- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Poverty in the US is a joke

#11

People have pointed out that an education costs time and money. I went to college for two years for completely free, and I know others who have done the same. Getting into college is not as hard as it used to be. And I never said it would be easy or quick to get the degree.

People have pointed out that an education costs time and money. I went to college for two years for completely free, and I know others who have done the same. Getting into college is not as hard as it used to be. And I never said it would be easy or quick to get the degree.
#12

Does the North American Left ever seem happy?

Oh, and by the way, there's been no "Biggest Robbery" in the last month. Why not look backwards in time a bit. If we open our eyes and look at the actual numbers, the last four years -- utterly out of Trump's control -- have built up MASSIVE deficits and burdened nearly countless cities and towns.

Don't believe me. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. Don't just nod along with news "personalities" and angry, partisan politicians who seem to use shouting to try to build support for themselves.

Did any of the readers ACTUALLY see vast benefit from those vast deficits? Was America flooded with new "infrastructure" that you've ACTUALLY noticed? Seriously, please stop and reflect. Honestly.

The North American Left seems to be furious that Trump and Musk tried to CUT government spending -- including some that seems very questionable. Readers who don't think so might consider trying new some new information sources and some research.

Sorry, but the last four years weren't a picnic. It was time for a change. It is not now time for endless angry hyperbole.

If America is so relatively awful, why did roughly TEN MILLION people try to stream in there in the last four years? There's no real answer to that -- so I'll expect to be personally disparaged or downvoted, if answered at all.

And no, under these particular circumstances I won't consider some cute YouTube video to be an actual answer, as opposed to a distraction from the fact that no real answer was given.

Does the North American Left ever seem happy? Oh, and by the way, there's been no "Biggest Robbery" in the last month. Why not look backwards in time a bit. If we open our eyes and look at the actual numbers, the last four years -- utterly out of Trump's control -- have built up MASSIVE deficits and burdened nearly countless cities and towns. Don't believe me. LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. Don't just nod along with news "personalities" and angry, partisan politicians who seem to use shouting to try to build support for themselves. Did any of the readers ACTUALLY see vast benefit from those vast deficits? Was America flooded with new "infrastructure" that you've ACTUALLY noticed? Seriously, please stop and reflect. Honestly. The North American Left seems to be furious that Trump and Musk tried to CUT government spending -- including some that seems very questionable. Readers who don't think so might consider trying new some new information sources and some research. Sorry, but the last four years weren't a picnic. It was time for a change. It is not now time for endless angry hyperbole. If America is so relatively awful, why did roughly TEN MILLION people try to stream in there in the last four years? There's no real answer to that -- so I'll expect to be personally disparaged or downvoted, if answered at all. And no, under these particular circumstances I won't consider some cute YouTube video to be an actual answer, as opposed to a distraction from the fact that no real answer was given.
#13

I'm sorry, I had it a little bit wrong. It takes 30 years (not 20 years) if you invest $100 a month at 11% interest (not unreasonable). Of course you would never do this at a bank. You have to invest in a business venture. Multiple different businesses actually. And people have done this, it is not just a theory.

I'm sorry, I had it a little bit wrong. It takes 30 years (not 20 years) if you invest $100 a month at 11% interest (not unreasonable). Of course you would never do this at a bank. You have to invest in a business venture. Multiple different businesses actually. And people have done this, it is not just a theory.
#14

@PenguinWhack271828e said in #3:

How do you know someone can afford an Associate's degree? Education in the US is undoubtedly one of the most expensive things ever.
Although there are some f-ups, most people who are poor start off poor.
Example:
A guy immigrated here from Syria due to the civil war in 2014. He had barely any money to work off with, say, the equivalent of maybe $1200. Can he even get a job? Sure, maybe he has a Bachelor's degree from Syria or something, but he needs a place to live. Buying an apartment? Banks won't trust him to pay back the loan. Buying things from the supermarket? He could do that about 16 times, and he'll be bankrupt for sure because everything is so stupidly expensive.

That is what homeless shelters are for. He can temporarily live in a homeless shelter until he has enough money to lease a cheap apartment.

