Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryoshon | Hacker News Reader

There's also the related phenomenon that in the US, the rich are in the spotlight of society and the poor are decidedly disliked.

View on HN

I would disagree that "poor are decidedly disliked" here as a rule. There are plenty of "poor" that are accepted, liked and even esteemed. Think of the starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, working class poor, the startup set, etc. There is dislike for the poor that resort to crime, thuggery, drugs etc. At least this is how I see it from my middle class perspective.

> Think of the starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, working class poor, the startup set, etc

Maybe you are right and I am just cynical. But I have felt that some of these groups (with the exception of working class poor) are tolerated because of their success potential than for their status as individuals. And even with that a large number of people appear to disdainful of unsuccessful people in these fields.

And about the only people who seem to like the working class poor are politicians who see them as a voting bloc of sorts.

the other person is wrong, the poor are definitely hated in america. they are villianized as lazy welfare queens. remember the 47 percent thing with Romney? turn on fox news for 10 minutes, John Stossel even villianizes the homeless. they also try to get rid of school lunches/food assistance for the poor.

Fox News does not represent America.

Not all of it, but not none of it either.

Be careful with the dissonance between the television narrative and reality.

Be careful with the dissonance between your social circle and "everyone".

(In this case for instance - living in the midwest puts me into contact with a very large number of people who's beliefs align nearly perfectly with the television narrative).

Meh, you lost me. Completely.

One thing you have to remember is that in general, Americans are culturally one of the most generous nations in the world. Broadly speaking, that includes foreign aid and domestic welfare as well as voluntary charity. But at that same time, the US is an industrious nation that prizes hard work. It's a fine line to walk and people fall through the cracks in the system.

Nevertheless, it's extremely uncharitable IMO to suggest that the poor are "hated" in America.

You mean the same country where the word "social" is used as a slur? Or where if somebody receives welfare they are looked down upon and called lazy?[0]

Broadly speaking, no, foreign aid given by the US is barely top 30 per capita.

[0] http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/AmericanAttitu...

As a % of GDP it's not actually that high.

US ranks #21 in Foreign aid and is 1/5 Sweden.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-that-give-the-most-i...

Welfare # GDP US: 14.8 Sweden: 28.9

Giving we are #1 in monitary donations but it's only 1.85% of GDP in the US. http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income... "Based on volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes first, followed by Sweden and then the U.S."

Still doesn't mean the poor are "hated", and it's still a vast amount of aid money.

Fox News is the most watched cable news channel, so surely their views align with some portion of America. Even if its not the majority view, its still a powerful force.

I see a lot of people, including plenty in SV, who believe the "47%" narrative and plenty more who have nothing good to say about "the poors".

I don't disagree, the dissonance comes from conflating source to truth. It was once expressed in the adage, "It must be true, I read it in the newspaper!" which of course has no such authority. And more importantly how it is true is important as well. My philosopher friends go on and on about this. Critical thinking is really helpful here, and yes there are many folks who are not critical thinkers.

what’s your point? everyone knows this. Who said I dismissed them because they were from those sources? use logic just for one second. The original person that the poor aren't looked down upon, and i responded by listing people/shows that look down on poor people. What the hell does that have to do with judging a point by its source? its a totally different subject. I agree with you, judge the logic, not the source. That's why I disagree that only women or minorities can have an opinion about issues concerning them.

That's the media for you, and not necessarily "Fox" or whatever x-wing group you seem to dislike. Fox news is only seen as "bad" because it doesn't exaggerate reality to the side that the majority like. The other news media outlets do the exact same thing, just towards the other side of the narrative.

Both sides of the media play on peoples' emotions. The real question is: are you intellectually honest enough to entertain views and thoughts for their own merit without dismissing them flatly just because "they're from Fox", "John Stossel", or "Romney".

Since the days of our founding fathers we have valued hard work and initiative and I'm glad that many of us still do. Personally I respect the working class poor and I feel that most of my peers do also, it gets sticky when efforts are made to artificially raise their positions with handouts rather than hands up. I don't think that the others are tolerated for their potential, rather esteemed for their initiative and dedication.

> Maybe you are right and I am just cynical.

IMHO it's just a bit of cynicism.

Even those who "hate the poor" here don't hate the poor, they hate the lazy. They simply equate being lazy with being poor. But if you're poor and working (or even poor but not imposing on society) then even the right-wingers I'd know of would have tons of respect.

