The Difference between the Rich and Poor~

[Wyatt earp]

1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per
day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food
calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor
people gamble.
2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some
single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.
3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically 4 days a week. 23% of poor do this.
4. 63% of wealthy listen to audio books during commute to
work vs. 5% for poor people.
5. 81% of wealthy maintain a to-do list vs. 19% for poor.
6. 63% of wealthy parents make their children read 2 or more non-fiction books a month vs. 3% for poor.
7. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10
hours or more a month vs. 3% for poor.
8. 80% of wealthy make hbd calls vs. 11% of poor
9. 67% of wealthy write down their goals vs. 17% for poor
10. 88% of wealthy read 30 minutes or more each day for education or career reasons vs 2% for poor.
20 Things The Rich Do Every Day - daveramsey.com

 

[francoHFW]

These days they start out with more money, go to better schools, have much more free time, cheap food and inner city food are terrible. See sig para 1.

After 30 years of Voodoo and Reaganism, we're back to the terrible rich/poor gap and upward mobility of the gilded age Pubs loved. Read "The Good Old Days-Thet Were Terrible". Food, housing, education,transportation, work etc etc were horrible for the 99%...

 

[g5000]

21. 76% of wealthy people eats steaks and all kinds of wonderful food, while poor people find Top Ramen and generic saltines are cheaper than steak.

22. 72% of wealthy people have nannies to help raise their children. 0% of poor people do.

23. 76% of wealthy people work out at the gym. 76% of poor people are too goddamed tired at the end of the day working two or three jobs, or too goddammed poor to afford a gym membership.

24. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month at the local polo club vs. 73% of the poor who need donations.

 

[Vox]

21. 76% of wealthy people eats steaks and all kinds of wonderful food, while poor people find Top Ramen and generic saltines are cheaper than steak..

Bull. You can eat healthy food if you want to - you do not need to eat elephant portions to feel satiety. Steaks every day is absolutely NOT healthy

22. 72% of wealthy people have nannies to help raise their children. 0% of poor people do.

Nannies are not needed if you stay at home all day long as poor do.

23. 76% of wealthy people work out at the gym. 76% of poor people are too goddamed tired at the end of the day working two or three jobs, or too goddammed poor to afford a gym membership.

tired of watching TV all day long? or tired from doing nothing?

24. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month at the local polo club vs. 73% of the poor who need donations.

they do not need donations. they need a kick in a butt.

 

[Wyatt earp]

18. 76% of wealthy believe bad habits create detrimental luck vs. 9% for poor.
19. 86% of wealthy believe in life-long educational self-
improvement vs. 5% for poor.
20. 86% of wealthy love to read vs. 26% for poor.

I like these 3 the best.

 

[zeke]

Bear, somehow you have come to realize that there is a HUGE difference between rich people and poor people. Besides the money.

How did you come by this important and insightful information? And now that you know this, what will you do with this info?

Seems like we are watching an entire underclass be born. Most of the poor people will never have the 7 habits of highly successful people. Born poor will die poor more than likely.

 

[Avorysuds]

These days they start out with more money, go to better schools, have much more free time, cheap food and inner city food are terrible. See sig para 1.

After 30 years of Voodoo and Reaganism, we're back to the terrible rich/poor gap and upward mobility of the gilded age Pubs loved. Read "The Good Old Days-Thet Were Terrible". Food, housing, education,transportation, work etc etc were horrible for the 99%...

Did you just admit that public schools and food stamps get you lower quality products? And wtf are you talking about more free time? Go ahead, drop your load of made up on the spot bigotry on what rich people do all day VS I guess the 80 hour weeks poor must be spending working.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

These days they start out with more money, go to better schools, have much more free time, cheap food and inner city food are terrible. See sig para 1.

After 30 years of Voodoo and Reaganism, we're back to the terrible rich/poor gap and upward mobility of the gilded age Pubs loved. Read "The Good Old Days-Thet Were Terrible". Food, housing, education,transportation, work etc etc were horrible for the 99%...

A lot of white Americans misunderstand that "...all men are created equal" means we all started out equal.

We didn't and we still don't.

 

[Avorysuds]

21. 76% of wealthy people eats steaks and all kinds of wonderful food, while poor people find Top Ramen and generic saltines are cheaper than steak. And smoke, drink coffee, have an expensive cell phone bill and do all sorts of drugs over buying "wonderful foods."

22. 72% of wealthy people have nannies to help raise their children. 0% of poor people do. And mass amounts of poor have their 2-3-4-5 children in Government funded daycare.

