What do you do for a living? Are you in training for a better paying job?

I don't know what "this" in the first paragraph refers to, but this post really just seems like a bunch of crude stereotypes that some wealthier people have about poorer people. Being someone who has never lived above the poverty line at any point in my life, I feel almost morally obliged to respond.

I think that if you examine the broad scope of things, you'll find that poverty is something that tends to occur geographically more than it does individually. Most people in my community, for example, live below the poverty line and it's been that way for a generation now. We're an old coal town that no longer mines is the deal. The other jobs locally available that the average people here are qualified for are like what I do, which is bagging groceries. Or you can serve food. That sort of thing. Not exactly lucrative sources of employment.

Do personal life errors factor in in any given case? I'd say yes, absolutely! I, for example, was unable to find the right major for me after three years in college and ran way past out of money, so I gave up and decided to just start focusing on earning money in the now. BAD move! As a result of that decision, I'm not in much of a position to move out to somewhere with better employment opportunities because I'm an unskilled laborer. I've also made other, very poor decisions in life that probably the average American wouldn't have. Like many others in my community, I've gotten caught up in illicit side work in somewhat desperate bids at achieving a higher, more livable income level, which didn't work out at all because I wound up struggling with drugs, which consumed a whole episode of my life. So yeah, personal decisions can definitely be a major factor, I agree. But...*sighs*...honestly, is it not human to make mistakes, especially under rather adverse circumstances? Do people have to be perfect to deserve to survive in your view?

I mean, yeah, I buy (mostly cheap) video games and stuff sometimes and my TV is way nicer than the rest of my house is. Meanwhile I have to hunt for a quarter of my food every month, typically. I guess it's possible to look at that type of situation and see a contradiction. Why do I have a nice thing or two when I could instead focus all my income on paying down debts and doing home repairs and such and be left with nothing to bring me any joy, any outlet whatsoever instead? Wouldn't that be a more logical option? Shouldn't I just dissociate myself from the present entirely and live wholly for a better future that supposedly might arrive someday? Well guess what, that hypothetical better future will never arrive. Not at anything resembling my current rate of income. I have no future. My whole town has no future. This whole place is just going to literally die out eventually and become a ghost town.

Guess what I'm saying is that I'm human. I have to have some fun in life or I'll go nuts. Hell, between my PTSD, major depressive disorder, and other fun stuff like that (I have flashbacks, I barely sleep and generally have nightmares when I do, etc. etc.) I'm like two-thirds of the way there already, I'm pretty sure! Anyhow, maybe it's irresponsible for me to want a break from just working all the time for negative material progress, mourning everyone I've lost and my failure to marry and have kids like everyone predicted, reflecting on all my other failures in life, and trying unsuccessfully to have friends because nobody can deal with all the baggage I've amassed (which I completely understand to be honest; I barely manage it all myself), I don't know.

Well without boring you anymore with personal woes, I guess I'd just like to be thought of as a person and not just as a failure, not just "trash" as they say. I have the feeling that for you, living within your means involves having a lot more means than what I've got going for me. It's easy to sanctimoniously preach and condemn from the outside of poverty. It's not as easy to actually have to navigate it.

Something vaguely like that anyway.

*siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighs*

If it's not one thing, it's another. Sure, you just got impeached and you need to rally people around the flag to win re-election, so what better time for another war? Plus Israel, the oil industry, and our wonderful friends in Saudi Arabia and Turkey seem to think it's a great idea and you can't ask questions about any of that. How can you go wrong?

A vaguely-described attack on Americans to be orchestrated by this top Iranian general was "imminent", Mike Pompeo has said, and Americans are "objectively safer" as a result of said general's assassination, the White House is claiming. Said attack was so clear and imminent indeed that the administration requires another week to fabricate any specifics on that. And Americans are so much safer as a result of this assassination that the State Department has, in response, ordered nearly all of them to leave Iraq immediately for their safety and the administration has decided to replace these civilians with 3,000 additional U.S. troops that are now apparently required. I feel safer already!

Yeah, it's called "none of your" business. Benefits include a certain amount of privacy.

See, this is the problem with arguing against income equality issues. People began ensuring that their situation is different and blaming the world for all of their problems.

For one, I never called you lazy.

Two, nobody ever wants to actually analyze their spending or issues to determine why they might have a problem covering everyday expenses. It is immediately blaming everybody else for why they smoke, why they can't work at a better job, etc. Anybody who does tell them areas they can reduce spending (and yes, still have an enjoyable life)...they immediately get on the defensive and act like you are taking their entire life away, because they are under the assumption that now a minimum requirement in life is having X Y and Z and being able to do A B and C. Ironically, it is often the very people who are struggling who come up with this arbitrary idea of what is a minimum requirement in life, when really it is much much lower.

You want to talk about an area where people have SHITTY circumstances, I'll listen. You grew up in a crack house, had virtually no parenting, pretty much had to fend for your own life when you were 5-6 years old already? Yea, I can get why you weren't able to gain all of the skills necessary to do ok.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesnt address the fact that the cost of healthcare, housing and education has skyrocketed while wages have mostly stagnated and there is currently nothing to stop this trend.

All you are doing is saying that it's ok for these things to keep going up in price because people can always just cut out more things but what happens when people cut out all the unnecessary things in their life yet these things continue to rise in costs?

You said you are working two jobs and having a hard time surviving. If you aren't in training or looking for a better job, it is your fault.

Are they, though?

They may have more money, but if the inflation has more than eaten up the value of that plus, then they are less well off than they did before even with more money.

If you get twice as much money in 20 years but inflation has tripled the prices in the meanwhile, are you really better off than you do now?

You don't seem to understand that for most the increase in wages is not enough to counter the rising prices of goods. And if the majority of people would be doing twice as good as they were doing 20 years ago, then how come poverty is expanding instead of shrinking?

Training costs time and money, if the person is struggling to pay the bills working two jobs than quitting one job in order to attend training while also adding more expenses is not a feasible option.

If that was even just remotely true, then prices in Europe would be much, much higher for those things, as the governments are way more involved in Europe into these things than in the US. Instead, they are much, much cheaper. Why? Because they are not run by executives which need to turn those facilities a profit and thus nickel and dime anything they can to achieve that.

They are not more expensive because of government, but because they try to use the free market to cover costs the free market can't stem, and need to be subsidized by the government. In Europe, they don't even try to cover the costs with the free market. Education is often free of charge, Healthcare too and there is subsidized housing for those that are unable to afford the market prices, all covered by a small increase in taxes.

And I gladly pay $50 more in taxes per month (It's really just about that much for the middle class and can be even less) if that means I can go to the doctor whenever I need to without fear of being able to afford a doctor's visit and be sure that my children can have the education they want and be able to find a place to live even if I have a hard time finding work for whatever reason.

Edit: Also, if the government would be the reason, the prices wouldn't wary do wildly between hospitals. Speaking of which, here you can compare hospital procedure prices if you need to go there for whatever reason. Might save you a lot of money in the US: https://clearhealthcosts.com