[gottorf]

> This is real close to just “poor people deserve to be poor”

No, I'm saying that there are reasons why some people stay poor. My further implication is that it isn't for the most part because society is keeping them down.

> Your investment math also seems pretty far off. Those numbers appear to assume a 15% return from the S&P 500, a number I’ve never heard a financial advisor recommend.

It was based on an initial $100 investment followed by a monthly $200 investment into the S&P 500 (as an alternative destination for the $2500/year claimed by that study that some high spenders put that much into the lottery) applied over the actual past 10 years of performance[0].

Prudent financial advisors would of course tell you not to count on 15% CAGR forever, but my example was based on real results that anyone could have obtained by consistently buying boring index funds instead of lottery tickets! There's no trickery here.

> that means there are a lot of poor non-ticket-buying households in order for the numbers to work out. Why are those people poor?

In discussions about the poor, we all should distinguish between those who happen to be poor at any given moment, and those who are poor their whole lives, or even over generations. My comments about the character traits of the poor only apply to the latter.

[0]: https://testfol.io/

[dpark]

> My further implication is that it isn't for the most part because society is keeping them down.

There are many reasons why the poor tend to stay poor. For the most part, society does not actively “keep them down” but we are certainly structured in a way that makes it hard for impoverished individuals to climb up. The notion of saving money is foreign when you can’t even pay all of your bills.

The retreat to lottery tickets is an escape, not an investment strategy. And as already pointed out, while lottery revenues are disproportionately drawn from the poor, this does not mean all poor people are buying lottery tickets. Someone poor buying 2500/year of lottery tickets is not the norm.

> my example was based on real results

Fair. I didn’t realize you were actually using the actual last 10 years of the S&P500.

> My comments about the character traits of the poor only apply to the latter.

And I argue that this is reductionist. No different than someone who insists that the poor are only poor because the man is keeping them down. It is a multifaceted problem.