TED Talk On Poverty

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ydKcaIE6O1k[/YOUTUBE]

"Poverty isn't a lack of character. It's a lack of cash."

"Ideas can and do change the world," says historian Rutger Bregman, sharing his case for a provocative one: guaranteed basic income. Learn more about the idea's 500-year history and a forgotten modern experiment where it actually worked -- and imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

 

[Derec]

I think it is wrong to generalize either way on this. It depends on the person in question. For many, it is indeed a lack of character. For example, I remember years ago we discussed an article about a poor family living in a trailer who wasted a lot of money on rent-to-own places with ridiculous financing terms instead of settling for cheaper furniture.

 

[Angry Floof]

The psychology of poverty is shame and stress. The psychology of wealth is entitlement and comfortable options, a.k.a., the Asshole Effect.

The "bad character" bullshit is a persistent lie from the wealthy and their less rich sycophants.

One source of this poison is the idea that "you will know them by their fruits" and therefore the poor deserve to be poor. But that is an idea mainly held by people who think "fruits" means material success and property. They don't seem to have the capacity to notice the real fruits of character. I guess all those entitlement eye boogers get in the way.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think it is wrong to generalize either way on this. It depends on the person in question.

Well, you are simply wrong.

Poverty ==> a lack of cash

Poverty =/=> a different average character

If you look at individuals, some individual rich people are terrible human beings and it contributed to their being rich, just as much as that there are terrible human beings and that contributed to them being poor.

 

[Elixir]

For many, it is indeed a lack of character.

You WISH it was "many". The fact is that many many more are simply caught in the trap of supporting billionaires.
You're a classic case of the "less rich sycophant" that AF references above.

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Just being in poverty has detrimental effects on the mind. Constant stress takes it's toll over time.

 

[Trausti]

I think it is wrong to generalize either way on this. It depends on the person in question.

Well, you are simply wrong.

Poverty ==> a lack of cash

Poverty =/=> a different average character

If you look at individuals, some individual rich people are terrible human beings and it contributed to their being rich, just as much as that there are terrible human beings and that contributed to them being poor.

Poverty is the natural human state, not an aberration. Many people start out with a "lack of cash" but don't stay that way. Calling the difference "character" is likely wrong; you can have an honest pauper and a lying prince. It's more due to behavior. We have our parents to thank for that.

 

[untermensche]

Humans don't have a single natural state.

All are born into a world already rigidly divided between rich and poor.

Where you begin is sheer luck but it will determine your destiny more than "character".

 

[Trausti]

Humans don't have a single natural state.

All are born into a world already rigidly divided between rich and poor.

Where you begin is sheer luck but it will determine your destiny more than "character".

This is really the rub. We accept in our modern [Western] society that all should equal in the law; however, there are those who extend this to the belief that all are also equal in ability and talent. The politically correct creationism. Any inequity, then, must be because one has wronged another. It's our contemporary sacred myth.

 

[Elixir]

Any inequity, then, must be because one has wronged another.

It's not about "any inequity" Trausti, it's about ONE, pervasive inequity that effects the majority of citizens.
Sure, you can argue that the majority of citizens are lazy, un-talented or whatever slur you'd like to apply to them to justify the institutionalized inequity, but you know as well as I do that such arguments are specious.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Poverty is the natural human state, not an aberration. Many people started out with a "lack of cash" but don't stay that way. Calling the difference "character" is likely wrong; you can have an honest pauper and an lying prince.

I agree with you up to here.

It's more due to behavior. We have our parents to thank for that.

Factors that result in outcomes are beyond merely who your parents are.

 

[Trausti]

Any inequity, then, must be because one has wronged another.

It's not about "any inequity" Trausti, it's about ONE, pervasive inequity that effects the majority of citizens.
Sure, you can argue that the majority of citizens are lazy, un-talented or whatever slur you'd like to apply to them to justify the institutionalized inequity, but you know as well as I do that such arguments are specious.

A majority of citizens are not in poverty. Scant few citizens are. And comparatively, poverty in the West is a different than elsewhere, e.g., our impoverished are more likely obese.

 

[Trausti]

Factors that result in outcomes are beyond merely who your parents are.

Not untrue; but heredity plays a staring role.

 

[Elixir]

Factors that result in outcomes are beyond merely who your parents are.

Not untrue; but heredity plays a staring role.

Or, in cases like Trump, inheritance.

No question, kids learn more at home than at school - as long as they actually have a home.

A majority of citizens are not in poverty. Scant few citizens are.

I would hardly call 40,000,000 citizens "scant few". That's ridiculous. And this ignores the estimated 100 million living in "near poverty".

In 2017 an estimated 39.7 million Americans lived in poverty according to the official measure.

"Scant few" would be the billionaires, each of whom owns more shit than all 40 million poor people combined!

 

[Trausti]

Or, in cases like Trump, inheritance.

