look at what this kid did:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4298321&page=1

Quote :

"Building a Life on $25 and a Gym Bag College Graduate Leaves Comfortable Life for Poverty Experiment By PETER SMITH Feb. 17, 2008— Alone on a dark gritty street, Adam Shepard searched for a homeless shelter. He had a gym bag, $25, and little else. A former college athlete with a bachelor's degree, Mr. Shepard had left a comfortable life with supportive parents in Raleigh, N.C. Now he was an outsider on the wrong side of the tracks in Charles¬ton, S.C. But Shepard's descent into poverty in the summer of 2006 was no accident. Shortly after graduating from Merrimack College in North Andover, Mass., he intentionally left his parents' home to test the vivacity of the American Dream. His goal: to have a furnished apartment, a car, and $2,500 in savings within a year. To make his quest even more challenging, he decided not to use any of his previous contacts or mention his education. During his first 70 days in Charleston, Shepard lived in a shelter and received food stamps. He also made new friends, finding work as a day laborer, which led to a steady job with a moving company. Ten months into the experiment, he decided to quit after learning of an illness in his family. But by then he had moved into an apartment, bought a pickup truck, and had saved close to $5,000. The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty. He tells his story in "Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream." The book, he says, is a testament to what ordinary Americans can achieve. On a recent trip to the Boston, he spoke about his experience: Becoming a mover and living in a homeless shelter  that hadn't been part of your life before. How much did your lifestyle actually change? Shepard: It changed dramatically. There were simple luxuries that I didn't afford myself. I had to make sacrifices to achieve the goals that I set out. One of those was eating out. I didn't have a cellphone. Especially in this day and age, that was a dramatic change for me.... I was getting by on chicken and Rice-A-Roni dinner and was happy. That's what I learned ... we lived [simply], but still we were happy. But surely your background  you're privileged; you have an education and a family  made it much easier for you to achieve. I didn't use my college education, credit history, or contacts [while in South Carolina]. But in real life, I had these lessons that I had learned. I don't think that played to my advantage. How much of a college education do you need to budget your money to a point that you're not spending frivolously, but you're instead putting your money in the bank? Do you need a college education? I don't think so. To be honest with you, I think I was disadvantaged, because my thinking was inside of a box. I have the way that I lived [in North Carolina]  and to enter into this totally new world and acclimate to a different lifestyle, that was the challenge for me. Still, there was that safety net. Were you ever tempted to tap your past work, education, or family networks? I was never tempted. I had a credit card in my back pocket in case of an emergency. The rule was if I used the credit card then, "The project's over, I'm going home." So what did you tell people when they asked what you were doing? That was the only touchy part of my story. I had this great back story on how I was escaping my druggy mom and going to live with my alcoholic dad. Things just fell apart, and there I was at the homeless shelter. I really embellished this fabricated story and told it to anyone who would listen. The interesting thing is that nobody really cared.... It wasn't so much as where we were coming from, it was where we were going. Would your project have changed if you'd had child-care payments or been required to report to a probation officer? Wouldn't that have made it much harder? The question isn't whether I would have been able to succeed. I think it's the attitude that I take in: "I've got child care. I've got a probation officer. I've got all these bills. Now what am I going to do? Am I going to continue to go out to eat and put rims on my Cadillac? Or am I going to make some things happen in my life...?" One guy, who arrived [at the shelter] on a Tuesday had been hit by a car on [the previous] Friday by a drunk driver. He was in a wheelchair. He was totally out of it. He was at the shelter. And I said, "Dude, your life is completely changed." And he said, "Yeah, you're right, but I'm getting the heck out of here." Then there was this other guy who could walk and everything was good in his life, but he was just kind of bumming around, begging on the street corner. To see the attitudes along the way, that is what my story is about. You made it out of the shelter, got a job, and opened a bank account. Did you meet other people who had similar experiences? Oh, absolutely. We don't need "Scratch Beginnings" to know that millions of Americans are creating a life for themselves from nothing.... Just as millions of Americans are not getting by. There are both ends of the spectrum. To meet that guy [in the wheelchair] at the shelter, [makes you wonder] 'Can he get out and go to college and become a doctor?' Maybe, maybe not. I think he can set goals..... You can use your talents. That's why, from the beginning, I set very realistic goals: $2,500, a job, car. This isn't a "rags-to-riches million-dollar" story. This is very realistic. I truly believe, based on what I saw at the shelter ...that anyone can do that. Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures "

