Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the poverty-sucks dept.

The poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty. We hypothesize that poverty directly impedes cognitive function and present two studies that test this hypothesis. First, we experimentally induced thoughts about finances and found that this reduces cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants. Second, we examined the cognitive function of farmers over the planting cycle. We found that the same farmer shows diminished cognitive performance before harvest, when poor, as compared with after harvest, when rich. This cannot be explained by differences in time available, nutrition, or work effort. Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance. Instead, it appears that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity. We suggest that this is because poverty-related concerns consume mental resources, leaving less for other tasks. These data provide a previously unexamined perspective and help explain a spectrum of behaviors among the poor. We discuss some implications for poverty policy.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:40AM (7 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:40AM (#758357) Journal

    The poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty.

    They are also compelled to behave in less capable ways by their very circumstance.

    My SO and I have adequate financial resources, and significant amounts of storage space, freezer space, etc. When there is a sale on X, we buy and store it in quantity. Beans, toilet paper, detergent, frozen veggies, whatever. This significantly reduces our unit cost on pretty much anything that can be stored longish term. If a person or a group is at the edge of their income stream, they won't be buying extra X on the cheap, they'll buy it as they need it at the price it is offered at the time. So a person or group on the financial edge buying X will make more of an impact on their finances than it will on mine both in simple dollar terms and even more so in how much it impacts their overall income stream.

    You may well call me cynical, but I don't think this particular confluence of circumstances is in any way accidental. It seems to me it is one of several easily visible mechanisms for keeping the poor, poor.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Tuesday November 06 2018, @09:50AM (2 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday November 06 2018, @09:50AM (#758433) Journal

    This is something that's annoyed me for a long time. I typically buy almost all non-perishable staples at a big discount when they're on offer and I can do this because I have some disposable income and storage space. I end up paying around half as much as someone who doesn't have this.

    Terry Pratchett wrote about this as the Sam Vimes theory of social economics in the Discworld books: Vimes observed that a rich person would buy an expensive pair of boots that would last 10 years. A poor person would buy one that cost a tenth the amount and lasted six months, because they couldn't afford the expensive pair. The poor person would spend twice as much and would still have wet feet because the cheap boots would start to leak before they were replaced.

    You may well call me cynical, but I don't think this particular confluence of circumstances is in any way accidental. It seems to me it is one of several easily visible mechanisms for keeping the poor, poor.

    This is where I disagree. It's obviously in the interests of the shops to shift large quantities of their products at a time. They have a bunch of fixed overheads that mean that a large sale at a lower price is better for them than a load of smaller sales over a longer period. That also makes it harder to fix. If this were some orchestrated policy to keep the poor in their place, then that's something that could be addressed fairly easily. When it's a natural consequence of a particular economic model (especially one that is also shared by pretty much any other plausible replacement) then it's much harder.

    It's a small scale example of the same problem as renting vs buying a house. You can't buy a house unless you have a big chunk of spare capital for the deposit, but if you can't buy a house then you're going to be paying more in rent than your landlord is paying on a mortgage for the same property, so people with less capital end up with higher living costs. That's a fundamental problem with any economic system that rewards owning capital more than performing labour. Unfortunately, every alternative that people have tried has worked out even less well.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:29AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:29AM (#758455)

      I've experienced this...anybody who shops at harbor freight has. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, but its not difficult to get out of.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:12PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:12PM (#758516)

        > but its not difficult to get out of.

        That depends entirely on your available income stream. Before you can start getting out of the hole, you need to accumulate enough savings to start being able to buy the better-investment products. And when you're already doing most of your durable goods shopping at second-hand stores, and still having trouble keeping enough beans and rice on the table, that's not so easy to do.

  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday November 06 2018, @10:48AM (1 child)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday November 06 2018, @10:48AM (#758444) Journal

    To compound this, the poor person is less likely to own a second freezer / large freezer / any freezer. They will have a smaller home and no spare space to hoard a two-year supply of bargain tampons and bog roll.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:51PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:51PM (#758474)

      The real problem with #1 for poor people is the electricity bill, I'm not sure I run a net profit off my basement freezer even with aggressive Costco shopping.

      WRT #2 (Oh the pun) even as a starving student in a small apartment I had no trouble buying and storing a years supply of toilet paper in the bachelor years. Being a guy, a roll lasts awhile, I donno what girls do with that stuff (eat it for fiber?) but they seem capable of using more than one roll per day per girl.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:43PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:43PM (#758470)

    There's the classic boot story where you can buy $100 boots annually if you're poor but that costs you $1K/decade but if you're "rich" you buy one $300 pair of boots every decade and only spend $300/decade and that savings is why they're rich to begin with.

    I myself am pretty well off but I can't afford to shop at Walmart for clothes that can only be worn once before the dyes wash out and seams fail and buttons fall off. $10 pants are too expensive for me to keep rebuying every season compared to off the rack $100 pants that last until I'm sick of wearing them.

    Something similar happens with cars, people who buy a beater and spend $750/mon on unpredictable repairs vs people who buy a new car and spend $250/mon on a payment.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:00PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 06 2018, @03:00PM (#758507) Journal

      I don't believe there is a pair of boots that will last me a decade. Navy boondockers, maybe, but they're so damned uncomfortable, NO ONE is going to wear them for a year, let alone ten years. Rich people who sit in offices, sit in country clubs, and sit around the pool all the time - yeah, I can see their boots lasting for a decade. But, they didn't pay $300 for durability. They paid $300 for the name on the boots. "No, Sir, Mr. Brown! There are no working class peasants shopping in MY store! Every pair of shoes we sell is unique, and no working man will ever buy them! These boots and shoes are for you rich folk! Oh, Sir - there's a spot on your boot, would you allow me to spit shine it with my tongue?"