extra costs of being poor

[KLewchuk]

What's with your believed correlation between IQ and economic success? How did you detemine this? How can this be significant with respect to inheritance?

I think if we had a strict requirement that people were to contribute EQUAL energy input to each and every trade, inheritance would not need to exist. Intellect has no relationship to one's fortunes since one can be 'successful' wealthy without a need to think at all....they just need a world/environent that favors them for whatever reason.

If you are correct, then there is no need for ANY inheritance.

https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content ... search.pdf

Many falsely presume that the major thing that poor people lack is 'education'. The underlying issue regarding the education of the poor is about lacking parents who are sufficiently educated. Correlation of intellect and poverty are coinciding accidents that occur but are NOT the cause of one being poor. Poverty is technically a default of the human condition (and other animals, if you were to relate 'wealth' as the capacity of some species to live far beyond their means.)

People require having something GIVEN to them in real value to trade prior to being able to trade. The "Get-a-job" mantra more often places the burden on the POTENTIAL employee as though they have the literal power to make someone hire them. But if one is poor, they lack even the major things that get people a foot in the door. For males, most specifically, they are also expected to have had that car that your parents likely gave you at your 16th birthday.

Where normal families give 'allowances' to their kids, the poor lack this. In fact, even if a poor kid got a job during high school, most poor families (including extended community of friends, etc) would usually require paying rent and their other living expenses. This DEFEATS the mentality of such kids given they can't even learn to handle their own money.

Poor kids are shunned away from those with money (like allowances) because they cannot 'cover' for them and are not expected to. In contrast, in a 'ghetto' (here, I mean any environment of those in poverty), are obligated with strong force to cover for their other unfortunate peers they are left with. This means, that where some lucky guy in the hood MIGHT just get a job, he is expected to spread-the-wealth which further SUCKS their wallet dry quickly. The only ones who could get out of such a situation, they are required to turn away from all those who are poor LIKE THEM because of this. But they are also shunned by the wealthier unless they are absurdly subservient to those who are even willing to pay them half of the minimum wage rate. They are pushed to work under the table where they can in many of these cases without a choice. [You don't require actual third-world exploitation to enslave the poor who are trying hard to get into the work place. They are isolated and are more often ONLY given an opening BY those who exploit.]

One can be a genius in such families and still require giving up too much blood and toil for pennies that those better off never experience. And their own lack of understanding of these poor itself is due to a lack of 'education' given they cannot fathom people do not have the same background as themselves. If it is presumably easy to get a McJob for them, they falsely presume it is AT LEAST as 'easy' for others with extreme ignorance.

Poor people who succeed are often NEW people (immigrants) because they come with a fresh vigour and appreciation of a system better than their own AND have certain strong advantages of 'community' among those they were helped to get here. This means they can live in trusted groups which presents a strong means of supports that poor people 'established' here are ISOLATED from each other. That is, the ghetto-effect imposes you GROW TOGETHER or SUFFER ALONE. Poverty isolates those who attempt to escape it if they won't share everything they earn IMMEDIATELY....since others around you are desperate and denying them this puts you in relative danger. Certainly, you'll lose the support of friends if you are the only one eating at McDonalds while your friends or family are sitting there hungry.

If you then argue that this is just life, then this is precisely what the gangs are 'accepting' and who then act within these communities to make things even more difficult.

Poverty is NOT due to some lack of education. In fact, all that this would do is to assure they are able to intellectually recognize how they are being exploited, that the only means to fight back is to BE more forceful and potentially violent, something that then just justifies further why someone would fear hiring them.

You need a type of starter kit in real terms to get a fair start. Those who often DO get favored without this are due to relatively shallow features, like whether one is physically/genetically endowed. A pretty girl might get 'saved' by some rich guy, for instance; a guy might be tall enough to play basketball with the hopes of getting on a winning team.

Basically, intellect within the poor, is at best secondary to luck alone, and why you get more realistic gambling and addiction problems. You need an 'infrastructure' with a lot of details most people outside of poverty can't or are just not willing or able to intellectually realize are absolute prerequisite necessities.

Fine sermon but didn't addressed my point (e.g. I made no mention of education).

[Scott Mayers]

Fine sermon but didn't addressed my point (e.g. I made no mention of education).

The link is a paper that addresses the correlation of education to poverty. I understood YOU to have presumed some 'intellect' that you assume correlates necessarily to one's wealth. I was challenging this arrogant view.

I did not give a 'sermon' either. That you may not approve of me arguing with the depth essential to rid people of their anti-intellectual bias is why I argued what I had. The issue of poverty by those on the political right is itself 'religious' and they tend to argue in any way to justify their own advantages as 'earned' while those who are impoverished as equally 'earned' ("deserved") as though they are at fault. The reality, as sad as it is, is that those who have power relate to the ACCELERATED power of wealth that makes one who has it even if gained by mere luck requires LESS intelligence and LESS effort to 'succeed'.

What I said was not even touching the surface of how and why those who are poor suffer exponentially (a 'decellerated' force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will.)

[Advocate]

A poor person can only afford to rent a shared space and hope to be lucky enough to get roommates who clean up after themselves, pay their bills, and don't steal or break things.

[Scott Mayers]

A poor person can only afford to rent a shared space and hope to be lucky enough to get roommates who clean up after themselves, pay their bills, and don't steal or break things.

Exactly!

[KLewchuk]

Fine sermon but didn't addressed my point (e.g. I made no mention of education).

The link is a paper that addresses the correlation of education to poverty. I understood YOU to have presumed some 'intellect' that you assume correlates necessarily to one's wealth. I was challenging this arrogant view.