2/19/2008 10:28:40 AM

I'd say 50% out of purely laziness

35% due to lack of opportunity / knowing any better to strive

15% victim of circumstance (accidents, tramatized, mentally fucked up)

2/19/2008 10:35:02 AM

Quote :

"A Census-based economic analysis found that about 40 percent of Americans earning $35,000 or less believe they are more likely to accumulate a $500,000 nest egg by winning a lottery or sweepstakes. For Americans earning $15,000-$25,000, 45 percent thought a lottery was the best way to acquire a half million dollars. Only 30 percent felt they could accumulate such money by saving and investing. These attitudes show many Americans with limited resources are poorly informed and are desperately in need of information and education in money management, adds Waddell. "Education can help give people the confidence they need to save money and show them how consistent savings of even small amounts of money can make a huge difference in their financial security." Most families can build assets of several hundred thousand dollars during their lifetime simply by saving monthly, taking advantage of employer's retirement options and building equity through home ownership. This can be accomplished without depriving oneself or one's family of anything, says Waddell. SOURCE: DR. FRED WADDELL, Family Resource Management Specialist, Alabama Cooperative Extension System, I dont believe that was the study they were referring too on the radio though. It might have been read on the dave ramsey show. I dont remember, my memory is shit."

From eyedrb in another topic, and it seemed pretty relevant.

I think it can be said that most of those that think that they're most likely to get $500,000 from a lottery would also fall into HUR's ~50% lazy category.

2/19/2008 10:53:21 AM

Interesting story. I believe you can pull yourself up if you really want to, and if you're a single, able-bodied man with no children you have no excuse. A single mom who has made some bad choices is facing a different situation though.

But let's not pretend he's on the same playing field as the average bum. He had a good upbringing (I assume) and graduated from college. If he actually had a druggy mom and alcoholic dad, his story would be remarkable. Even if he never told anyone, his intellect would get noticed and come across in interviews. Things he takes for granted (what most of us would consider 'common sense' because our parents taught us that) might not come as easily to less educated people with a tumultuous childhood.

2/19/2008 10:55:28 AM

^Agreed. Saying that he was disadvantaged because he was brought up in a well-off family with budget knowledge is just silly. To many middle-class people, budgeting and savings are very common sense things, and it is assumed that savings happens, while many families who have seen nothing but poverty may have never heard or seen anything about budgeting and savings...

Not to say that they couldn't learn it in a day if they tried, but I'm just saying this guy had more of an advantage than he claims.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2008 10:58:48 AM

I agree 100% with his conclusions from his experiment. I can't say much about poverty in other countries, but in America, there are very few excuses to be poor. My parents came to the U.S. with $0 dollars and no gym bag... as political refugees and genocide targets after the Vietnam war. Look at where they are now. They own homes, land, and a farming business.

It has little to do with education. Look at my parents. They couldn't speak a lick of english for their first 5 years in America. It has more to do with will, drive, passion, (insert your motivational word of choice here)...

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM. Reason : just do it]

2/19/2008 11:07:09 AM

I heard this on Boortz the other day and I wholly agree with the premise. Our society practically teaches people to be reliant on others/government instead of taking their own destiney and being responsible for it...

