How much of being poor can be attributed to ignorance?

[vesper]

I can think of a number of reasons that brings on poverty.


Poor life choices for starters. Those who didn't even commit to a HS education provided to them free on the public's dime causes poverty.


Single mothers whether it be reproducing out of wedlock or divorced parents creates poverty.



When a spouse within a family or single, gets addicted to drugs it causes poverty.



When a person who worked hard all their life gets sick and didn't prepare for such a thing, it causes poverty.


When someone lives beyond their means and loses their job or can't keep up, it causes poverty.

And sometimes there are situations where a person tried to plan in advance and what they were hit with to drive them into poverty was no doing of their own.

 

[Xelor]

We live in a time of ever increasing specialization. Knowing more and more about less and less. Ignorance today means not having any area of expertise. You obviously are knowledgeable in your field. So you are not ignorant. It is no longer possible or necessary to become versed in every field. There is just too much information which would need to be mastered for that to be even possible. So we rely on experts in their field for advice and direction. As it should be. As it has to be. Within your field, education probably matters. Choosing the right field and the right education also matters.

Okay. So I think the ignorance to which you refer in the title is the ignorance of having weak critical thinking skills and a solid mastery of the general subject matter content about the stuff one can be taught in high school. That is to say, for example:

• Math --> Logical thinking skill and the ability to apply the concepts of algebra, geometry, trig, and calculus to the real world absent numbers and actually performing calculations.
  
  E.g. 1: Recognizing that change occurs at increasing and decreasing rates and that there must be a limit that identifies where the rate of change shifts from increasing to decreasing, and being able to recognize what kinds of events correspond to what types of curvilinear change functions and which kinds don't.
  
  E.g. 2: Revenue and profits are quadratic functions and the business cycle is, as one'd expect a series of alternating parabolas, thus for any given period or moment in time, one can analyze (think about) a firm's profits, revenues, productivity, and overall performance using the math (techniques and concepts) applicable to quadratic and sine curves.
  
  I think the ignorance of which you speak would be akin to one's having done well in math, yet not being able to apply the math to the real world as one might need to do to know, say, that a producer has no economic incentive to produce more than X units of product because even if s/he were to sell them, the profit margin would be lower; thus the firm's goal, as it approaches the profit maximization point, should not be to make more and sell more, but instead to rearrange its factors of production, or increase the price, so that the profit maximization point moves higher or to the right.
  
  Obviously, the potentially easiest thing to do is increase the price, but maybe the market will bear the price increase, or maybe it won't. How does one have any sense of whether it will or won't? Well, one might start by doing something simple like determining where one's profit maximization point is and comparing it with competing products. One can find that point by generating the equation for one's profit curve and then differentiating the equation (the quick way) or, if one doesn't have calculus skills, one can use the "completing the square" algebraic technique. If competing products' prices are higher, there's potentially room for one to simply increase one's price. Whether that'll work depends on how one's product is perceived by potential consumers. Perhaps, however, one can't "get away with" increasing the price, in that case one will want to move the curve to the right to allow one to maintain one's profit margin but more efficiently by implementing process changes that allow one to produce and sell more stuff and thereby obtain greater quantities of revenue at one's current profit margin.
  
  The preceding is a highly simplified illustration of the sort of ignorance of math from which one having completed at least algebra II should not suffer for even absent the numbers, so to speak, one should be able to see in one's mind how the stuff one was taught in algebra applies to the real world and, in turn, apply the concepts to planning "what one will do" to make the most of the situation one faces or to alter it somehow.

The basic idea described above -- applying concepts from the various disciplines one studies in high school, be it math, history, literature, biology, etc. -- to the real world is the type of non-ignorance that successful people possess. Indeed, the whole reason students are taught such things is so they can apply the knowledge to the real world. To the extent that one ignores the content taught and/or fails to learn how to aptly apply (because there are fitting and inapt ways and times to apply any given idea or set thereof) the information to the situations they encounter, yes, one's poverty (or at least one's being not financially "okay") can be a function of ignorance.

