Question:
Poverty in the USA is a choice, agree?
2007-05-10 00:17:19 UTC
For some reason, many people in poverty who have a strong desire to extract themselves from it usually find a way to do so. They work extra jobs, or save more money or get more education. Countless dirt-poor immigrants have arrived on US shores and built themselves a better life, even opening their own businesses...which is why they continue to come here.

However, other poor people have decided not to extract themselves from poverty. They are content with their lot in life, or do not possess sufficient motivation. In any event, that is their choice to make, not ours. But social welfare entitlement programs are likely to only further this malaise, this laziness, because for these folks (not truly physically disabled people!), why bother trying if everything is already handed to you?

Of course, some bleeding-hearts will make the argument that they are "disadvantaged" or "oppressed"... but even IF that were true, this didn't stop their ambitious counterparts from succeeding.
56 answers:
bandfreak006
2007-05-10 01:13:36 UTC
I agree with you



My parents immigrated to this country 20 years ago.

LEGALLY, so no bullsh!t.

My dad came here with just the clothes. He has worked his way up to supervisor, making $1,000 + a week. We have a nice home. its just me , mom, and dad

no relatives or friends living with us. so yes i agree with you. America has soo much posibilities if you just work and try hard. People are being lazy, living off teh goverment.



FYI

NO WE DONT LIVE WITH 10 OTHER PEOPLE

NOT ALL IMMIGRANTS DO

*responding to other comments*
DixeVil
2007-05-10 01:14:46 UTC
I think in some cases it's a welfare mentality passed on from generation to generation. Some laziness, some ignorance, some conditioned to believe that they are the have-nots and will never be anything else.

The ones I can't understand are the young men (and more so these days) women that live in poverty, inner-city ghettos, etc. They join the military, live outside the boundaries of their poverty-roots, have a chance to get an education, learn skills, have a steady pay check (not rich but not having to worry about where their next meal is coming from) then get out of the service, return to the same place they left and spend the rest of their life crying about the way they have to live because they are so down-trodden.

What happens? Do they find out that if you want to make it in the rest of the world, you have to work instead of hang out with the Homies? What is the lure that lands them right back where they came from?
shayne t
2007-05-10 01:26:25 UTC
Unlike some of the answerer's on here, I read the question. If they had paid attention you mentioned "truly disabled". That is the perfect description. Because there are fraudulently disabled.

Yes, poverty is a choice, aside from the truly disabled. This does not include people who can still communicate and think critically, they don't have to walk to be successful, many of our vets can't walk and are quite successful.

I lived at about 70% of the poverty level in the 80's. My mother struggled mightily God bless her soul. But she put in real effort to do better, but because she was well into her fifties when I was in gradeschool, who lost her job bookeeping because the position required certification she couldn't attain, she had to be a telemarketer and had severe heart troubles. All the while, she instilled these values in me: work hard, pay attention to your surroundings, get as much of an education as you can and listen to people who know more than you do, and listen more than you speak.

I could have been mad at the government, God, or the U.S. taxpayers, but that wouldn't have been logical thinking. I wasn't mad at all, I just kept my head down, worked hard, joined the military, and now earn an upper middle-class wage and I'm working on my MBA. So, being disadvantaged HELPED me realize what not to do and how to cover my bases.

Like you said it is a choice!

I do have to say though, that alot of these poor people aren't content with their lot in life, but they just don't have the motivation to do anything about it except complain because there entitlements aren't enough to help them finance their car/house/credit cards.

Money isn't everything, but everyone should strive to not live out of someone else's backpocket and be a burden on society. Real conservatives say "Take AWAY the benefits to the poor, and watch them learn how to succeed." (you may have heard this before but reworded this way "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish and he will be sustained for a lifetime.")

Well, I had to learn how to fish, and I do not feel sorry for any able-bodied American adult who is poor, a lawnmower and weedeater can make you 50k a year if you work at it.
edjdonnell
2007-05-10 01:31:26 UTC
no, thats idealistic thinking, and poverty has no guidlines, it has always existed, and always will. but poverty should not be what your determining success on. There is noting wrong with being poor. I grew up dirt poor in the 1970s, we lived in a chicken coop, and i could go on and on about it, but I was not any dumber than anyone else, I have never cared to pursue much when it comes to wealth, wealth seems to have to many head aches for the fleeting satisfaction you archive. I can tell you have never been in poverty, not gone a day or two as a child without food, or never got much under the tree. I have no stereotypes of those that seem to do well, I have done many different jobs in life, spent years in the service and at times made some real nice wages, but I don't see the point in it? Poverty is a reality, and beware that it can happen to anyone overnight, seen that to many times. people riding high or squeaking by, then loose everything, and most just can't deal with it. It's just a part of life, I wish there where no real dirt poor in this country anymore, . Some is by choice (choose not to work, choose to waste income on drugs etc), but there are some who just keep getting bad things in life upsetting there apple carts. Have mercy on the poor, don't criticize them, they need you help, and not in money, but in understanding.
2017-01-09 19:09:19 UTC
Roman Emperor Julian (360-sixty 3 A.D.), interior the portion of tax coverage, he (Julian) confirmed sensitivity and theory. He understood that the main significant explanation for the state's economic issue became the extreme burden of taxation, which fell unequally on the inhabitants. the wealthy effectively have been waiting to ward off taxation by using criminal and unlawful measures, including bribery. in assessment, the conventional citizen became helpless against the demands of the an increasing form of brutal tax creditors. previous measures to ease the tax burden, besides the undeniable fact that, have been ineffective because of the fact they only relieved the wealthy. - if human beings do not talk up and say what's incorrect, then all people could have the theory that not something is incorrect. - we've the liberty of speech, and the liberty to assert we do in comparison to this or that. Telling us to circulate away or close up is against the 1st substitute. that is Un-American. BTW, I do have self assurance we've the suitable united states of america interior the international, besides the undeniable fact that it quite is a lot extra advantageous, and that i plan to do each and every little thing i will to make that ensue.
Liam M
2007-05-10 02:07:23 UTC
I will make this as simple as I can.

