The Poverty Trap

[alhoon]

https://partnersinfire.com/lifestyle/the-poverty-trap/

The gist: in essence, "poverty trap" means that poor people, or that people that fall to low income class, cannot claw out because the bottom falls faster than they can climb. They may work 18 hours per day and still not be able to escape poverty, doomed to die poor.

The article linked presents several institutional problems, some of which are not just in USA. In much of the world, from the West to less developed countries, that sad trend is true. Essentially, the system is by design or by circumstance stacked against the poor people, keeping them poor.
But for the Western society, especially the "Protestant work ethics" countries, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome the poverty trap is the acknowledgement that the poverty trap exists and that's not necessarily the fault of the poor that they are poor. And sure, 1 out of 100 or 20 poor people manage to claw out (random numbers). Sucks for the other 19/20 or 99 out of 100 though that were not as skilled or lucky. Another issue in the West, that the article doesn't explicitly state, is that moves to even the income gap and help people out of poverty is branded as "socialism!!!!!!1111". Not everywhere is as bad as USA, but there are MANY western politicians and voters that think exactly that way.

The article ends with "'the rising tide lifts all the boats" but with the opposite approach than the "trickle down economics".

Such moves are NOT without faults though! It is very easy to NOT solve the issue of poverty traps and simply raise a few people out while pushing other people in. Raising taxes to the low-middle class to help the lower class may indeed help the lower class but it may well result in pushing some low-middle class people into the low class, as others crawl out of it. Furthermore, it can be used as government welfare that creates dependency. And it can be mismanaged. Building nice parks on taxpayer money in a neighborhood where the water is poisoned will not increase the day to day paychecks of the people having to work 2 jobs to make ends for example.

And then, while of course it is not always the fault of the poor that they are poor and they are trapped in a system that keeps them poor... it is undeniable that SOME poor will make bad decisions. Not all poor, nor it is fair to point out to those that receive welfare so that their kids would have a better future and spend it on drugs or alcohol as "it doesn't work" BUT there are such people.
Erasing the medical bills of 10000 people would help ... some of them. But many of them will simply accrue more medical bills shortly.

IT IS a complex issue that DOES NOT have an easy and clean solution. No magic wands here. It has to be, in my opinion, three steps forward, two steps back. A lot of money will have to be wasted on people that will not actually benefit from it for various reasons. BUT... something has to be done. That the solution is neither easy nor clean doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it.

[sumskilz]

That article’s arguments are ridiculous. A checking account costs about $6 a month if you can’t afford the minimum balance. A check-cashing service will take 5 to 10% of the check that they cash. In other words, if someone makes more than $120 per month, it’s better to just have a bank account because they’re already paying more.

According to this, 5% of the US population doesn’t have a bank account. Of those, 21% have an annual income less than $25,000, which means 79% make as much or more than the median income PPP in the UK. They’re not in poverty, unless the vast majority of the UK is.

Regarding healthcare in the US, individuals who make less $20,385 annually are eligible for free coverage. Individuals who make less than $54,360 annually are eligible for subsidized coverage, which averages $111 per month. These are people who are not in poverty, unless the vast majority of Europe is in poverty. Of the 29 million uninsured people in the US, 57% are eligible for free or low cost health insurance. The rest make too much money to qualify.

More than half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, but that’s true even for those who make over $100,000 per year.

Now granted, if you don’t pay your electric bill, they’ll add a late fee, so if you can’t afford it, being poor will make you poorer, but in most parts of the US, as far as I know, you can just apply for public assistance if you actually are that poor, and DSHS will pay it for you. Most Americans who really are in poverty have other reasons than just having come from poverty. I think the woman who wrote that article is really detached from what those reasons are. She’s talking about capital markets, as if average Americans actually invest, when the majority are living paycheck to paycheck.

[Cyclops]

In my country the issues are very complex. The "causes" of poverty are a mix: inherited wealth, culture, race, education, geographic location and "world events" all play a part.

Basically we are a rich country where no one starves inless they get lost or are mentally ill.

However income inequality is a visible reminder that there's is neither equity of outcomes nor equity of opportunity.

The exception ito the "its complicated" rule is indigenous people, who inherit a mix of racism (in the past legally enforced), cultural and biological disadvantage, remote geographic location and apparently a merciless god. Here the inequity is so egregious direct action seems warranted, but of course politics intervenes.

Attempts to create indigenous land rights have done something, but also resulted in an indigenous class system of "traditional owners" vs completely disenfranchised sections..

"The system" works well for most, and the temptation has been to use "the poor" either as a sympathy sink or a punishable example. No system can level us all.

Keeping the wealth gap from yawning in my view keeps everyone feeling like we're all human, but that reflects Australian mores, and parts of the US feel differently.

I'm not criticizing the US, "rewarding hard work" has made the US an enormous success, and they aren't the worst empire ever: they even share wealth with other nations by policing the seas.

[alhoon]

@Sumkiz:
annual income of 25K$ for a family is a lot of money in the Balkans and it is not enough in many places of USA. I guess in rural areas of Wyoming it is more than enough. But in Chicago or New York, you will be facing malnutrition issues.

Furthermore, living paycheck to paycheck is not the poverty trap. The poverty trap is that the system is stacked against you in much of the world so that you may find yourself working 13 hours per day and still barely make do or even fall behind. About those living paycheck to paycheck and making say 50K$ if they have a serious medical issue that requires surgery and a month of hospitalization, they may need to pay like 500K$. Their insurance will pay part of the costs leaving a large debt that will increase as they have problems paying it and then the banks would confiscate their homes. So, that formerly 50K$ person may find himself homeless.

The exception ito the "its complicated" rule is indigenous people, who inherit a mix of racism (in the past legally enforced), cultural and biological disadvantage,

Huh? I probably misunderstand that as you don't seem the person to say what I think that is saying...

[sumskilz]

annual income of 25K$ for a family is a lot of money in the Balkans and it is not enough in many places of USA.

I was referring to individual income, not family income, and the latter part of your sentence is irrelevant to what I cited because PPP figures account for differences in buying power (PPP = purchasing power parity). Having kids disproportionately increases both the benefits and and the thresholds I cited.

I guess in rural areas of Wyoming it is more than enough. But in Chicago or New York, you will be facing malnutrition issues.