Indeed, that being the case is precisely what's shown by the correlation of poverty and education are causally correlated. It truly is a matter of having led the horse to water and the beast won't drink. As goes the "water" of education, why kids don't "drink" is a function of a variety of things, but that they don't "drink" will likely result in their impoverishment.

 

[Xelor]

Ran out space in my last post, but wanted to respond regarding the specific question asked in the poll: what ratio of poverty derives from ignorance. The short is I don't know what share derives from one ignoring things, concepts, resources, etc. that one need not disregard or inaptly discount. One can say that being poorly educated increases one's odds of being impoverished. That's different, however, from saying that X% of the reason one is poor is due to the aggregation of the two forms of ignorance -- circumstantial (just not knowing something one needs to know) and willful ignorance (disregarding or inaptly discounting or overvaluing the information one has) -- which is what the poll question asks.

What do we know about the correlation between education and income/wealth?

I'd caution against "overworking" the information above, for it's not enough to get to an answer of the sort the poll question elicits. The above charts are, however, enough to inform one that if one does fully avail oneself of the educational opportunities that come one's way, one is a good deal less likely to be poor.

 

[Waddy]

Xelor Indeed, that being the case is precisely what's shown by the correlation of poverty and education are causally correlated. It truly is a matter of having led the horse to water and the beast won't drink. As goes the "water" of education, why kids don't "drink" is a function of a variety of things, but that they don't "drink" will likely result in their impoverishment.

Having taught for so long my thinking is that you cannot over-estimate peer pressure, or the lack there of. A student in a high achieving school never wants to be seen as the dumb one in the peer group. They don't want to be seen as a failure when success is the group norm. Success is the standard, failure makes you somewhat of a pariah nobody wants to hang out with. At the other end; if the peer group in general doesn't value education much and mediocrity or even failure is common, in fact makes one more a part of the "group", more accepted by the group, then it takes a special kind of kid to ignore that pressure and become successful anyways. Often the kids who want to be successful will form their own clique, if there are enough of them to make that possible. The advice I would give parents on this is; know who your kids hang out with.

Why is one student body driven to be successful, while a school just down the road has a student body that is accepting of "just passing" grades? I'm not sure. If I was I would bottle it and make a fortune. I suspect the parents and community of the successful students have met with a lot of career success because of being well educated, while the under-achieving student body has parents and a community who have never been that well educated and really don't realize the potential a good education offers. And they are often told it isn't their lack of education that has held them down, it's racism and the system stacked against them. So it's not their fault.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I agree that overuse of credit makes you a sucker. But that's a personal decision. I also think people who go in debt $100,000 for a liberal arts degree that will pay $30,000 a year are suckers. And people who pay $200 for any kind of sports or concert ticket are suckers. And paying $200 for a pair of sneakers makes you a sucker. Buying more house than you can readily afford makes you a sucker. And getting married to a money ho really makes you a sucker. Buying just about ANY new vehicle at current prices makes you a sucker. All proof that advertising works.

Generally, refinancing just to get some ready cash makes you a sucker. The unique thing about a loan, especially a home loan, is that for the first five years everything you pay in is interest. But after that it starts to apply to the principal of the loan. So at that point it's stupid to refinance. You start paying just interest all over again. But people fall for the argument that they can get a lower rate and some cash. Sounds great, and it's true. So it's legal. The time refinancing makes sense is soon after the first loan, before you pay in all that interest, if the new loan is at a much lower rate. Or, as my youngest son did, as soon as you have enough equity in the house to drop the mortgage insurance on the new loan. Mortgage insurance is a scam. Put there solely to protect the lender, at a cost that doesn't reflect the low risk.

There's a sucker born every minute, or so the saying goes. You can't protect them all.

You are right as long as suckers exist, people will try to exploit them. That does not make it ethical; and fuels our enemies who argue against free enterprise.