I came from a very poor disadvantaged area of Ireland, and trust me Ireland was very poor and disadvantaged up to the late 80s, now its one of the most affluent country's in the world. :)

so I cant speak for the US but this is Irelands story,

2006 Unemployment 4 % GDP per capita $42,000

1982 = 17% and only $13,000 :) havent we done well. anyway.



because of good parents and a strong will and determination I am now a very wealthy man, I have homes across Europe, and command a very high salary,

my parents have had tough time in what you would call the old Ireland .. my mothers parents died before she was 15 and my dad was from a average rural background,

so money was always tight growing up but they still managed to get us everything we ever needed and sacrificed allot. now my dad is doing very well and is holds I high rank with in his company.



I have had no more or no less than the people that a grew up with many are broke, dead, on drugs, or in jail.

its your mind set. and of course your family I have a strong family with the right altitude, my sister is in a prodigious university after getting outstanding academic results, and my brother is doing very well in a booming construction industry.



Poverty and wealth is noting, health and happiness is what is truly important and the support and love of your family. and trough this support and the right attitude towards life, wealth will come naturally to you.
Missy !
2007-05-10 01:02:41 UTC
You have got to be kidding! Poverty is a cycle many can't break out of. With no fixed address, many can't apply for a job. You mention the poor migrants, but don't stop to consider that they have had time to plan for their move into America, having brought appropriate clothing for a job interview... homeless persons don't have access to a nice suit, or even a laundry service. And just as a side note to the migrant population becomign successful, you have to look at the cultural differences and attitudes to work, but most importantly the expolitation that goes on. America homeless know when they are being expolited, Mexican immigrants don't. There is a difference, you need to watch Fast Food Nation.



You talk about these people as though they want to be homeless... and while it is true that some choose to live this lifestyle, if it far more accurate to say that social welfare is a means to an end for the cycle for most. America doesn't do enough to help the homeless, in fact you guys don't help anyone other than yourselves.
crusinthru
2007-05-10 01:23:46 UTC
A lot of times people need a hand up, which is fine. but too many get used to getting a continual hand out. To be dependent on the government for your existence when you could be working only brings misery and self loathing even if it is on an unconscious level. This breeds more broken homes and other negative consequences that we see every day and scratch our heads wondering how this or why this is happening. Republicans blame the liberals liberals blame the rich and right now about 80% of people in the U.S. blame everything on Bush! And life goes on.......
kristinmay
2007-05-10 01:21:29 UTC
I have lived in riches. My morals sucked, my values sucked ,I ridiculed others who weren't as ambitious as I. I now live in poverty, disabled at 34. I have nothing of material value, my spirituality has increased 99% and I realize that in the end, anything I own will cease to be and I too will cease to be. When I was wealthy, I was stingy, now I am poor and I donate everything that I can. I would rather skip a meal than see someone go hungry. I feel so much better living this life, even though it was forced on me. If I had the chance to go back, I wouldn't. I am a much happier person living the simple life and helping others.
DeeJay
2007-05-10 00:47:10 UTC
I do agree with you to a point.



There are a lot of dysfunctional people. They look like the everyday ordinary person you see walking down the street.



There are some who were raised on welfare and all they learned is to use the system.



Addiction to drugs and alcohol has burned some out and are no longer able to function.



When I was young, I always heard about the Hobo's that liked to ride the rails. It is my understanding that was how they liked to live, just hitching one train after another. They spent their life doing what they liked.



It's a sad situation that I dare not judge.



When I see the homeless living in cardboard boxes under the freeway bridges, I just think," But for the Grace of God, there go I".



Thank You for the Question.
carrie
2007-05-10 00:43:09 UTC
Your a real idiot, you were probably born into a wealthy family and that's why you think you have the balls to judge!! Yea living on welfare is a real walk in the park and every poor person enjoys being on it don't they? I am not disadvantaged or oppressed, But I wouldn't say I'm successful either I am a hard working single mother of four, and yes I work 2 jobs to keep up the little I own but I would never look down on someone who is weaker or that doesn't have the means to be successful. And if you have been paying attention or even did some research before your judgment call on welfare recipients you would know that you have to work after a certain amount of time collecting benefits. I feel sorry for your ignorance.
dr_methanegasman
2007-05-10 02:23:10 UTC
Choice...America is the land of opportunity. Most of the underclass have made a series of bad decisions starting out at a young age. Many do not finish their education so they are condemed to crap jobs they keep revolving in and out of their whole life....many fall into the welfare pit and live off of the largess of others. I use the Vietnamese as examples of how a group breaks out of poverty. They had everything going against them when they fled Vietnam after the war. Now their children are doctors, lawyers and scientist.
Suzieq
2007-05-10 20:12:58 UTC
It would seem that you have all missed a vital point. Some have said that you have no choice but be poor.



