The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes thought, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and _would still have wet feet_."
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
I'm not trying to generalize, because I know poor people who are poor through no fault of their own (and we should provide public support for them), but I also know a larger number of people who contributed to their own dire financial situation and it wasn't because they couldn't afford quality boots, it was because they over-extended themselves with new cars, a way too big house, the big screen TVs and expensive trips and meals.
Poor people don’t go on airplane vacations or own houses. Poor people don’t have bank accounts. You don’t know poor people. You know people who live beyond their means.
Poor people are in Section 8 housing or various other housing vouchers.
I think we have to establish what it means to "end up poor" in this context.
I'm barely living within my means. I have a decent house, a very nice car, a respectable gaming PC with VR, and recently got into hobby RC cars. I take at least one 1-2 week vacation a year out of state.
But...I have $0 in my savings account, and less than $50K in my 401(k). I'm 38 and only started contributing to a 401(k) 6 years ago after I finished my CS degree and started working jobs that pay decently.
But I also have $0 in credit card debt. I tend to spend all my extra money, but no further. I'm not taking on extra debt (Beyond my mortgage and car loan) to fund my activities.
Would you consider me poor? I am after all, barely living within my means. Because of my spending habits, I'm almost living paycheck-to-paycheck.
No, I wouldn’t consider you poor. But it probably wouldn’t take much for you to end up poor.
I know people who make more than $100,000 per year and have a net negative net worth and take on more debt every month. I would define them as “cash poor”.
Point being, these people end up poor when something unexpected happens, despite having made very good money for many years prior. They could have managed their finances better and weathered the storm.
Let me guess, credit card debt. I would take into consideration also the trap that creditcard companies set for unsuspecting folk, who make the mistakes themselves, is true ,but who were set up into a trap way before spending any penny.
Perhaps proper education and examples of personal finance and budgeting, even in the face of celebrity promos and sales sales sales, could prevent some of the next generation from doing the same. I'd argue that you're oversimplifying those that got themselves stuck. They possibly lacked caring or supportive parents, stable childhood, stable role models that aren't rich, quality education on issues like personal finance, etc.
When things are simplified it's often easier to draw conclusions, but the method of simplification and how far you go will induce bias. Maybe someone's car was hit and totalled. They couldn't afford to insure it while working 2 jobs with no healthcare/benefits and trying to support a kid they can't afford (or legally abort). They now have a medical bill for $2000 due to injuries sustained, no car to commute to work, no job if they can't commute, and no way to afford an incoming baby regardless. They jump to a dealership the next morning and have a car loan signed by 10am, then back to work having missed hours (that they won't get paid for). Then they had to decide between food and the car loan before even considering the medical debt. Maybe they had medical debt from a prior issue that tanked their credit score and left them with a 20%+ loan they just signed. Maybe they have a concussion or the pregnant woman needs time off work to heal (Paid? Unpaid? will there be a job to return to?) Regardless, they didn't have the resources, time, money or energy to respond to the crash and it sunk them into thousands of debt before they got their test results back from the medical appointment.
Sucks, but is a very real issue for many Americans. With proper regulations (with teeth) for:
benefits/sick leave or PTO/wiggle room to deal with emergencies outside of work,
laws to cut down interest rates or free people from bad/old debt that has them spiralling including higher education or Community College coursework in personal finance or budgeting (and better career/job prospects),
proper funding for universal healthcare to stop medical debts and increase use of basci services to prevent major cases and long term costly health issues,
support for families (including family planning) and greater access to (and no loss of pride from using) SNAP/food stamps,
a plan for childcare
education from a young age on personal finance and other useful practices
We could see improvements in many Americans daily lives. Often, edge case or minority groups feel the system has left them behind, forgotten them, or even betrayed them. In America, that's true. The system will help those who help themselves but life does not discriminate when dealing out misfortunes and it can be very expensive to be poor for reasons mentioned in other comments like the boots story. Citizens will continue fighting even if they are fighting for the right to die from lack of support, can't reason with it.
If you make "laws to cut down interest rates", two things happen.
1. The normal lenders discontinue lending, either by choice or by bankruptcy.
2. The blackmarket lenders fill the gap. Mafia loans are not good for society. The nature of the blackmarket, without access to legal remedy, is that there will be violence.
This might have been true back when boots routinely had cardboard in them but when it comes to necessities and near-necessities the poor people versions do 90% as well at a fraction of the cost. It's all the other stuff you spend your money on when you're poor that screws you.
Then use your imagination and apply the hypothetical argument to other things. Another good modern example is the car. Imagine that you have $1800 in your bank account, you earn 8$/hr and your credit history is shot. Your options are either getting a predatory loan or dropping that $1800 on an old beater that breaks down every other week, bleeds oil and burns gas like crazy.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and _would still have wet feet_."
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.