Complete nonsense. If someone doesn’t have enough money for food, they can receive SNAP benefits to cover it, which take into account the particular household’s actual expenses. The amount of the SNAP benefits is specifically designed to avoid any possibility of malnutrition. On top of SNAP benefits, reproductive age women with children, along with their children, receive WIC benefits. Whereas those with SNAP benefits can buy any type of food they like with their EBT card, WIC benefits are vouchers for specific types of healthy foods that meet the women and children’s specific nutritional needs. On top of all that, there is very easy access to food banks in urban areas, at which it’s easy to get more food than most would ever be able to eat. In fact, I knew several students at UW who had no issue affording food who would go to the nearest food bank because the food quality was good and it allowed them to spend their money on fun stuff instead. Businesses receive tax benefits for donating surplus food and/or food that has reached its sell-by date. Food is considered to still be good for 3 to 5 days after its sell-by date if highly perishable or several weeks for packaged food. Most food banks allow people to stock up twice a week and they don’t check if someone is also receiving SNAP or WIC benefits or if they’re going to other food banks.

Furthermore, living paycheck to paycheck is not the poverty trap. The poverty trap is that the system is stacked against you in much of the world so that you may find yourself working 13 hours per day and still barely make do or even fall behind.

If the system is stacked against anyone in the US, it’s not those in poverty, rather it’s the middle class. If one is so inclined, it’s easier to live below the poverty threshold (which is still wealthy compared to almost everywhere in the world) than to work hard for a middle class income, especially if you want kids. In fact, I know a couple with kids in Seattle who live comfortably off of one part time income plus all the benefits and tax credits. They aren’t from any sort of poverty background, they just prefer to spend time with their kids who they homeschool, and they know how to legally work the system. The father has an MS in accounting, and the mother has a generic liberal arts degree.

Now there are certainly people who have it rough in the US, but they have other problems. Being poor is usually a consequence of those other problems rather than what’s causing them.

[Flinn]

If the system is stacked against anyone in the US, it’s not those in poverty, rather it’s the middle class. If one is so inclined, it’s easier to live below the poverty threshold (which is still wealthy compared to almost everywhere in the world) than to work hard for a middle class income, especially if you want kids. In fact, I know a couple with kids in Seattle who live comfortably off of one part time income plus all the benefits and tax credits. They aren’t from any sort of poverty background, they just prefer to spend time with their kids who they homeschool, and they know how to legally work the system. The father has an MS in accounting, and the mother has a generic liberal arts degree.

Something similar happens in Italy as well. I know ATL 3 different families of people who do live, despite being officially considered "poor", a better life than many others, this mostly due to social benefits and tax credits. Honestly, I don't see how a system like that isn't inevitably going to implode.

[paleologos]

However income inequality is a visible reminder that there's is neither equity of outcomes nor equity of opportunity.

Some people win the gene lottery and are more gifted than others, life/nature is not equitable in this way.
Said people are better able to create their own opportunities in addition to whatever opportunities everyone else have.
So achieving "equity of opportunity" presupposes fettering the most talented.
I consider the above to be self-evident truths, disputation of this will be considered willful blindness and an attempt to demonstrate social virtue.

Furthermore there is the issue of single parent families.
Too many underage girls get pregnant out of wedlock, to the seed of boys who are not economically stable.
Parents used to advise their daughters not to "give any" to useless men but at a certain point such outcomes became habitus.

The exception ito the "its complicated" rule is indigenous people, who inherit a mix of racism (in the past legally enforced), cultural and biological disadvantage, remote geographic location and apparently a merciless god.

I second alhoon's petition for elaboration on this.



Ultimately one cannot avoid the question of why there are so many non Americans who want to live and work in the US as opposed to other countries.
I will not say that hard work can lift the average, mediocre poor out of poverty in today's America, not within their lifetime.
But I do believe that the combination of hard work with the humility of living below one's means will allow their children to achieve social mobility.

[Cyclops]

...


Huh? I probably misunderstand that as you don't seem the person to say what I think that is saying...

I think you are making good points.

I'm adding an Australian persepctive: I agree there's poverty traps in Australia as there is in many places. I agree its complex and any solution will involve blunders, and individuals will be able to move around the wealth spectrum according to ability but also have that movement limited by poverty traps (health and education are big ones).

I mention indigenous Australians as an exception to the "Its complex" explanation as they have so much against them. Even though I am for more or less limited government involvement in social issues I think they form an exceptional case and big intervention is needed.

A couple of highlights are :

Indigenous Australians were not counted in the census until the 1960's. Forget Jim Crow we had naked apartheid in living memory. There was a complex system (according to whether a person had "half-blood" or "fullblood") excluding them from property ownership, military service, citizenship etc etc predicated on the supposition indigenous people were incapable of adult conduct. When you discuss inherited wealth, many indigenous people have none as a direct result of racism.

There are dietary issues for indigenous people, meaning the average western diet (fast food, supermarket food etc) is less digestible and more disease-causing. Indigenous people were generally forced onto reserves and prevented from hunting and gathering, so there's generations of malnutrition: alcohol is also a huge problem physically and socially. This folds into health issues, crime, generational trauma, we made life a hellscape for indigenous people even when we were trying to help them.

Its not a question of blame, regarding the question of addressing poverty traps many indigenous Australians have both legs and an arm in the traps. Experience shows (as you mention) that attempts to help often are a step backwards. I think we still have to take steps.

I take Sumskilz points about the middle class too, our society is set up to pay and play, and society asks the middle class to pay for a lot. My own view is anything you get is a blessing, and its good for everyone to contribute. The way people contribute varies and what we do here would be described as Socialism in the US. Its not (not even close), its just different for different conditions.

As for the question (unspoken but I guess it underlies all this) as to what is fair? I think nothing is fair. A society is good when no one starves and people get some chance: "justice" and "freedom" are bonuses, very hard to define but lovely aspirational goals. Maybe "wealth" is likewise nebulous?

The US is pretty good. My country is pretty good. I mean most countries are getting fed, and corruption isn't intolerable everywhere.

[paleologos]

...
...excluding them from property ownership, military service, citizenship etc etc predicated on the supposition indigenous people were incapable of adult conduct.
When you discuss inherited wealth, many indigenous people have none as a direct result of racism.
...

I would have imagined it would be like that for the aboriginals in the 19th century.
I had no idea it lasted well into the 20th.

