A perfect example of why some of us say poverty is self-inflicted

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract


Read through it, see how much of it she admits is self-inflicted.

And note:

It’s just that there aren’t many other options for a lot of people. In fact, the Urban Institute found that half of Americans will experience poverty at some point before they’re 65. Most will come out of it after a relatively short time, 75% in four years. But that still leaves 25% who don’t get out quickly, and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

 

[Trausti]

"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else." ~ John Burroughs

 

[PyramidHead]

The way I read it, she was saying that being in poverty impairs people's ability to make rational decisions.

Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain. It’s why you see people with four different babydaddies instead of one. You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It’s more basic than food. You go to these people who make you feel lovely for an hour that one time, and that’s all you get. You’re probably not compatible with them for anything long term, but right this minute they can make you feel powerful and valuable. It does not matter what will happen in a month. Whatever happens in a month is probably going to be just about as indifferent as whatever happened today or last week. None of it matters. We don’t plan long term because if we do we’ll just get our hearts broken. It’s best not to hope. You just take what you can get as you spot it.

Basically, poverty is a state in which self-inflicted misfortune is much more likely to happen. But that's because poor people often don't perceive any way out of their situation. This hopelessness, brought on by external circumstances, drives their poor decision-making. You end up back where you started: give poor people more options, make their lives feel more valuable, and their situation will improve. I don't see how this supports your point at all.

 

[ksen]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract


Read through it, see how much of it she admits is self-inflicted.

And note:

It’s just that there aren’t many other options for a lot of people. In fact, the Urban Institute found that half of Americans will experience poverty at some point before they’re 65. Most will come out of it after a relatively short time, 75% in four years. But that still leaves 25% who don’t get out quickly, and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

Huh, this part sure does sound like a trap:

and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

 

[PyramidHead]

Also, isn't the fact that half of America will dip into poverty at some point in their lives, and stay there for years, cause for alarm? Shouldn't our society be doing something about both long-term and short-term impoverishment, especially if it affects people's critical faculties by making them less responsible with their choices as time goes on?

Thanks for the article, Loren. It confirms what we lefties have been saying for years.

 

[Frikki]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract


Read through it, see how much of it she admits is self-inflicted.

And note:



In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

Huh, this part sure does sound like a trap:

and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

Well Ksen my old chap it is because they are weak! They did not have the good sense to be pushed out of a middle class or higher vagina like us successful people! Now go back to North Korea Commie!

 

[ksen]

I think I'd like to push into a couple middle class or higher vaginas . . . wait, wat?

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is.

The fact that some people do not climb out is evidence that poverty may be trap for some people.

It only traps you if you let it trap you.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

I think you're shifting verbs, here.
It says that 75% COME out of poverty, without saying whether or not the recovery depends on their personal actions. Which also means that the 25% who remain in poverty may or may not have a hand in being stuck.
You changed it to most people CLIMB out of poverty, making it a matter of their personal choice.
So you're using inappropriate evidence to support the conclusion you held before reading the research.

 

[KeepTalking]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract


Read through it,

Maybe you should take your own advice, because if you had read through it, I don't see how you could have come anywhere near this conclusion:

see how much of it she admits is self-inflicted.

And note:

It’s just that there aren’t many other options for a lot of people. In fact, the Urban Institute found that half of Americans will experience poverty at some point before they’re 65. Most will come out of it after a relatively short time, 75% in four years. But that still leaves 25% who don’t get out quickly, and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

In other words, you got that far through the article and then stopped reading, I don't see any other way you can characterize this article in the way you have. Toward the end of the article, you will find the following words:

I get that poor people’s coping mechanisms aren’t cute. Really, I do. But what I don’t get is why other people feel so free in judging us for them.

But you didn't get that far, because you seem to think she was inviting you to judge poor people, as that is exactly what you did.