From "The Bad Boy of Baltimore" a biography of H L Mencken



"By the mid-1930's, thanks to the New Deal, all that self-reliance had changed, prompting Mencken to declare: 'There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them.' Despite the billions spent on an individual, 'he can be lifted transiently but always slips back again.' Thus, the New Deal had been 'the most stupendous digenetic enterprise ever undertaken by man.... We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time. The effects of that doctrine are bound to be disastrous soon or late.'

When someone asked, "And what, Mr. Mencken, would you do about the unemployed?" He looked up with a bland expression. "We could start by taking away their vote," he said, deadpan. Mencken was not surprised when the majority disagreed. "There can be nothing even remotely approaching a rational solution of the fundamental national problems until we face them in a realistic spirit," he later reflected, and that was impossible so long as educated Americans remained responsive "to the Roosevelt buncombe."

2/19/2008 11:17:59 AM

it also doesn't help when we also live in an "instant gratification" society leaning heavily on fast food, tv, and credit cards and cell phones

humans just can't get enough

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

2/19/2008 11:20:38 AM

I don't know what most people consider "poor" but this guy was still possibly under the poverty line, and he certainly wasn't well off or middle class by any means. Sure, if a healthy single man with no kids can't afford to support himself then it's probably laziness. But what if he had kids? It doesn't mention health insurance, what if he got injured or ill?

2/19/2008 11:34:36 AM

Quote :

"humans Americans just can't get enough"

2/19/2008 11:36:50 AM

there's nothing wrong with instant gratification as long as personal responsibility comes along with it.

2/19/2008 12:17:36 PM

Quote :

"I had a credit card in my back pocket in case of an emergency. The rule was if I used the credit card then, "The project's over, I'm going home.""

he really went out on a limb here.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM. Reason : d]

2/19/2008 12:23:47 PM

^
what do you expect him to do, die for a principle?

2/19/2008 12:27:12 PM

Awesome thread title.

Much prefer it to "Why are people poor?"

2/19/2008 12:33:48 PM

There is a direct correlation to poor people and laziness. However, some people with money are lazy too because they had money all their life and never had to work for much of anything.

2/19/2008 12:48:55 PM

Correlations occur between two variables, not to two variables.

One-week ban on using big words for you!

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : 2 or more]

2/19/2008 12:55:19 PM

Yeah I've done a derivation of this experiment myself. In one of the most expensive areas in the country, I lived off of what amounted to minimum wage + food stamps for about a year. The reality is that if you work hard, save every penny you can and watch your expenses, it is very possible to get out of poverty quickly. And contrary to what others will tell you, you CAN live off of minimum wage even in expensive areas.

I almost advocate a forced savings plan (separate from SS) for low-income workers, since as a group it seems like they stubbornly refuse any type of financial planning or advice. But it clashes too much with my libertarian roots.



[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : 2]

2/19/2008 1:12:15 PM

Quote :

"Am I going to continue to go out to eat and put rims on my Cadillac?"

Yeah, this is gonna cause him some problems.

2/19/2008 1:15:59 PM

^^ That's tough... maybe not a forced savings plan, but a pay as you go welfare program. If you receive government aid, then your wages get garnished and put into an account for that person. I think it is completely fair as a society to say that we won't support you forever. You can have now, but you have to work for tomorrow.



[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2008 1:16:11 PM

Why not reduce the standard deduction for those who choose not to participate in any kind of retirement savings?

"Pay now since you'll cost later."

2/19/2008 1:22:32 PM

because that is socialist.

its not up the government to take care of your ass. it is up to YOU! take care of your own shit.

2/19/2008 1:26:42 PM

Some are. Some are not.

2/19/2008 1:36:35 PM

^^so what exactly IS the role of government?

2/19/2008 1:42:08 PM

Quote :

"^^so what exactly IS the role of government?"

I will give you the short answer.

The role of government is to organize the population into a cohesive group with as little intrusion into their daily lives as possible. It needs to set rules, tax (in order to provide for things that benefit the common good like roads and military) and protect its people.

It sure as hell doesnt need to tell me how to save my money nor does it need to make its people dependent on it. Thats exactly what you do with shit like this. Necessity breeds ambition.

