> Your assume that poor people are poor because they lack the savvy to be born into the upper middle class.
You're the one making that assumption here. The parent commenter was just assuming that the two co-occur; the causal relation can easily flow in the other direction.
It should hardly be a stretch of the imagination that being poor gives you far less opportunity for a good education and far less time to do research. Not to mention the fact that the day-to-day stresses and crises of poverty make complicated decisions much more difficult to deal with succesfully[1].
TL;DR: Parent commenter assumed the two were correlated. You assumed that the causal relationship went "not-savvy decisions --> poor". "poor --> not-savvy decisions" is a much more well-supported direction for the causal arrow.
You're the one making that assumption here. The parent commenter was just assuming that the two co-occur; the causal relation can easily flow in the other direction.
It should hardly be a stretch of the imagination that being poor gives you far less opportunity for a good education and far less time to do research. Not to mention the fact that the day-to-day stresses and crises of poverty make complicated decisions much more difficult to deal with succesfully[1].
TL;DR: Parent commenter assumed the two were correlated. You assumed that the causal relationship went "not-savvy decisions --> poor". "poor --> not-savvy decisions" is a much more well-supported direction for the causal arrow.
[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/povert...