Yep and that problem becomes way more clear when you read the supplemental material that includes the actual question for measuring 'patience' [0 page 12-13]: They were given 5 rounds of the question "Would you take 100 Euro now or X euro in 12 months" Where X starts at 151 and goes through the tree on page 13 to assign you a patience score. The less you were willing to accept to wait 12 months the more patient you are.
This is clearly going to be affected a lot by how much 100 euros is relative to your current living situation.
Maybe you can't be patient in the weathering a siege sense, but you can absolutely be patient on a shorter time frame. A little short-term patience can get you a long way as opposed to being reckless or hot-headed.
That said, this study seems to be bogus in that obviously people from wealthier countries will view $100 as less significant than countries with poorer economies. That money will go a lot further in such an economy, and is much more valuable there.
I live in a poor African country, and even here, people choose to buy things instead of their basic needa being met. Meat instead of beans, alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. They rather go hungry and get drunk than have a lot of bland food.
There are some people who might be close to starving, but they’re a small minority.
In the US these people are virtually non-existant. Even homeless people manage to hustle over $100/day. And they don’t spend that money on food, either.
I used to run with a sketchy group of homeless people that did heroin together in NYC. Most of them were making over $100 panhandling/hustling/scamming per day. It’s probably lower in other places, though.
Sure you can. Forego the $100, and then sacrifice booze/cigarettes/lotto for a few weeks to make up for it.
Drugs and lotto are not a "basic need" yet a surprisingly high percentage of impoverished people prioritize them over said basic needs. It's a coping mechanism, yes, but 20 days of fasting cigarettes could easily yield the foregone $100
Your narrative is that the poor lack the moral fibre and self-control to quit.
The reality is that they lack the cash to quit. Drink, drugs, and alcohol are used as coping mechanisms to make life bearable. When people move out of poverty - for whatever reason - a substantial proportion suddenly find the self control to change their habits.
And your narrative is that the poor lack any sort of free agency.
The reality is that there is some wiggle room for sacrifice and saving that is not unreasonable. My next door neighbors are on Maryland's public assistance for housing program (which places poor families in middle-ish class neighborhoods), so they pay little to no rent. They live off of food stamps. Yet they smoke, drink, use marijuana every weekend, and play lotto (I know because they litter the used tickets on the ground).
Are all of those coping mechanisms necessary to make life bearable? Or just some of them? Is there some room to exercise free agency and periodically forego one or some of them to save a little extra cash so they aren't constantly in crisis? I say yes.
I never said all poor people use cigarettes, lotto, alcohol, and weed. But there are tons of studies showing that use of those things is elevated among the poor.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread is that having some buffer money allows you to make more optimal savings choices in the future. It's a cascade effect.
Even $1000 in savings as a buffer would allow you to make better decisions grocery shopping (you can afford to hold off and wait for better deals, etc.) or in the case of this article, have the patience to forego $100 now to get $200 later.