If anything the desire for status seems to be reviled more and more in America too.

Nonsense. Starving artists and athletes like who? The esteemed poor? like the people who get lambasted for buying red bull with food stamps? Americans idolize thugs who make money (biggie smalls, chris brown, dick cheney)

I think your perspective may be out of focus.

The starving artists, musicians, olympic athletes, and startup founders are temporarily not-yet-rich.

Not having won isn't the problem, it's being satisfied and not playing the game which society shuns.

For most of those folks, temporary is going to prove to be a very long time.

I'm reminded of "Fiddler on a Roof": "It's no great shame to be poor, but it's no great honor, either."

Outside of a few possible sports, running, soccer, etc. I doubt there are more than a handful of poor athletes that are able to compete. Most Olympic activities require intensive training and use of facilities that doesn't come cheap. Hours spent training are hours not spent earning enough for food and housing, and I don't think caloric and nutritional intake from a soup kitchen would be enough to sustain an athlete.

The startup set are almost all wealthy, if not in assets then definitely in schooling, parenting, confidence. Where did all the most successful entrepreneurs grow up, go to school, what professions are their parents in. It's a pretty homogenous group really.

The poor are treated like shit in the US (and in most of the world), and their concerns and opinions mean nothing to those in power.

The fact that you characterise the artists as starving pretty much suggests that people dislike their work. That it isn't valued.

If America liked the poor it would give them money.

...and those who realize they have enough ignore the rich and are out living how they want to be (camping, hiking, taking photos, etc.)

I think what you're describing is generally just known as "the middle class"

and those who realize they have enough ignore the rich

If you only could. The problem is that in the US a great portion of taxes are locally raised and spent, and the way of dealing with poverty is to price the poor out of areas where they aren't wanted.

To get access to halfway decent schools you need to move to the suburbs, and what's available there in housing is hugely outsized. You cannot save on heating, cooling, cleaning and enclosed space, nevermind the commute, because that economic option does not exist. So you bite the bullet with everyone else and you cannot choose not to play the game.

I'm not sure you can't get halfway decent public schools in the cities, but they tend to be local to wealthier neighborhoods. And suburbs in the area I'm from tend to at least have apartments and townhomes, which are a nice middle ground (at least as far as saving on heating, cooling, cleaning, space, cost). The commute still sucks, of course.

In NYC at least, you don't have to live in a pricey neighborhood in order to get your kid into a good public high school. Your kid will, however, have to do well on a standardized test.

"Locally raised and spent"

If only. That would be a great form of funding community governance. Where local communities help themselves up, instead of practically begging for scraps from a wealthy government that really doesn't care until it gets them votes.

Change has to come from within. And it won't come so long as people think like you. i.e. "Change can come when funding comes from better places" Which completely ignores the real problems and real difficulties facing real people in those places you seem to not want to live in. Ask yourself why you don't want to live there.

Local funding means wealthy neighborhoods are lavished with infrastructure, and can provide top of the line schooling and opportunities for their precious offspring.

Meanwhile any child unlucky enough to grow up poor is greated with decay and dysfunction at every turn, is never given the education nor the opportunities to succeed, or have interests much above basic survival. Upward mobility is basically zero. Welcome to feudal America.

Property taxes are very regressive in the sense that rich people typically live with other rich people. Ghettos and shanty towns are a direct result of thinking such as yours.

Ah yes, so it's my fault that groups of individuals decided to not take care of their neighborhood, right. Sorry, no, but people need to take responsibility for their own actions. And I will in no way share blame for a second generation further ruining their kids' futures because they're too short-sighted and expect the rest of us to do it for them.

We as a society can only share blame for one generation. The next one is on the parents.

Wow, so its poor people fault they and their children and their children's children remain poor. That is very libercrazian of you.

Downvote for name-calling. HN doesn't need that.

No, I'm saying it's the parents' fault for their children remaining poor. Or did you not read anything I wrote and just blatantly jumped to conclusions?

As someone who has come from a poor family, I know full well what sacrifice and hard work can do to uplift your children's prospects in the world. Even if that means drastic life changes. And as a consequence of that, I will not accept peoples' excuses for remaining in poverty. Nor will I share the blame for their failings.

> If you only could

I, and many people I know are doing it. Of course, like anything worth doing, it takes hard work and dedication, but it certainly can be done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com