There are dietary issues for indigenous people, meaning the average western diet (fast food, supermarket food etc) is less digestible and more disease-causing.
Indigenous people were generally forced onto reserves and prevented from hunting and gathering, so there's generations of malnutrition...

That elaborates on the "biological" component of their handicap.

...alcohol is also a huge problem physically and socially.
This folds into health issues, crime, generational trauma...

Alcohol abuse is a disaster to everyone, everywhere, whenever it is present

...we made life a hellscape for indigenous people even when we were trying to help them.

I would argue racism and domination "made life a hellscape for indigenous people" originally.
But then you (who is "you", really?) continued to "make life a hellscape for indigenous people" because you were trying to help them.
Did it occur to anyone to simply try to not make things worse?

Experience shows (as you mention) that attempts to help often are a step backwards.

Maybe leave them alone?

I think we still have to take steps.

You are not fast learners, are you?

I take Sumskilz points about the middle class too, our society is set up to pay and play, and society asks the middle class to pay for a lot.
My own view is anything you get is a blessing, and its good for everyone to contribute.
The way people contribute varies and what we do here would be described as Socialism in the US.
Its not (not even close), its just different for different conditions.

To be fair, when Americans on the political right throw the word "socialism" around they don't mean it as an argument.
Rather they mean it as a slur intended to dismiss the argument of the other side and waive the need to counter it.

However there is a problem with politicians deciding to spend the people's tax money in handouts and then taking the credit for it as "friends of the downtrodden".
I would happily extend my solidarity to my fellow citizen but not if the government is the pimp and dispenser of my solidarity.

Also, American welfare programs are notorious for ultimately perpetuating dependence on said handouts.
I find particularly grievous the requirement to be single for a poor mother to be eligible for financial support.
What it is, is a bribe to the most necessitous women to divorce the fathers of their children.
This is what happens when you allow politicians to be pimps and dispensers of other people's solidarity.

As for the question (unspoken but I guess it underlies all this) as to what is fair?
I think nothing is fair.

I would put this in different words:
"Deserving has nothing to do with anything".
Other than that, it is up to us to be as fair, or as generous as we want.

A society is good when no one starves and people get some chance: "justice" and "freedom" are bonuses, very hard to define but lovely aspirational goals.
Maybe "wealth" is likewise nebulous?

The US is pretty good.
My country is pretty good.
I mean most countries are getting fed, and corruption isn't intolerable everywhere.

You are describing the Russian mindset and the reason why Putin is so stably seated at the top of the Russian political system.
The Russians are not starving and they have personal freedoms.
But they don't have the freedom to criticize their leader, nor do they have other political freedoms.
Is it "pretty good" for the Russians?
I think not.



I am not denying there is a poverty trap and I will not dispute the causes the the linked piece proposes.
What I cannot ignore is the absence of values as a causal factor in the behavior that is linked to generational poverty.
In my previous post I made mention of habitus.

From wikipedia:

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu said that the habitus consists of the hexis, a person's carriage (posture) and speech (accent), and the mental habits of perception, classification, appreciation, feeling and action.^[2][3] The habitus allows the individual person to consider and resolve problems based upon gut feeling and intuition. This way of living (social attitudes, mannerisms, tastes, morality, etc.) influences the availability of opportunities in life; thus the habitus is structured by the person's social class, but also gives structure to the future paths available to the person. Therefore, the reproduction of social structures results from the habitus of the individual persons who compose the given social structure.

I am thinking of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

From the same wipkipedia piece:

In Bourdieus's work the habitus is shaped by structural position and generates action, thus when people act and demonstrate agency they simultaneously reflect and reproduce social structure. Bourdieu elaborated his theory of the habitus while borrowing ideas on cognitive and generative schemes from Noam Chomsky and Jean Piaget regarding dependency on history and human memory. For instance, a certain behaviour or belief becomes part of a society's structure when the original purpose of that behaviour or belief can no longer be recalled and becomes socialized into individuals of that culture.^[4][5]

In other words, just spending money on material assistance alone is worse than doing nothing as it rewards/enables the habitus that leads people to replicate the behaviors that inadvertently keep them in poverty.
The victims of poverty need more than material assistance, they need resocialization.
But can we trust the government to do it?
I dread to imagine what it would look like.
I mean we know what the efforts of the government of China looks like when they are "resocializing" the Uighurs.

Or maybe there is a fault in my reasoning.

[Cyclops]

I would have imagined it would be like that for the aboriginals in the 19th century.
I had no idea it lasted well into the 20th.

Many Aussies love to lecture others about racism (the US for Jim Crow, China for Tibet, etc etc) but we have been a bastion for good old fashioned British racism for the longest time. Our aid delivery is often the exemplar for well intentioned cruelty, and technically we still have apartheid in that we create a separate set of institutions for indigenous people's aid. This is often misrepresented as indigenous people getting extra.

That elaborates on the "biological" component of their handicap.
Alcohol abuse is a disaster to everyone, everywhere, whenever it is present

Yes but I have a theory its worse the further you get from places it was invented. I think it takes a few thousand years for social adaption and natural selection to slowly reduce the damage. Places like Mesopotamia and Egypt have less problems (and I don't think its just about Islam, AFAIK Egyptians enjoy beer, bu islamic band son alcohol are a social damage control measure) but when you get to the European fringe like Ireland (my ancestors) and Finland its worse.

I can't help feeling its a mix of social and genetic development (ie the most vulnerable die, and the survivors learn manners/customs that control abuse). Indigenous Americans and Australians mostly did not brew and they are very hard hit. I think there's something similar with opiate abuse: in India its a normal drug, the damage was done millennia ago and its now less of a problem, there's social controls etc, but in naive populations like China and Europe its led to harsh addiction problems.

I would argue racism and domination "made life a hellscape for indigenous people" originally.
But then you (who is "you", really?) continued to "make life a hellscape for indigenous people" because you were trying to help them.
Did it occur to anyone to simply try to not make things worse?

Maybe leave them alone?

You are not fast learners, are you?

No we are not fast learners. We couldn't leave them alone because they kept wandering onto "our" farms and gold mines. We went after their women because we started as a prison colony with 5:1 male to female inmates (Gay Australia is a whole other secret history no one talks about). The bits that weren't a prison were model liberal capitalist economies, so charity was left to the religious movements mostly, so there was a lack of coordination in policies to say the least.