PS...reference the Bill of Rights, Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. thats all the definition you need.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2008 1:48:59 PM

Quote :

" The role of government is to organize the population into a cohesive group with as little intrusion into their daily lives as possible. It needs to set rules, tax (in order to provide for things that benefit the common good like roads and military) and protect its people."

that's just what you want out of a government

i would doubt that Kim Jong-il would agree

2/19/2008 2:18:06 PM

Quote :

"I almost advocate a forced savings plan (separate from SS) for low-income workers, since as a group it seems like they stubbornly refuse any type of financial planning or advice. But it clashes too much with my libertarian roots. "

I agree i think the solution is SS needs to be slowly phased out a few fractions of a 1% per year with this money instead being redirected into a "Forced Savings Plan" to which every worker contributes to his OWN retirement fund.

Quote :

"It sure as hell doesnt need to tell me how to save my money nor does it need to make its people dependent on it. Thats exactly what you do with shit like this. Necessity breeds ambition."

Some nay-sayers will be like gov't can't tell me what to do. However, if you want the gov't to step out this is the only viable solution i can think of. If the gov't was completly hands off you'd have droves of irresponsible people w/o enough to retire then bitching/expecting/ or putting into office someone to cover them financially.

Truth is besides just being lazy a lot of poor are just plain ignorant/uneducated/unintelligent/low IQ. This is further agitated as I think lack of intelligence correlates loosely with laziness. Yeah their are smart lazy people too before someone gripes but often those with high intelligence can still find ways to prosper while still be lazy. Once combining laziness with people who just flat out not intelligent, we can cover this label "either or" label to 85-90% of poor people.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : aa]

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : a]

2/19/2008 2:25:02 PM

Quote :

"DaBird: its not up the government to take care of your ass. it is up to YOU! take care of your own shit."

Uh...agreed.

Reread my post.

This net effect of this policy is to encourage YOU! to take care of your own shit.

2/19/2008 2:25:46 PM

^^that actually doesn't sound like a terrible idea. it might hurt in the short term as far as paying for social security. but i think the idea is worthy of investigation.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : it would have to have a good name. forced savings is not the most immediately attractive idea.]

2/19/2008 2:28:04 PM

Also, double the tax penalty for making early withdrawals from 401(k)s except in hardship withdrawal circumstances.

2/19/2008 2:32:10 PM

I forgot to add my serious 2 cents.

Quote :

"Are Poor People Lazy?"

yes

2/19/2008 2:32:31 PM

i still say this thread would be more viable if it was

"are poor people lazy and/or not intelligent"

i have met many people working lowly service jobs and members of the working poor who honestly just are not smart enough to get themselves after poverty. No i do not think its the governments job to redistribute wealth necessarily but we shouldn't forget that not everyone is a bright college bound student.

Going back to on Dabirds statement idealistically i agree. From my libertarian viewpoint i think gov't needs to be hands off and shouldn't tell me what to do with my hard earned money. Unfortunately a lot of people are not responsible or smart enough to handle this. If you look back in history this was Hoover's attitude during the start of the great depression; "Gov't should not get involved and the capitalistic market will correct itself." Look what happened there.... FDR took over put the income tax on steroids and over 50 years the government has become increasingly a big safety hammock instead of safety net for those not smart or too lazy to achieve.

Gov't needs to point people in the right direction (i.e tax breaks, credits) but not necessarily micro-mange everything for people.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM. Reason : aa]

2/19/2008 2:37:06 PM

not everyone can be a Beta

am i rite HUR?

2/19/2008 2:38:49 PM

huh?

2/19/2008 2:41:59 PM

its a personality thing some people refuse to do anything for themselves these people of course end of being poor and thus cause the lazy poor stereotype. some people have a run of bad luck. like a house burning down or something that causes them to lose everything they have. The people who have the will to move on and rebuild don't stay poor long enough to change this stereotype and as such the stereotype is propogated.

