Now, what happens when those rare talents are born into the cycle of poverty? What lessons do they learn? Too often, their talents just get them into trouble. They find themselves caught up in crime, addiction, and the other short-term thinking failures of poverty, and thus unable to express their talent. Worse, society simply expects nothing of them. They have no role models, and they have no external motivations to be and do better.
Even those who can do better often simply escape, leaving the culture of their birth behind. Frankly, I did that. I was raised about one step above what southerners call "white trash". My father, a tremendously intelligent and charismatic man, was constantly lured by petty crime and get-rich-quick ideas, and wasted his life. His interactions with the wealthy men he worked for generated feelings not of admiration and example, but contempt. To this day, when I'm not sure what to do about a situation, I think of what he would have done, and do the opposite. And he took a big step up himself - I remember visiting my grandfather's farm in rural Kentucky as a child. I didn't notice the lack of electricity or running water at the time. I notice it now. My father escaped sharecropping, but he never escaped his own demons.
I see the effects of those escapes now in my sister's life. She loves living in the rural south, but is constantly brought down by the ignorance and awful habits of her neighbors. Everyone in her area (southern Virginia) who has any brains simply moves away. What's left are the addicts, the fools, and the spiteful. Sure, it's beautiful there, but I don't see how she can stand living around people with so little ambition. I do, however, see how she suffers in poverty and hopelessness.
Me, I got up and left. I made a good career for myself, living in a nice safe neighborhood in a beautiful city, making a good income in a safe field, raising my kids safe from the things that got me as a child. I can't imagine going back to that life.
But oh, so many lost souls. So much talent put to waste in jail or in the grave. This is what we allow poverty to do to our society.
There's definitely a huge need for this- but I think for everyone, not necessarily just those in poverty. From my middle class home town, most people I was familiar with from elementary school seem to be working at restaurants and the like. I could have definitely used a mentor to help me see the possibilities that my parents weren't familiar with. Now that I'm finally developing the self-awareness necessary to really go somewhere (hopefully) I've tried to think on how to help kids realize their potential, but in such a way as to be scalable. While maybe apps could help with self-esteem, it's probably not possible at this point to replace the knowledge and experience of a good mentor with a standalone information system.
I know the frustration I've experienced, so I can only imagine what it's got to be like coming from less- props to you for making it.
What's not okay is when members of this small minority, who have the potential to do great things, instead remain stuck in poverty.
Yes, people can win Olympic Gold (we're not competing against robots yet), but very few will and those who do will have to make extraordinary sacrifices. So yes, give them credit. But don't - whatever you do - look at people who haven't managed to keep their heads about water, and think "well, this one guy made it against all odds and you didn't, so you must be a lazy, stupid human."
That may be fair (if harsh) in a supportive world where it takes rare talent to fail. But it's a monstrous attitude in a world where the opposite is so clearly the case.
"...the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility ..."
"...Studies have also found "a clear negative relationship" between income inequality and intergenerational mobility.[27] Countries with low levels of inequality such as Denmark, Norway and Finland had some of the greatest mobility, while the two countries with the high level of inequality -- Chile and Brazil—had some of the lowest mobility. A 2012 graph plotting the relationship between inequality and mobility in the United States and twelve other developed countries has been dubbed "The Great Gatsby Curve"[27][28][29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_compari...
PEW report: http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/selling-out-over-long-term-...
U. Bekerley.edu / NYTimes feature: http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/features/20130726_upward_mobili...
Your reasoning is lousy.
Checking whether poverty or low income are correlated with having little time should be a fairly straightforward python/pandas job. It seems unlikely that the money-poor are also time-poor (given that the main cause of money-poverty is not working), but it's straightforward to check in any case.
If I have time tomorrow I may do it myself.
Is that really true? I'm not sure if my girlfriend's family qualifies as truly poor, but they certainly don't have much money. Her dad has two jobs--line cook and hotel janitor--and her mom is also a line cook. They frequently have to go to check cashing places, they have only one car so her mom relies on taking the bus to work (which takes over an hour each way, and also requires walking to the bus stop), and they rarely if ever do things like run the AC in their house. They do live in a house as opposed to an apartment, but that's a relatively new development. The house is also in a somewhat sketchy area--for example, her brother was robbed at gunpoint walking through an adjacent neighborhood at 10PM.
I wanted to expand on the robbery incident and illustrate how something like that is potentially even worse than you'd expect.
The reason he was walking through the neighborhood is because he doesn't have (and can't afford) a car, and he was walking back from work.
