It's a trap, but that doesn't mean it's escapable if you do need a job now.

It's the type of trap that only works if you agree to allow it to work. You might call it Sunk Opportunity Cost Assumption, mostly fits.

The trap will work if you are near destitute.

Right, that's the point though - at some point, getting out of that circumstance is the best available move, meaning walking away - dropping everything and just walking away, somewhere different, is going to be better than staying where you're at and continuing to struggle. Bankruptcy, homelessness in big cities, addictions, abusive relationships, there are all sorts of contexts where people get stuck, and they feel compelled to stay and struggle and try to battle through whatever those challenges are. They feel like they have a duty to battle out the hardest, most impossible struggles where nobody reasonable in the entire world would expect them to have to overcome.

Sometimes the best available move is physically escaping, just getting up and walking away and continuing until you find anything better than where you were at. For some weird reason, that move feels like giving up to people, until they actually do it and it works. This move is sometimes appropriate for jobs, relationships, addictions, violent circumstances, toxic social groups, politics, and so on.

If you've got next to nothing, then you have almost nothing to lose, and that can be a profound amount of freedom if it's seized. It's not always the right move, but sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Go find a better game.

So profound. I'm keeping it to use later :)

It's not profound. It's literally just the age old <group of of people> <thing> combination but with a couple extra words to seem high brow and the group it casts shade upon is picked to confirm certain biases.

People who live in trailer parks are poorer and have lower educational attainment than other groups. It's not a bias to acknowledge this or to reference it.

It's also not unreasonable to believe that the two things are linked.

You could've called it hoodrat logic, their educational and financial success is on the same order.

Why not call it woman logic? They are famous for strictly using long term planning and cold logic to plan their lives to the point they even joke about it.

You could've subbed in just about any nationality.

But you chose trailer park because the point was to pick a group of people that a bunch of other educated white collar people (I think the trailer park people would use the term "coastal elites" for this group, lol) like feeling better than, hence why the other groups wouldn't do.

If you wanted to make if harmless you could've chose any manner of public personality (politicians are gold mines for peddling short sighted stuff, plenty of examples to choose from) to name it after.

> But you chose trailer park because the point was to pick a group of people that a bunch of other educated white collar people (I think the trailer park people would use the term "coastal elites" for this group, lol) like feeling better than, hence why the other groups wouldn't do.

I started calling it that when I lived in the trailer park.

> If you wanted to make if harmless

It's already harmless. The people who live in trailer parks don't need your protection, and acknowledging that most of them don't want to be there isn't hurting anyone at all.

> and acknowledging that most of them don't want to be there isn't hurting anyone at all.

You're not acknowledging that they don't want to be there. You're assigning them a lack of long-term planning and ability to reason about how to achieve the best outcome for life. You're calling them "stupid" without using the word.

The comparison didn't include someone who chooses to take night classes at a junior college with hopes of transferring credits to another institution for an accredited degree, for example. No, they're too hopeless to find a third way. Having a background living in a trailer park in no way absolves you of dumping on people who still do in that comment.

I realize that I'm being hyperbolic to make a point and that life isn't simple when living in poverty. But I've been destitute as well, and I don't blame people who have trouble overcoming the same.

> You're not acknowledging that they don't want to be there.

I told you what I meant. You're trying to tell me that it's not what I meant. As the the guy who said it i can tell you that you are wrong about my intent.

> You're calling them "stupid" without using the word.

I'm willing to own that it's Blunt language that might hurt feelings if you really want it to, but that wasn't the intent. I refuse to walk on eggshells because someone somewhere in the world might find some meaning i never intended if they really look for it.

As a human being sometimes I can't accurately communicate my full intent to everyone. However, as a normal human being you also have he obligation to try to see the best version of others peoples words before assuming the worst version.

Maybe we both failed a little here.

Going to college usually means you work the same job after college, just with a lot more debt.

That logic is also how established tech companies allow startups with disruptive technology to eat their lunch. Of course it can sometimes take decades for that disruptive innovation to appear.

> They say: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!"

This is more like: "Why implement it? That won't be seen for five years and I need a promotion now!"