I say "we" as I am a member of Australian society. I benefit from past decisions and I contribute to present ones, so I should address past wrongs. I also have family members over 4 of the last 5 generations involved in service delivery of care to indigenous peoples.

Stuff was done like providing land for tribes to learn farming. Hostile nomad tribes forced to live in camps together, what could go wrong? The government aid gets reduced? Hostile neighbours use the courts to claim slices of land and get the tribes evicted?

To be fair that ancestor had a nervous breakdown early in the piece and had to convalesce for many years, but they were part of the damage done.

To survive contact with industrial society indigenous people had to adapt and they were conservative well integrated nomadic societies not fast paced literate ones. The farming communities in the Melanesian culture Tiwi Start Islanders adapted most successfully (less mass death and displacement), the gap from nomad to farmer yawns wider than farmer to factory worker in my view.

My view is there was no way indigenous society would be unscathed by contact, but it could have been done with a bit more care.

Or maybe there is a fault in my reasoning.

You're only human, I expect your reasoning is faulty (maybe even as faulty as mine? Surely not that bad). I think Reason is over-rated in any case, and Feelings matter a lot too.

[paleologos]

You're only human, I expect your reasoning is faulty (maybe even as faulty as mine? Surely not that bad).

How generous to relieve me of high expectations.
I dreaded that only parts of my reasoning would be found wanting and I would be chastised and educated on said parts alone.

I think Reason is over-rated in any case, and Feelings matter a lot too.

Alas, feelings don't care about facts.

...we started as a prison colony with 5:1 male to female inmates...

Is that why you call a mate a and a a mate?

Many Aussies...
...
...a bit more care.

That's very informative, I suppose I am not the only westerner who is ignorant about the plights of Aboriginal Australians, as such plights never made it to Hollywood.

What I cannot shake is the feeling that your natives chose to wallow in self pity instead of exploring other resources.
From what I know most of Australia is empty.
There's desert and there's bush.
This could be wrong but it seems to me if a tribe wanted to make themselves unreachable, that big island of yours could afford them that ability.

[Cyclops]

How generous to relieve me of high expectations.
I dreaded that only parts of my reasoning would be found wanting and I would be chastised and educated on said parts alone.

I'm a generous guy .

Alas, feelings don't care about facts.

Its true and I've come to realise more and more how little I know. i remain convinced emotionally I am smart but I have direct evidence of how little I know every day.

Is that why you call a mate a and a a mate?

Well we say and a lot, so probably, yeah.

That's very informative, I suppose I am not the only westerner who is ignorant about the plights of Aboriginal Australians, as such plights never made it to Hollywood.

What I cannot shake is the feeling that your natives chose to wallow in self pity instead of exploring other resources.
From what I know most of Australia is empty.
There's desert and there's bush.
This could be wrong but it seems to me if a tribe wanted to make themselves unreachable, that big island of yours could afford them that ability.

Nah they just moved from the farmland to the uranium deposits. Last group of "first contact" indigenous were probably in the 1960's IIRC so some tried to run but the population density in the desert is incredibly low as you might expect.

The thing about wallowing in self pity is common enough here. They did get imprisoned on reservations for 100-150 years and prevented from working or owning property, which would be a bit demotivating. Plus the whole genocide thing, which varied from erasing the language and culture ("cultural genocide") to actual rounding up and killing (I've had family members threatened for investigating stories, and others unwilling to repeat what they know).

They also died of disease, not really preventable. The three smallpox pandemics here came from Malaysia via trepang fishermen, it wasn't even the British, and they had 80-90% mortality rates. Not sure how we could have invaded and not infected them.

So it was never going to be a nice story.

[swabian]

https://partnersinfire.com/lifestyle/the-poverty-trap/

The gist: in essence, "poverty trap" means that poor people, or that people that fall to low income class, cannot claw out because the bottom falls faster than they can climb. They may work 18 hours per day and still not be able to escape poverty, doomed to die poor.

The article linked presents several institutional problems, some of which are not just in USA. In much of the world, from the West to less developed countries, that sad trend is true. Essentially, the system is by design or by circumstance stacked against the poor people, keeping them poor.
But for the Western society, especially the "Protestant work ethics" countries, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome the poverty trap is the acknowledgement that the poverty trap exists and that's not necessarily the fault of the poor that they are poor. And sure, 1 out of 100 or 20 poor people manage to claw out (random numbers). Sucks for the other 19/20 or 99 out of 100 though that were not as skilled or lucky. Another issue in the West, that the article doesn't explicitly state, is that moves to even the income gap and help people out of poverty is branded as "socialism!!!!!!1111". Not everywhere is as bad as USA, but there are MANY western politicians and voters that think exactly that way.

The article ends with "'the rising tide lifts all the boats" but with the opposite approach than the "trickle down economics".

Such moves are NOT without faults though! It is very easy to NOT solve the issue of poverty traps and simply raise a few people out while pushing other people in. Raising taxes to the low-middle class to help the lower class may indeed help the lower class but it may well result in pushing some low-middle class people into the low class, as others crawl out of it. Furthermore, it can be used as government welfare that creates dependency. And it can be mismanaged. Building nice parks on taxpayer money in a neighborhood where the water is poisoned will not increase the day to day paychecks of the people having to work 2 jobs to make ends for example.

And then, while of course it is not always the fault of the poor that they are poor and they are trapped in a system that keeps them poor... it is undeniable that SOME poor will make bad decisions. Not all poor, nor it is fair to point out to those that receive welfare so that their kids would have a better future and spend it on drugs or alcohol as "it doesn't work" BUT there are such people.
Erasing the medical bills of 10000 people would help ... some of them. But many of them will simply accrue more medical bills shortly.

IT IS a complex issue that DOES NOT have an easy and clean solution. No magic wands here. It has to be, in my opinion, three steps forward, two steps back. A lot of money will have to be wasted on people that will not actually benefit from it for various reasons. BUT... something has to be done. That the solution is neither easy nor clean doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it.

Are we supposed to discuss solutions? Or just acknowledge the fact that this exists? It's a well known fact and I can remember it being discussed in geography in school 500 years ago or so.

Yes it exists. So what is it exactly?