Another example:
This guy will just be a student from the US. He was born in the US but had basically nothing. He went to school and worked hard, but his parents weren't able to afford any of the extra stuff to boost his education. This guy could barely afford the bus ride home, and his parents still need to spend thousands on insurance, electricity, and more bills. 2025, his parents can't pay the taxes. Soon enough, he can't pay for the bus ride. He wakes up very early every day just to be 2 minutes late because there was a road blockage. It was clearly visible on Google Maps, but he couldn't afford a phone. His chances of being successful are therefore minimal, despite how hard he works.

I am very sorry for people with parents who have problems like this. Kids need somebody who will take care of them. But there is an issue with this example. Why are his parents broke? Probably for the reasons I already stated. I'll agree that having parents who make bad choices can seriously affect you.

Third example:
George H. W. Bush was able to bribe his 2.35 GPA son into Yale.
Is this not a good example of how rich families produce rich descendants?

Cherrypicking. I said most rich people did not inherit their wealth.

@PenguinWhack271828e said in #3: > How do you know someone can afford an Associate's degree? Education in the US is undoubtedly one of the most expensive things ever. > Although there are some f-ups, most people who are poor start off poor. > Example: > A guy immigrated here from Syria due to the civil war in 2014. He had barely any money to work off with, say, the equivalent of maybe $1200. Can he even get a job? Sure, maybe he has a Bachelor's degree from Syria or something, but he needs a place to live. Buying an apartment? Banks won't trust him to pay back the loan. Buying things from the supermarket? He could do that about 16 times, and he'll be bankrupt for sure because everything is so stupidly expensive. That is what homeless shelters are for. He can temporarily live in a homeless shelter until he has enough money to lease a cheap apartment. > Another example: > This guy will just be a student from the US. He was born in the US but had basically nothing. He went to school and worked hard, but his parents weren't able to afford any of the extra stuff to boost his education. This guy could barely afford the bus ride home, and his parents still need to spend thousands on insurance, electricity, and more bills. 2025, his parents can't pay the taxes. Soon enough, he can't pay for the bus ride. He wakes up very early every day just to be 2 minutes late because there was a road blockage. It was clearly visible on Google Maps, but he couldn't afford a phone. His chances of being successful are therefore minimal, despite how hard he works. I am very sorry for people with parents who have problems like this. Kids need somebody who will take care of them. But there is an issue with this example. Why are his parents broke? Probably for the reasons I already stated. I'll agree that having parents who make bad choices can seriously affect you. > > Third example: > George H. W. Bush was able to bribe his 2.35 GPA son into Yale. > Is this not a good example of how rich families produce rich descendants? Cherrypicking. I said *most* rich people did not inherit their wealth.
#15

Regardless of the aggregated worth of any particular invested annuity, your general viewpoint (as I perceive it, at least) is a good one, @TheCaptain7777 .

Did many of the poor "start off poor" ? Of course. That's true everywhere.

Did all of those who start off poor have to stay poor? Nope. Examples of poor people becoming affluent are too numerous to reasonably enumerate. And by the way, not all of them got a college degree first -- although I'm not trying to discourage college for some.

Were all of those who are currently rich BORN rich? Did they all have a silver spoon in their mouth at birth? OF COURSE NOT.

Upward mobility is NOT a myth in the United States. Is it easy to achieve? Can one play around all day on the internet and then achieve it?

Actually, some HAVE done just that -- although it's not a common path and it's best to have some other plans, too, I believe.

But no, affluence is seldom "easy" to achieve. What in life that is good is "easy" to achieve? Well, there are a few things, sure. Let's not go into detail.

Here's the point -- and I hope and suspect that @TheCaptain7777 would agree -- I don't think that complaining all day and assuring ourselves that life is "not fair" and that we "can't succeed" is likely to help anybody.

PLENTY of people in the United States, as in Europe, have achieved a comfortable if not lavish life simply by being financially prudent, working without excuse, and not wasting their own time and health. And some of those people HAVE even gone on to become business owners and damned affluent.

