One of my in-laws bought a house in the suburbs. She kept her low-wage job downtown, despite pay being average for her vocation, and she could easily get a job closer to her new home.
So now she has a long commute, and decided to get a petrol car.
Despite knowing very well that petrol is taxed heavily and electricity is cheap here in Norway, petrol cars have significantly higher road tax and congestion charge than EVs here. The distance she needs to commute is well within what even a first-gen Leaf could do during winter, so she had plenty of EV options.
She also knew the job had no parking for employees, so she has to park at a public parking facility, which downtown costs a fortune.
Basic math skills shows that between the petrol, the road tax and congestion charge and the parking, that car is costing her half her daily paycheck each time she goes to work.
Didn't take long after she got the car till she started complaining she was "broke each month".
I'd say if someone can't do calculus based statistics then a lot of high earning career paths (ex: machine learning, data science, actuary, quant) are not available to them.
That doesn't mean you won't be rich. It's just some of the lowest hanging fruit are not an option.
Yah, failure to understand statistics is a big risk financially.
I remember a rich man interviewed on TV who said he got his start making money in high school by running gambling games. He understood statistics while the other kids did not, and although the game was fair, he cleaned up regularly.
Take a walk through a Vegas casino, and you'll see legions of people who do not understand statistics and pay a heavy price for that.
> you'll see legions of people who do not understand statistics and pay a heavy price for that.
At the risk of stating the obvious, and not adding to the conversation, I think we all know that people putting their life savings into slot machines aren't doing so because they don't understand expected value. They may or may not understand that they are going to lose all their money, but they are gambling because they are addicted/have some kind of mental health problem. Knowledge of statistics doesn't really affect things for problem gambling.
As for those putting modest amounts of money into gambling, most of them will tell you that card games/etc. are fun, and are therefore worth it.
Many of these people claim to have a "system" which will enable them to win. I've talked with some of them. None of them I've spoken to had money. Coincidence?
Watch people at the slots. Do they look like they're having fun? Not to me.
Personally, I've gambled a few times. Lost money. I don't like losing money, it is not entertaining to me in the slightest.
Tell me about people who play the lottery, picking their "lucky numbers". It's sad.
> Many of these people claim to have a "system" which will enable them to win. I've talked with some of them. None of them I've spoken to had money. Coincidence?
The original thread was about how statistics education will not cause people of gambling. Of course people almost always lose money gambling, except for very rare exceptions, but that doesn't really have anything to do with my point that people spending meaningful amounts of money on gambling are addicted. Addicts aren't going to just tell you that they gamble, because they are addicted(maybe some will but not in general).
> Personally, I've gambled a few times. Lost money. I don't like losing money, it is not entertaining to me in the slightest.
Some people could probably say the same thing about video games, but nobody disputes that some people enjoy video games.
Many people lack the numeracy to understand basic ideas about money and finance, which directly results in them getting scammed by banks, brokerages, credit card companies, and various hucksters.
And yet mathematics has been a mandatory topic in public schools for at least a century if not longer.
We also don't teach car repair, or hunting, or sewing, or cooking much anymore either, not because we don't need those things but because those high-friction tasks have been highly optimized to the point of being background noise.
Meta-adaptations and “kink-shaming” about math … I don’t know if I walked into some parody of the Silicon Valley show or if this is some kind of weird AI bot, either way I guess this is the shape of things to come …
I think I am making an obvious point that normal people understand. A lot of people have trouble understanding the concept of spending less or significantly less than they earn. This is another it seems like HN has changed a lot. The idea what I’m saying is controversial is pretty hilarious and sad at the same time.
What's controversial about that is that's simply not possible for low wage earners. I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't affect high wage readers here, but if you're making minimum wage in a HCOL area, not buying big screen TVs and not buying luxury cars and shoes isn't enough to make ends meet if you also want to save anything for retirement.
That or everyone else is an idiot, but I've found that mindset is only good for feeling smug about yourself and underestimating people,
so let's assume it's not that and try to find something else.
