Hacker News Reader

Comment by Balgair | Hacker News Reader

> As it stands, "poor" is a moving target for which a great number of people have a vested interest in covering a consistent, if not growing, population.

Nearly all Kings and Emperors were 'poorer' than most Westerners under the poverty line of today. They had no refrigeration, antibiotics, electricity, etc. But we still agree that there are 'poor' people today, and I think we're correct to say so. Yes, it is a moving target, and thank God that it is such. If 'progress' means that we have to drag the least lucky of us up to levels of decadence that Cesar could never have though of, I'm more than on board for that. Quibbling about the exact definition of poor for all of time is useless. Charge ahead, have the 'poor' of our grandchildren's time be the wealthy of today.

View on HN

IMO, the big factor that explains why a minimum-wage worker with a smartphone is impoverished but a 16th century king is not, comes down the psychological burden of poverty.

If you're poor in America you live with constant fear of minor financial catastrophes because they will further constrain your opportunity, perpetuating a downwards spiral. Integrated over time this background anxiety drastically reduces one's subjective quality of life, and also leads to physical health issues down the road.

By contrast, if you're a monarch of a medieval European kingdom, you might be dying of syphilis at 43 but with the knowledge that everything possible is being done to save you, and you can call for a roast pheasant or the execution of your meddling cousin on your deathbed.

It's completely subjective, and thus very easy to dismiss, but it contributes the "missing term" for me in thinking about this question.

I find this trope of Kings/Emperors being "poorer" than most people today, to be an extremely annoying trope. This trope is purely a rhetorical device used to justify inequalities, because "look you have a cell phone and infinite McDonald's deliveries on Seamless, you're richer than a King of old!" Meanwhile you're shackled to your job, shackled to your location, shackled to your apartment/mortgage, shackled to your debt, etc.

I find the annoyance annoying, overlooking how "poor" has been lifted to heights unthinkable not long ago - and prompting my earlier comment. Those who have had cellphones for all adulthood don't grasp how limited much was not long ago; methinks many need a reality check on what basic living entails (I grew up with wood heat, no A/C, significant homegrown food, walk 2 miles in a blizzard for help when car slid into a ditch, hand-typed individual copies of resume, etc). Most "shackling" is for want of imagination to do, not resources/opportunities. I'm deeply concerned that so many think they're "poor" when they do in fact have far more resources & opportunities than "rich" (or at least "middle class") did not long ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com