If any think that it's impossible to go from poverty -- and real challenge -- to absolute riches, they might turn on the Oprah Winfrey show and think harder.

It's important, I think, not to "bring ourselves down" by dwelling on complaint instead of on possibility.

You can call me Pangloss or Pollyanna if you must, but I've found from experience that constant anger and negativity seldom do anybody any good. Too bad that politics features so much of that over the last couple of decades. But that SEEMS to be changing -- more optimistic, problem-solving voices seem to be on the rise.

And no, I don't mean any who wish to "defund" police or seize the property of others.

But the optimistic voices will probably continue to face plenty of angry resistance. It's not easy to change habitual mindsets -- although I think it's possible and can be beneficial.

I beware of any politicians who seem to want to cultivate negativity and thereby convince people of the need for their political services. After all, who would give poison to anybody they actually cared for?

Regardless of the aggregated worth of any particular invested annuity, your general viewpoint (as I perceive it, at least) is a good one, @TheCaptain7777 . Did many of the poor "start off poor" ? Of course. That's true everywhere. Did all of those who start off poor have to stay poor? Nope. Examples of poor people becoming affluent are too numerous to reasonably enumerate. And by the way, not all of them got a college degree first -- although I'm not trying to discourage college for some. Were all of those who are currently rich BORN rich? Did they all have a silver spoon in their mouth at birth? OF COURSE NOT. Upward mobility is NOT a myth in the United States. Is it easy to achieve? Can one play around all day on the internet and then achieve it? Actually, some HAVE done just that -- although it's not a common path and it's best to have some other plans, too, I believe. But no, affluence is seldom "easy" to achieve. What in life that is good is "easy" to achieve? Well, there are a few things, sure. Let's not go into detail. Here's the point -- and I hope and suspect that @TheCaptain7777 would agree -- I don't think that complaining all day and assuring ourselves that life is "not fair" and that we "can't succeed" is likely to help anybody. PLENTY of people in the United States, as in Europe, have achieved a comfortable if not lavish life simply by being financially prudent, working without excuse, and not wasting their own time and health. And some of those people HAVE even gone on to become business owners and damned affluent. If any think that it's impossible to go from poverty -- and real challenge -- to absolute riches, they might turn on the Oprah Winfrey show and think harder. It's important, I think, not to "bring ourselves down" by dwelling on complaint instead of on possibility. You can call me Pangloss or Pollyanna if you must, but I've found from experience that constant anger and negativity seldom do anybody any good. Too bad that politics features so much of that over the last couple of decades. But that SEEMS to be changing -- more optimistic, problem-solving voices seem to be on the rise. And no, I don't mean any who wish to "defund" police or seize the property of others. But the optimistic voices will probably continue to face plenty of angry resistance. It's not easy to change habitual mindsets -- although I think it's possible and can be beneficial. I beware of any politicians who seem to want to cultivate negativity and thereby convince people of the need for their political services. After all, who would give poison to anybody they actually cared for?
#17

Blud does this man not understand that to get an associates degree for welding, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COLLEGE

Blud does this man not understand that to get an associates degree for welding, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COLLEGE
#18

@TheCaptain7777 said in #14:

That is what homeless shelters are for. He can temporarily live in a homeless shelter until he has enough money to lease a cheap apartment.

Also, many homeless shelters in major cities have very limited space and often don't let families with children in and are completely full most of the time.

@TheCaptain7777 said in #14: > That is what homeless shelters are for. He can temporarily live in a homeless shelter until he has enough money to lease a cheap apartment. Also, many homeless shelters in major cities have very limited space and often don't let families with children in and are completely full most of the time.
#19

@TheCaptain7777 said in #1:

The only people who are truly impoverished in the long-term are those who refuse to work or buy things that they can't afford.

What a callous and false statement. There are a multitude of reasons for poverty (in the US and elsewhere). You just assert that your particular prejudiced stereotypes of poor people are the only possible reason. You don't provide any evidence.

