Skip to toolbar

Do you believe the world we live in is designed to keep poor people poor? Why?

Not necessarily living in a box poor, this also includes everyday families struggling to make ends meet barely living paycheck to paycheck

View Reddit by Proud_Device_7640View Source


city guide

The publication focuses on fashion, style, and culture for men, though articles on food, movies, fitness, sex, music, travel, sports, technology, and books are also featured


  1. Don’t think it is designed to specifically keep poor people poor, but it is designed to maintain wealth for those that are wealthy, which often leads to people without money having a disadvantage when up against those with money.

  2. I’m my experience as an employer of entry level sometimes young people in a more blue collar industry that actually pays pretty well… a lot of it is their own doing, and they will never get ahead despite being given the opportunity

    – Drinking/smoking/gambling/drugs
    – Lots of them have more expensive cars than I do at 10 years older and with more disposable income
    – only want to work part time so they have more time to drink with friends
    – impulse buy random expensive shit
    – knock back extra $$ shifts
    – are often unreliable at work because of aforementioned stuff and regularly call in sick etc.

    It’s so prevalent I can pick them after 1-2 days work. Often they also have multiple kids often to different relationships.

    I’m all for YOLO attitudes, but honestly most of the ‘poor’ people I know are kept there by their own behaviour

  3. I don’t think there’s nearly as much class mobility as we are lead to believe.

    If you ever get into finance, you’ll see just how many ways the wealthy have to make money simply by having money. Like the stock market is full of games (i.e. options) to skim money off the top without providing any real value.

  4. Design imply intent. World imply scale beyond human society and economics. So, no.*edit: or rather it’s unverifiable hence I dunno. It’s like theologist asking whether X or Y god did Z or T because H or S etc.

    Other then that, probably not? It’s impossible for me to gauge anywhere accurately whether any given existing country (or smaller scale community that engages with the economy) is functioning in a way that takes explicit action or explicitly does not take action with the intent to deprive people of wealth (except some cases like dekulakization or such) or force them in certain strata or category.

    Although who knows, it’s too complex for me.

  5. Some broad strokes on oversimplifying a multi faceted problem

    Keeping the rich rich would be a more accurate sentiment

    It being more work or more hustle I think hardly constitutes as being “designed to keep the poor poor”

  6. Not intentionally, no. After all, average people in first world countries are doing okay.

    It’s designed to keep rich people rich however, and that comes with side effects.

  7. Wealth is only relative so their will always be poor. A poor person from today would have been seen as wealthy at some point.

    Wealthy people have the money to become wealthier easier than poor but every generation of a family is given the opportunity to overcome their disadvantages of being poor and become wealthy and pass it on to their next generation.

    If you are from a poor family than work hard to break the barrier for your next generation family so they can carry the torch and discipline and give them the knowledge so they dont drop the torch

  8. Obviously yes. Class movement is made prohibitively difficult due to restraints on where you live, access to resources, and connections. The vast difference between performance of certain schools alone is a sign of wealth disparity that very few people do anything to rectify. Then there’s the entire issue of post hs graduation. Colleges are near impossible to pay for, even middle class people, without going into debt. Not being able to get into a top school like Harvard without having connections is a direct strain on the poor. Large firms and exec positions are walled behind cronyism directly related to what schools you go to and who you know.

    The education system is a huge circle jerk and that’s just one aspect of wealth disparity.

    We can talk about laws just as easily. The wealthy receive privileges to avoid fines and indictments based off their stature in society. Fines, late fees, overdrawn fees all disproportionately damage the poor. 400 dollar speeding ticket is nothing for someone who makes 100k plus a year, but is devastating for some who makes minimum wage. Petty crimes are disproportionately enforced over white color crime, which occurs just as frequently.

    The whole system is a scam.

    They’ll tell people to start a business. With what capital? A poor person doesn’t have the capital to even get approved for loans to begin processing the basic steps to founding a business. Not to mention if they do, mega corps swallow up small business due to their ability to avoid taxes, buy up real estate, among other things.

    The list can go on, but the answer is simple. Yes, the system is rigged against the poor

  9. Yes, they don’t teach you financial literacy or how to do your taxes in school, instead it’s small portions of different subjects, 50% which are almost irrelevant after high school.

    They make you think signing into a mortgage for a house with a 30 year fixed contraction your 20’s is good but that’s just making yourself a slave for 30 years. Your money can be put to a much better use.

    Millennials have been eating shit since the day we were born. Did you know, in the 1970’s you could work 40 hours a week, own a house, 2 cars, a family of 3 and go on a 2 month vacation without having to worry about any money problems.

    They ( the 1% ) have been robbing you of your money and enslaving you. If you really want to change your life for the better but don’t have the money to, the MOASS is happening VERY soon. Jump on the rocket if you wish. 🦍🚀💎🙌

  10. That’s a social science question, why are you asking here?

    Merit is criticized by sociologists.

    Bourdieu explains a lot of why people stays poor.

    But it’s often a lack of public education, social reproduction, the belief that inequality, competition and social hierarchy are good.