I'd describe it as a self-reinforcing cycle in which individuals or communities remain trapped in poverty. It occurs when the conditions and circumstances of poverty create barriers that make it difficult for individuals escape their socio-economic situation.

What are these barriers? Typically they are institutional, like when governments can't even collect the data necessary to map the problem and strategize about a solution. Corruption would play a role and yes, factors of grave social unfairness, like racial discrimination can play a significant role. Healthcare plays a role, Psychiatric conditions would play a role, albeit a small one perhaps. That's about it in summary, I guess.

What can be done? Mostly the governemnt has to provide a helping hand so that the affected people can overcome said barriers. That requires a social system (buraucracy, infrastructures, clerks) which costs tax money.

These barriers are fought very effectively in western Europe, especially in the Germanic speaking countries, but in other places in Euorpe these barriers are more pronounced. The USA seems more vulnerable to it, but not because the problem isn't acknowledged, I think. It seems deeply rooted in certain areas so that it's simply very hard to provide economical opportunities to people. In smaller countries, such as the Balkan states, Greece and regions in southern Europe, poverty traps seem rooted in the macroeconomic and demographic situation. A country with lacking industry and lacking mean education levels will of course struggle with that more so than more developed countries.
Neglected regions with bad infrastructure and mostly uneducated people who can't afford to move is not attractive for investors and subsequently also not for skilled immigrants, so little will change there over time. Governments may prioritize investment in the big cities unfairly over infrastructure improvements, etc. Usually these problems are well observed, well studied and discussed, but the budget is not enough to improve impoverished regions. It's either due to an overall bad economic situation of the respective country, or - like in the US - it is acknowledged but eventually ignored due to investments and subsidies that are considered more important (mostly because they are, unfortunately).

The notion that the very existence of the problem is ignored because measures against it are decried as socialism does not sound very plausible to me, to be honest. Of course there are regionally differing levels of tolerance regarding welfare, but infrastructure improvements and investment in the empowerment of unproductive social strata is not welfare and educated conservatives are well aware.

[alhoon]

Are we supposed to discuss solutions? Or just acknowledge the fact that this exists? It's a well known fact and I can remember it being discussed in geography in school 500 years ago or so.

Yes it exists.

Well, a lot of people disagree it exists. As you mentioned, in USA a lot of people believe the poor are poor because it's their own fault. And trust me, it is not just the USA. I see people every day saying things like "that guy is poor because he's lazy!" or "since he barely can't feed his kids, why doesn't he take another job!?" ... ignoring the realities of a country with 15% unemployment (when I heard that, that was our unemployment. Now it is at 10-12% or something).

Furthermore, in much of the west unfortunately "educated conservatives" is a disappearing species. Trust me, I am educated and I am a conservative.

[swabian]

Well, a lot of people disagree it exists. As you mentioned, in USA a lot of people believe the poor are poor because it's their own fault. And trust me, it is not just the USA. I see people every day saying things like "that guy is poor because he's lazy!" or "since he barely can't feed his kids, why doesn't he take another job!?" ... ignoring the realities of a country with 15% unemployment (when I heard that, that was our unemployment. Now it is at 10-12% or something).

That's a misunderstanding. The decision makers clearly know. The social scientsits, the "intellectuals" know. But they probably don't care. At least not the politicians.

And it's not only the "intellectuals" who observe the bigger picture. Working class people have a growing awareness of their situation. Sometimes this results in them lashing out in the direction of socialism, sometimes they are remarkably sophisticated about 'figuring out the 'system'. But who is a cool, rational observer when one is personally affected.

Furthermore, in much of the west unfortunately "educated conservatives" is a disappearing species.

Thats just what it looks like. I honestly can't tell if it's true. Radicalization does happen...

Trust me, I am educated and I am a conservative.

That was unnecessary. Of course I regard you personally as well educated and bright. After all, you are the one who creates all these interesting threads these days, so I tend to address you, mostly, I guess. I'm sorry if that created the wrong impression. You care about this forum and I am inclined to respond to your efforts in the same spirit.

Cheers alhoon!

[alhoon]

Thank you for the kind words but I was not fishing for compliments. What I was alluding here was that I am growing more and more despaired with how polarized my fellow conservatives become in much of the west. And I don't mean just USA. A gay person I know in the UK told me that the times he had to deal with discrimination in the past year were more than the times he had to deal with in the past decade. He is probably exaggerating, but not by much. Other English told me the similar things.

In my country we are moving from the far-right supporting clearly nationalistic party to supporting far-right Christiano-nationalist parties that are more conservative than nationalists. They are nationalists, don't get me wrong, but there is an evident shift.
This includes a book salesman that says he has letters from Jesus or something getting 4% in the recent elections and a smaller, hopefully cleaner, church-oriented rightwing party getting 3%. The Major party that won 40% of the vote, a large rightwing party that goes from the center all the way to include a few far-rights, is also shifting towards more conservative policies.

[Ludicus]

in USA a lot of people believe the poor are poor because it's their own fault. And trust me, it is not just the USA...in much of the west unfortunately "educated conservatives" is a disappearing species.Trust me I am a conservative.

I have already noticed that.Trust me, I am a leftist.
It's common knowledge that the poverty trap is a self-reinforcing mechanism where people/individuals/communities are caught in a cycle of poverty. There are multiple causes. In firsts place, low income and limited resources (poverty often means having inadequate income and limited access to resources such as education, healthcare); lack of access to credit and financial services; limited education and skills; poor health and nutrition (poverty is often associated with inadequate healthcare); several social and cultural factors; and finally, the interconnected challenges of the factors mentioned above, all of them mutually reinforcing. To conclude, in summary, escaping the poverty trap requires a multidimensional approach.

In his seminal work "Capital", Piketty revolves around the idea that wealth and income inequality tend to persist and even exacerbate over time, creating a cycle that can trap individuals or families in poverty. He argues that when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, they have the power to influence policies and structures that perpetuate inequality, making it difficult for those at the bottom to break free from poverty. That’s the reason why he advocates for progressive taxation, wealth redistribution, and greater access to education and opportunities as means to reduce inequality and promote upward mobility.An interesting perspective from India. Piketty and the middle income trap - NIPFP

[paleologos]

What I was alluding here was that I am growing more and more despaired with how polarized my fellow conservatives become in much of the west.

