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

[panamaican]

Conceptually that's no different than my 401(k). Value could skyrocket or plunge and I have no access to the value it represents until I cash out.

Conceptually, not so. I'm not talking about the value.

The funds in your 401(k) are an investment and you can use them without changing any current aspect of your lifestyle or taking on new debt. You cannot do that with your primary residence - either you have to give up your current home address or you have to take on debt to use the value.

 

[panamaican]

My watch collection is worth like 25k so no it’s not a joke. I do feel behind but I will get there although kids might make it harder. Home equity is part of a networth by the way.

It shouldn't be if you're trying to be accurate about what you'll have to actually live on when you retire.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If you sell your home you still need to live somewhere, is the point about equity in a home I think.

I considered that, but dismissed it for lack of merit. If you have 100k in cash you also still have to live somewhere. Doesn't mean you don't have that 100k. The house is an asset and you can bet the taxing authority has no problem assigning it value. Can you find a net worth calculator that doesn't include one's home?

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/smart-spending/personal-net-worth-calculator.aspx

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Just going to school shouldn't be the only way a child gets a basic education. That is a completely flawed philosophy that stems from the parents being irresponsible and the child not being ambitious enough.

what about parents who are kids still? or parents who work 2-3 shit jobs, and dont have the time to educate at home?

Books, the internet, workshops, etc. are all available for anyone who wants them. There are many different means to get educated, relying solely on an educational system that has proven to be failing is simply irresponsible by the parents.

everyone should be will smith from the pursuit of happiness movie, but expecting that from a policy level, is naive and foolish. its unrealistic, and at no time period in american history would the populace embrace such a mentality on a large scale, contrary to popular belief. policy must meet people halfway. right now, our education system is the best in the F'ing world for middle class students and up. we're failing our de facto segregated schools. among some of these communities, there is a cultural issue that plays into it, but policy and public investment must meet them halfway in order to change this.

 

[Scheme]

Huh, and here I thought the problem, was that employers used to train their employees, and now they expect the government and you to pay for your training.

Aka externalizing costs.

Why pay to train someone who might have a wide range of aptitude for the job, if there are people in the market that have already been trained and proven to have some aptitude?

 

[21 Savage]

Expecting people to always make the correct, rational choice is an expectation that demands inhuman qualities. Who do you think has a higher likelihood of choosing to invest in a roth IRA up to the federal governments maximums every year to maximize their retirement potential? Somebody that is born into a wealthy middle or upper class family, or somebody born into a low income household with an absent father and a drug addicted mother?

Everything we do and all the choices we make are heavily influenced by so many different things its quite pointless to push the "its a choice bro" meme.

 

[Luminaire]

It shouldn't be if you're trying to be accurate about what you'll have to actually live on when you retire.

Lol, you're all over the place.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Homelessness=mental illness
"Poverty"=lifestyle choice/family background
middle/upper class= lifestyle choice/family background
Wealthy=Privilege.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Conceptually, not so. I'm not talking about the value.

The funds in your 401(k) are an investment and you can use them without changing any current aspect of your lifestyle or taking on new debt. You cannot do that with your primary residence - either you have to give up your current home address or you have to take on debt to use the value.

Sure, liquidity and opportunity cost come into play. To be particular, I can't use my 401(k) without a lifestyle change either. I'd have to lose my job.

 

[HatchetHarry]

If you sell your home you still need to live somewhere, is the point about equity in a home I think.

You don’t need to sell your home to get money from it. Home equity loans are a powerful tool for getting a lot of money quick. My father said he can get a few hundred thousand in a home equity loan anytime he wants.

 

[panamaican]

The 12.4% of people who couldn't get a job because they went into chemistry is ultimately their fault, they didn't spend enough time looking at the market and filling a need. If there is an over-saturation in the market then that will naturally lead to high unemployment. It's not the economy's fault, because the economy doesn't choose anything. It's simply a state of what is needed and what is not needed. If someone decides to go into something that is not needed, then that is their fault, for either ignorance of the job market or acceptance of an over-saturated market.

Work ethic is very important, as it often compensates for bad choices. But a combination of a work ethic and good choices is almost a guarantee of success. And luckily, both of those are mostly controllable as an individual.

I have worked as a software developer/engineer/architect for 5 years now. I constantly stay on top of the newest technologies, because if I was still stuck using Fortran in today's market it would be next to impossible to get a job. And it wouldn't be the markets fault for not having enough Fortran jobs out there, it would be my fault for lagging behind and making poor choices, despite however amazing my work ethic might have been.