Just as an example, here's a pretty common reason for poverty in the US: crippling medical debt
Disability and/or chronic illnesses are another big one. They can keep you from working and therefore keep you from pulling yourself from poverty. You might not be aware of that but keep in mind that there are a lot of invisible illnesses (illnesses or disabilities that are not easily noticeable for medical laymen from the outside).

Causal relationships can also go the other way around: people are born/fall into poverty and therefore cannot afford medical attention. Many relatively benign and treatable conditions therefore go undiagnosed or untreated for too long leading to chronic illness or substance abuse, leading to the poverty spiral. I personally know Americans who were (temporarily) incapacitated in a work accident (broke joints/limbs), therefore had to spend sick time to recover, lost their job and health insurance, fell into poverty, had to delay/forego treatment, became addicted to opioids due to severe chronic pain from the accident and ultimately died. Their stories are no coincidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States

No wonder the United States are the only industrialised nation in the world to see a decline in their life expectancy. Life expectancy continues to increase nearly everywhere else.

In the US the wages are $12 an hour.

If your employer adheres to the minimum wage. There are plenty of employers who do not pay minimum wage. Isn't that illegal? Sure, but they don't care because the likelihood of being fined multiplied by the fine (the expectation value of the punishment) is still much lower than the savings they enjoy by employing people below the minimum wage.
I know what you'll say: "Just switch jobs, don't let them exploit you!" Easier said than done when that job is the only thing that keeps your family afloat and you don't have any savings to bridge the gap between jobs.
It goes without saying that some people are easily exploited in that way because they cannot fight back. Illegal immigrants doing work that no American wants to do for instance. But that's a different discussion, let's get back on topic.

If you work 40 hours a week, you will make $2160 a month.

That doesn't come out right, it's actually less than that: 40 x 4 x ($12) = $1920. Minimum wage also varies considerably from state to state, the federal required minimum is $7.25 (and 20 out of 50 states only have that) but some states have a higher minimum wage, with Washington having the highest at $16.66.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_states_by_minimum_wage
By the way: 40 x 4 x ($7.25) = $1160 per month. Vast riches, I know.

But either way, you are very naive to think that everybody is able to work 40 hours a week. What about children, what about sick people, what about disabled people, what about old people. All of those are at a far greater risk to fall into poverty or are already poor and unable to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Do you not care for these people? Are they not human being such as you, don't they have the same dignity? Aren't they deserving of the same basic human rights of sufficient nutrition, clean shelter, sanitation, community, necessary healthcare and mobility?

Maybe you spend $500 of that on food. Modest shelter and utilities should cost about $1000 a month. Say you spend $560 on emergencies and hobbies. That leaves you with $100 to invest, which will make you a millionaire in 20 years.

Not sure these cost of living estimates are realistic but be that as it may. It's extremely optimistic to say that anyone who can spare $100 a month to invest will be a millionaire in 20 years. Maybe a few extremely lucky ones will be but definitely not many.

And besides – this naive way of looking at things entirely misses the point of poverty anyways. Poor people simply CANNOT spare $100 a month to invest, no matter what fantasy calculations you perform on the minimum wage. People do not exist in isolation, most people have families to support and unpaid care work to do, looking after siblings or your own children, taking care of sick or elderly relatives. This both limits the time you can afford to work and divvies up the little money you take in.

And that is on minimum wage. If you have a family things will be more difficult.

Understatement of the century.

But it does not take long to secure financial security, and you could delay having a family until such a time.

Oh, so you were born without a family? You didn't have parents or siblings? Or they were healthy and well off so they could support themselves into old age. And clearly this must apply to everyone because famously all people are born in the exact same circumstances. Or are they?
Anyways, I get your point, you are trying to say that one can delay having children of one's own until one is financially stable. That having children is an independent decision, also known as a choice. And again, you are missing the point that this is not possible or at least not equally as simple for everybody.

Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization
"As of 2024, abortion is greatly restricted in 16 states, overwhelmingly in the Southern United States."
The governments of several US states have simply taken away the choice of having an abortion. They have stripped women of the right to decide about their own body. Contraceptives can help mitigate the risk of unwanted pregnancy but again, especially when you're poor, doubly especially when you are underage, getting contraceptives can be difficult. Furthermore, knowledge about the efficacy and proper use of contraceptives is deceptively withheld from teenagers in many school districts in the US: Instead of proper sexual education many kids in the US receive abstinence only messaging and are being lied to about basic scientific facts and contraceptives. Abstinence only sexual "education" demonstrably does not work:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5913747/

Now what goes wrong with most people is that they spend money that they don't have on things that they don't need. Then they squander their wages on interest on their growing debt.

You are describing a universal problem of excessive US-style credit-card consumerism that affects nearly everybody in the US. This is neither unique to nor characteristic of poor people. If anything, this problem affects the dwindling middle class more.

The reason I am writing this is to point out how ridiculous it is to complain about how poor people are discriminated against and how the rich rule the world.

You believe poor people are not discriminated against? Based on what? You believe rich people do not have disproportionate power and political influence? So the Koch brothers, Elon Musk, Timothy Mellon, Miriam Adelson and Rupert Murdoch do not exist? Or Michael Bloomberg or Reid Hoffman or Jim Simons?
Didn't Elon Musk/Space X just fund Donald Trump's presidential campaign with $276,275,595?
He did: https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-trump/contributors?id=N00023864&src=t

Getting rich is doable.

In the same sense winning the lottery is also doable. Anyone can get rich, but not everyone. The way the excessively rich have set things up since the 1980s the extreme wealth inequality in the US (and in many other countries) can only increase. As has been observed in the past forty years:
https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/democratic-socialist-winning-nyc-mayor-election?page=5#41

As of late 2022, according to Snopes, 735 billionaires collectively possessed more wealth than the bottom half of U.S. households ($4.5 trillion and $4.1 trillion respectively). The top 1% held a total of $43.45 trillion.
Source: https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/04/13/728-billionaires-hold-more-wealth/

This is not an inevitability, it's not a law of nature as the more equitable way of sharing the increasing wealth of the world in the postwar era has shown. It's a result of deliberate lobbying, of regulation after regulation, administration after administration favouring industry and the rich over everyone else. Tax credit after tax credit wealth is being taken from the poor and middle class and given to the rich and especially the top 0.1%, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB)" being only the latest (and one of the most egregious) examples:

"Food insecurity and hunger [...] affects millions of Americans [...]. In 2023, about 13.5 percent of American households were food insecure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_insecurity_and_hunger_in_the_United_States

The OBBB is alleged to cut over $1.2 trillion in federal spending, primarily from Medicaid and nutrition funding SNAP (formerly called "food stamps"). It requires SNAP beneficiaries ages 18–64 to work at least 80 hours per month, compared to 18–54 under current law. As mentioned before the people who are eligible for SNAP are more likely to be unable to work full hours than the general population (disabilities and chronic illnesses are comorbidities of poverty), so this move will cut off many people who desperately need SNAP for basic food security. The OBBB is expected to reduce federal nutrition funding by $186 billion between 2025 and 2034. This translates directly into a lot of hunger and suffering, mainly for kids and other dependents. And who knows, maybe you'll be able to reverse the trend of falling crime rates that way as well? Wouldn't that be something?

America is so unbelievably rich already, that "poor" people have an amazing standard of living.

You don't actually know any poor people, do you? Your ignorance does not prove that they do not exist, it only means that you live in a sheltered cocoon, in a bubble.

People who call themselves "poor" live better than rich people did just a few decades ago. We have absolutely no grounds to complain.

Bad rage bait 0/10. I don't need to explain that Bill Gates lived way better in the 90s than any middle class family does today. The same applies to anyone, even those "merely" in the top 1% of the wealth distribution in the 1990s. They had a higher standard of living than any middle class family does now. It's self-explanatory.

