Hacker News Reader

Comment by j4coh | Hacker News Reader

Something I always try to remember that has really served me well, from when I grew up dirt poor to eventually having success, is that life is hard for everyone in different ways and more often when I assume how easy or hard someone has it, I’m wrong.

View on HN

You ain't wrong, but I think it rather goes like this:

The core problems (health, relationships, love troubles, depression, and so on) can be the same in both poor and rich.

But the poor additional have all kinds of very heavy problems that the rich have solved. Hate your boss/job? They have "fuck you money", they don't need to work. Your kid needs surgery? They can afford many times over what would kill you financially. Trouble making rent? Not a problem for them. And so on. Stuck in a warn torn country? Not a problem for them. Wife wants a divorce and half the fortune? No problemo, you're still rich after giving that away.

Don't the rich also have some unique-to-the-rich problems? Yes, but of the nice-to-have (e.g. "people approach me just because I have money") or "I'm too adjusted to this level of the hedonic treadmill, woe be me" variety.

I would rather be rich than poor, even if i have more “problems”. It is a slam dunk case. Everything is easier, including finding love.

Even something like rich with an incurable disease (or maybe your spouse/child has one) that’s going to take you out in a few months than poor? Having lived a bit in both worlds I’m not really sure it’s so simple as you’re making it out to be. I’d agree that generally of course it’s better to be rich than poor, I’m just saying every individual person can’t be judged solely on that basis.

>Even something like rich with an incurable disease

The contest is between being rich and poor with "all other things being equal". Anything else doesn't make sense, might as well ask: do you prefer being rich facing the firing squad, or poor having drinks with friends?

So, compared to being poor with an incurable disease? Yes, 100 times over.

>Having lived a bit in both worlds I’m not really sure it’s so simple as you’re making it out to be.

Rather it's so simple a choice that you had to add the "incurable disease" to the rich side to tip the balance.

My point was just that all things aren’t equal when judging individuals - life is hard for people in unexpected ways you may not immediately see from their socioeconomic status. My original comment at the top of this thread was about how treating individuals as individuals has served me well, and was explicitly not to set up a contest between whether it is always better to be rich than poor. So if I failed to do so to your satisfaction, I suppose that’s why.

>My point was just that all things aren’t equal when judging individuals

They're not, but for comparing one should only account for things that are different because of being rich vs poor. Having an incurrable disease is not that, as it can perfectly well happen to both rich and poor (and the rich would get better treatment for it anyway, and it wont cost them their house or savings).

Okay, thanks. What is your takeaway in the end, in contrast to my suggestion about empathising with people individually instead of judging them as part of a group based on their socioeconomic status or other outward indicators?

Agree, it is personal. I grew up in poverty and i viscerally know its negative reinforcement cycle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com