No you cannot protect all the suckers, but you can make it inadvisable as a lender to exploit them. Scams are very detrimental to the markets in which they reside. Exploiting suckers is a scam that ultimately affects all of our pocket books in one way or another. And further can affect our liberties as well. But lenders do not give one **** about liberties or our pocket books unless it affects their overhead enough to worry them. Generally speaking probably most people are ignorant about how loans work. My brother for example, it took him the third loan to realize that he was paying that much more than what his house was worth. I just looked at him and wondered how he did not know that. And came to the conclusion that he doesnt research anything, just follows along and believes what the lenders told him. His inability to grasp the basics of a loan that he signed, was bad not just for him, but all of us. I may be an individualist, but I realize that we live in a society and the actions others affects all of us. My brothers ignorance is a collective cancer that has made it more difficult to do something that shouldnt be so difficult; getting a loan. If it wernt for people ignorant like my brother, lenders wouldnt make overly complicated contracts and the economy would be much better. Ignorance alone though cannot be eradicated, but the exploitation of the ignorant can be eradicated. And thats the part that you seem to be missing.

A buyer may have voluntary bought a product, but the store and/or the manufacturer can still be liable. Again when it comes to suing lenders the consumer for the most part is screwed, since they cannot match the money needed to make such a battle. The proof is in the fact that there isnt a boat load of such cases in the courts spearheaded by the other dishonest industry; law firms. Either way it is immoral/unethical to exploit ignorant neighbors for profit. Perhaps you are ok with such things, but I find them to untenable.

 

[Waddy]

You are right as long as suckers exist, people will try to exploit them. That does not make it ethical; and fuels our enemies who argue against free enterprise.

No you cannot protect all the suckers, but you can make it inadvisable as a lender to exploit them. Scams are very detrimental to the markets in which they reside. Exploiting suckers is a scam that ultimately affects all of our pocket books in one way or another. And further can affect our liberties as well. But lenders do not give one **** about liberties or our pocket books unless it affects their overhead enough to worry them. Generally speaking probably most people are ignorant about how loans work. My brother for example, it took him the third loan to realize that he was paying that much more than what his house was worth. I just looked at him and wondered how he did not know that. And came to the conclusion that he doesnt research anything, just follows along and believes what the lenders told him. His inability to grasp the basics of a loan that he signed, was bad not just for him, but all of us. I may be an individualist, but I realize that we live in a society and the actions others affects all of us. My brothers ignorance is a collective cancer that has made it more difficult to do something that shouldnt be so difficult; getting a loan. If it wernt for people ignorant like my brother, lenders wouldnt make overly complicated contracts and the economy would be much better. Ignorance alone though cannot be eradicated, but the exploitation of the ignorant can be eradicated. And thats the part that you seem to be missing.

A buyer may have voluntary bought a product, but the store and/or the manufacturer can still be liable. Again when it comes to suing lenders the consumer for the most part is screwed, since they cannot match the money needed to make such a battle. The proof is in the fact that there isnt a boat load of such cases in the courts spearheaded by the other dishonest industry; law firms. Either way it is immoral/unethical to exploit ignorant neighbors for profit. Perhaps you are ok with such things, but I find them to untenable.

It's not that I'm OK with the ignorant being manipulated, and I support legislation making an effort to curb such abuse. However, I do not believe a trainload of such laws will ever make much of a dent in the problem. There are just too many people who are no good with money and or making other decisions. It is a revolving door. And sometimes tolerating a bad practice, like pawn shops and payday loans, is preferable to the alternative; loan sharking. Personally, I don't want to regulate pawn shops out of business, but I don't oppose some guidelines for how they conduct business. Banks are never going to make payday loans to unworthy credit risks.

The problem with people is they don't making decisions rationally. They do rationalize their bad decisions. And there is a difference. Several of my neighbors have refinanced to get some cash for big ticket items they never needed in the first place, like a new boat or swimming pool. Some have refinanced multiple times as home values inflated. When I would question them on it the response was that they would always have a house payment anyways, so what's the difference? And if they didn't refinance they could never afford that boat or swimming pool; and you only live once. This thinking permeates society. The government isn't the only one who doesn't understand debt.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It's not that I'm OK with the ignorant being manipulated, and I support legislation making an effort to curb such abuse. However, I do not believe a trainload of such laws will ever make much of a dent in the problem. There are just too many people who are no good with money and or making other decisions. It is a revolving door. And sometimes tolerating a bad practice, like pawn shops and payday loans, is preferable to the alternative; loan sharking. Personally, I don't want to regulate pawn shops out of business, but I don't oppose some guidelines for how they conduct business. Banks are never going to make payday loans to unworthy credit risks.

