I think you are taking a wide range of beliefs and summarizing them in the worst sounding way possible. I certainly believe that most homeless people have made some bad decisions to get where they are. I think many if not most of them probably have poor financial skills.

I also believe that many of them were born with a range of disadvantages and could have done very well under other circumstances.

A lot of them also do struggle with addiction and mental illness and it is worth considering that this can mix poorly with handing people a bunch of no strings cash. I don't think that's a reason not to do it at all but it shouldn't be ignored either.

I'm certainly not the worlds biggest expert on homeless people but I volunteer at a needle exchange and have encountered more than most so I'm somewhat speaking from experience. Sweeping this stuff under the rug doesn't make it not true.

Two things:

I was mostly addressing the post I was replying to that claimed that nobody was opposed to direct cash payments - which I think is not true at all.

Also, I’m not trying to sweep it under the rug, and I’m not saying that many homeless people don’t have poor money management or addiction issues. However, there is a theory that giving homeless folks direct cash is a waste of time/money due to these issues and will produce no positive outcomes - which the experiment linked seems to contradict. In other words, while these issues do exist, direct cash payments do still seem to be at least somewhat effective.

(Also, thank you for spending your time and effort volunteering at a very non-glamorous but very important service!)

There are many reasons someone can be poor, really bad money management is definitely a prevalent reason.

I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." Someone wisely replied "this is why you don't have cash."

>I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost."

I chuckle at your chuckle. To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock.

I say this as someone who has lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.

// To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock.

Those tricky shorts, always looking to drive up the sock price. How'd I miss it?

// I ... lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.

I totally believe you!

> Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills

This is certainly a thing. I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions they continue to make.

Aren't those people middle class by definition? What you describe here is not poor at all.

I have yet to see anyone define middle class in a way that is useful and people agree on its definition. Therefore, any discussion about middle class that starts without a rigorous definition always ends with a disagreement about what is middle class.

I am especially entertained when “upper” and “lower” middle class come into play.

This is what I reacted to:

> I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions

This is middle class person that spends all the money on useless things. But, I don't see how it is relevant example of poor person, they have good income.

Definitions of "middle class" can be logical, useful, or non-controversial. Pick one.