@TheCaptain7777 said in #1: > The only people who are truly impoverished in the long-term are those who refuse to work or buy things that they can't afford. What a callous and false statement. There are a multitude of reasons for poverty (in the US and elsewhere). You just assert that your particular prejudiced stereotypes of poor people are the only possible reason. You don't provide any evidence. Just as an example, here's a pretty common reason for poverty in the US: crippling medical debt Disability and/or chronic illnesses are another big one. They can keep you from working and therefore keep you from pulling yourself from poverty. You might not be aware of that but keep in mind that there are a lot of invisible illnesses (illnesses or disabilities that are not easily noticeable for medical laymen from the outside). Causal relationships can also go the other way around: people are born/fall into poverty and therefore cannot afford medical attention. Many relatively benign and treatable conditions therefore go undiagnosed or untreated for too long leading to chronic illness or substance abuse, leading to the poverty spiral. I personally know Americans who were (temporarily) incapacitated in a work accident (broke joints/limbs), therefore had to spend sick time to recover, lost their job and health insurance, fell into poverty, had to delay/forego treatment, became addicted to opioids due to severe chronic pain from the accident and ultimately died. Their stories are no coincidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States No wonder the United States are the only industrialised nation in the world to see a decline in their life expectancy. Life expectancy continues to increase nearly everywhere else. > In the US the wages are $12 an hour. If your employer adheres to the minimum wage. There are plenty of employers who do not pay minimum wage. Isn't that illegal? Sure, but they don't care because the likelihood of being fined multiplied by the fine (the expectation value of the punishment) is still much lower than the savings they enjoy by employing people below the minimum wage. I know what you'll say: "Just switch jobs, don't let them exploit you!" Easier said than done when that job is the only thing that keeps your family afloat and you don't have any savings to bridge the gap between jobs. It goes without saying that some people are easily exploited in that way because they cannot fight back. Illegal immigrants doing work that no American wants to do for instance. But that's a different discussion, let's get back on topic. > If you work 40 hours a week, you will make $2160 a month. That doesn't come out right, it's actually less than that: 40 x 4 x ($12) = $1920. Minimum wage also varies considerably from state to state, the federal required minimum is $7.25 (and 20 out of 50 states only have that) but some states have a higher minimum wage, with Washington having the highest at $16.66. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_states_by_minimum_wage By the way: 40 x 4 x ($7.25) = $1160 per month. Vast riches, I know. But either way, you are very naive to think that everybody is able to work 40 hours a week. What about children, what about sick people, what about disabled people, what about old people. All of those are at a far greater risk to fall into poverty or are already poor and unable to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Do you not care for these people? Are they not human being such as you, don't they have the same dignity? Aren't they deserving of the same basic human rights of sufficient nutrition, clean shelter, sanitation, community, necessary healthcare and mobility? > Maybe you spend $500 of that on food. Modest shelter and utilities should cost about $1000 a month. Say you spend $560 on emergencies and hobbies. That leaves you with $100 to invest, which will make you a millionaire in 20 years. Not sure these cost of living estimates are realistic but be that as it may. It's extremely optimistic to say that anyone who can spare $100 a month to invest will be a millionaire in 20 years. Maybe a few extremely lucky ones will be but definitely not many. And besides – this naive way of looking at things entirely misses the point of poverty anyways. Poor people simply CANNOT spare $100 a month to invest, no matter what fantasy calculations you perform on the minimum wage. People do not exist in isolation, most people have families to support and unpaid care work to do, looking after siblings or your own children, taking care of sick or elderly relatives. This both limits the time you can afford to work and divvies up the little money you take in. > And that is on minimum wage. If you have a family things will be more difficult. Understatement of the century. > But it does not take long to secure financial security, and you could delay having a family until such a time. Oh, so you were born without a family? You didn't have parents or siblings? Or they were healthy and well off so they could support themselves into old age. And clearly this must apply to everyone because famously all people are born in the exact same circumstances. Or are they? Anyways, I get your point, you are trying to say that one can delay having children of one's own until one is financially stable. That having children is an independent decision, also known as a choice. And again, you are missing the point that this is not possible or at least not equally as simple for everybody. Exhibit A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization "As of 2024, abortion is greatly restricted in 16 