The problem with people is they don't making decisions rationally. They do rationalize their bad decisions. And there is a difference. Several of my neighbors have refinanced to get some cash for big ticket items they never needed in the first place, like a new boat or swimming pool. Some have refinanced multiple times as home values inflated. When I would question them on it the response was that they would always have a house payment anyways, so what's the difference? And if they didn't refinance they could never afford that boat or swimming pool; and you only live once. This thinking permeates society. The government isn't the only one who doesn't understand debt.

As I just asserted, there will always be ignorant people trying to get loans. Apparently though credit scores do no not stop these people from getting those loans, nor do any regulations.

BTW you might want to check your credit union, they probably do offer something called: payday alternative loan. They are basically personal loans for people with low credits scores. So your assertion that "Banks are never going to make payday loans to unworthy credit risks" isnt not correct (anymore). The concepts of PALs was to move such loans from those payday loan sharks to the banks, believing that banks are less dishonest. The reality is that banks/credit unions lobbied for the ability to offer payday loans recognizing a profit cow when they see one. Payday loans no matter who issues them are nothing more than a way for the lender to charge ridiculous interest, its a loophole scam. And instead of fixing the loophole we made the damn thing bigger.

 

[Waddy]

As I just asserted, there will always be ignorant people trying to get loans. Apparently though credit scores do no not stop these people from getting those loans, nor do any regulations.

BTW you might want to check your credit union, they probably do offer something called: payday alternative loan. They are basically personal loans for people with low credits scores. So your assertion that "Banks are never going to make payday loans to unworthy credit risks" isnt not correct (anymore). The concepts of PALs was to move such loans from those payday loan sharks to the banks, believing that banks are less dishonest. The reality is that banks/credit unions lobbied for the ability to offer payday loans recognizing a profit cow when they see one. Payday loans no matter who issues them are nothing more than a way for the lender to charge ridiculous interest, its a loophole scam. And instead of fixing the loophole we made the damn thing bigger.

It seems that your main concern is interest rates, not the concept of payday loans. What do you think is a "fair" interest rate on a payday loan?

 

[Mustachio]

Quite frankly I don't follow the top part of your reply, but as for Trump, he didn't extort anything from us, assuming what you claim took place it was all within the law done via loop holes built in on purpose to favor the rich. I've taken advantage of write offs, haven't you? I've been known to donate money to relatives college funds to drop me down to a lower tax bracket, all legal, I make money off of the donation and they get help with school, but I'm sure you'd be above that, right? Feel free to explain your incoherent comments in the upper part and I'll try to reply.

The upper part was pretty simple. If an illegal immigrant is able to make a living by purchasing items and selling them for a higher price, that's a clever way to bypass being screwed by businesses paying slave wages to people without proper documentation. It also bypasses the requirement of any proper documentation. That's what your thread is about, right? You value people overcoming their challenges to be prosperous.

Regarding "what I say to be loopholes to favor the rich," you have to be kidding me. Trump knew how to exploit the system. If you're saying he didn't intentionally use the loopholes to avoid paying taxes, you're a fool.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It seems that your main concern is interest rates, not the concept of payday loans. What do you think is a "fair" interest rate on a payday loan?

One of my "concerns" is dishonest lenders. Payday loans was your argument. It was part of you telling me that there is nothing that can be done about lenders exploiting ignorant borrowers. Yet there are things that could be done, I mentioned one.

The courts do deal with exploiting people in business deals/banks and what not. This isnt rocket science, its pretty simple really. Just bar lenders from exploiting people and allow an easy legal solution for the borrower, end of problem. Most likely that would lead to no more payday/title loans and a vast majority of people seeking loans will not get them. And loan sharks are already covered by racketeering laws and other laws. Asserting that we cannot do anything because of criminals is silly. The hard reality is that we need to cutoff people from getting loans that they are going to fail at paying them back. Our liberties and economy demands that we stop this lending culture. The in-between guys are screwing all of us at the same time. Take insurance as an example, if we just paid for things directly the costs would come down. Instead we are paying banks and insurance companies most of our money for no good return.

