I grew up poor, but was lucky enough to go to a fairly 'rich' school district amongst fairly rich people (upper middle class more than "rich" I guess).

You know what I saw in rich kids?

Lots of drug use, stealing, petty vandalism and violence.

I just rarely saw them suffer any consequences for it.

This just goes to prove that anti-social behavior is not a "consequence" of poverty, and that solid social norms are far more relevant. Rich kids can still live in a socially frayed, marginalizing environment.

If you are you get away, or even ahead, with anti-social behavor. If you are poor you go to jail.

Ding.

"Crime" is a function of poverty in so much as those punished for committing it are poor.

It's about survival in mental sense which lack of material means makes extremely hard.

People don't need money, but they desperately need sense of agency and entertainment and lack of money makes fulfilling those core needs in legal and moral manner super hard.

You're describing the cultural correlates of social marginalization and fraying social capital, not "poverty" per se. In many poor countries, casual anti-social behavior does not grant community status; in fact, the opposite is the case and punishments can be quite harsh indeed (though not nearly as harsh or socially damaging as the long-term imprisonment that's all-too-common in the US.) Widespread poverty in those failing communities is the consequence of such dynamics, not the cause.

Yeah, I did.