states, overwhelmingly in the Southern United States." The governments of several US states have simply taken away the choice of having an abortion. They have stripped women of the right to decide about their own body. Contraceptives can help mitigate the risk of unwanted pregnancy but again, especially when you're poor, doubly especially when you are underage, getting contraceptives can be difficult. Furthermore, knowledge about the efficacy and proper use of contraceptives is deceptively withheld from teenagers in many school districts in the US: Instead of proper sexual education many kids in the US receive abstinence only messaging and are being lied to about basic scientific facts and contraceptives. Abstinence only sexual "education" demonstrably does not work: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5913747/ > Now what goes wrong with most people is that they spend money that they don't have on things that they don't need. Then they squander their wages on interest on their growing debt. You are describing a universal problem of excessive US-style credit-card consumerism that affects nearly everybody in the US. This is neither unique to nor characteristic of poor people. If anything, this problem affects the dwindling middle class more. > The reason I am writing this is to point out how ridiculous it is to complain about how poor people are discriminated against and how the rich rule the world. You believe poor people are not discriminated against? Based on what? You believe rich people do not have disproportionate power and political influence? So the Koch brothers, Elon Musk, Timothy Mellon, Miriam Adelson and Rupert Murdoch do not exist? Or Michael Bloomberg or Reid Hoffman or Jim Simons? Didn't Elon Musk/Space X just fund Donald Trump's presidential campaign with $276,275,595? He did: https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-trump/contributors?id=N00023864&src=t > Getting rich is doable. In the same sense winning the lottery is also doable. Anyone can get rich, but not everyone. The way the excessively rich have set things up since the 1980s the extreme wealth inequality in the US (and in many other countries) can only increase. As has been observed in the past forty years: https://lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/democratic-socialist-winning-nyc-mayor-election?page=5#41 As of late 2022, according to Snopes, 735 billionaires collectively possessed more wealth than the bottom half of U.S. households ($4.5 trillion and $4.1 trillion respectively). The top 1% held a total of $43.45 trillion. Source: https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/04/13/728-billionaires-hold-more-wealth/ This is not an inevitability, it's not a law of nature as the more equitable way of sharing the increasing wealth of the world in the postwar era has shown. It's a result of deliberate lobbying, of regulation after regulation, administration after administration favouring industry and the rich over everyone else. Tax credit after tax credit wealth is being taken from the poor and middle class and given to the rich and especially the top 0.1%, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB)" being only the latest (and one of the most egregious) examples: "Food insecurity and hunger [...] affects millions of Americans [...]. In 2023, about 13.5 percent of American households were food insecure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_insecurity_and_hunger_in_the_United_States The OBBB is alleged to cut over $1.2 trillion in federal spending, primarily from Medicaid and nutrition funding SNAP (formerly called "food stamps"). It requires SNAP beneficiaries ages 18–64 to work at least 80 hours per month, compared to 18–54 under current law. As mentioned before the people who are eligible for SNAP are more likely to be unable to work full hours than the general population (disabilities and chronic illnesses are comorbidities of poverty), so this move will cut off many people who desperately need SNAP for basic food security. The OBBB is expected to reduce federal nutrition funding by $186 billion between 2025 and 2034. This translates directly into a lot of hunger and suffering, mainly for kids and other dependents. And who knows, maybe you'll be able to reverse the trend of falling crime rates that way as well? Wouldn't that be something? > America is so unbelievably rich already, that "poor" people have an amazing standard of living. You don't actually know any poor people, do you? Your ignorance does not prove that they do not exist, it only means that you live in a sheltered cocoon, in a bubble. > People who call themselves "poor" live better than rich people did just a few decades ago. We have absolutely no grounds to complain. Bad rage bait 0/10. I don't need to explain that Bill Gates lived way better in the 90s than any middle class family does today. The same applies to anyone, even those "merely" in the top 1% of the wealth distribution in the 1990s. They had a higher standard of living than any middle class family does now. It's self-explanatory.
#20

@mapofdragons said in #17:

Blud does this man not understand that to get an associates degree for welding, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COLLEGE
Thomas Sowell didn't; there are other ways; he went to the military.

@mapofdragons said in #17: > Blud does this man not understand that to get an associates degree for welding, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COLLEGE Thomas Sowell didn't; there are other ways; he went to the military.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.