This should not surprise you.
Ten years ago I was slightly left-of-center.
Today I am a classical liberal in most ways, a clear conservative in some others and a hard-line Thatcherite in a few.
And I do catch myself in a rightward creep.

One of the things that scares us (my kind of conservatives) is the growing influence of "wokism".
The last debate in these forums where I contributed a number of posts was not so long ago.
You must remember how the resident illiberal leftists demonstrated their willingness to use moderation in order to get me "cancelled" but refused to take the responsibility of recommending a formal punishment for people who say "offensive" things.

And yet, the UK shows us how such people would not hesitate to effectively abolish freedom of speech.
For crying out loud, the UK police have taken it upon themselves to decide whose rights are more "human" (a conflict between the right to free speech and the "right to never be offended").

They have taken a path that leads to the dehumanization of the (ever so slightly) more successful on the grounds that success is proof of being an oppressor.
So, the more ground such people gain, the more entrenched we (conservatives) are going to become and this includes economic policy.

A gay person I know in the UK told me that the times he had to deal with discrimination in the past year were more than the times he had to deal with in the past decade.
He is probably exaggerating, but not by much.
Other English told me the similar things.

Discriminated against, how?
It is kind of important.

In my country we are moving from the far-right supporting clearly nationalistic party to supporting far-right Christiano-nationalist parties that are more conservative than nationalists. They are nationalists, don't get me wrong, but there is an evident shift.
This includes a book salesman that says he has letters from Jesus or something getting 4% in the recent elections and a smaller, hopefully cleaner, church-oriented rightwing party getting 3%. The Major party that won 40% of the vote, a large rightwing party that goes from the center all the way to include a few far-rights, is also shifting towards more conservative policies.

So what we see is that the minority of voters who would vote for nationalist parties in the past, now vote for Christian-Nationalist parties.
Could that be a blow-back against the attempt of certain circles of the media elite to force feed to the masses the idea that transvestism is the new normal?

Trust me, I am a leftist.

That is a self-defeating argument.

It's common knowledge that the poverty trap is a self-reinforcing mechanism where people/individuals/communities are caught in a cycle of poverty.

AKA, the Matthew effect.
But not only.

I did make mention of Pierre Bourdieu's sociological concept of habitus in post #7.
So I would put this in slightly different words:
It should be common knowledge that the conditions that cause poverty (which include culture) are a self-reinforcing mechanism which tends to reproduce the same conditions in the next generation, where people/individuals/communities tend not to learn from the failings of previous generations and are thusly caught in a cycle of poverty.

What I see is this chain of linkages:
Culture informs first principles,
First principles inform values,
Values guide choices,
Choices generate action,
Action begets outcomes,
Outcomes (re)formulate conditions,
Conditions influence/reinforce culture.

So, it's not just a poverty trap, it's also a culture trap.

And yet things are even worse.
I observe that members of the well-to-do classes, either trying to rid themselves of the guilt of unearned privilege, or just signal social virtue, are hell-bent on telling the disadvantaged that they are "victims" (meaning recipients of undeserved punishment) and therefore entitled to various remedial action from the part of the rest of society.
This transfers the locus of control away from the individuals that need to be in control the most.
In effect, the farmers of victim mindset are also the teachers of learned helplessness.

There are multiple causes.
In firsts place, low income and limited resources (poverty often means having inadequate income and limited access to resources such as education, healthcare);
lack of access to credit and financial services;
limited education and skills;
poor health and nutrition (poverty is often associated with inadequate healthcare);
several social and cultural factors; and finally, the interconnected challenges of the factors mentioned above, all of them mutually reinforcing.

In his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker refers to the Matthew Effect in societies, whereby everything seems to go right in some, and wrong in others. He speculates in Chapter 9 that this could be the result of a positive feedback loop in which reckless behavior by some individuals creates a chaotic environment that encourages reckless behavior by others. He cites research by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson showing that the more unstable the environment, the more steeply people discount the future, and thus the less forward-looking their behavior.

How about sexual behavior? Does that get reckless as well?
Is getting pregnant before finishing high school a cause of inter generational poverty?
Especially if the father of the child is himself a child?

To conclude, in summary, escaping the poverty trap requires a multidimensional approach.

Absolutely.
But let's not lie to ourselves, no amount of government action will achieve anything unless it starts with this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In his seminal work "Capital", Piketty revolves around the idea that wealth and income inequality tend to persist and even exacerbate over time, creating a cycle that can trap individuals or families in poverty. He argues that when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, they have the power to influence policies and structures that perpetuate inequality, making it difficult for those at the bottom to break free from poverty. That’s the reason why he advocates for progressive taxation, wealth redistribution, and greater access to education and opportunities as means to reduce inequality and promote upward mobility. An interesting perspective from India. Piketty and the middle income trap - NIPFP

This is me, telling you what Piketty leaves out of his analysis:

Five generations ago my ancestors were serfs, just a little better than slaves and have been serfs before that since before the Roman conquest of Greece.
Between the last of my ancestors who was a serf and me you can count:

1. the war of 1897,
2. which resulted in Greece being placed under international financial control,
3. the First Balkan War (October 1912 to May 1913),
4. the Second Balkan War (29 June – 10 August 1913),
5. World War I,
6. the Noemvriana (1916),
7. the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922 (which resulted in more than a million refugees flowing into Greece, cheapening the cost of labor, not good for my great grand parents),
8. the Great Depression (1929–1939 - which affected the poor more than anyone else),
9. World War II (with the death toll for Greece being estimated between 7% and 11% of 1939 population),
10. the Greek Civil War (1946-1949),
11. the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974 - of which my father is a veteran and my parents became economic refugees) and lastly,
12. the Great Recession (2007), which resulted in the
13. Greek government-debt crisis, with all of the consequences that this has had on the standard of living in Greece.

My maternal grand mother gave birth to ten children with the first three dying to malaria.
To wash all their clothes she had to boil water in a cauldron outdoors, using cow dung as fuel that she had dried before by making it into pies that would dry under the sun.
She did all that by hand.

You would expect that most if not all of her children and grandchildren would be "poor" but we are all doing rather alright.
Because people in my family have a very strange habit, call it a family culture.
Trigger warning, you might get shocked, or worse, offended!
So peek at your own peril:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We get married before we have children and stay married after we have children.
Because the conviction is that marriage is for family, not "happiness".
And we stick to each other for the benefits of mutual assistance and the advancement of mutual interest.
My God we are so wicked!
Or are we?