2/19/2008 2:45:20 PM

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
I'm glad SOMEONE finally debunked that shitty "experiment" that Barbara Enreich did and then wrote this huge, overly-dramatic book about. "Nickel and Dimed" if you've ever heard of it. If you read what Barbara did, she kept intentionaly sabotaging herself, by shirking away from the best jobs she could get, or when she finally did get some money, blowing it on pot, instead of using it to feed herself. The idea that anyone would make the exact same choices as she did in that situation is laughable.
So, someone finally had the guts to put his ass on the line and debunk it. Even if he did have a safety net, doesn't matter. He actually did it, and that takes a lot of courage.

2/19/2008 3:55:39 PM

^ I think you underestimate the psychological effect of a safety net on someone's motivation.

And if he got sick, he would have pretty much been screwed.

The idea that motivated people can do well is not new. The trick is to get people to be motivated.

2/19/2008 5:26:27 PM

^^I read Nickel and Dimed, and I think it had a few interesting insights without being too offensive. Maybe more insights if you're completely new to the issue.




I don't know much about this book, but I hope it's not just, "People are poor because they have bad attitudes and eat out instead of eating Rice-A-Roni." I mean, the life he painted was one of happiness in spite of tremendous sacrifice. I really hope there's a lot more to the book than that.

I think most of us at one time or another have imagined how we would handle things if all of sudden the carpet was pulled out from under us. It's something I've thought about trying myself but would never do because homelessness is dangerous.

Anyway, these experiments inevitably come off as shallow. If you agree with the "conclusions," you're likely to embrace the experiment. But if you want real insight, the real deal, it's best to look to people who did it for real, not somebody who just went out and pretended they were on a long camping trip.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM. Reason : sss]

2/19/2008 5:43:07 PM

Quote :

"I didn't use my college education, credit history, or contacts [while in South Carolina]. But in real life, I had these lessons that I had learned. I don't think that played to my advantage. How much of a college education do you need to budget your money to a point that you're not spending frivolously, but you're instead putting your money in the bank? Do you need a college education? I don't think so. To be honest with you, I think I was disadvantaged, because my thinking was inside of a box. I have the way that I lived [in North Carolina]  and to enter into this totally new world and acclimate to a different lifestyle, that was the challenge for me."

the major problem i see with this that makes him different from the other people in the same situation is that he is educated - regardless of whether he told people he had a piece of paper or not - he had the intelligence/education to get out of the situation he was in

i think everyone can agree you don't only learn things from books in college...

2/19/2008 5:48:46 PM

^For sure.

Just being able to speak close to standard English can make a big difference.

That alone is critical, and it concerns me that he didn't address that.

He just kept reemphasizing having a good attitude and not getting a Cadillac with rims.

2/19/2008 6:02:45 PM

Quote :

"I think you underestimate the psychological effect of a safety net on someone's motivation."

its simple if you are not out interviewing or after X months (i think 3 if your single, 6 for a family is a good number) then no more gov't handouts for you. Lets no forget finally eliminating RAISES increased assistance for sally sue for sitting in her trailor pumping out babies. I might have a slivery of sympathy for the poor but I just believe that we actually provide motivation to breed and pump up future generations of welfare recipients.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM. Reason : a]

2/19/2008 6:32:01 PM

^You misunderstood his point. He's saying that it was easier for Adam Shepard to keep a good attitude and keep his spirits/motivation up because he knew that after a year, he could go back to his comfortable lifestyle and he knew that if something disastrous happened, he would have some amount of protection.

I mean, "Look at me! I'm happy and having fun eating Rice-A-Roni with my new pals!" is a really shallow way of looking at the issue. It's easy to lose sight of your goal when you're stressed out/depressed.

And he made a big mistake when he quit after only ten months because of a family illness. His super-fun adventure in poverty land came to a halt the instant real life came into play...

