Some people, rejecting "root causes" as an explanation for black poverty, cite lack of intelligence and laziness. Such characterizations are poorly (or "un") supported. What about "acquisitiveness?" Isn't that a much more apt explanation for cultural differences in achievement?

It certainly is an apt explanation for the long history of native peoples worldwide being subsumed by outsiders, for imperialism. The outsiders are driven. They generally always wanted more, more land, more profits, expansion. (National empire building was part of the picture.)

It contrasts with many native cultures that were not expansionist and largely egalitarian.

We see a similar trend today in America. Most black people and many whites are content to work 40-hour weeks. Their lives are not just about acquisition and achievement. They are balanced with other things.

But other groups, including many Asians (who might have Tiger Mothers) and Ivy league whites, work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. On a comparative level, this disadvantages other people who do not do the same.

This is usually characterized as ambition. Isn't acquisitiveness a better term (somewhat synonymous with greed), which explains why 1% of Americans now own more than 38% of the nation's wealth? ("The bottom 90% of families now hold just 22.8% of the wealth.")

And the broad reluctance to pay low level workers more than $10-12 an hour, even though rents nationwide have skyrocketed in the past 2 decades?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/inequality-record-top-1-percent-wealth/index.html