 

[doubtingt]

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

I think you're shifting verbs, here.
It says that 75% COME out of poverty, without saying whether or not the recovery depends on their personal actions. Which also means that the 25% who remain in poverty may or may not have a hand in being stuck.
You changed it to most people CLIMB out of poverty, making it a matter of their personal choice.
So you're using inappropriate evidence to support the conclusion you held before reading the research.

^^^THIS^^^

In addition, if poverty is so unstable and can come and go and half of Americans experience it, then clearly it is not usually caused by some stable aspect of the person (such as their skills, intellect, disposition, or life outlook). Instead it must be heavily determined by unstable factors, namely random chance and luck, which are also the primary determinants of extreme wealth. And as with all random influences, there will sometimes be a string of similar random events in row, just like a string of heads when flipping a coin. Those are analogous to a string of bad luck events that keep some people in poverty for extended periods. In addition, past poverty causes future poverty. That is why the longer you've been in poverty in the past, the more likely you will be in the future. Being born into poverty means your entire past up to that moment is in poverty and creating more obstacles to getting out of it. Which is why the people least likely to get out of poverty are those born into it versus those born into more advantages and only found themselves in poverty recently.

 

[arkirk]

The fact that some people do not climb out is evidence that poverty may be trap for some people.

It only traps you if you let it trap you.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

This is just Loren psychoanalyzing the poor....from a great distance. He does the same thing with Palestinians...and me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The fact that some people do not climb out is evidence that poverty may be trap for some people.
You are assuming facts not in evidence.

This is just Loren psychoanalyzing the poor....from a great distance. He does the same thing with Palestinians...and me.

And me.

 

[TV and credit cards]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract


Read through it, see how much of it she admits is self-inflicted.

And note:

It’s just that there aren’t many other options for a lot of people. In fact, the Urban Institute found that half of Americans will experience poverty at some point before they’re 65. Most will come out of it after a relatively short time, 75% in four years. But that still leaves 25% who don’t get out quickly, and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

Wow. You find a wonderful, thought provoking story, pull the paragraph with the dry-ass statistics and misinterpret them, as has already been pointed out to you. Compassion, empathy. Don't focus on the 25%. Another name for 25% is people.

There’s a certain pull to live what bits of life you can while there’s money in your pocket, because no matter how responsible you are you will be broke in three days anyway. When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The way I read it, she was saying that being in poverty impairs people's ability to make rational decisions.

She's making excuses for taking the easy path. Since she knows she's not making reasonable choices she could do better.

Basically, poverty is a state in which self-inflicted misfortune is much more likely to happen. But that's because poor people often don't perceive any way out of their situation. This hopelessness, brought on by external circumstances, drives their poor decision-making. You end up back where you started: give poor people more options, make their lives feel more valuable, and their situation will improve. I don't see how this supports your point at all.

3/4 of them *DO* get out fairly quickly--it's not the trap you say.

Rather, it traps those with her attitude. The attitude is what's important.

And that article doesn't even address what happens when you have the attitudes but do have the money--reality is you generally end up back in poverty. Those who hit it big in the lottery generally end up bankrupt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, isn't the fact that half of America will dip into poverty at some point in their lives, and stay there for years, cause for alarm? Shouldn't our society be doing something about both long-term and short-term impoverishment, especially if it affects people's critical faculties by making them less responsible with their choices as time goes on?

Thanks for the article, Loren. It confirms what we lefties have been saying for years.

It's no surprise that lots of people dip into poverty--you're describing the typical college student.

They make do, they climb out as soon as they have money. It doesn't cripple them.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

I think you're shifting verbs, here.
It says that 75% COME out of poverty, without saying whether or not the recovery depends on their personal actions. Which also means that the 25% who remain in poverty may or may not have a hand in being stuck.
You changed it to most people CLIMB out of poverty, making it a matter of their personal choice.
So you're using inappropriate evidence to support the conclusion you held before reading the research.

The 75% that climb out have no more external aid than those who remain.

