If you don't have a safety net you'll quickly become risk averse.

One distinction that I like to make is that in my own life, I've definitely been poor, but I've never been in poverty. I've been a student and I've been unemployed almost without money to even get food occasionally, but I've always been in a position where I could ask my (middle-class) mother for a bit of cash to tide me over (or even move back 'home' for a while.

I have never had to ask, but that option/safety net has always been there. That, to me, is the difference between merely being poor (a transient state) and living in poverty (no simple escape route).

Hell, even simply knowing that you can escape poverty is an advantage that some people don't have.

I grew up poor, and after my first bout of college, I only had $400 to my name, nowhere to go, no job, and 28 days until rent was due. I spent that month freezing in an empty apartment eating potatoes with soy sauce on them. And then may landlord wants to play "this is a stupid college kid" and starts claiming that I must keep paying rent until I can find a new lessee (which I didn't.) Nevermind that I always payed my rent 3 months in advance.

These kinds of experiences really color your perspective on wealth. There's no reason for some well-off, undereducated, underworked adult to literally threaten the survival of another person simply because they're too lazy to do their own job for a business they owned.

I remember this lifestyle pretty well, for me it was rice with various homemade sauces, a big bag of rice was $5 and that could last me a couple of weeks if it was all I ate.

One benefit is that I was an overweight child, being too poor to eat properly brought me to a "perfect" BMI for my age.

Reminds me of pulp's "common people" ... you could call your dad he could stop it all yeah

Random trivia, the real person that song was written about, is the wife of Valve Economist and recent "star" of the debate around Greek economic issues with the EU, Yanis Varoufakis.

heard that yeah! Kind of ironic in a way?

This is particular true if you have a mortgage and children to feed. For the sake of keeping the house and bringing food to the table, the majority of people will gladly accept less salary for greater job security.

On the flip side if you don't have a lot to lose you might as well take risks.

This is a nihilistic approach which only works in theory - especially when you have a family to support.

And nobody has nothing to lose - I mean even poor people have a flat - but risking to lose the roof over your head would be plain stupid.

End of story - if you know papa and mama will transfer some cash if you are in need - then taking risks is easy.

I mean it worked for me. I took some really risky decisions that could easily result in me being homeless, etc. Most of them paid out so far. I guess it's up to your priorities - I would rather fail hard than settle for being where I am right now in the long term - taking risks is the only option.

Logically yes, but in practical psychology people tend to hold on tighter when they have less.

You always have a lot to lose, especially if you're poor.

I feel like there's a third category right in between: those who take a job only if the KNOW they can learn it along the way.