Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolba | Hacker News Reader

> Maybe this is considered acceptable in society's economic model, but at the least people should be more aware of how your options fall away as you go further down the socio-economic ladder.

What rational person would expect your options to improve as you drop down the economic ladder? Less money, mo problems.

The only situation I've seen where that's remotely true is applying for student aid where if you're parents saved money they're expected to pony it up, but if they spent it all on flat screen TVs and new cars (and hence are "cash poor") they're not expected to do so.

View on HN

I don't think anyone necessarily expects that less money = more options, but I don't think people realize how many options you lose as you get poorer. The way that people talk about poverty, people seem to think that being poor is needing to tighten your belt and be more frugal and creative, maybe not getting an iPhone, maybe downsize your house.

The reality of the situation is a bit less glamorous than that, where you can't actually find standard housing at all because of lack of credit and consistent income, resulting in needing to stay at motels for the long-haul (for example). This higher proportional cost puts a pretty severe strain on your cash-flow, maybe meaning that you have to optimize for getting money NOW, instead of two weeks from now. Being unable to get to a bank regularly means you either have to carry cash on-hand (which makes you a target) or you have to use check cashing services and other value storage methods (which provide poor return).

Being poor isn't just like cutting costs and expenses, it's in fact an entirely different game from making ends meet for most middle-class people.

> I don't think people realize how many options you lose as you get poorer

What is poverty if not a lack of options? Who do you think misunderstands this, and what do you think the misunderstanding is? What sort of misunderstanding would cause nearly everyone to spend the majority of their time avoiding or escaping poverty?

In my experience, the people who are typically accused of "misunderstanding the relationship between poverty and options" are simply wary of schemes which seem to incentivize behaviors that lead to poverty.

I don't think the problem is that people "misunderstand" that notion. I think it's that people who've never been that kind of poor don't — can't — appreciate how few options the people who are actually have, or how much more expensive those options are (not just in terms of the marginal utility of the poor person's dollar, but that things are often objectively more expensive) when you're that poor.

It's a subtle distinction, but it's absolutely real.

> Who do you think misunderstands this

"Poverty bad, avoid it" is not the same thing as understanding "poverty is a sand trap that becomes nearly inescapable because of otherwise run-of-the-mill incidents that are survivable at higher levels". The former is widely understood--but, frankly, I think the latter is not just misunderstood by actively denied by a large portion of...say...the HN commentariat, for reasons at best selfish and at worst ideological.

> poverty is a sandtrap that becomes nearly inescapable

This is different than the original post, which was that it limits your options. I'm also far from convinced that the majority of Americans or HN readers would have a hard time articulating why poverty is dangerous. To be clear, there's a difference between denying the legitimate hazards of poverty and criticizing certain social policies or attitudes.

> spent it all on flat screen TVs

Flat screen TVs, like most consumer electronics, have gone down in price over the years: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-4k-tv-on-a-budget/

"The only situation I've seen where that's remotely true is applying for student aid where if you're parents saved money they're expected to pony it up, but if they spent it all on flat screen TVs and new cars (and hence are "cash poor") they're not expected to do so."

Are you suggesting that everyone falls into this (false?) binary?

It's not that everybody falls into those two categories but if you're a middle class household and sock your money away rather than spending it as disposable income (TVs, toys, cars, vacations, steaks, ...) then you're expected to spend it on your children's education.

I find it stupid because it disincentives saving and being responsible.

I do. I saved for my kid's education, and I didn't bother even applying for aid, because (a) I don't need it, (b) I wouldn't get any, and (c) it's not anyone else's responsibility to send my kid to college.

I applaud you for having the foresight to save up for your kids' education. At the same time, I think it's naive to say that the only reason people are cash poor (or even the primary reason) is because they buy flat screen TVs and new cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com