- - - Updated - - -

In addition, if poverty is so unstable and can come and go and half of Americans experience it, then clearly it is not usually caused by some stable aspect of the person (such as their skills, intellect, disposition, or life outlook). Instead it must be heavily determined by unstable factors, namely random chance and luck, which are also the primary determinants of extreme wealth. And as with all random influences, there will sometimes be a string of similar random events in row, just like a string of heads when flipping a coin. Those are analogous to a string of bad luck events that keep some people in poverty for extended periods. In addition, past poverty causes future poverty. That is why the longer you've been in poverty in the past, the more likely you will be in the future. Being born into poverty means your entire past up to that moment is in poverty and creating more obstacles to getting out of it. Which is why the people least likely to get out of poverty are those born into it versus those born into more advantages and only found themselves in poverty recently.

I'm not saying that the initial cause is the person. As you say, it can be bad luck. It's also very common with college students.

What I'm saying is that what determines if you remain there is the person.

I normally distinguish the two cases: Lack of money: Poor. The attitudes that trap you: Poverty. The former is quite curable. The latter is very hard to cure.

 

[arkirk]

Maybe you should take your own advice, because if you had read through it, I don't see how you could have come anywhere near this conclusion:

see how much of it she admits is self-inflicted.

And note:

It’s just that there aren’t many other options for a lot of people. In fact, the Urban Institute found that half of Americans will experience poverty at some point before they’re 65. Most will come out of it after a relatively short time, 75% in four years. But that still leaves 25% who don’t get out quickly, and the study also found that the longer you stay in poverty, the less likely it becomes that you will ever get out.

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

In other words, you got that far through the article and then stopped reading, I don't see any other way you can characterize this article in the way you have. Toward the end of the article, you will find the following words:

I get that poor people’s coping mechanisms aren’t cute. Really, I do. But what I don’t get is why other people feel so free in judging us for them.

But you didn't get that far, because you seem to think she was inviting you to judge poor people, as that is exactly what you did.

You seem to be hunting for an excuse to abandon humanitarian thinking, Loren. You have already abandoned it when it comes to Palestinians, and Australian indigenous peoples...why not just add the poor to the "I don't give a shit" list? Admittedly poor people are a nuisance, but the nuisance can be the result of malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and psychological abuse that attend being poor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to be hunting for an excuse to abandon humanitarian thinking, Loren. You have already abandoned it when it comes to Palestinians, and Australian indigenous peoples...why not just add the poor to the "I don't give a shit" list? Admittedly poor people are a nuisance, but the nuisance can be the result of malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and psychological abuse that attend being poor.

You have it backwards. You're the one that's abandoning them.

It's very unlikely you can solve a problem until you identify it's true cause. Providing the easy out of blaming the system ensures the people who are trapped won't see that the problem is internal and thus there's almost no chance they'll get out.

Step #1 in solving an ongoing self-inflicted problem is to recognize that it's self-inflicted.

 

[RavenSky]

When you never have enough money it ceases to have meaning. I imagine having a lot of it is the same thing.

Sounds to me like she is saying that poor people and rich people are basically the same. It's just that rich people have enough money to cushion them from their *bad* decisions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In other words, most people climb out. It's not the trap you guys claim it is. It only traps you if you let it trap you.

I think you're shifting verbs, here.
It says that 75% COME out of poverty, without saying whether or not the recovery depends on their personal actions. Which also means that the 25% who remain in poverty may or may not have a hand in being stuck.
You changed it to most people CLIMB out of poverty, making it a matter of their personal choice.
So you're using inappropriate evidence to support the conclusion you held before reading the research.

The 75% that climb out have no more external aid than those who remain.

You insist on changing the verb to what suits your agenda, making the research over into your thesis. This claim is not supported. How much does luck impact these numbers? Maybe a casino opened near some of the 75%. Maybe an opportunity came to exist through no effort of their own, meaning the failure to 'climb out' of poverty is no fault of the 25%.
Maybe the 25% live in an area where government cutbacks are closing bases or factories. Maybe the 25% were fishermen near an oil slick.

Your subject line should be: Some of us say poverty is self-inflicted.

No reason to bring the article into it at all.