Why don’t some people accept that Poverty in America is a lifestyle choice?

[superpunch]

Nowadays, with all the free education and information you can get online it should be the easiest time in the world to shape your career in the right direction.

I think it is the easiest time in the world to shape your career in the right direction.

I've wasted most of my 20s not pursuing a career after quitting finance. I'd be so depressed if it was 1970 and my only options were to work in a field, go to the factory, or join the military. As you said, there's just a ridiculous amount of opportunity. Anyone can study something online, often free, and be making 6 figures within a few years without even going into student loan debt.

The amount of opportunity is so stupid big and most people are still stuck in a 1970s mindset that they think these opportunities are scams.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Opinion. Shit opinion at that.



Opinion. Not based in fact.



Why do you hate the working class?

I worked minimum wage, wanted more. Worked more than 1 job and constantly applied to higher paying jobs until I got them. Years later and I'm at a place where I am happy with my salary. Your mileage may vary.

 

[HatchetHarry]

I think the best comments in here are about choosing to be rich. If poverty is a lifestyle choice then so is wealth...yet none of these people seem to have chosen wealth for themselves?

I wonder why? Lack of ambition, poor work ethic and they're bad with money probably.

What constitutes as rich? Being well off is a lifestyle choice. It’s pretty easy to accumulate a few million in assets by the time you are 65. I’m 34 and my networth is already 250k or so which isn’t really that much. I am counting retirement accounts, equity in home, wristwatch collection, and cash.

 

[panamaican]

The high schoolers not being able to find jobs is also due to massive legal and illegal immigration over-saturing the low skill job market in certain areas. America has been taking in too many people and the market just can't keep up with it.

Automation is another problem that is affecting the low skill job market.

Also, the market decides naturally what type of jobs are in demand, and which aren't. A guy can get a PHD in geology all he wants, if there are no jobs or need in that field, then it's tough luck. A country could be full of PHD's in geology and it wouldn't matter if the market doesn't need it. People need to look at the market, decide what jobs are in demand, and adjust their career paths for that. For example, at my university there were more first year students in journalism/philosophy/art history than in computer science/math/engineering.

Nowadays, with all the free education and information you can get online it should be the easiest time in the world to shape your career in the right direction.

So, you're saying that if everyone went out and got degrees in computer science/math/engineering then the supply curve wouldn't affect the compensation model for those professions? Which would surprise me because it already has.

For example, in 2015 the unemployment rate for chemistry graduates was 12.4%. That's awful and that's a STEM field. There are other examples where the new job market, even for STEM majors isn't that great. Now, for those who get hired and those already in the professions, the compensation is superior.

But that's ancillary to my point - which is that the economy plays a larger role in poverty that simple work ethic unless you're stating that people getting non-STEM majors aren't working hard in their classes?

And let's not minimize that even in STEM fields, the rate of changing technology can severely impede people trying to re-train, even if they were previously in those fields.

I think people are peddling economic information and strategies that were valid 15 years ago and aren't really paying attention to where/how the modern economy is moving when discussing how the general public can improve their financial picture. It's no longer enough to say "get a STEM degree" or "just worker".

 

[panamaican]

What constitutes as rich? Being well off is a lifestyle choice. It’s pretty easy to accumulate a few million in assets by the time you are 65. I’m 34 and my networth is already 250k or so which isn’t really that much. I am counting retirement accounts, equity in home, wristwatch collection, and cash.

You are correct, it's not that much. And if you're counting equity in your primary residence then you're even further behind than you think (I'll assume you were joking by mentioning a wristwatch collection...good one ).

 

[sickc0d3r]

Yes being rich is a lifestyle choice... a life style of working hard and working smart.

Great! So we can dispense with all the morality of taxes rhetoric and start making policy based on evidence and outcomes.

 

[ManCityFC9]

I want to agree with you except that the actual economy contradicts that assessment that people can just make more money. I was just posting about how the high school students have seen double digit declines in their employment prospects, in part because more adults are taking the jobs they used to work and there are fewer such jobs as well.