It's not the economy's fault because the economy doesn't choose anything has got be the most inaccurate statement I've ever read.

So, people should identify a market need but the economy has no role in what the market needs, lol.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Why pay to train someone who might have a wide range of aptitude for the job, if there are people in the market that have already been trained and proven to have some aptitude?

Because paying for a cost of doing business, in a trained workforce is a cost of doing business.

If there is skilled experienced workers, they can hire those people. What they shouldn't get is government grants to be paid by the individual, or the tax payer, to externalise that cost.

My guess, is that you didn't have the 50k in liquid form to pay for your education. The government subsidized that.

 

[SummerStriker]

I've known a lot of scientists, and they are by and large, starving artists. Begging for grant money, hiring people willing to work for free, teaching English to make ends meet, using publications as status symbols instead of money - it's rough.

There is a huge difference between being a scientist interested in lake bacteria / health, and a scientist that patents chemicals that get used on spacecraft.

 

[HatchetHarry]

It shouldn't be if you're trying to be accurate about what you'll have to actually live on when you retire.

I didn’t say anything about retiring off my watches. I listed it as part of net worth. Anyway I could flip the submariner for 5k in an hour. The yachtmaster and speedy I could sell pretty quick as well for like 6k and 8k.

 

[electricfuneral]

the bootstraps thread

 

[Scheme]

what about parents who are kids still? or parents who work 2-3 shit jobs, and dont have the time to educate at home?



everyone should be will smith from the pursuit of happiness movie, but expecting that from a policy level, is naive and foolish. its unrealistic, and at no time period in american history would the populace embrace such a mentality on a large scale, contrary to popular belief. policy must meet people halfway. right now, our education system is the best in the F'ing world for middle class students and up. we're failing our de facto segregated schools. among some of these communities, there is a cultural issue that plays into it, but policy and public investment must meet them halfway in order to change this.

Parents don't need to educate their children, my point is that there are many other resources to do so.

Yes, I expect people to be motivated enough to pick up a couple of books and read them, maybe go online and research a bit of their future. Unfortunately, that has become a venial sin in our America.

 

[Scheme]

It's not the economy's fault because the economy doesn't choose anything has got be the most inaccurate statement I've ever read.

So, people should identify a market need but the economy has no role in what the market needs, lol.

Going to my example, it's not the tech industries fault that my Fortran knowledge has become irrelevant. It's my fault for putting all my eggs into one basket.

Should I blame the tech industry for wanting people who knew Fortran 40 years ago, but now no longer needing it? Or should I blame myself for not realizing that Fortran jobs were disappearing?

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, there will always be people who are relatively poor. Doesn't change the fact that people dissatisfied with that status can improve their position. Just like I could do better than middle class if I were really so inclined.

So, we're going to say that there will be always be people who are relatively poor but they can improve their position. That's inherently contradictory. If we will always have a particular class of people then it's not possible for that class to improve it's position.

I get what you're saying and this is the absurdity of the concept as a whole. You're suggesting that a specific individual can always do better than their current circumstances. True. But then we're talking about a specific individual, not "poverty". If we're talking about poverty then the reality is that it is a permanent aspect of our economy and no lifestyle choice by the collective poor will change it.

So we return to the common error where people insist that a class of people are making a negative choice when the economics indicate that it's not true. An individual might make such a choice but the data suggests that even when making plenty of good choices, the existence of the permanent economic class demonstrates that for some they will not move beyond it. No one is operating in a vacuum where their choices aren't being met by others making similar choices.

It's like saying "Everyone can be valedictorian if they just study hard enough." Seemingly true but objectively false. Only one student can be valedictorian (maybe 2 for those co-valedictorian places). Everyone can TRY to be valedictorian, that is true. But not everyone can achieve it...no matter how hard they might try.

 

[HatchetHarry]

what about parents who are kids still? or parents who work 2-3 shit jobs, and dont have the time to educate at home?

That is their own fault. Keep your legs closed or use condoms, don’t use drugs, stay in school, and don’t buy tons of shit on credit to look cool.

 

[panamaican]

Clearly you have no idea how to calculate "net worth".

No, I have a very good idea of how to calculate net worth. The point I'm making is that when people include primary residence equity they are misleading themselves as to their real economic position.

Let me give you an example. Person A has a house with $5 equity but $500k in cash, stocks and bonds. Person B has a house with $500k in equity and $5 in cash, stocks and bonds.

Do you consider them equal when it comes to financial positioning?