Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xcde4c3db | Hacker News Reader

> I often hear my friends say, “I’m too poor” when they’re frustrated about what they can’t have. Maybe it’s a trip they can’t afford, a renovation they want to start right now or a pretty pair of shoes they spotted in a shop window.

I'm pretty sure I've literally never heard someone describe that as being "poor". Maybe this is some regional language thing?

View on HN

I think this article (and I've seen another before just like it about the poor/broke distinction that had a really powerful piece about mental math while buying groceries) do a disservice to themselves by focusing on the usage of two very common, widely used words. It's fine for words to have multiple meanings in different contexts and those meanings are defined by usage. If people say "I'm too poor to get a pool membership" then that's what poor means, at least in some contexts. Prescriptivism of common, mundane words is a terrible way to make a point. The author is hiding their real point, which would be still more powerful without this unnecessary baggage. See what we're discussing instead of what the author probably wanted us to discuss? If she wants a distinction, then there are other words or phrases (chronically poor, perhaps?) with more specific meanings. But it is fruitless to get "heartbroken" that people don't understand a distinction that isn't common use.

Seems like these kinds of articles always need to have a scold or a guilt trip associated, though I’m not sure it’s irrational of the author. We are discussing it, aren’t we?

Sounds like normal usage to my British ears. ‘Too poor to go out this weekend’ for example.

Poor means you don’t have enough money. Too poor to do something means not enough money to do that thing.

Too poor to buy a super-yacht sounds normal usage to me even.

Language evolves. People often say things ironically. Other times, they exaggerate for emphasis. A good example is "literally", which has evolved so much that the dictionary has literally changed its definition to indicate that it could be used metaphorically

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Trying to police popular slang is a losing endeavor, and I don't think it accomplishes all that much. People already know that there's a difference between someone who's too poor to go clubbing, and someone who's too poor to buy food.

That said, I can empathize with the author's frustration, and I think it's sad that we don't hear such life stories more frequently. The stories we see on TV and hear in the media, are too often skewed in favor of those privileged enough to work in these industries, or to spend their time and money consuming them. That makes it all the easier to forget that people like the author even exist. Out of sight, out of mind.

> "literally", which has evolved so much that the dictionary has literally changed its definition to indicate that it could be used metaphorically

Just as surprising to me is people saying the word "silently" aloud. As though they don't know what it originally meant!

I think it requires some mental gymnastics to say that you shouldn't be surprised that a term that etymologically means 'according to the direct and actual meaning of the words themselves' could be reappropriated to mean, in effect, the opposite - literally almost nothing, a blank hyperbole - taking more purpose in its effect on the rhythm of a sentence, than from any of its dictionary definitions.

In the circumstances when "literally" is used figuratively it is an intensifier. It is never used to mean "figuratively".

Compare "really" (which funnily enough etymologically points towards meaning "literally" or "truly" as well.)

(American from New York state and currently in NYC.)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the general-purpose definition of "poor" in English is used when discussing things from a life perspective -- economic background, current salary, job prospects, ability to go to college, etc.

When the context is how much money is in your bank account right now (e.g. to shop or take a trip), the general word is "broke" or just "I don't have enough money." And to be honest, "broke" seems outdated and rarely used these days, since it's usually fairly easy to have a credit card or ability to overdraft... so it's often more about your financial discipline than ability. I hear a lot more "I'm already over budget for the month" or just "I can't spend anything until next week" or "no money" than "I'm broke".

That being said, I've definitely heard "poor" used as a synonym for "broke", I'm pretty sure in the UK... but it does strike me as a regionalism.

I haven't heard it as much in the midwest. "I can't afford x right now" is what I hear more commonly.

To me poverty has a longer-term temporal component vs having surplus money and choosing to allocate it to different optional goods or activities.

I'm from the Midwest. I'm guilty of saying it. But that being said, 1) there was a time where I was seriously contemplating declaring bankruptcy, so I think that qualifies under the authors definition of 'poor', and 2) I don't see the value in making this distinction of 'poor' and 'broke' anyway. Sure there's a matter of degree of difference involved, but it just sounds like making an argument of semantics.

If the general usage is using your word wrong, invent a new word for it and popularize it, or just be more specific. Meaning of words gets co-opted and morphed by the public all the time anyway. I don't see this author creating any serious movement towards reclaiming the word "poor" for what they think it really means.

It's common everywhere I've traveled in USA to use "poor" to mean unable to afford something.

That's the dictionary definition of the word.

Not really.

Cambridge Dictionary:

1. having little money and/or few possessions 2. to have very little of a particular substance or quality

Google:

1. lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society 2. of a low or inferior standard or quality

Dictionary.com:

1.having little or no money, goods, or other means of support: a poor family living on welfare. 2. Law. dependent upon charity or public support. 3.(of a country, institution, etc.) meagerly supplied or endowed with resources or funds. 4. characterized by or showing poverty. 5. deficient or lacking in something specified

Oxford Dictionary:

1. Lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society. 2. Of a low or inferior standard or quality. 3. [attributive] (of a person) deserving of pity or sympathy.

Cambridge 2, Google 2, Dictionary 5.

Having too little of quantity of something (money) to do X (go out, renovate, travel, etc).

Meaning of the word is defined by it's use, not by a dictionary.

I have heard it very frequently from 20 and 30 somethings in NYC. I'm sure I've said it before many many times.

I've heard this often growing up in NYC.

Wow, maybe this is a New York thing? We answered at the same instant.

Well I’m from Utica and I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase

Not in Utica, it's an Albany expression.

It's also common on the West coast, at least in California and Oregon.

I definitely think it's an NYC thing too, the COL is pretty crazy here. Rent/Metro definitely cuts into my discretionary spending. All of my friends are in the same boat, we're just all young 20 somethings who are all cash poor paying student loans.

If there's a group of you try pooling your money together to do bulk grocery buying. I used to do this with my equally poor neighbors when I was barely scratching a living. Often we could come up with $120 each and buy enough staples to last the entire month, of quality food direct from farms and wholesalers and other things, like towells, socks, ect. I probably would have been forced to live off beans and rice otherwise. This is definitely something somebody could make an app for or organize: community group buys for laundry soap, vegetables, ect to keep monthly costs for living down. The more people included in the group buy the cheaper the cost. I still do this but in the form of CSA boxes which are delivered weekly and I split it with a neighbor. NY has these too, can probably find a much cheaper one than this https://localrootsnyc.com/

Thanks I'll definitely look into that, but I think I might be on my way out of the city. I love it but I'll have to come back when I'd have the money to enjoy it.

Irony is also a New York thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com