I think it's hard to claim that poor people aren't trying when their efforts to find work indicate that they are even willing to work hs level jobs to make a living. At some point, people have to acknowledge that the economy itself is a major player in why some people are poor.

If wages have been flat for 20+ years, how exactly are people supposed to make more money? Things like that.

That's not an excuse for poor people or their work ethic but I just find it strange that people discuss the money making prospects of other people without ever discussing the economy and current trends in compensation.

I'm not sure what you mean w.r.t. my post stating people can just make more money.(The OP, stated simply, did identify two basic issues)
-It requires a bit of investing in one's education and a bit of work ethic associated with completing that education.
-As well as management of ones income in order to retain and invest/grow ones wealth(i.e. purchasing a home)

I do understand how automation and technological advancements are taking the place of plenty of jobs/professions but there are still pathways one can take to assure a higher income and "non-poor" lifestyle, and that is education (particularly in STEM curricula)

Money making prospects of people tie directly to their skill level and the relevancy/value of their skills in the current economy.

education is available in this country; it may be easy for some to attain and much more difficult for others but the benefits include a less of a "poor" lifestyle.

 

[cincymma79]

Nobody makes minimum wage

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2015/home.htm

 

[Iceberg Slim]

I got a brother in law that complains about how hard he works for peanuts. Meanwhile, he's a gym rat that posts pictures of his abs and the guns daily. I said shit dude, put that much effort into developing your brain instead of your muscles and you'll be making bank in no time. He's like <Lmaoo>

 

[Luminaire]

You are correct, it's not that much. And if you're counting equity in your primary residence then you're even further behind than you think (I'll assume you were joking by mentioning a wristwatch collection...good one ).

ha, what a troll.

None of the particulars taken into account, you don't know what he does for a career, or where he lives. He owns a home at 34 and is cash positive... in absolutely no world is he "behind".

Meanwhile you'll champion the minimum wage slacker that just spent his thanksgiving evening camping outside a Best Buy so he could buy a 60" TV with his Chase Slate card lol.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not sure what you mean w.r.t. my post stating people can just make more money.(The OP, stated simply, did identify two basic issues)
-It requires a bit of investing in one's education and a bit of work ethic associated with completing that education.
-As well as management of ones income in order to retain and invest/grow ones wealth(i.e. purchasing a home)

I do understand how automation and technological advancements are taking the place of plenty of jobs/professions but there are still pathways one can take to assure a higher income and "non-poor" lifestyle, and that is education (particularly in STEM curricula)

Money making prospects of people tie directly to their skill level and the relevancy/value of their skills in the current economy.

education is available in this country; it may be easy for some to attain and much more difficult for others but the benefits include a less of a "poor" lifestyle.

I don't want to retype my entire post to someone else but those things don't assure a higher income. The example I was using elsewhere is that in 2015, the unemployment rate for new chemistry majors was 12.4%. Those are people with a STEM degree whole presumably worked very hard. The Comp Sci rate was almost 8% in 2013. Both of those are pretty high for degree choices that people claim are a path to general financial stability.

Now, assuming that you are landing employment in those fields, they pay very well, so there is that. And the unemployment rate at the PhD level is extremely low, which is great assuming you have PHD level ability.

But I don't think people understand just how much the requisite skill level for entry has changed in many professions.

But my larger point is that the current economy is a bigger driver of whether or not someone will remain poor than it gets credit for.

 

[Falsedawn]

I worked minimum wage, wanted more. Worked more than 1 job and constantly applied to higher paying jobs until I got them. Years later and I'm at a place where I am happy with my salary. Your mileage may vary.

I went to college.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think the best comments in here are about choosing to be rich. If poverty is a lifestyle choice then so is wealth...yet none of these people seem to have chosen wealth for themselves?

I wonder why? Lack of ambition, poor work ethic and they're bad with money probably.