By the way, since you mention "an interesting perspective from India", what is the divorce rate in India?
Just out of curiosity.

[Ludicus]

Ten years ago I was slightly left-of-center.

Not always does age improve common sense.

That is a self-defeating argument.

Don’t worry, I have a good sense of humor. The funny thing is that there is a link between sense of humor and happiness. There is also a link between happiness and… Alleviation of Income Poverty- Impacts of an unconditional cash transfer programme using a subjective well-being approach

While much has been written about and debated on the impact of income on subjective well-being, often described as “happiness” or “life satisfaction” (Easterlin, 1974; Frijters, Haisken-DeNew & Shields, 2004; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008; Easterlin et al., 2010), little is known about the impacts of income increases by means of specific policy (e.g. poverty alleviation programmes). Most evidence comes from cross-sectional data, examining correlations between average subjective well-being and national income. In richer, more developed countries income is positively correlated with happiness but with diminishing returns (Frey & Stutzer, 2002). However, at lower levels of income and in low-income, developing countries there is a stronger, more linear relationship suggesting that income is an important determinant of happiness when it corresponds to a better quality of life in the sense of satisfying basic needs (Deaton, 2008; Graham & Behrman, 2010. In both the developed and developing world though, income does not reliably predict happiness over the long term (Easterlin, 2015).
Nevertheless, the relationship between income and happiness for those in deprivation suggests that poverty alleviation programmes that have direct impacts on income have the potential to increase subjective well-being

We get married before we have children and stay married after we have children… By the way, since you mention "an interesting perspective from India", what is the divorce rate in India? Just out of curiosity

It is important to approach this topic with caution, avoiding generalizations/ stereotypes about any particular culture or group of people. India has the lowest divorce rate in the world, but that is not what makes Indians wealthier. We also cannot conclude that the high divorce rate in Goa, the highest in the Indian Union, makes its citizens wealthier.
Rising divorce rate becomes a point of concern for Goa
State ranked 2nd least poor in the country - Herald Goa

Here is a study on the impact of education and culture on poverty reduction, The Impact of Education and Culture on Poverty Reduction- Published: 14 June 2023

What I see is this chain of linkages:
Culture informs first principles,
First principles inform values,
Values guide choices,
Choices generate action,
Action begets outcomes,
Outcomes (re)formulate conditions,
Conditions influence/reinforce culture.

Once again, the poverty trap refers to a situation where individuals or communities are stuck in a cycle of poverty, making it difficult for them to escape and improve their socioeconomic conditions. Culture can play a role in the poverty trap through various mechanisms: a) Cultural norms and values: Cultural norms and values can shape attitudes, behaviors, and expectations related to education, work, and economic opportunities. In some cultures, there may be a lack of emphasis on education or limited access to opportunities, which can contribute to the persistence of poverty across generations. b) Social networks and support systems: Cultural factors can influence the strength and nature of social networks and support systems available to individuals in poverty. These networks can either help or hinder individuals' ability to escape poverty. For example, if social networks primarily consist of people facing similar economic challenges, there may be limited access to resources or information about opportunities. c) Discrimination and social exclusion: Culture can sometimes perpetuate discriminatory practices or social exclusion based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, or caste. This can lead to a lack of access to quality education, healthcare, and employment opportunities, further entrenching poverty within certain marginalized groups. d) Intergenerational transmission of poverty: Cultural beliefs and practices can contribute to the intergenerational transmission of poverty. For instance, if cultural norms discourage investment in education or place restrictions on women's participation in the workforce, it can limit opportunities for upward mobility and reinforce the poverty trap.
BUT- it is essential to recognize that culture is not the sole determinant of poverty: structural factors, such as economic policies/institutional frameworks/ systemic inequalities, also significantly contribute to the persistence of poverty. It is crucial to address both cultural and structural factors simultaneously to effectively break the cycle of poverty and promote sustainable development.
--
Edit.

marriage is for family, not "happiness"

Without intending to belittle the moralistic tone you employ, let me tell you this amusing incident that holds a lesson for some. I'm aware that some people claim that the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate.
Here, we were in 1982, and the Assembly of the Republic was debating the decriminalization of abortion. The then CDS deputy, João Morgado, argued: "Sexual intercourse is meant for having children." Natália Correia, poet and deputy, took the stand to respond with a very original poem. The laughter forced a pause in the proceedings. Here is this gem of Portuguese literature:

“Since intercourse - says Morgado –
has as its crystalline end,
precise and immaculate,
to make a girl or a boy;
and every time the male enjoys a sexual snack,
we have in procreation proof that there was hanky-panky.
Being the father of only one offspring,
the logical conclusion
is that the virile instrument was used sparingly - a meager portion!
- only once. And if function
makes the organ - as the saying goes –
Once that exception was made,
Morgado is now castrated.

(Natália Correia - April 3, 1982)”


Traduttori, traditori...
---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Truca-Truca

Já que o coito – diz Morgado –
tem como fim cristalino,
preciso e imaculado
fazer menina ou menino;
e cada vez que o varão
sexual petisco manduca,
temos na procriação
prova de que houve truca-truca.
Sendo pai só de um rebento,
lógica é a conclusão
de que o viril instrumento
só usou – parca ração! -
uma vez. E se a função
faz o orgão – diz o ditado –
consumada essa excepção,
ficou capado o Morgado.

[paleologos]

Not always does age improve common sense.

Correct, what improves common sense is the ability to evaluate new information as it becomes available, assimilate the conclusions and adapt one's perception of the world.
Alas, some people have the same opinions on Wednesday that they had on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday.

Don’t worry, I have a good sense of humor.
The funny thing is that there is a link between sense of humor and happiness.

Perhaps, but correlation does not prove causality.
Also, happiness is not the absence of suffering but the acceptance that some suffering is inevitable as part of reality.
I can see how humor can help people accept reality.

The nature of happiness is not levity, though, but gratitude.
That is the ability to count your blessings, on one hand and acknowledge that the aspects of your life in which you are not blessed could be a lot worse and they are not , on the other.
There is one indispensible prerequisite for gratitude: Humility.