I have to disagree. There is always a choice in any situation. Sure they may not always be good ones, but you always have a choice to make.



You have a choice to either sit at home on your backside and moan, or go out there and do something better for yourself, and your family. Volunteering your services obviously wont pay, but you may end up getting a job from it.



You have a choice to sit at home on your backside or chose to go out and get 2 jobs to make ends meet. Of course, its not an ideal scenario, but its a choice you have.



Australia is definately a lucky country, which is why I chose to live here. With all our government handouts, it really is a choice for people to live in poverty if they want.
2007-05-10 02:53:57 UTC
Poor is a state of mind, broke is a tempoary condition. I was born in the most impoverished county in the US, on the Pine Ridge reservation. I have never used government hand outs, although I now recieve a vet pension, I also work, I raised my kids put them through college, own 2 homes, several vehicles , horses, and donate to charity. If people have the drive they can make it in the USA
2007-05-10 00:41:21 UTC
Being poor is not a choice to everyone.



Some people don't get the chance at an education and don't get to go to college or trade school.



Some people have children (single parents) and no one to watch over the kids (because day care costs 300-400 dollars a month).



Not everyone who is poor is on "welfare". Some people work two part time, minimum wage jobs (or one full time job) and still barely make ends meet.



I'm not a "bleeding-heart" who gives a crap about the word "oppressed". The word oppression does not mean anything to me.



But the word "poverty" is something that I am well aware of because most of the USA(and the rest of the world) is medium-to-low income people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck.



Cheers
x
2007-05-10 01:37:12 UTC
Lets see, some women who are "dumped" by husbands who are scoundrels, and have a couple of kids and getting Welfare...



They have no education, and if they "do" decide to go for thier GED, and if they "do" get it, then the Welfare System DUMPS THEM!



OH, the glamour of it all, left alone with three kids, and only a highschool equivalency of a diploma, with no job!



Kids need food... no job!

Kids need medical care...no job!



Welfare doesnt care, because they "did" thier part, educating you...YOU are expected to succeed on your own now!



You dont have a job, no medical insurance, no daycare to GET a job, no help or assistance... So, instead of trying for that, you decide to "stay on Welfare" and be dependent because you have security of 'SOMETHING' coming in, like food and money and clothing and help!



Welfare makes you dependent, because when its gone, you have absolutely nothing!



And, if some one "does" get a job, its mostly minimum wage, (no one can raise a family on 'THAT'). You have nothing....



Better the devil you know, then the devil you dont kow, is what most families will suffer under, because if they get sick, they have no way of getting the help they need.



I know some people who even fell through the cracks and cant get welfare... They live below poverty level, having to go to the back of a Kroger store to get the "toss outs" in order to live! Thier family wears rags from the Salvation Army Dumpsters! Yea, its fun to be poor...



Be glad that the LORD has blessed you immensely, and dont berate those who are poor, because they are doing the best they can!



I wish you well...



Jesse
2007-05-10 01:33:00 UTC
Not all humans posses the ability to think themselves out of a situation. But it seems all are capable of reproduction. This is what we need to stop the stupid humans from reproducing in an environment where they can't afford to feed themselves.



Sad huh, and America just encourages them

with more care.



Look at the job market and you will see that all you need to survive is two working legs and hands and you've got a job.



The brain is funny.

Not everyone knows how to use it.
jacs
2007-05-10 01:13:39 UTC
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Here in Australia you get paid several thousands of dollars for every child you have and the fact that you are "poor" entitles you to ;

rent assistance, family allowance, dirt cheap transport, as well as unemployment benefits or supporting parents payments!

In actual fact these guys get more per week than I do working a forty hour week as a nurse....go figure!
darren m
2007-05-10 00:48:37 UTC
if there was a program that taught people how to set up a buiness and the funding to do it this would be a start also if they could be matched up with jobs which suited ther capabilities also people spend alot on movies and things if they spent less on thosethey would have more money it is the amount of money lots of people spend which make people rich withhold it aquire funding for local stores no big ones would exist do it all themselves no big companies hence no rich people spread money around at local buisnesses and make none gets bigger than the other then none willbe rich or poor put in education in schools to help people set up own buisness geared for them teach how to run it fund untill ready educate on this problem maybe over
Mark P
2007-05-10 01:15:34 UTC
Che with some sort of red scarf deal...seems to have gotten tangled or something.



Many of the preceeding immigrants had a manufacturing economy to integrate into.... not so much the case these days.

