I'd say it's more like the poor have their choices made for them by the polity.

For example, if you are poor and living in the tenderloin in SF, any give California assembly person has way more exertion on your quotidian economic choices than Jeff bezos.

Really? The wealthy are to blame?

Wealthy tell poor mothers to buy junk food instead of healthier (and cheaper) options?

Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework?

Wealthy tell poor that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea?

Yes?

Who owns the fast food chains? The marketing agencies? The land where the stores are built?

Who lobbies politicians to allow them to do anything they want in the name of profit? Who owns the media brainwashing the masses into voting for X or buying Y?

I'm sorry but literally everything is done for the wealthy and by the wealthy.

> Wealthy tell poor kids to watch TV instead of doing homework?

No. That happens naturally, while the parents are working at their second jobs.

Teachers do a pretty good job enforcing the homeworks, unless actively obstructed by "you're unfair, he didn't do nothing wrong!" parents.

Given that the least-healthy food is the most heavily subsidized in America, yes, the wealthy have orchestrated a world in which the poor choose junk food. Some "free market" there.

As for having a budget and sticking to it, no one is better at budgeting than the poor, out of sheer necessity.

Yes to all of those, it's called advertising.

Do you believe all the advertising?

Why poor people would?

Are people really at fault for being persuaded by advertisements when that is their entire point?

Yep.

The wealthy control the society that...

a) ...has food deserts where poor people can't access fresh food and vegetables, and in many of these areas, junk food IS the cheapest option.

Learn more: https://www.moveforhunger.org/harsh-reality-food-deserts-ame...

b) ...has tons of enriching and educational and recreational activities for wealthier students compared to poor students. In addition, just being poor has HUNDREDS of correlating factors for poor academic performance -- it's very lazy to just say "poor people are bad parents who just let their kids watch TV, that's why they are bad at school."

Learn more: https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education

c) ... does NOT, despite your strawman point, ever tell poor people "that having a budget and sticking to it is a dumb idea." Every financial counseling service for poor people includes budgeting classes. But if you're a single parent of two kids with $1900/month gross income (well above minimum wage) and the median rent for a 2BR apartment in your city is $1200/month, good luck with that budget.

Learn more: https://povertyusa.org/facts

So, we might not blame an individual wealthy person but it's fair to blame the people holding the cards in society.

By the way, when people repeat the arguments above, it reads to many people as incredibly uninformed and displaying an astonishing lack of empathy. I don't mean that as an attack, since many people on this site pride themselves on their lack of empathy and their ability to never have to interact with any lower-class people, other than complaining about homeless poop in the Tenderloin.

One more thing: rarely, there are incredibly driven and talented and lucky poor people who break through every possible disadvantage of childhood poverty and become successful. Sometimes those people will reply to a post like this and say "Well, I did it, so it's possible! [fuck the rest of them!]" But MOST of the people in that situation developed enough empathy and real word apperception to realize the rarity of their success, and agree that society should strive to offer more pathways up for everyone.

It is less "real-world markets" and just markets. Markets are one dollar one vote.

If one dollar equal one vote, you can't honestly say markets are free because by design they favor those with wealth and power.

There is nothing "free" about a system that favors the wealthy.

Except if you are wealthy, or at least a momentarily embarrassed bilionaire that soon expecta wealth and fortune

Well by that token armchair politicians who make social choices on forums on behalf of the dispossessed, in lieu of actually rolling up their sleeves and doing social work are merely momentarily embarrassed 'benevolent' dictators.

Which can only turn into a true statement after individual inspection of each commenter. Assuming everybody that enters political discourse online is apolitical in their activities offline might turn out a right guess at times, but it stays a guess. As if you are only allowed to say something while you are out in the streets covered with sweat. No. Then they will complain that you say anything at all instead of fixing symptoms that have a systemic origin.

Within any system, be it a society a family or a friendship, communication is important to react to shifts and regain balance (or to restructure the system). Talking is not dictating, talking is talking and the other person can always respond.

Right, which without sane wealth (re)distribution is just a plutocracy of the banks and the hyper wealthy.

Hah, exactly.

Capitalism is not perfect; apparently it is the better of the alternatives we have right now.

In order to effect fundamental change, and find a better alternative to capitalism, each human being needs to fundamentally change themselves--yet apparently no one is willing to do that. As long as we let instinctual passions like desire, and social emotions like envy, hold sway over us so will continue to exist institutions like capitalism and fashion. And forced change (like socialism), without fundamentally addressing the underlying human condition, wouldn't achieve anything fruitful as evidenced from history.

What does capitalism actually mean, though? Do you mean capitalism in the US, Canada, France, Germany, China? All have private property, profit oriented companies and markets... It’s such a broad term it’s probably completely useless and it leads you down a false dichotomy. There are significant differences between existing systems and many possible new approaches to taxation and social order in the pipeline. For example, have a look at the book radical markets by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl to get a taste of what is possible in terms of legislative innovations.

So, I am not against and all for personal change and growth but absolving the economic system from change doesn’t make this task any easier. Humans are to a huge extent a product of their environment and it is certainly in everyones best interest to design “humane” or “prosocial” systems which allow humans to thrive and cooperate.

Don’t know why this is being downvoted. To someone who witnessed the transition from forced “socialism” to brutal capitalism in Russia it makes total sense.

Probably being downvoted because of the implied stark "socialism/capitalism" dichotomy, and describing the need for a fundamental change of human nature, and the downvoters have seen that a regulated capitalist economy with a strong social safety net seem to work pretty well. :)

> Don't know why this is being downvoted

The key answer is contained in my comment -- to wit: "yet apparently no one is willing to do that [fundamentally change themselves]". Even most intelligently people, the demographics of HN, are unwilling ... hence the (mindless) downvotes.