They made the "mistake" of calling 911 to report the incident. He was mildly beaten up, and they were worried about potential injuries, so they sent an ambulance. It turns out he was completely okay, and they put on a few bandages and that was it. Then he was hit with a $3k bill.
Her brother works part time at a minimum wage job while going to school. A random $3k bill out of the blue is really not affordable to him, so now he's on a payment plan paying off that debt.
This is on top of the items that were actually stolen from him, like his phone, which he had to replace, and the general trauma of having been robbed.
http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...
You could be right that transit takes up a lot of time, but why rely on anecdote? Stats are available. I linked to them. And if it wasn't 1:30AM (in India) when I posted that, I'd probably have munged them myself.
Lack of transportation, combined with living in "undesirable" neighborhoods far from the business centers, is an ugly combination. It makes even basic engagement like grocery shopping a very time-consuming experience.
You're one of the lucky retail employees that work a full 40 hour week. Your annual gross salary is somewhere in the 24-30k range.
That's not enough to support a 2br apartment and car, so you're relying on public transit. You work retail, so your hours suck and you're often stuck bumming rides or waiting for the bus, which only runs every half hour when the mall closes.
When I was in college, I worked in a mall restaurant. That was a pretty common scenario for waitresses, line cooks, retail assistant managers, and similar roles.
How do we start promoting things that do work? That really work? I think that does not get done in part because many people really do not want "the poor" to solve their problems. I do not understand why that is but there seems to be a hostile attitude towards poor people, as if being poor is evidence of lack of good morals or something and thus you deserve to suffer.
But this doesn't just hurt people who are currently poor. It means anyone who falls down gets kicked while they are down so it becomes unlikely they can get back up. This is not a good paradigm for society. It hurts everyone.
One example in the book is the computer skills programs that are often offered by employment services offices. These programs are usually several weeks long and build on knowledge from previous weeks. For someone who is struggling financially, attending these classes weekly could be difficult. You miss one class, and the next class makes no sense and you feel like you're wasting your time. The authors' suggestion is to restructure these classes to be more modular and allow people to attend these classes based on their schedules.
I think it's not so much that people don't want the poor to solve their problems. It's that they don't want to make it easier for them. People feel that they themselves did just fine without all the benefits that the poor get, so why should we make it easier for them?
As for your last paragraph: I have been homeless for about 2.5 years. Programs to "help the homeless" mostly really, really suck and a lot of them a) piss away the time of the intended recipients b) require the intended recipients to accept enormous disrespect and c) reinforce a subsistence existence. Many of the programs that look to get poor people off the street require you to first be guilty of something, admit your guilt and then be their property.
I have no doubt that it isn't exactly consciously intentional but those attitudes are in there somewhere or this would be better. (There are some programs that are better than that but the default model is pretty awful, to the point of being actively hostile.)
b) I am not for basic income. I don't think completely screwing over the economy helps people at the bottom. I think "basic income" likely would screw over the economy.
This is why the truly rich (not necessarily wealthy) find pleasure in lifes' simple, cheap, offerings. It's almost impossible to find vegetables as good as the ones we grow in our home garden, but yet it takes on average 30 minutes of work every day to keep things in order .. finding that balance is what is key to moving from being poor to rich, in my opinion. The time not spent getting in the car to go grocery shopping is instead spent maintaining a well-ordered garden plot ..
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
While there may be optimizations to be found in these situations, I also wonder about the cognitive cost per optimization, and I wonder if it might not be better to put the most of your mind on a job or geography transition.
'To him, the obvious conclusion is to radically change our thinking. “Just like you wouldn’t charge them $1,000 to fill out a form, you shouldn’t charge them $1,000 in cognitive complexity,” he says. One study found that if you offer help with filling out the Fafsa form, pickup goes up significantly.'
I believe this is exactly the right sort of thinking. Finding ways to encourage and enable people to start moving gradually in order to build positive momentum.
The "front loading" of forms, waiting lists and probationary periods are like mountains. Some people break themselves on the ascent, others spend themselves reaching the summit and have no energy to continue safely down the far side. These man made mountains need not remain arbitrarily steep.
My family was on a wait list for housing assistance from the time I was a child until I dropped out of school and started working, making us ineligible. The list is currently closed and was last open over half a decade ago, for less than two weeks - like something out of a fantasy novel.
>...with an extremely bureaucratic and unfriendly process almost always serving as the gatekeeper.'
Well, there's a popular notion in the US that the process should be as difficult and unfriendly as possible - that people seeking public assistance are not just lazy, but living well. The 'welfare queen' [1] still haunts the system 40 years later.
What do you think happens when organizations are under budget constraints and have to find creative ways to cut [edit: typo] costs?