Poverty may be a choice for some, I would only caution that many of us blessed enough to have been birhted into the middle class don't face the challenges social, economic and educational challenges these people do. Many of uschoose to live middle class lives, because it is not too difficult for us to achieve and because its what we know. The social forces that surround us (friends, family, our environment) lead us in that direction. Like running with a semi-capable runner, our peers keep pace and push us that tiny bit (and for most of us I mean tiny) to get to our parents' level. How and why are we surprised then, with our socioeconomic segragation that the poor tend to stay poor? It's what they know and see... and just like for most of us, it's what's easier.

The problem is a systemic and not just a personal one. We need to integrate ourselves, so that most of us know we have the opportunity to be poor and the poor can feel the social pull of the middle class.
2007-05-10 00:52:49 UTC
It is good you put that truly disabled people in there....



You need to remember not everyone cares for money as you do. Not everyone feels they need to back stab people and have money in there pockets. Not everyone thinks like you do.



If a family feels there children are more important then that extra car, or that big mortgage, even if this means getting on welfare for one of them to stay home with the children, I say go for it. Children are more important then money.



You stated how poverty stricken immigrants came to America only to make something out of themselves, well of course they do they get all sorts of tax right offs and money from our government, where are you from??



I realize people feel good about putting down others and this dose make some feel superior. BUT to make the statement "Poverty in the USA is a choice, agree?" is just ignorant!!
?
2007-05-10 01:23:28 UTC
I would rather be poor and happy sharing everything in a commune like setting with many friends living off the land than live as many people do in this country with lots of money but sharing little. It's a trade off. What do they trade for all that money? It's not free you know. I'll let you guess.
Bill A
2007-05-10 01:00:30 UTC
Judging what the hell happened in New Orleans a few years ago, poverty's no longer a choice there. It's the part of the life. In other words, Third World does exist in the First World country.
ellipse4
2007-05-10 00:56:21 UTC
I do not live in the United States but can see clearly how the middle class is being wiped out by the GOP. Where I live I am not poor but I am not wealthy either. I live in a country where the currency is a lot weaker than the US dollar, and yet I have access to quality medical care whereas increasingly more Americans are denied access to this medical care by the US government. I have access to extremely affordable tertiary education and can study something new every year as I have been doing since I graduated from high school nearly twenty years ago. It is easier for me to find housing than it is for most Americans. I can afford at least one overseas holiday per year (I shop around too) whereas people who earn more than me in dollar terms cannot afford to do so because of the ridiculous cost of living in the US. Sometimes things can be difficult here too but the inequality gap is considerably smaller than in the US. Inequality breeds social problems, disease and unemployment and yet the GOP encourages this, in spite of all the lessons of history of so many countries over so many centuries.



Poor people in the US are undoubtedly oppressed. When someone is forced into poverty, which is how most people become poor, they do not have access to resources, be these financial, education or communication resources, that will help lift them out if their situation. Some do escape poverty under those circumstances, sometimes by chance and sometimes by very hard work or shrewdness. Some escape poverty by turning to crime and people like you then want to throw the book at them. The GOP wants the US to have an economic system that is as capitalist as possible. Just look at the Industrial Revolution to see the suffering pure capitalism brought about. In all other countries where capitalism exists, it is practised with much more moderation because most people in those countries understand he dynamics of power and have a sense of compassion for other people living in their country. They also have considerably less poverty. Too many GOP supporters worship pure capitalism as though it were God. It is simply an economic system that aims like all other economic systems to solve the economic problem. It is far from perfect and needs to be changed.



If I ever emigrate, it will not be to the United States, partly because I know I will live in a state of economic oppression. I will leave it to those people who are very desperate or very naive to move to the United States. These are usually the people where almost the entire country is third world and where the oppression is less than what it is in the US.



You want poor people to have an internal locus of control. You need to develop a sense of perspective and an internal locus of control about how most of those poor people become poor and why they stay poor. The GOP will never fix US society, and the current Democratic Party will not either. A third political party that has the will to change US society has to be voted into office but then Americans must have the will to keep voting them in. A lot of things need to change in the United States if the country is to turn itself around, and that takes guts. It can be done but it is up to Americans to choose if they will use the ballot box to push through some very tough choices and some desperately needed change. Enough with the political beauty contests and mobocracy. Only the American people can restore democracy, justice and law and order to the US.
2007-05-10 01:15:18 UTC
Oh yeah. It is like, totally a choice.

I mean, look at all those stupid, lazy children who get born poor with all those defects and illnesses!!

And who has to pay to repair the heart or run the ventilator? Yeah, buddy, WE DO.

How unfair is that?

What we should do, is determine who in our society is useless, by our criteria of course, and then eliminate them,

Sound familiar? It should, and you should be ashamed.

And nice moniker, BTW. How about READING some Marx?
spianato
2007-05-10 00:52:09 UTC
Well, I happen to live in the welfare capitol of the world. Choice? YES! It also happens to be one of the top places where babies are bourne into welfare by immigrants that refuse birth control. So is there any wonder really? Some Immigrants DO excel! Others languish in our welfare system that pays them money for each baby they have. As long as they keep having babies, they receive federal aid that WE are paying for. And so it goes. From generation to generation. Welfare has begun to be a way of life. The rest of us will pay, and have no social security benefits.
scottyurb
2007-05-10 00:47:39 UTC
Oh sure, that explains in detail why our povery rate went from a 23 year low under Clinton to a 37 year high under Bush. Poverty isn't a social issue based on the will of people to sustain their livelihood. It's more like an overall pro-MiddleClass political policy that includes tax cuts for the Middle-class and poor which is offset by tax increases on those of us who are fortunate enough to benefit tremendously from the working classes efforts. Corporations are using tax-loopholes to severely decrease the rate of taxation on their profits through such schemes as Transfer Pricing and tax exempt accounting practices.