If it were as easy as picking door #2 then yeah, we'd all choose wealth. When it requires working hard, working smart, an entrepreneurial spirit, and dedication the choice isn't so simple. Since I'm lazy and aspire to leisure I've gotten only so far. But it's far enough that I'm comfortable with it. Lots of people are surely comfortable in their poverty and that reflects in their work ethic and spending. I can't imagine there's too many people who can honestly say they tried their hardest (via effort and decision-making) to escape poverty and failed.

 

[panamaican]

ha, what a troll.

None of the particulars taken into account, you don't know what he does for a career, or where he lives. He owns a home at 34 and is cash positive... in absolutely no world is he "behind".

Meanwhile you'll champion the minimum wage slacker that just spent his thanksgiving evening camping outside a Best Buy so he could buy a 60" TV with his Chase Slate card lol.

If his $250k is based on assumed equity in his property then it's not really $250k. I say this all of the time and people always get a little irked by it, which is understandable. Don't count the equity in your primary residence.

That whole thing about best buy and tv's seems completely out of left field so I'm going to assume it's not a real point and ignore it.

 

[grimballer]

Is it pure ignorance? Denial? Poverty in America is really inexcusable. I laugh when people talk about how people are “keeping them down”. Newsflash: CEO making bank doesn’t stop you from making bank.

The thing is these people simply lack work ethic and are bad with money. They blow all their funds on trash and if they actually work they don’t want to put in the extra hours or acquire a side hustle. Once I finish my Masters I am planning on working 5 jobs. My only problem is there isn’t enough hours in the week.

That’s pretty much Democrat platform:

“Always blame others for your shortcomings”

Without it democrats wouldn’t exist

 

[superpunch]

I don't want to retype my entire post to someone else but those things don't assure a higher income. The example I was using elsewhere is that in 2015, the unemployment rate for new chemistry majors was 12.4%. Those are people with a STEM degree whole presumably worked very hard. The Comp Sci rate was almost 8% in 2013. Both of those are pretty high for degree choices that people claim are a path to general financial stability.

Now, assuming that you are landing employment in those fields, they pay very well, so there is that. And the unemployment rate at the PhD level is extremely low, which is great assuming you have PHD level ability.

But I don't think people understand just how much the requisite skill level for entry has changed in many professions.

But my larger point is that the current economy is a bigger driver of whether or not someone will remain poor than it gets credit for.

At least 8% of college students getting a STEM degree have a "degree". State colleges will graduate anyone. The degree alone doesn't mean anything. What matters is what you learn. If get a 2.0 from a state university, you didn't learn anything.

And of course, students run the gamut of drug addiction, alcohol addiction, crime, personality disorders, etc. like any other segment of the population.

 

[cincymma79]

As someone who started out poor and is now pushing the top end of upper middle class i support this message.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

I went to college.

What does that say for those who didn’t?

 

[panamaican]

If it were as easy as picking door #2 then yeah, we'd all choose wealth. When it requires working hard, working smart, an entrepreneurial spirit, and dedication the choice isn't so simple. Since I'm lazy and aspire to leisure I've gotten only so far. But it's far enough that I'm comfortable with it. Lots of people are surely comfortable in their poverty and that reflects in their work ethic and spending. I can't imagine there's too many people who can honestly say they tried their hardest (via effort and decision-making) to escape poverty and failed.

Considering that the working poor rate has remained consistent over the years (between 5-7%), it's a pretty good assumption that a working poor class is just an element of our system. Especially since people move in and out of that designation multiple times over their lives.

 

[panamaican]

At least 8% of college students getting a STEM degree have a "degree". State colleges will graduate anyone. The degree alone doesn't mean anything. What matters is what you learn. If get a 2.0 from a state university, you didn't learn anything.

And of course, students run the gamut of drug addiction, alcohol addiction, crime, personality disorders, etc. like any other segment of the population.

Correct, the degree alone doesn't mean anything. There's a significant employment difference between a PhD in a STEM field and a bachelor's or an Associates. So to take the point to it's logical conclusion - everyone should just get a PhD in a STEM field and their employment issues would disappear. It's silly and over simplifies a more complex scenario.