dodging the issue. It's also internally contradictory: I show that it would take only a small transfer... The inconvenient truth is that only sizable transfers can make a significant difference... So instead of dodging the issue, could you answer this question: if the small or large wealth transfers you describe are politically unfeasible, would you favor taxing…

From Charles Karelis. To begin with, I don't think the kinds of income transfers from rich to poor that would significantly raise aggregate utility from consumption are in fact politically unfeasible, so I am, as you appreciate, reluctant to get into this what-if area.

That said, taxing the poor and transferring the money to the middle class let alone to the rich would carry big negatives according to my approach. We ought to care not only about maximizing aggregate satisfaction from consumption, but about autonomy, including maintaining people's incentives to acquire what they want to consume through their own efforts. Making poor people even poorer will (on my hypothesis) lower (not raise) the marginal utility of their consumption and thereby undermine (not strengthen) their motivation for self-help. If someone with six bee-stings has enough salve to relieve five and the state takes that salve away, this action will probably reduce rather than increase the effort the person will make to get the salve needed to relieve a single sting, because the salve needed to relieve a single sting will make less difference now that the other salve has been confiscated.

A fuller answer to your objection than I can give here--including a discussion of the roots of the moral intuition behind your question--is offered in the last chapter of Persistence of Poverty.

Re: What really drives the poor

#109

Post by lsc » Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 2:28 AM UTC

gaurav_v wrote: post #69

lsc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me. Is defending your betters on a internet form likely to make you more rich? Are you making a good choice by wasting time on hacker news? or one that is likely to leave you in your current financial position? From your comment history, I'd guess you are no more wealthy than I am, and much like me, you are not significantly more wealthy than your parents. Of course, this is just a guess based on little informat…

Regarding Gates: A lot of people can afford to go to Harvard given financial aid. I think the more relevant point to his story is that his parents were so wealthy they could send him to an elite private _middle and high school,_ where he had access to a computer.

yeah, my understanding was that his parents were pretty wealthy; beyond the minimum to give their kids an elite education. My point is just that Gates turned a small fortune in to a large fortune. And while that was certainly a feat; it is rather different from starting middle or even working class and building up even a small fortune.

They say the first million is the hardest. Considering that is my current challenge, that's how I feel. But, I bet that if I didn't already have the skills to land a $100K+/year job, maybe I'd feel that the first hundred grand was the hardest. If I lived in Africa or India, maybe just saving a few hundred bucks would be difficult. Saving even just a year's salary when you aren't making a lot more than what you need to buy minimum food and shelter is a difficult task.

Re: What really drives the poor

#110

Post by chromatic » Fri, Jul 01, 2011, 7:13 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #87

chromatic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps changing the subject from Andrew Carnegie will express my discomfort with the implicit syllogism more effectively. Cory Doctorow gives his books away for free. Cory Doctorow has achieved great financial and literary success. Therefore, everyone who gives books away for free will achieve great financial and literary success.

I don't really buy that argument (you could take any property they shared, no matter how irrelevant, and make the same argument, i.e. they both had two feet): Cory Doctorow makes money because he has spent a large amount of time to create an audience, because he writes interesting books and because he is constantly on the lookout for new ways to monitize them. And yeah, most people who pull that of would properly exp…

And yeah, most people who pull that of would properly experience success.

Agreed, but too few of the discussions I've encountered leave out that part and focus on the "Why don't you just give your books away for free?"