Since when do you think you have the slightest comprehension of what goes on in the "real world" anyways?
javornik1270
2007-05-10 00:52:29 UTC
We're facing something world hadn't ever faced before...We live in times, when mobility became a way of life...With that mobility world becomes one small village and countries as we used to know them will inevitably perish along with their borders... At the moment "rich" countries are still imposing strict policy on immigrants, but that will change and world exchange of laboring force will prevail, that in advantage will stop us all from having more wars conditioned on so called

"national" interests, for they will become senseless ! I agree with you on this however; lazy people have always found their ways of abusing social institutions of any society, but than again that phenomenon is hard to control...
San Diego Art Nut
2007-05-10 00:40:32 UTC
What's your question? Sounds like you have made up your mind.

Many of the poor who came to this shore had complex social support systems of families or national or religious affiliations. And for all those who seceded many died in sweat shops or for lack of medical care or proper nutrition.

The U.S. is divided by social strata as much as any country has ever been.

There are certain advantages to maintain a percentage of the population in poverty. It gives the working slobs in the middle someone to look down on. Better they be looking down than looking up at their true oppressors.
vslsub
2007-05-10 00:42:36 UTC
DISAGREE.



Single parents. Stuff happens. Two minimum wage jobs still isn't going to do much. Still see countless dirt-poor immigrants come here work all the time and are still poor.
Jacques
2007-05-10 00:44:27 UTC
I agree, with your statement. I live in South Africa and we have unemployment rate 25%. So for every 4 people, one is unemployed. So you can imagine how hard it is to get a job. It is normal to go for months without an job. 25% is without calculating the number of illegal immigrants from Zimbabwe. So in reality it is more like 3 employed equals 1 unemployed. In the US, you have 4.8% unemployment rate. Which is far less and the states are so big, that you have the choice to move to a state where there is more work than others. Like move from Mississippi to Utah. And in response to Carrie, you can be lucky you have two jobs.
misterchickie
2007-05-10 01:19:15 UTC
preaching aside , and with a lack of judgemental language ...i will

say this...i think you are making some rather broad , almost existential ,assumptions.

Have You ever experienced abject poverty..?

Hopelessness..?

I would think that , say , being born into that environment , ones choices might be a tad limited.
2007-05-10 00:33:49 UTC
please, don't be so close-minded or, judgmental. there are varying factors involved. mental and physical disease and disability being at the forefront for many.



when one looks upon the downtrodden, their first thought should always be:



there but for the grace of God go i.



Edit: had you grown up in their situation and been nurtured by the likes of many of their parents, you may not have had the gumption to rise above, either. my point is simply that no body truly wants to live their lives in the gutter and no one can adequately evaluate the root cause of all the poor with such a limited assumption.
2007-05-10 01:27:41 UTC
Not every poor person has the collateral to get loans to open their own businesses as most immigrants were able to. Let alone government assistance loans for such businesses. Even if they did use loans, and their savings to open their own businesses - a good portion of them are destined to fail based on what those businesses might be. So no - I'd have to disagree.



An article for you to read.



Smarter people no wealthier, study finds

25/04/2007



People who score higher on intelligence tests may still have difficulty balancing their chequebooks, according to a U.S. study that finds no link between smarts and wealth.



CBC News

The study of over 7,000 Americans who have been tested since the late 1970s and are now in their 40s found that while higher IQ scores have led to higher income, that income hasn't translated into greater wealth.



"Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth," said the author of the study, Ohio State University research scientist Jay Zagorsky, in a statement.



"Those with low intelligence should not believe they are handicapped, and those with high intelligence should not believe they have an advantage."



People with higher IQs tended to earn higher incomes, the study found, with each point increase in IQ score associated with $202 to $616 US more income per year, meaning the difference in income between a person in the normal range (100) and someone in the top two per cent of society (130) is between $6,000 and $18,500 a year.



But the same trend did not carry over when the study looked at wealth, which was defined as a combination of factors including income, investments and home value minus mortgages, credit cards and other debts.



While Zagorsky said the data don't provide an explanation for this, he suggests high-IQ people are not saving as much as others.



The study found an irregular relationship between intelligence and measures of financial distress. The percentage of people who maxed out their credit cards, for example, rises from 7.7 per cent for those with an IQ of 75 or below to 12.1 per cent for those with an IQ of 90.



It then falls to 5.4 per cent for those with an IQ of 115 before rising to six per cent for those with an IQ higher than 125.



"Just because you're smart doesn't mean you don't get into trouble," he said. "Among the smartest people, those with IQ scores above 125, even six per cent of them have maxed out their credit cards and 11 per cent occasionally miss payments."



