What you have done here (and possibly you did it to create some lively conversation) is make a sweeping generalism that simply isn't true. Certainly not in every case. People are poor for a variety of socio-economic factors and to suggest that laziness is a defining prerequisite for lack of wealth is wrong. Oftentimes people have many disadvantages that make it difficult for them to climb the social ladder to a point where they can be considered anything other than poor. For example if you are born in an area where there is lack of access to education or employment it can become an almost insurmountable task to overcome the odds and make a decent standard of living. Perhaps people are held back by circumstances such as family, abusive parents or possibly parents that ask them to stay home to help out and thus they never have the chance to move past the economic situation they are in. The external factors are sometimes just too distracting, often through no fault of their own, for them to really ever have a chance to progress.
Lets take the country of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The country, due in large part to political unrest, has the unenviable position of being considered the poorest county in the world. Their projected GDP per capita is USD 475 in 2019. This would make a great majority of the people within the country categorised as 'poor' by most peoples standards. Does that mean that the vast majority of the people in DPRC are lazy, I don't think so. They've had a hard time due to political factors that are almost completely out of their control and with a lack of jobs, proper infrastructure and dwindling domestic production the opportunity to break that cycle must be truly minimal.
How about Yemen? currently ranked the 5th poorest country in the world, despite sharing a border with one of the most oil rich countries in the world Saudi Arabia. Yemen has been at the centre of a civil war that has created a massive humanitarian crisis, basic services like sewerage and water are on the verge of complete collapse and masses of the population has been displaced by the conflict. You could hardly call a person displaced by civil war lazy, a person who has only the clothes on their back and therefore would surely meet the criteria for 'poor'. They are merely victims of circumstance and i believe this is often the case with the poor.
I hope this answers your question.