I did not give a 'sermon' either. That you may not approve of me arguing with the depth essential to rid people of their anti-intellectual bias is why I argued what I had. The issue of poverty by those on the political right is itself 'religious' and they tend to argue in any way to justify their own advantages as 'earned' while those who are impoverished as equally 'earned' ("deserved") as though they are at fault. The reality, as sad as it is, is that those who have power relate to the ACCELERATED power of wealth that makes one who has it even if gained by mere luck requires LESS intelligence and LESS effort to 'succeed'.

What I said was not even touching the surface of how and why those who are poor suffer exponentially (a 'decellerated' force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will.)

It wasn't arrogant; I didn't say that "I" had a high IQ. If research shows that IQ is correlated with wealth creation, it is no more biased that also pointing out that certain personality types are also correlated with wealth creation.

A "force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will". Oh ma gerd; a marxist. We shouldn't be so quick to dispense with personal differences and ascribe everything to "oppressive forces".

[henry quirk]

[Scott Mayers]

Fine sermon but didn't addressed my point (e.g. I made no mention of education).

The link is a paper that addresses the correlation of education to poverty. I understood YOU to have presumed some 'intellect' that you assume correlates necessarily to one's wealth. I was challenging this arrogant view.

I did not give a 'sermon' either. That you may not approve of me arguing with the depth essential to rid people of their anti-intellectual bias is why I argued what I had. The issue of poverty by those on the political right is itself 'religious' and they tend to argue in any way to justify their own advantages as 'earned' while those who are impoverished as equally 'earned' ("deserved") as though they are at fault. The reality, as sad as it is, is that those who have power relate to the ACCELERATED power of wealth that makes one who has it even if gained by mere luck requires LESS intelligence and LESS effort to 'succeed'.

What I said was not even touching the surface of how and why those who are poor suffer exponentially (a 'decellerated' force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will.)

It wasn't arrogant; I didn't say that "I" had a high IQ. If research shows that IQ is correlated with wealth creation, it is no more biased that also pointing out that certain personality types are also correlated with wealth creation.

A "force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will". Oh ma gerd; a marxist. We shouldn't be so quick to dispense with personal differences and ascribe everything to "oppressive forces".

That is my quote, not Marx. This isn't about opinion but about fact. Or do you think believe that wealth lacks exponential advantage to gain more wealth with less input?

[KLewchuk]

The link is a paper that addresses the correlation of education to poverty. I understood YOU to have presumed some 'intellect' that you assume correlates necessarily to one's wealth. I was challenging this arrogant view.

I did not give a 'sermon' either. That you may not approve of me arguing with the depth essential to rid people of their anti-intellectual bias is why I argued what I had. The issue of poverty by those on the political right is itself 'religious' and they tend to argue in any way to justify their own advantages as 'earned' while those who are impoverished as equally 'earned' ("deserved") as though they are at fault. The reality, as sad as it is, is that those who have power relate to the ACCELERATED power of wealth that makes one who has it even if gained by mere luck requires LESS intelligence and LESS effort to 'succeed'.

What I said was not even touching the surface of how and why those who are poor suffer exponentially (a 'decellerated' force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will.)

It wasn't arrogant; I didn't say that "I" had a high IQ. If research shows that IQ is correlated with wealth creation, it is no more biased that also pointing out that certain personality types are also correlated with wealth creation.

A "force that locks in one's poverty regardless of will". Oh ma gerd; a marxist. We shouldn't be so quick to dispense with personal differences and ascribe everything to "oppressive forces".

That is my quote, not Marx. This isn't about opinion but about fact. Or do you think believe that wealth lacks exponential advantage to gain more wealth with less input?

I think this "effort" narrative is simplistic and misguided.

Example 1: let's say that you do a job that pays $10/hr and I do one that pays $100. Clearly, it takes you 10 times more effort to buy something worth $100. We are also not doing the same jobs. You may have stayed in the pubs and flunked uni while I am a cancer surgeon.

Example 2: lets say we both do a jobs that pay $10/hr but you work 1 hour a day and I work $10. It doesn't take you more effort than I to buy an item worth $100, I just chose to work longer to afford the $100 item.

[henry quirk]

[Age]

A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

Why, supposedly, does being involved with the police represent an existential risk for the, so called, "poor person"?

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=474964 time=1602288365 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474060 time=1601651210 user_id=15238]
A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.
[/quote]

Why, supposedly, does being involved with the police represent an existential risk for the, so called, "poor person"?
[/quote]

Even a warning goes on your record and can make things harder later on. A ticket of any kind can be a major portion of your disposable income, if any, and always has a huge opportunity cost. The psychological wear counts too.

[Age]

A poor person is at greater risk on the road because they have to pay more attention to the police since being involved with the police at any level can represent an existential risk just as much as traffic problems, more so in some cases.

Why, supposedly, does being involved with the police represent an existential risk for the, so called, "poor person"?

Even a warning goes on your record and can make things harder later on.

What are 'things' here, exactly?

And, what, exactly, makes those things, supposedly, "harder"?

A ticket of any kind can be a major portion of your disposable income, if any, and always has a huge opportunity cost. The psychological wear counts too.

But what has ANY of this got to do with 'existential risk'?

What does 'existential' mean, to you?

[henry quirk]

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=475400 time=1602641040 user_id=472]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=474951 time=1602283122 user_id=472]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=474635 time=1602036142 user_id=472]🤔[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

Destitute? Poor relative to the community you're in? Which variety?

[henry quirk]

Destitute? Poor relative to the community you're in? Which variety?

like the folks you describe in this very thread, of course