The study, which appears online in the journal Intelligence, is based on data collected from 7,403 Americans who have been participating in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a series of surveys conducted since 1979.



Survey participants were surveyed about income, wealth and three measures of financial difficulty, such as late bill payments, credit card debt and bankruptcy.



The IQ test used came from four tests found in the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a series of tests the U.S. Department of Defence uses to judge recruits.
?
2007-05-10 00:37:26 UTC
I do not see anyone asking to be poor, check the interest rates and housing electric gas water medical these things are taking a rich man to keep them up but sooner or later they will be seeing the doors of poverty also, lost jobs lost wages higher prices taxes so they might be up now yet it will get worse before it gets better.
FRAGINAL, JTM
2007-05-10 01:23:50 UTC
Work hard in order to live a good life. Poverty can never occur if all people are willing to work properly.
Kinetic Nebula
2007-05-10 01:13:52 UTC
You've obviously never lived in poverty for any significant length of time.
Wocka wocka
2007-05-10 01:20:29 UTC
You are 90% correct
big t daddy
2007-05-10 00:54:12 UTC
Go to Detroit and ask people in the ghetto if they chose to be poor and you will get your answer.
Who's got my back?
2007-05-10 00:40:59 UTC
I have 3 brothers and two sisters and we grew up fatherless, on welfare, and my mom worked as a secretary.

We are all independent hardworking individuals with good careers, no convicts, thriving families. We all believe in taking pride our work and doing a good job. We have strong faith and family values. We all dared to venture out and make something of ourselves.
sanja77
2007-05-10 00:42:46 UTC
I think Americans do not understand how many choices they have. When immigrants arrive in USA they recognize it and grab the chance. Sometimes what is right in front of your nose, you don¸t see.
nobody
2007-05-10 01:19:52 UTC
I hope you always have a life that allows you to be so full of delusions .
judy bo-booty
2007-05-10 00:44:41 UTC
Not to stereotype, but I have NEVER seen a Mexican, Asians or others who've recently come from another country, begging for money. They work HARD to make a living.



I agree with you.
Why?
2007-05-10 00:30:09 UTC
Poverty isn't a choice. While every poor person has the desire, not everyone has the ability.
?
2007-05-10 01:05:33 UTC
No, it is NOT a choice! I won't even get into details, because you have your mind made up.
carolyn n
2007-05-10 00:39:33 UTC
it'd be nice if it was an even playing field....your friends -the illegals-- they don't play by the rules ie: 20people to a house to share rent--10 people chipping in on a car/van--paying income tax--paying personal property tax--paying vehicle registration fees and and things like that. let's see how great they'd do if they had to start on their own---totally on their own, like we do here.
2007-05-10 03:01:11 UTC
You have absolutely no data to back up your opinion.
barringtonbreathesagain
2007-05-10 00:30:21 UTC
Yeah, all those kids born into poverty chose their parents.
nightingale
2007-05-10 00:41:44 UTC
yes i totally agree with you. any welfare program should eradicate poverty but not encourage lazyness. one should strive hard to have his meals but not wait for the government's alms.
2007-05-10 00:40:30 UTC
you deserve a boot in your *** for even saying that. what a scumbag!
I-rule
2007-05-10 01:00:52 UTC
well being a *****, I can state that the black community sits on their asses and don't work at all. that's why I hate my race.
MsKitty
2007-05-10 00:54:29 UTC
wow..for trying to sound so intelligent...you're actually quite ignorant!
2007-05-10 00:37:42 UTC
questionable but I will say in some cases yes , some people like sitting home watching TV all day and collecting welfare checks , hell I would and so would you .
Borg_MonkeyDrone
2007-05-10 00:29:08 UTC
I agree, no one keeps us poor but our self's. Its up to us to get up off our butts and make a better life for our self's and families.
TedEx
2007-05-10 00:30:35 UTC
I am with you. It is one thing to try and fail, but so many haven't even tried..
Xiong
2007-05-10 03:12:32 UTC
Yes and no. If you're "white" (whatever that means), male, somewhat educated, somewhat sober, and unprincipled, it is very difficult to be truly poor -- you have to work at it. But then, such people rarely do.



If you're non-white (whatever *that* means, but if you fit the description, you know), are female, have no college at all (or worse, failed to graduate high school -- even worse, cannot read, write, and do simple arithmetic), drink (drug, gamble, or otherwise flush your life down a hole), or stubbornly adhere to some principled integrity or code of values, your chances of being poor increase. One such "black mark" is okay; two problematic; three or more pretty much guarantees a marginal existence.



Certainly, there are ample opportunities in US. The streets are not paved with gold but money changes hands pretty freely in a somewhat open marketplace. For every door that is closed, another is open. However, the river can carry away wealth as fast as it brings it. For some, a very large number of doors are closed -- and hidden fees, terms, and conditions attach to many of those that remain open.



It's worthwhile noting that many of those not considered "poor" are neither wealthy nor even moderately secure. Nearly half of Americans surveyed live "paycheck to paycheck" -- they have essentially no savings, not even enough cash on hand to survive a month without income. Astonishingly, 20% of those earning over $100,000 a year say they, too, live paycheck to paycheck. This basic measure of solvency focuses on cash flow, not assets; the sad truth is that nearly everyone is deeply in debt, owing more than they own. So most Americans are both cash-poor and asset-poor -- including those with above-average incomes.