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 6:45 PM. Reason : sss]

2/19/2008 6:44:57 PM

Shit, I'd probably have more money now if I hadn't gone to college than I do now. At the very least I should have waited a couple of years and sorted my shit out rather than jumping right in.

Look, in this country in this time period there is no excuse for being poor. I've got 2 jobs, not because I fucking have to have them to support myself, but because I want to buy nice shit and save up money. I'm not even driven by need in this case, I could easily live off of what I make at my primary job, but the 20 hours a week I put in at my other job will let me retire young enough to really enjoy it.

I cannot fathom why it is that people with no education past the most basic (and frankly a HS education can be very worthwhile if you pay the fuck attention) or any skills to speak of (again, if you didn't have the brains to go to a university perhaps you should have taken some vocational training like apprenticing to a brick mason or taking welding classes) believe that they are entitle to a comfortable living when they spend more time sleeping than they do working (40 hrs/week vs. 56 hrs/week).

The world doesn't owe you shit and there is opportunity aplenty if you are willing to look for it and you're willing to put in a little bit of effort.

No, no everyone can make six figures as an architect, but there's no reason you can't make 40-50 grand by taking available overtime and having a weekend job.

2/19/2008 7:12:56 PM

Quote :

"And he made a big mistake when he quit after only ten months because of a family illness. His super-fun adventure in poverty land came to a halt the instant real life came into play..."

Indeed. Spinning the experiment as an indictment of poor folk is deeply insulting and not necessarily even what the dude intended. If it's meant as an inspirational story, fine. If meant to inflate the egos of the well-off and justify the status quo, no thanks.

2/19/2008 7:16:35 PM

I don't see how it can be anything but an indictment of the poor. I sometimes wonder if the people who claim to be so empathetic towards the homeless or the working poor have ever actually worked with them or along side them.

I've had several shitty to mediocre jobs and I can tell you that the vast majority of the people I worked with in those jobs had no ambition past their current state. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but if that's the position you choose to take then you don't get to whine about your state of affairs or demand that other people pay for your laziness or shitty decisions.

2/19/2008 7:24:07 PM

Alternatively, how about an economic system that doesn't require ambition?

We have plenty of material wealth. There's no need to divide abundance based on favored personal qualities.

That said, I'll agree that Americans are much better off than many humans. I could see the argument for economic growth in the developing world over revolution here.

2/19/2008 7:34:34 PM

Quote :

"^You misunderstood his point. He's saying that it was easier for Adam Shepard to keep a good attitude and keep his spirits/motivation up because he knew that after a year, he could go back to his comfortable lifestyle and he knew that if something disastrous happened, he would have some amount of protection."

wouldn't not having this safety net ready to catch you make you MORE motivated to be successful?

I mean, for actual poor people, it's not an experiment you are running, it's your life.

2/19/2008 7:38:06 PM

Quote :

"Alternatively, how about an economic system that doesn't require ambition? "

Come up with a working model, test it with a statistically significant group for a statistically significant length of time and then get back to us. Maybe you'll be the one to finally crack that chestnut.

I know your anarcho-technocratic dream state is a utopia in your mind, but it'll never happen until technology reaches a point at least a century away (more likely never since people who come up with the kind of shit necessary to build your future don't just give it away).

2/19/2008 7:41:43 PM

I'd like to see THIS on college required reading lists instead of Nickel and Dimed.

2/19/2008 8:08:08 PM

how about both?

2/19/2008 8:11:51 PM

Quote :

"I know your anarcho-technocratic dream state is a utopia in your mind,"

If so, it's an ambiguous utopia.

Quote :

"(more likely never since people who come up with the kind of shit necessary to build your future don't just give it away)"

Agreed. However, controlling technology isn't easy. One way or another, I suspect revolutionaries will get access to molecular manufacturing and the like.

Anyways, technocracy would work with 1920s machines. You don't need anything futuristic for that vision.

2/19/2008 8:13:56 PM