This thought did cross my mind, but I've done lots of work in the public sector - local, federal, education and health.
As a rule, these agencies just aren't that clever, not even close.
In my experience, bad forms and the like are generally a matter of "That's how we've always done it."
That's not to say the concern isn't real. Surely it wouldn't serve to simplify an intake form without altering other parts of the process. To fail to do that would just be moving the bottleneck.
Ideally, sticking with the mountain analogy, you'd end up with a steady stream of healthy, willing and ultimately productive hands coming into the valley via a long, winding, but relatively safe pass.
I'm willing to build it if you are. Contact me.
I'm not sure I would quite take the matching approach you propose, but I've often thought that a better contracting service like fiverr (where people could make money quickly for the skills they truly excel at) could change the world by giving people alternatives to things like credit cards and payday loans. But there needs to be no little or no friction to make it feasible. Right now it's a PITA to make money through most of the online freelance sites because it's too hands-on, and technology doesn't do nearly enough.
Anyway, just wanted to say hi because this is something that I would like to work on also.
Things generally don't work if you say "I'll do it if you agree to do it too."
I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies. Virtually all federal, state, and local programs either mandate or imply that case managers must be hired or deployed. Each one of those people, and each one of their interactions, carries a cost. The situation is different from but still analogous to the one pg describes in "Makers Schedule, Managers Schedule": http://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html .
The fact that we punish economic failure by making economic success even harder to achieve is evidence of the deep insanity within American culture. Sink or swim is a misnomer. Swim or be drowned is closer to the mark.
So it's great that we're making technical progress on every front imaginable. But how many of these advances see their promise still born in a culture that pays more attention to recycling its trash than the people it discards on its streets?
This winner-take-all/losers-get-ruin problem goes way beyond the business cycle. As Reuters noted a couple of years ago, entrepreneurship has been suffering a decades-long retreat. Having peaked in 1987, it's declined precipitously ever since.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/us-usa-economy-bus...
In just about every way imaginable, SV is the exception not the rule. For those who are young enough, smart enough, skilled enough, male enough, credentialed enough, connected enough, unencumbered enough, and possibly delusional enough it's great. But strike any one of those factors from the list, and watch the curve get steep. Start crossing off two or more and the odds on the lottery start looking good.
Those are the odds that the rest of America sees. So it's no wonder they're backing further and further away from risk, regardless of the long-terms costs the country. Until this country has a social contract that's worth a damn, people are going to be very adverse to even the slightest setback. And for good reason.
After all, there's a big difference between the kind of failure that can be chalked up "a valuable learning experience" and failure so catastrophically crushingly severe you never, ever, get back on your feet. There's a lot of that in America. It's where the Fear comes from. That's what drives most people. Not dreams of being one of the great or the good. Those are luxuries for the fortunate few. Most people just live in constant dread of being thrown in the street.
tl;dr: The poor are worse at managing time and money because they are exhausted all the time and have fewer/no options (i.e. costlier credits than the wealthy)
I reminds me of a sentence from a recent study of breastfeeding vs. formula milk - "It's not that natural milk is better for babies - it's that baby formula is worse for the babies".
Unfortunately in the US, one bad financial decision, one loss of job, one bad case of illness or one trouble at home can reset the pool to 0 and often negative due the extensive background and credit history checking. It is the US government's responsibility to fix this because we submit to its authority, fund its existence and elect its officials for the purpose of trusting it to steward our nation and its people. Sadly when I tune into the political discourse it's all about gun/abortion/tax/federal debt and whatever other kinds of "freedom". Why is helping people never and enhancing social mobility on the table. And I am so so tired of politicians parading education as the silver bullet.
The comments seem to focus mostly on the financial aspects but I found the portion regarding how time is spent interesting. (True, the article does tie them together to an extent).
As far as financial poverty... my personal opinion is that "finance" is too widely regarded as an unalterable given that is intrinsic to the human condition. Certainly the concept of money has produced a system that has advanced human control over our environment, but a bit of perspective suggests it is a concept that we did without for tens of thousands of years. And, I suspect sometime in the future we will do without it again.
Maybe not "poor people need money" but rather "hungry people need food" might be the type of larger and more directly useful framework to address some of these problems within. Certainly we are at the level we should be able to provide basic food, clothing and shelter to all members of our species and no one should suffer and die from want. If we aren't doing this, given what we have and what we can do, then there is something wrong with the system and this needs correcting before we will be able to move much further. IMHOP. Maybe the thing that got us here (the concept of money) is becoming a conceptual problem that is now keeping us from advancing further. I don't have a fix. I just see what I think is part of the problem.