Easy credit masks the terrible economic weakness of the average worker. Most people have expensive-looking toys (cheaply made with Third World slave labor); they wear decent-looking clothes (cheaply made with Third World slave labor); they drive cars freely, fueled with cheap (yes, $3 a gallon is still cheap) gas (extorted from Third World countries at gunpoint). Many live in not too shabby homes, mortgaged to the ears -- if they build up any equity, they pull it out with a line of credit. Everyone has debt; many have much; some have entire mountains of it. A man with a dollar in his pocket may be wealthier than one with a fine house, car, and teevee -- and $1000 on deposit in the bank but $150,000 worth of debt. The second man may live "better" but he's not just poor; if he should slip and the bankers call in his paper, he'll be bankrupt.



Meanwhile, median rents in 2000 were about $600 a month or about $150 a week. That doesn't sound too bad but in 2003, nearly 36 million households lived beneath the official US poverty threshold -- $18,810 for a family of four or less than $1600 a month. You need to picture someone -- with a wife (also working) and two kids -- both together earning $1600 a month, paying $600 in rent, with $230 a week left over for every single other expense -- gas, food, clothing, and of course the credit card bills. This man is not poor -- the US government says so -- but every day is a battle against the wolf at the door and one small step taken wrong spells disaster. No clarinet lessons for Junior.



The truly ugly effect of easy credit, high rents, a loose labor market, and the resulting pervasive semi-poverty enjoyed by the majority of Americans is FEAR. Fear keeps workers quiet on the job and on the street. You do not talk back to the boss, not even to protest violations of the law; for every celebrated lawsuit winner there are a thousand who are simply fired and lack recourse. The prospect of a family man losing his home -- losing his family's home -- is so terrifyingly real that he can pretty much be told to do anything, anywhere, anytime. Meanwhile, he is obsessed with his personal insecurity, which is regularly pumped up by the evening news and the continuous deluge of ads with attractive, stylish, wealthy models that take every possible opportunity to show him, graphically, what a complete failure he is (unless, of course, he's willing to go deeper into debt to buy this shiny toy here). Such a man finds it difficult to march in the streets, even to protest the grossest abuses of power. He simply doesn't care who gets burned, so long as he thinks it's not himself and his family.



There *is* a substantial social safety net in US -- welfare may suck but it sucks better than nothing at all. There is no excuse for sane people to go ragged and begging in America -- except perhaps a stubborn unwillingness to play the government game. People on welfare don't generally want to stay that way -- but of course, habits are hard to break. There is definitely a disincentive built into the system; any attempt to find work risks being cut off from the little security one has got. It's actually worse to be a member of the working poor than to sit on the monthly check -- if you are supporting a family on Burger King's paycheck, you are truly poor.



Depending on how you count it, the wealthiest 20% of Americans have about 80% of the total net worth of all Americans; the remaining 80% of people have 20% of the money. That's bad enough but what's really ugly is that the wealthiest 1% have (again, depending on how you count) between one-third and one-half of everything. Since everything in America has a price, laws are bought like any other product or service; and only enough money is spent on the workers -- including the middle class -- to keep us alive, quiet, and working for the top dogs.



Poverty is, to some extent, a personal choice. Even drunks decide to remain drunks; it's possible to stop drinking, recover some personal dignity, and go look for work. Any secretary whose boss demands oral sex is free to give it up; she doesn't *have* to say no, get fired, lose her apartment, and sleep in her car while trying to find other work, dreaming of suing the evil SOB. Any professional engineer -- say, a construction site safety inspector -- is free to sign off on dangerous practices and hope he's elsewhere when the bridge falls down, rather than risk being fired and blackballed, watching his wife take the kids to his MIL's while he holds down the counter at Radio Shack. We all choose.



But in large part, poverty is a social choice -- made by the rich for all the rest of us. Poverty -- I don't even speak of spiritual poverty, merely of material -- is the main method by which the majority is kept quiet -- too busy and too fearful to make trouble or demand a minimum standard of behavior from the very wealthy and powerful among us.



Long ago, the Romans said that to keep control of the public, Caesar must offer them either bread or circuses. More bread meant less starvation, therefore less discontent; more circuses (that is, the bloody gladiatorial contests in the stadia) meant less boredom, therefore less discontent; either way, less chance of riots and revolts. Most Caesars figured out that circuses were far the better choice: cheaper than bread, for one; for another, hungry men seek bread before justice.



The attraction of Socialism as an economic model is obvious: If America's wealth were redistributed equally, most of us would have about 5 times as much as we have now. Instead of a mountain of bills, the average worker would have money in the bank and own his home outright. He would laugh at outrageous workplace demands, secure in the knowledge that he could afford to wait until a more reasonable boss came along. He would insist on a shorter workweek and use the time to enjoy his family, perhaps to pursue an education or the arts. Schools would have the funds to employ sufficient numbers of well-trained teachers; useful programs could be pursued -- environmental initiatives, the colonization of Mars, the eradication of disease. A better fed, better educated, happier, and more secure public would never permit wars of adventure and our nation as a whole would benefit by being a better global citizen.