    Generally people will argue that socialism was evil because the Soviet union was socialist.

    If you’re a nihilist, you realize that civilization tends to condition people and make them obedient, so they want to achieve status as a goal.

  11. No, it’s just it doesn’t offer many enjoyable options to not be poor.

    The two easiest ways out of poverty are the military and police force, so politicians try to keep a divide between them and the people the careers can help most.

  12. Yes. In the sense that it doesn’t necessarily keep the same people poor (though that is obviously part of it), but that the world we live in accepts as the cost of society as it exists today is: there will always be some portion of the population living in dire straits, struggling to make ends meet, being affected by mental and physical health problems at higher rates, etc.

    It certainly doesn’t have to be that way, but it very clearly is currently. Some percentage of people will always struggle more than the rest of us have to simply by virtue of being on a bottom “rung” that’s still sitting in shit. I think that’s a pretty fucking shitty way for the world to exist, and I hope we somehow survive long enough to stop doing so.

  13. We used to teach kids about money. My grandparents’ math books were all about calculation of rate of return, compound interest, time to profitability, etc. They lived though both wars and the depression. It was normal for them to plant gardens based on what they liked and couldn’t get cheaper at the store. No frilly varietals, no rare bird vegetable that barely grew there, and no tomatoes that could be obtained better at the store. Know anyone in the current generations that gardens like that? Know anyone who had math books like that?

  14. why? short term thinking really. the real drivers of the economy are the consuming class, but wealth becomes concentrated in the investing class; so what happens is wealth generally rises to the top and stays there. It’s not really changing hands anymore after that and doesn’t spur new industry. there’s one school of thought is that if we killed the top 1% and gave it to the lowest 1% the economy would rocket through the roof.

    problem is that you have to convince the wealthy to part with their money, they typically don’t like to do that.

  15. I believe it is.

    At its core, I feel like economic systems are set up so that the rich make money off of the poor staying poor. It’s very expensive to be poor. It’s very cheap to be rich. Medical, food, housing, taxes etc. cost more relatively when you’re poor. Where is that money going when the poor spend what they have? Into the pockets of the rich.

    Editing to add a [reference.](

  16. Capitalism is just feudalism 2.0

    Instead of land and workers being statically allocated to specific aristocrats, they’re transformed into a fungible, transferable commodity.

    Instead of being locked into owning a hundred serfs in one village, you can own one serf in a hundred villages – if one village burns down or gets plague-ravaged, your passive income stream takes a much smaller hit.

    But there’s no percentage in letting your serfs become aristos themselves, any more than a farmer wants their cows leaving to start up their own farm in competition with theirs – no, they want them to stay right where they are and keep getting milked.

    There’s little more true social mobility now than there was in the Middle Ages. If you don’t inherit a home (or a fortune to buy one with), you’ll probably never own a home. And if you’re not already in the vast-passive-income club, you will *absolutely* never break into it. And this is by design.

    Poverty constrains peoples options, keeps them working under shitty conditions for terrible pay, and keeps them away from economies of scale or quality.

    See the [Sam Vimes ‘boots’ theory of economic inequality](

  17. Yes.

    Colonialism, slavery, mass incarceration. All of these were intentional policies designed to subjugate specific groups and create an easily exploitable workforce.

    Some recent manifestations of this type of policy are financial globalization, outsourcing, war in the middle East and other petrol states, and union busting.

    That said, some of these were more intentional than others. In the Southern US, it was illegal to teach blacks to read to prevent them from rebelling, that’s pretty intentional. Later, it was actually illegal to temp plantation workers away from their jobs with higher wages, that’s pretty intentional. Modern day outsourcing is more like emergent behaviour with the main goal being to keep the wealthy rich rather than keeping the poor from rising up, but there’s definitely some blurred lines. At a ceprtain point, collateral damage isn’t a very good excuse. We love in the 21st century, if you’re making economic policy that hurts the poor, you really have no excuse to not notice that or dismiss it as unintended consequences.

    Even the recent “labour shortage” is a good example. There were some very explicit calls to cut stimulus checks in developed nations, because employers need poor people to exploit. That’s been going on for decades, but when the Poor’s got some money and stopped working, the quiet part got said out loud real quick.

    I’d say that even the people in charge like to pretend that the system isn’t designed to keep poor people poor, but if they really believe that, they’re just really good at lying to themselves.

  18. Yes, absolutely. A dependant workforce makes an exploitable workforce, i. e. people that NEED jobs are less likely to demand a raise or other improvements lest they be fired. People that are worked to exhaustion can’t rebel, can’t improve their situation at home to get out of poverty. Can’t garden to save on food, can’t cook fresh to be healthy.

  19. The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Richer. There’s always going to be someone in misfortune, a miserable fact, but in America most houses come with a refrigerator and AC, a hundred years ago not even Rich people had such luxury.

  20. If you play a game of Monopoly, everyone starts off with the exact same situation and under the exact same rules, yet there’s only ever one winner and everyone else goes bankrupt.

    There’s a law explaining the concept, and it’s how all systems play out when they’re equal and organic. We have to accept that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button