 

[lefty louie]

The upper part was pretty simple. If an illegal immigrant is able to make a living by purchasing items and selling them for a higher price, that's a clever way to bypass being screwed by businesses paying slave wages to people without proper documentation. It also bypasses the requirement of any proper documentation. That's what your thread is about, right? You value people overcoming their challenges to be prosperous.

Regarding "what I say to be loopholes to favor the rich," you have to be kidding me. Trump knew how to exploit the system. If you're saying he didn't intentionally use the loopholes to avoid paying taxes, you're a fool.

No, my thread is about becoming self sufficient and or earning a living, in some cases doing so with only the talent you bring to the table. My thread is not about bypassing proper documentation, my daughter is documented to the extent the law requires. Of course Trump and most likely every other person/business on that level does the same thing, as should you, lord knows I do, that's what loopholes are for, to be taken advantage of.

 

[Waddy]

One of my "concerns" is dishonest lenders. Payday loans was your argument. It was part of you telling me that there is nothing that can be done about lenders exploiting ignorant borrowers. Yet there are things that could be done, I mentioned one.

The courts do deal with exploiting people in business deals/banks and what not. This isnt rocket science, its pretty simple really. Just bar lenders from exploiting people and allow an easy legal solution for the borrower, end of problem. Most likely that would lead to no more payday/title loans and a vast majority of people seeking loans will not get them. And loan sharks are already covered by racketeering laws and other laws. Asserting that we cannot do anything because of criminals is silly. The hard reality is that we need to cutoff people from getting loans that they are going to fail at paying them back. Our liberties and economy demands that we stop this lending culture. The in-between guys are screwing all of us at the same time. Take insurance as an example, if we just paid for things directly the costs would come down. Instead we are paying banks and insurance companies most of our money for no good return.

You sound like a politician. You make a lot of vague claims and promises. Care to be specific? How will you bar lenders from exploiting people? And would you please define exploit? How specifically do you mean that? Do you want the "vast majority of people seeking loans will not get them" to actually happen? Do you think that idea would fly with the public? Or politicians? And how is insurance a "no good return"? I will agree that some types of insurance are better values than others.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You sound like a politician. You make a lot of vague claims and promises. Care to be specific? How will you bar lenders from exploiting people? And would you please define exploit? How specifically do you mean that? Do you want the "vast majority of people seeking loans will not get them" to actually happen? Do you think that idea would fly with the public? Or politicians? And how is insurance a "no good return"? I will agree that some types of insurance are better values than others.

You must be the only person in the US who has no clue that lenders exploit ignorant people. As to what laws and regulation would bar exploitation, that would take much discussion and research to lay out exactly what would work.

I dont care what the public or politicians think about much of anything much less what we are talking about. I dont care if some people will be upset with the hard truths that I mentioned. Thats because I am not a politician nor will anything that I do really matters to most people, because well...Im just some guy on the Internet. So do not expect me to start appeasing people as if I need them on my side. After all like I said I am an individualist. I am comfortable with my ideas not flying since most people in mainstream USA subscribe to credit scores and the entire credit culture. So of course when I suggest that laws and regulations should be passed that aim at curbing exploitation, that they might go through their loan withdrawals. Got to get that new boat right?

 

[Mustachio]

No, my thread is about becoming self sufficient and or earning a living, in some cases doing so with only the talent you bring to the table. My thread is not about bypassing proper documentation, my daughter is documented to the extent the law requires. Of course Trump and most likely every other person/business on that level does the same thing, as should you, lord knows I do, that's what loopholes are for, to be taken advantage of.

You said your daughter was how old? If she's under 18, she's violating terms of service for ebay and illegally selling products. I guess you have a lot of double standards.

 

[lefty louie]

You said your daughter was how old? If she's under 18, she's violating terms of service for ebay and illegally selling products. I guess you have a lot of double standards.