Unfortunately, Socialists refuse to face the basic truth about people: they require incentives to work at all. Millions play the lottery daily in the face of staggering odds; only the prospect of becoming fantastically wealth eggs them on. All workers are lottery players manque, hoping to work themselves into a decent job -- hoping against hope for earnings that outstrip expenses and permit a decent life now and a comfortable retirement later. Socialism destroys incentive by eliminating the opportunity to become very wealthy. Worse, Socialism leads to central planning -- and no government bureaucracy can efficiently distribute labor, resources, goods, and services on a national scale. The net effect is laziness and mediocrity. It is not even necessary to throw in the evils of totalitarianism that come inevitably with Socialism's companion political model, Communism. Most nations in Western Europe are essentially Socialist Democracies and their stagnation is famous.



No, we must respect our system for its successes -- Capitalism is proven the most efficient distributor of wealth. Yet it is hard to see how any man, in a fair game, can possibly amass 1000 or 100,000 times the wealth of another player. No matter how wise, clever, hardworking, or lucky, the best man at the table should only be worth perhaps 100 of the average sort.



There are three reasons that the fantastically wealthy are indeed so: compound investment, inheritance, and perversion of politics. The first two mechanisms undermine the efficiency of the dead hand of Adam Smith by removing marketplace pressures artificially. I'll come back to the last.



Compound investment means that you can buy a building and rent it out; then take the modest profit from so doing and buy another building. Or, equivalently, invest the money with a bank or mutual fund. Whatever you did to earn the money to begin with, is finished; you labor no more. Instead, people pay you to use your money -- and you turn around and invest that money, too. Pretty soon, you have so much money coming in that you need never even think about working -- and there is no limit to this process. You can have 100 M$ and still sit at home doing nothing, while others work and pay you to get still richer. You don't even have to manage the money; you pay others to do it. A total idiot or aquarium frog could do as much.



Inheritance means that we don't all start out equal -- or even close. Some start with next to nothing; some start out with that 100 M$. There is nothing remotely equitable about this -- but that's not the point. The point is that there is not really any true incentive for the average worker, since nothing he ever does will get him a piece of that 100 M$; while he struggles to earn his first million, the other guy is busy doubling his huge bankroll.



The combination is deadly. The rich are born rich and get richer as long as they live, without doing anything; the poor are born poor and if they don't want to stay that way, they'd better create new wealth themselves and hope the rich don't steal it all.



Paris Hilton doesn't work -- never has, never will. You decide just how criminal that is.



The greatest threat of great wealth to Democracy is the direct and indirect perversion of that political system. When everything is for sale, laws and votes are, too. Since public laws are the rules under which the economic game is played, it's not surprising that a significant portion of the wealth of the rich is spent buying laws that favor them. This is not always simple corruption; paying off a city councilman for a zoning variance is almost quaint compared to what's really going on at the highest levels of government. At the extreme, the rich hire Presidents to make highly profitable wars. Kids from poor homes go to die; the people they kill get angry and blow things up in US. The rich don't care, because they don't spend much time in high-risk targets. If terrorists ever manage to smuggle a nuclear bomb into downtown LA, Bill Gates won't know about it until he sees it on teevee.



Something can be done -- and it's not much:



1) Make the capital gains and corporation taxes progressive, like the income tax. You should be able to earn your first 50 M$ without working, perhaps. After that, it should get difficult. If you make it to 100 M$, you should have to go back to work full time if you want to hope to push it much higher. Similarly, giant corporations do no social good; net annual profits above 100 M$ should be heavily penalized.



2) Confiscate excessive inheritances and make inheritance taxes steeply progressive. There's no problem with modest inheritances; we all want to give our kids the best possible start. Indeed, it's nasty and wrong to tax the first million at all; a corner store might appraise for that much -- and who could object if a man's son takes over his store? Taxes should be modest on the first 10 M$ of inherited wealth. After that, they should rise steeply -- very steeply. It should simply not be possible to turn 18, having never done anything useful to society, and start the game with 100 M$.



It's quite probable that nothing can be done about the perversion of Democracy by excessive wealth -- not directly. Human nature is unchanging. So long as a rich man has something to gain from paying, say, a million dollars to tilt the playing field in his direction, he will find a way to do it. But if it becomes nearly impossible even to amass great wealth, then the perversion will drop to tolerable levels.



None of this envisions a Utopia. There will still be poverty and inequity. Even Jesus said, "There will be poor always."



But eliminating the free riders on top of the stack -- the hugely wealthy who consume everything and produce nothing -- will let us all breathe easier. There will still be plenty of incentive to create wealth -- nobody will sneer at the prospect, say, of investing in a risky business for the chance at a few million dollars. But the truly wealthy will only be able to spend their money -- to put it back into circulation without demanding that we give it back to them again.



This is true Capitalism, true Democracy, and true Freedom -- the freedom of every man on a level playing field, battling market forces for a share of the American Dream. This is true incentive and -- what you desire -- opportunity for any man not to be poor.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...