Trump's genetic inheritance? His father was a successful real estate developer. Trump's sister was a federal circuit court judge (appointed by Clinton). Trump's uncle developed radiation therapy. As much as ORANGE MAN BAD, his success was hardly a fluke of having cash.

 

[Treedbear]

...
"Poverty isn't a lack of character. It's a lack of cash."
...

I think poverty is a syndrome characterized by the lack of opportunity. Or rather the inability to take advantage of opportunities when they appear due to the inability to save. In other words the minimum basic income has to be sufficient to provide a small but meaningful surplus. I've been toying with the idea of providing this subsidy through special bank accounts that would receive monthly deposits. They are special because the rate of interest (paid by the government) would be on a progressive scale inversely proportional to the account balance (calculated on a continuous basis of course). This would be a strong inducement for the poor to save. Of course they could withdraw as much as they want at any time to spend as they see fit, or to save in a standard bank account. The interest rate would level out to the average market rate at some level determined to be the minmum needed to take care of typical emergency expenses when they occur, such as for car repairs.

The big advantage of capitalism is that it provides the opportunity to accumulate a surplus. When segments of the population are deprived of that opportunity for long periods of time so that it becomes part of the structure of society then they have no realistic hope of participating. It becomes an afront to one's character that eventually eliminates any hope of breaking out. People either decide that the fault is their own and loose spirit, ambition, and concern for their own well being or they blame it on the system and actively work to undermine it. IOW they rebel. Actually, an sign of character.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think it is wrong to generalize either way on this. It depends on the person in question.

Well, you are simply wrong.

Poverty ==> a lack of cash

Poverty =/=> a different average character

If you look at individuals, some individual rich people are terrible human beings and it contributed to their being rich, just as much as that there are terrible human beings and that contributed to them being poor.

Poverty is the natural human state, not an aberration. Many people start out with a "lack of cash" but don't stay that way.

You are imagining a fictional world where each child is born in a vacuum with no social environment.
Only people born into poverty start life in poverty. Those with the random luck to be born into wealthy families are born with wealth and the countless advantages this imparts. Compared to those born into the lowest 25% of parental wealth, those born into the highest 25% of parental wealth are about 6 times more likely to get a college degree. And look at this near perfect correlation between parental income and their child's income at age 30.

Then if you focus on who becomes extremely wealthy and makes into the top 5% of income, people have almost no chance unless they were born into wealth in the top 10%. Those born into families with bottom Quintile income have about a 1% chance of making into the top 5% of income as adults. Those odds increase slowly but steadily so that if you are born into the 75th percentile, you have about a 6% chance of making into the top 5% income. Then it shoots up exponentially, because being born rich has exponential advantages on acquiring extreme wealth. By far the greatest determinant of a person's future earnings and wealth is the wealth they were born into, which is a product of luck that person had nothing to do with. On top of that, there are other completely random events that happen to people out of their control that account for most of the rest of the variance in outcomes.

Calling the difference "character" is likely wrong; you can have an honest pauper and a lying prince. It's more due to behavior. We have our parents to thank for that.

It is neither character nor behavior. It is mostly luck and circumstance that the person had nothing to do with. While behavior does play a minor role, that it is mostly a role of a mediating factor where parental wealth and random events cause a behavioral response which in turn impact the person's future wealth.

 

[Derec]

I think it is wrong to generalize either way on this. It depends on the person in question.

Well, you are simply wrong.
Poverty ==> a lack of cash
Poverty =/=> a different average character

How does the lack of cash come about and persist? Yes, it also depends on where you start (to quote Everlast). But to discount the importance of the choices people make is foolish.

If you look at individuals, some individual rich people are terrible human beings and it contributed to their being rich, just as much as that there are terrible human beings and that contributed to them being poor.

The facet of character most important here are things like work ethic and spending habits. As to the latter, look at this case. We discussed in on here before.
Rental America: Why the poor pay $4,150 for a $1,500 sofa
The family is in a perpetual crisis mode because what they want they have to have, if possible immediately even if it costs them nearly triple compared to paying cash.

 

[Gun Nut]

Or, in cases like Trump, inheritance.

Trump's genetic inheritance? His father was a successful real estate developer. Trump's sister was a federal circuit court judge (appointed by Clinton). Trump's uncle developed radiation therapy. As much as ORANGE MAN BAD, his success was hardly a fluke of having cash.

not true... that his success was not a direct and sole result of "having cash". He came from riches, and made them diminish though his business failings. Any other "American Dreamer" who, unlike Trump, started with nothing, would have been financially ruined by any single example of Trump's dozens of failures. Most people get one change, if that, and if they blow it, they're done. Trump had daddy bailing him out financially over and over again. Trump is the most consistent failure of a rich person. His success was all about cash, and none of it his.

 

[Derec]

For many, it is indeed a lack of character.

You WISH it was "many". The fact is that many many more are simply caught in the trap of supporting billionaires.
You're a classic case of the "less rich sycophant" that AF references above.

Uh-uh. Billionaires force people to make poor choices do they?