There is also a link between happiness and… Alleviation of Income Poverty- Impacts of an unconditional cash transfer programme using a subjective well-being approach

Though I will agree that alleviating privation is meaningful, indoctrinating people that they are - or should feel - entitled to their lives being subsidized will not make them happier.
You see, entitlement is the slayer of humility.

It is important to approach this topic with caution, avoiding generalizations/ stereotypes about any particular culture or group of people.

Here's a generalization you can not contest:
Lawyers cost money and after a divorce life becomes more expensive and the standard of living deteriorates for all involved except the lawyers.

India has the lowest divorce rate in the world, but that is not what makes Indians wealthier. We also cannot conclude that the high divorce rate in Goa, the highest in the Indian Union, makes its citizens wealthier.
Rising divorce rate becomes a point of concern for Goa
State ranked 2nd least poor in the country - Herald Goa

Right...

Here is a study on the impact of education and culture on poverty reduction, The Impact of Education and Culture on Poverty Reduction- Published: 14 June 2023

So, education makes future workers more productive and as a consequence wealthier, who would have guessed?

Once again, the poverty trap refers to a situation where individuals or communities are stuck in a cycle of poverty, making it difficult for them to escape and improve their socioeconomic conditions. Culture can play a role in the poverty trap through various mechanisms: a) Cultural norms and values: Cultural norms and values can shape attitudes, behaviors, and expectations related to education, work, and economic opportunities. In some cultures, there may be a lack of emphasis on education or limited access to opportunities, which can contribute to the persistence of poverty across generations. b) Social networks and support systems: Cultural factors can influence the strength and nature of social networks and support systems available to individuals in poverty. These networks can either help or hinder individuals' ability to escape poverty. For example, if social networks primarily consist of people facing similar economic challenges, there may be limited access to resources or information about opportunities. c) Discrimination and social exclusion: Culture can sometimes perpetuate discriminatory practices or social exclusion based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, or caste. This can lead to a lack of access to quality education, healthcare, and employment opportunities, further entrenching poverty within certain marginalized groups. d) Intergenerational transmission of poverty: Cultural beliefs and practices can contribute to the intergenerational transmission of poverty. For instance, if cultural norms discourage investment in education or place restrictions on women's participation in the workforce, it can limit opportunities for upward mobility and reinforce the poverty trap.

Absolutely.

BUT- it is essential to recognize that culture is not the sole determinant of poverty...

Agreed.
Now, will you concede that culture is a determinant of escaping poverty faster than your neighbors, when all other things are equal?
And will you concede that attitude is the only determinant of escaping poverty that is in the control of the interested parties?

...structural factors, such as economic policies/institutional frameworks/ systemic inequalities, also significantly contribute to the persistence of poverty.
It is crucial to address both cultural and structural factors simultaneously to effectively break the cycle of poverty and promote sustainable development.

You lost me at "systemic"/"structural".
When I know that Nigerian-Americans are doing pretty well for themselves in the USA, while African-Americans of cracker culture are doing rather poorly in the same country, your argument collapses.
Unless you are asserting that structural factors for Nigerian-Americans and African-Americans of cracker culture are different.
Oh, wait, aren't they?
Are immigrants entitled to the same government handouts as born citizens?

Without intending to belittle the moralistic tone you employ...

The relevance of intentions gets watered down when the outcome is independent of them.

...let me tell you this amusing incident that holds a lesson for some...

Strawmanship does not amuse me.
The only people who found that incident amusing are the ones who had their prior convictions vindicated.
Either they learned no lesson, or it was the wrong lesson.

...I'm aware that some people claim that the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate.

A problem I see with many a leftist/progressive is that they take for granted they have a sophistication advantage over people who hold more traditional beliefs.
You attribution to me of inferior sophistication became evident in your presumption that I believe "family"-the word I used, is merely "procreation"-the word you used.
Perhaps such people still exist but they are not relevant to this exchange.

When I say that marriage is for family I most certainly do not mean that it is for copulation/procreation alone.
You can have children within marriage and be a horrible parent.
Or you can have children as a single parent and be a wonderful parent but not without stretching yourself near to breaking point.

When I say that marriage is for family I mean the structured environment that makes the raising of children easier.
An environment where the parents are less stressed and the children feel secure in their routine so that they become confident in exploring life.
An environment that facilitates the controlled transmission of the cultural values that allowed the parents to provide prosperity for their children to begin with.

You see, tradition is a cluster of mimetic behaviors that are transmitted from one generation to the next because their are effective in tackling intergenerationally occurring problems.
(Such as to raise children properly, enculturate them so that they are able to prosper and bequest to them some financial assets so they don't start their lives from zero.)
I will be the first to admit that the conditions of living change with time, therefore the ways aforementioned intergenerational problems make themselves manifest changes as well.
But the problems remain and the solutions need to be adapted, not discarded.

Example 1:
It used to be a problem for a woman to be pregnant outside of wedlock to a man who would not be her husband.
The problem appeared in the form of social exclusion as punishment for flaunting societal norms, resulting in her having to resort to demeaning forms of employment to make ends meet.

Today we think we can solve that problem with government handouts but this solution has resulted in the normalization of the behavior that caused the problem to begin with.
As a result more and more children have to grow up without the benefit of paternal investment.

To make things worse they are being enculturated by their peers who are also growing up without any paternal investment in them.
So, we may have saved some women from prostitution, but at the expense of increasing the number of children who suffer the experience of fatherlessness.

Example 2:
It used to be that women stayed at home, doing the housework, tending to the children, while the men were away at work.
But it was not a problem because three generations of the same family shared the same home, so women were never alone and there were always more than one pair of eyes on the children.
Today, the paradigm of the nuclear family requires a different approach, one of equitability in the distribution of housework and childcare burdens between the parents.
We should all be able to imagine how thinly stretched a single mother must be.


Ultimately, the poverty trap is an intergenerational problem and as such it should be addressed with intergenerational solutions.
We are doing a disservice by telling people they should feel entitled to be lifted out of poverty right into the American Dream within their lifetimes.
Fortune helps those who help themselves and one can only help themselves so much within their lifetimes but help themselves they can and they must.
What we should be telling them is that it is possible for families to ameliorate their poverty incrementally with each successive generation until they are no longer poor.
It worked for my family during the worst of times.


I would like to close this by saying that people who author pieces like the one linked in the original post invariably remind me of this snippet from American Psycho: