This college grad decided to live on the streets with just $25 and a gym bag to see if he could make it without any of the trappings of his upbringing, privileges, or contacts. After 10 months, he was moving into an apartment, bought a pickup truck, and had a savings of around $5,000. The point of the story is supposed to be that people are poor because they have bad attitudes. Which is technically true, but maybe he should do an experiment to see what being born poor will do for your “positive outlook.”
(Thanks to Scott!) (Photo: CSmonitor)
More From Consumerist
-
Report Shows That College Debt Is On The Rise Again For Recent Graduates
-
The Most Expensive College In The Country Will Now Cost You $60K/Year But Has A So-So Return On Investment
-
AIG CEO To College Grads: Take Whatever Job You Can Get
-
Why College Isn’t Always A Good Financial Investment
-
Study: Some State Universities Offer A Better Return On Investment Than Ivy Leagues
@melanie.dawn: I’m sorry to hear that but I hope that you feel some sympathy for the next genuinely homeless person you meet who really needs your help. I don’t think that what you’re describing there is a “homeless” person but an addict. There’s a difference though one can lead to another.
@banmojo: “what about chicks with quadriplegia who paint with their mouths and can pay their rent bill each month?”
What about those who can’t? What about the children of those who can’t?
“liberal d-bags would have us giving all our hard earned money away to take care of poor d-bags – oh, wait a sec, that’s what we ALrEADY have to do!”
Did you read the article at all? He started off by living in shelters and taking handouts. Even he wouldn’t have been able to achieve what he did if it hadn’t been for the support of those first couple of months.
“Kudos and hats off to this genius college kid who has shown us once again that the American dream is alive and kicking – all it takes is initiative and drive.”
You really think that living in a rathole apartment with an old pickup truck and a few bucks in savings is “the American dream”? Really? If he’d dragged himself from poverty to riches I’d agree, but from the streets into poverty? Not so much.
@xtc46: how is it backwards to think “if you are making money you get less welfare” seems spot on to me. If you are making money, you assitance.
The thoroughness of your written language is reflective of the thoroughness in your thought and experience. You either misinterpreted what I said or misconstrued it to say something I didn’t.
I said people who get welfare and work are worse off than by not working.
Hypothetical: A person is on welfare at $1000/month. They get a part time job for $400/month, and the government deducts $400 from the welfare cheque. Does that mean the welfare recipient is getting $1000?
No. The person pays taxes on the $400, as well as paying the cost of work clothing, transportation, lunches, and other incidental costs of having a job. After all such costs and deductions, the recipient is getting less than $1000, and is financially worse off by working than by not working.
Unless a welfare recipient is lucky to land a job that pays more per month in wages than the welfare benefits, then there is no incentive to start working. This is one of the principal reasons able bodied people don’t take just any job; they’re not lazy, they’re being realistic about money. And the situation is even worse for those with additional problems like dependents, disabilities and such.
But, of course, those who have no experience being on social assistance arrogantly think they know the reasons people stay on welfare and then speak without knowledge.
I’d say you qualify for “minimal amount of knowledge.” Rectilinear as always you got it right friend.