23. 76% of wealthy people work out at the gym. 76% of poor people are too goddamed tired at the end of the day working two or three jobs, or too goddammed poor to afford a gym membership. Because 2-3 jobs means you work 16-24 hours a day (8+8+8). I have been poor and I found time to do the gym, eat right, fuck, work, play games, watch TV, go out, walk, run and fuck some more. Are you fuckin lazy G5?

24. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month at the local polo club vs. 73% of the poor who need donations. And get donations, through welfare, food stamps, child care, housing, 0% tax rates, free education, free healthcare, and spending cash on a debit card.
.

Sometimes g5, some fucking times.... People are people, rich or poor if you ain't living life in America it's your own fucking fault.

 

[g5000]

Goddam poor people. They won't create jobs by hiring nannies!

 

[Avorysuds]

These days they start out with more money, go to better schools, have much more free time, cheap food and inner city food are terrible. See sig para 1.

After 30 years of Voodoo and Reaganism, we're back to the terrible rich/poor gap and upward mobility of the gilded age Pubs loved. Read "The Good Old Days-Thet Were Terrible". Food, housing, education,transportation, work etc etc were horrible for the 99%...

A lot of white Americans misunderstand that "...all men are created equal" means we all started out equal.

We didn't and we still don't.

No rich person was born rich but died poor, and no poor person was born poor and died rich.... Fuckin A this country is getting dumber by the fucking second.

I just put together a 17k sqft gym (that I own), I was born very low middle class, borderline poor. How the fuck did I make it so far, HOW????? Oh I know, but it won;t matter if I told you how, you will deny it.

 

[Avorysuds]

Goddam poor people. They won't create jobs by hiring nannies!

When they send their kids to daycare paid for by Government (taxes) does that not create nannie like jobs? You're gonna lose this at every turn G5, sorry.

 

[g5000]

Goddam poor people. They won't create jobs by hiring nannies!

When they send their kids to daycare paid for by Government (taxes) does that not create nannie like jobs? You're gonna lose this at every turn G5, sorry.

Am I?

Spending taxpayer dollars for their daycare is good for the economy, eh? Hmmmm... Then so must be free cell phones and food stamps!

 

[Avorysuds]

Goddam poor people. They won't create jobs by hiring nannies!

When they send their kids to daycare paid for by Government (taxes) does that not create nannie like jobs? You're gonna lose this at every turn G5, sorry.

So spending taxpayer dollars for their daycare is good for the economy, eh?

G5, your point unless I misunderstood it was to sympathize with the poor while attacking people who would claim the poor could be doing better. The way you did this was to say that the poor don't hire nannies, using sarcasm. The poor can't afford nannies. In the end the bigger point you seemed to be making unless again I misunderstood you, is that the poor don't have time to "read a book, go to the gym, eat wonderful food or talk/raise their children" because they can't afford a nannie. You then attached "create jobs" on the ass end because you have some issue with Republicans claiming "the poor don't create jobs."

So to answer you really stupid secondary made up on the spot no meaning question... Yes, spending tax dollars does create jobs, but no it's not good for the economy, it is instead a net negative for the economy or else Communism would be prefect and the dominate social structure on the planet. Currently communism boasts mass poverty and corruption so think the poor are literally dying from it.

 

[Avorysuds]

Goddam poor people. They won't create jobs by hiring nannies!

When they send their kids to daycare paid for by Government (taxes) does that not create nannie like jobs? You're gonna lose this at every turn G5, sorry.

Am I?

Then so must be free cell phones and food stamps!

Incorrect, these incentives keep the poor dependent and poor, or else we would in fact have a booming economy and far fewer poor, but instead we have a worse economy built on debt and more poor people everyday.

 

[g5000]

When they send their kids to daycare paid for by Government (taxes) does that not create nannie like jobs? You're gonna lose this at every turn G5, sorry.

So spending taxpayer dollars for their daycare is good for the economy, eh?

G5, your point unless I misunderstood it was to sympathize with the poor while attacking people who would claim the poor could be doing better. The way you did this was to say that the poor don't hire nannies, using sarcasm. The poor can't afford nannies. In the end the bigger point you seemed to be making unless again I misunderstood you, is that the poor don't have time to "read a book, go to the gym, eat wonderful food or talk/raise their children" because they can't afford a nannie. You then attached "create jobs" on the ass end because you have some issue with Republicans claiming "the poor don't create jobs."

So to answer you really stupid secondary made up on the spot no meaning question... Yes, spending tax dollars does create jobs, but no it's not good for the economy, it is instead a net negative for the economy or else Communism would be prefect and the dominate social structure on the planet. Currently communism boasts mass poverty and corruption so think the poor are literally dying from it.