My daughter in question is 8, do you seriously think she does everything completely on her own? Please, give it a break, my wife has an account and will be responsible for any issue that may pop up, last I checked she has a 100% approval rating, she also sells tings on several aps that are local to us.

You need to get over yourself, we aren't breaking any laws, and you just want to be right so bad you will look for anything to say "I got you".

 

[Mustachio]

You said your daughter was selling dolls. So that was a lie? It's your wife who sells on ebay? I'm a little lost. Does your daughter sell dolls and keep the money that you make from the sales? Because that's definitely a violation of the terms of service. If your wife is the one keeping the money and selling the dolls, then your daughter isn't doing anything. You boasted about your daughter already making money and how clever it was, you can't just say "well, I didn't mean she's selling anything."

Which is what this thread is all about. Money makes money. The original American Girls doll is a perfect metaphor for why so many people in this country are poor. Cost of living, education and health care are exceeding inflation exponentially as the years go by. Those who are born with a very expensive doll can keep up with with cost of living. The easiest way to make money is to have money. And cutting corners - like violating ebay's TOS and selling dolls as a child - is a great metaphor for how people with money simply find loopholes to protect their money and keep up with the rising cost of goods and services.

Those who aren't born with a very expensive doll have to deal with the nearly impossible task of accruing credit and obtaining health care and education while living paycheck to paycheck. They can't put money aside because they are already in debt and the interest and cost of living prevent that. They weren't born with a very expensive doll. That's not ignorant. That's reality.

 

[Kobie]

Part of being poor is lack of hard work, another part is being ignorant, not knowing how to spend money, not knowing how to save money and not knowing how to invest it.

I was taught early on how to save money by my parents, I learned out of necessity how to shop off season for bargains, but it took someone to teach me about investing and using my money to work for me.

We all know hard working people that just buy everything via a credit card and pay the high interest rates, that is so counter productive, the rule for the most part is, if you can't pay it in full each month then do without.

Buying a bathing suit in June is just wrong too, you should buy one in Sept for less then 1/2 price.

Investing, well I'm not going to give any tutorials on the stack market, but I can share some info on buying homes and real estate in general, also buying investment properties and how to leverage your equity to buy additional units.

So all this said, how much of being and remaining poor is just that no one took the time to teach you the little tricks?

Yes, those poors would stop being poor if they would just flip houses.

 

[Kobie]

I can't tell you a percentage. What I can tell you is that loan sharks taking advantage of poor people with exorbitant interest rates is abhorrent. Getting rich on the backs of the poor is about as low as it gets.

We agree.

Being poor is pretty goddamned expensive.

 

[Kobie]

Did you not read the part where I said, if you made mistakes early on and can't afford.......only time will help you overcome? Again if you have student loans (6% is not that high) that's a mistake someone made out of ignorance or stupidity. Go to schools you can afford, work so you don't need a loan.

In other words, build a time machine.

 

[Marco Montana]

I was homeless, walked the streets working under the table doing whatever i could. I believed my moms complaints about Republicans, I thought Democrat was the way, then I started working hard to learn some skills, bettering myself, making sacrifices to place myself in a better position, I worked Weekends, sometimes even Sundays, I never called in sick, i got a bank account, started building credit. I was homeless at 16 had a myriad of bad things happen to me , was arrested for dumb **** probably 14 times, bought my first house at 25!

That was 1995! I've been a Republican ever since, Democrats are excuse givers.

 

[Marco Montana]

Today's culture all think they want or need College, but they don't! Almost all service industry jobs train on the job, furthermore anyone going to College better have a career path planned.

You can't go to College to be a Youtube star! You can't go to College for Malaysian Philosophy and get a job making $70k a year! You get some cheesy Liberal Arts degree doing 4 years of College getting high, having sex, partying all night, you get what you put into it.

A crap means nothing degree and debt! Congrats!

 

[lefty louie]

Yes, those poors would stop being poor if they would just flip houses.

There is a process outlined, easy enough to access, it takes some discipline, something poor people often lack.

In other words, build a time machine.

No, it means you have to struggle twice as hard to overcome the mistakes you've made in the past. Sorry if you find yourself struggling.