No, my point was the "facts" and figures in the opening post demonstrated a condescending, assholish attitude. I simply took that to an absurd level in the hopes the sheer stupidity and assholishness of it would penetrate some of the thicker skulls.

Guess I failed.

Gosh, how can we alienate the poor even more? I know! Let's talk about what a bunch of fat, lazy fucks they are! Vote GOP, poor people! We well fed, buff rich folk know what's good for you better than you do.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Yes, rich people have more money than poor people.

What else is new?

 

[Cookie]

I think the list points out a failing we have in public schools. Children who are poor are missing opportunities to learn skills that will lead to life success. We're focusing on stuffing their heads with NCLB or Common Core test facts and not giving them a broader education on how to get where they want to go.

I can relate to this situation in my own life. When it came to going to college, I was pretty clueless about the process and my parents were even more ignorant of what I needed. Going to college was a struggle for me, in part because I had no guidance. I didn't know what I needed to know and the process wasn't always self evident. Going to class was easy compared to navigating issues around transcripts, deadlines, registering so I got all my classes and financing. And BTW, I didn't grow up poor.

Anyway, we treat all the skills for success as qualities that need to be picked up by osmosis through the school years. ALA "To Sir, With Love" (Sidney Poitier), there is a point in a kid's life where they no longer care whether or not they are going to graduation and need, instead, to figure out how they're going to manage as adults.

When we fail to provide these skills in the public schools, we end up sending Child Protection Social Workers to people's home to do the job.

 

[zeke]

When they send their kids to daycare paid for by Government (taxes) does that not create nannie like jobs? You're gonna lose this at every turn G5, sorry.

So spending taxpayer dollars for their daycare is good for the economy, eh?

G5, your point unless I misunderstood it was to sympathize with the poor while attacking people who would claim the poor could be doing better. The way you did this was to say that the poor don't hire nannies, using sarcasm. The poor can't afford nannies. In the end the bigger point you seemed to be making unless again I misunderstood you, is that the poor don't have time to "read a book, go to the gym, eat wonderful food or talk/raise their children" because they can't afford a nannie. You then attached "create jobs" on the ass end because you have some issue with Republicans claiming "the poor don't create jobs."

So to answer you really stupid secondary made up on the spot no meaning question... Yes, spending tax dollars does create jobs, but no it's not good for the economy, it is instead a net negative for the economy or else Communism would be prefect and the dominate social structure on the planet. Currently communism boasts mass poverty and corruption so think the poor are literally dying from it.

Hey, wasn't this a thread about the difference between rich and poor? Sure it was.

So avery, just what is it that is so sucko in the economy that it is hurting the very rich?
Is it the spending on poor people? No. SO what is it?

Cause in case you haven't noticed or read anything about this, but the very rich have been doing real REAL REAL good the past few years.

So here is the question again; what is it that is being done for the poor people that is harming the real rich people in this country?

 

[Avorysuds]

So spending taxpayer dollars for their daycare is good for the economy, eh?

G5, your point unless I misunderstood it was to sympathize with the poor while attacking people who would claim the poor could be doing better. The way you did this was to say that the poor don't hire nannies, using sarcasm. The poor can't afford nannies. In the end the bigger point you seemed to be making unless again I misunderstood you, is that the poor don't have time to "read a book, go to the gym, eat wonderful food or talk/raise their children" because they can't afford a nannie. You then attached "create jobs" on the ass end because you have some issue with Republicans claiming "the poor don't create jobs."

So to answer you really stupid secondary made up on the spot no meaning question... Yes, spending tax dollars does create jobs, but no it's not good for the economy, it is instead a net negative for the economy or else Communism would be prefect and the dominate social structure on the planet. Currently communism boasts mass poverty and corruption so think the poor are literally dying from it.

No, my point was the "facts" and figures in the opening post demonstrated a condescending, assholish attitude. I simply took that to an absurd level in the hopes the sheer stupidity and assholishness of it would penetrate some of the thicker skulls.

Guess I failed.

Gosh, how can we alienate the poor even more? I know! Let's talk about what a bunch of fat, lazy fucks they are! Vote GOP, poor people! We well fed, buff rich folk know what's good for you better than you do.

I can't say this is an issue I care about, but if the %'s provided were correct why fight them? You wanting one group of people to be as productive as another won't make it so. Maybe "the rich" are rich for a reason, maybe the poor are poor for a reason.I like to think it's complex, and that this "study" simply shows some of that complexity as to why the rich are rich vs the poor being poor.